The Greens/ Labor power-sharing agreement revealed on Monday showed every sign of having been drawn up by negotiators focused more on the expedient than on the possible. Underlining that point was the extent to which the deal showed just how far the Greens had retreated on one of their signature issues: minimising gambling harm in the ACT.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
In July, Shane Rattenbury announced the gambling reform policy the Greens would take to the election. It included a commitment to reducing the number of electronic gaming machines by 30 per cent over the next decade, instituting $1 maximum bets per play, and introducing mandatory pre-commitment to try to stem the losses frequently racked up by problem gamblers.
The details of the agreement released yesterday indicate that under the new Barr government (in which Mr Rattenbury will be a major presence), gaming machine numbers will be reduced by 20 per cent by July 2020, that is, from about 5000 machines now to about 4000. That's an average of 13 machines per 1000 adults, whereas the Greens had wanted a ratio of 10 machines per 1000 adults. As for pre-commitment and $1 maximum bets, Mr Rattenbury has revealed that the Labor negotiators told him at the weekend that the senior governing party partner was "not ready" for such measures.
Why Mr Rattenbury acquiesced to this declaration – particularly when he and his colleague, Caroline Le Couteur hold the balance of power – is a question that may puzzle many Greens voters. It's probably safe to assume that the retreat was in part a quid pro quo stemming from Labor's commitment to "explore" greater harm minimisation measures, and to agree to an increase in the problem-gambling levy from 0.6 per cent of gaming machine profits to 0.75 per cent.
One possible outcome of the Greens' back-down is that Casino Canberra's unsolicited bid to redevelop its premises (originally contingent on gaining permission to install up to 500 poker machines) may be more likely to gain approval, if with just 200 machines rather than 500. It's a strange outcome given that as recently as 2012 the Greens supported restricting gaming machines to the not-for-profit club sector.
Just as J.M. Keynes argued for changing one's mind "when the facts change", Mr Rattenbury now says the evidence suggests that "it's not the number of poker machines in a venue, it's the number of venues which is an issue for problem gambling". There's an undeniable logic to the sale and movement of licences from "family" venues to a recognised gaming venue where their concentration means harm minimisation measures might be more effective. However, it remains to be seen what good, if any, comes of the Greens' tactical switch.
The Productivity Commission believes fewer machines, mandatory pre-commitment and $1 maximum bets are more effective at dealing with problem gambling. That Labor and the Greens believe they know better shows how hollow are their concerns about reining in problem gambling.
