Supporters of gambling reform have hailed yesterday's deal between Labor and Independent MP Andrew Wilkie as hugely significant in the battle against poker machine losses.
But a gaming analyst has told SBS the focus on 'pre commitment technology' won't have the same effect on gambling revenues as some of the other proposals that were made by the Productivity Commission earlier in the year.
To get the backing of the new Tasmanian independent, the ALP leadership agreed to new technology such as smart cards being eventually installed on every poker machine in the country. Julia Gillard also agreed to implement $250 limits on ATM machines in venues with poker machines.
Pre-commitment technology would theoretically be able to identify individual problem gamblers and set a limit for losses: It's thought that 95,000 of the 600,000 Australians who regularly play the pokies are problem gamblers.
Last week, Wilkie said he would attempt to get the issue of $1 limits, recommended by the Productivity Commisison, on the table as well.
Despite this aspect being dropped, Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, who has campaigned against gambling and pokies in particular, told the ABC the promises from Gillard were very significant.
But gambling is largely a state, not a federal issue, and the states have been known to fiercely guard their tax revenue, estimated at $3bn per year.
Despite it being a state issue, Julia Gillard has said that if Labor retains government, it will force the states to act on pre-commitment technology if they don't act themselves, by 2014.
"The Commonwealth will act if the agreement of the states and territories is not forthcoming," she said.
"There are some abilities to use things like the Corporations law and some challenges."
Despite the NSW government already saying it is happy to work with Canberra, Theo Maas, an investment partner specialising in gaming at Arnhem Investment Management, told SBS there was a likelihood that forcing the issue from Canberra would not be easy.
“I agree that if there's a strong mandate it will probably flow down. But this definitely complicates the whole issue. This is a big chunk of the state budget, so this will impact the tax benefits.”
The key is perhaps the focus on problem gamblers; despite the significance of federal action, he said, the big issue of $1 limits on betting is off the table.
“The real way that impact could be made felt would by focusing on dollar limits on machines”, he said.
And while Gillard may be able to force the issue on pre-commitment technology, getting anything more done may be a tough call.
“This country likes to gamble", he said. "Trying to do anything about it is going to be an issue”.
