The Labour Party in Tasmania has not yet established an opinion on whether it should support the mandatory pre-commitment scheme for poker machines unveiled by the state Government, with one frontbencher being unsure how to answer certain questions that have been asked about it.
At a press conference that took place in Launceston on September 19th, Member of Parliament Janie Finlay faced questions on whether the Labour Party backed the card-based scheme of the Government that would see the users of so-called pokies set betting limits before they start gambling. Right after being asked such a question, Ms Finlay seemed unsure of what to say. When asked the same question again, she preferred to take advice before finally addressing the question.
At the time she returned and answered the question, the Bass Member of Parliament noted that the Tasmanian Labour Party was clear that it had always supported gambling harm minimisation and was always an advocate for card-based play. Ms Finley shared that her Party really wanted to understand the report and to understand what rules were going to be implemented, and eventually, to actually make sure that the expected consecutive actions would be taken by the Minister who had made the announcement.
Also, the Tasmanian Labour Party’s frontbencher did not manage to explain whether an agreement between the Tasmanian Hospitality Association (THA) and the Labour Party regarding poker machines remained unchanged.
Government’s Limits for Poker Machines to Improve Gambling-Harm Minimisation
Later on September 19th, the leader of the Opposition, Rebecca White, shared that the party was not struggling with the policy regarding poker machines. She explained that she and her colleagues had always backed harm minimisation and improving it, so the Opposition was willing to take its time and get acquainted with the report in order to get a better perspective of how the proposed changes would be implemented.
Later, the Party revealed there was no current agreement, and that its position on the Tasmanian Government’s pre-commitment scheme would be updated after reading the relevant documents.
The long-time anti-pokie advocate and an independent member of the Tasmanian Legislative Council, Meg Webb, described the Government’s pre-commitment scheme that was officially announced on September 16th, as a genuine effort to improve the gambling-related harm minimisation measures that already exist in the state. Ms Webb noted that the plan unveiled a few days ago, was recommended by the state’s gambling regulatory body – the Tasmanian Liquor and Gaming Commission – and was also evidence-based, which is why it should be supported by political leaders.
In this sense, Ms Webb urged the state’s Labour Party to support the pre-commitment scheme for pokies, although its members might have been taken by surprise by the Government’s announcement. According to her, this is a great opportunity for local lawmakers to take positive steps towards further regulation of notorious poker machines as part of their efforts to tackle gambling-related harm.
As Casino Guardian previously reported, the Tasmanian Labour Party took a policy seeking to remove pokies from local clubs and pubs to the 2018 state election. At the time, the party’s opponents raised a red flag that the enactment of such a policy would result in thousands of job losses in clubs and pubs around the state. Eventually, a year after the election, which was won by the Liberal Party, the policy was abandoned.
The Labour Party signed an agreement with the THA, which previously backed the rights of local clubs and pubs to operate poker machines. Under the deal, the two entities would join forces on effective and viable harm minimisation measures.
Under the pre-commitment scheme unveiled by the Tasmanian Government several days ago, by the end of 2024, all players in the state would have to set daily loss limits of up to AU$100, as well as monthly loss limits of no more than AU$500. There will also be annual loss limits worth up to AU$5,000. Players will be able to boost these limits but only in case they are able to provide evidence proving they can afford it.
- Author
Daniel Williams
