Eight years ago, the Productivity Commission, tasked by the then-Labor federal government to look at the poker machine industry, published a report urging all governments to reduce the per spin bet limit to $1.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Many states took note, and while they have not gone all the way, many now have a per spin limit of $5, noting the potential for gambling harm of higher per spin limits.
But not NSW, where politicians seem ever-beholden by the gambling industry, and nor in the ACT - despite its regular declarations of being the most progressive government in the country, and one with the Greens in power alongside Labor.
A new report published last week by the Canberra Gambling Reform Alliance, written by expert and advocate Dr Charles Livingstone, has highlighted the territory government's continued failure to act on this issue.
Despite its noted, and largely failed, machine trading scheme, the territory, the report found, has the most lax regulatory scheme for poker machines in the country.
While there has been a significant reduction in the number of pokies in recent months, this has only come about because one club sold its land to a local developer for apartments and subsequently put machines in storage - not through any proactive mechanism driven by the industry or government.
Particularly, key machine factors that have been, or are, being addressed in other jurisdictions, have not been implemented here, including addressing the concerning practice of losses disguised as wins.
Dr Livingstone particularly urges cuts to the total number of machines in a club to 70 at most, arguing the larger these venues are, the more harm they are causing to the people being most damaged - a move which would have less impact on the smaller clubs making considerably less profit from them.
These venues - residents know which ones - run what Dr Livingstone labels suburban casinos, not unlike those you might find in Sydney's west.
Gambling is legal, and everyone has a right to gamble responsibly, but there is no denying it has an outsize impact on members of every community that is already struggling with wider social problems, from poverty to loneliness and often alcoholism.
This is not an industry that should be treated as if it were a free trade market - it is the role of government to intervene to help protect its most vulnerable citizens, and Dr Livingstone's report makes clear more should be done in this regard.
Words such inclusive, progressive and consultative dominate the spin of this government, and yet it seems vulnerable gamblers are less included than some parts of the local club sector; tax rates are not as progressive as most other states, and consultation depends more on an organisation's political allegiances than who, or what, they represent.
There is a real opportunity for reform in this area, as the government considers reshaping the regulations, as well as a community contributions scheme the Auditor-General has found is lacking in transparency and independence.
Dr Livingstone has 30-odd "options for reform" the government would do well to consider.
That is, if it is serious about reducing the harm these machines are wreaking on our community.
