Pokie reform fair but not at any price

THE brinkmanship over poker machine reform engineered by Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie pivots upon a critical calculation - that the Labor Party and other independents prefer poker machine reform to an early election.

If this judgment is right then Wilkie should prevail. In effect, he holds a political gun to the head of the government and the parliament. The asset Wilkie enjoys is his profile as determined moralist, which leads others to conclude his threat is genuine, thereby maximising Wilkie's leverage.

Aware that his success lies in convincing his parliamentary colleagues that he is prepared to terminate the Gillard government, Wilkie told the Sky News' Australian Agenda program at the weekend: "If I can just say and make it absolutely clear, there's no theatre here, there's no grand strategy playing out. I have reached an agreement with the Prime Minister. She's agreed to it. She's only the Prime Minister because she agreed to it and I am absolutely determined to see that agreement realised."

He sounds convincing because he needs to sound convincing. Three months ago Wilkie said he required Gillard to get the legislation through both houses and, if this failed, "I will tear up my agreement with the Prime Minister."

That agreement involves Labor's commitment to implement the 2010 Productivity Commission recommendation for a full pre-commitment scheme across all states and territories.

The agreement is detailed. It requires both implementation of the scheme and legislation by the national parliament by the time of the 2012 budget if the states and territories have not acted.

Surely Wilkie would not bring down the Gillard government over poker machine policy? Frankly, it sounds absurd and unreasonable that a national government would fall on such an issue. The truth, however, is that nobody knows. Maybe Wilkie does not know himself.

His threat, however, is plausible if Gillard fails to deliver. The agreement is written and signed. Gillard knew what she was doing. Wilkie has been consistent. In his weekend interview he said if the reform failed, "it will be just as important to me at that stage to be a man of my word".

Mark that comment: a man of his word.

This is the man who resigned from the Office of National Assessments over the Iraq war. It is the man who stood against John Howard. Wilkie sees this as a moral stand and he takes moral stands seriously. Would he walk away from this declared moral stance?

For Labor, the case for serious poker machine reform is overwhelming in policy and political terms. The Rudd government commissioned the Productivity Commission report.

Kevin Rudd's sentiments are on public record. Rudd said: "I hate poker machines and I know something of their impact on families." It is a defining quote and constitutes a moral position by Rudd.

Gillard correctly says Labor was heading in the reform direction before Wilkie arrived. On June 23 last year, when the Productivity Commission report was released, Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin unveiled Labor's initial response. It backed pre-commitment technology and the need for a national approach. Macklin said Labor wanted to give people "the tools to stick to their limit and help them keep track of their spending".

Gillard will present mandatory pre-commitment as a true Labor value, not just a policy imposed by political blackmail.

The Productivity Commission found 15 per cent of regular players (95,000) are problem gamblers who constitute 40 per cent of total spending on machines. On high-intensity machines it is possible to lose more than $1500 an hour. Mandatory pre-commitment won't solve the problem but it offers the best shot. The more the clubs argue, the more they concede their business model is built on problem gambling. (Voluntary pre-commitment is already agreed by all governments.) As for pokies in pubs and casinos, tougher measures should be taken anyway.

Wilkie, who sees Gillard regularly, is confident the policy will be legislated. "I believe the Prime Minister will hold the ALP together," he says. He rejects any notion that Labor MPs would abstain or cross the floor. And he reports that Gillard and Macklin have their hearts set on reform (along with, presumably, their ministerial heads).

Macklin will probably introduce the legislation early next year. The caucus will stand or fall as one. While Labor sticks with Gillard it must stick with Gillard's strategy. That strategy is a full-term parliament. It means, therefore, voting for Wilkie's position and Macklin's legislation despite the fierce campaign unleashed by the clubs.

Any repudiation of Gillard at this point would equate to a vote of no confidence in her by caucus and a rejection of her deal with Wilkie. It would constitute, in effect, a vote for dumping her as PM over the issue of problem gambling, exposing Labor's inability as a party to stand upon principle and reducing itself to a farce.

The idea that Rudd would effortlessly slip into the leadership at this point, tell Wilkie to nick off, repudiate justified action on the Productivity Commission report, explain that he didn't really hate poker machines after all and win sustained applause from the public is fanciful.

Any move by caucus against the bill must endanger the parliament and risk an election. The caucus is filled with realists. Yes, they fear the campaign from the clubs but do they fear even more the threat of an election? This may become the vital calculus.

Wilkie is frank about his strategy with the independents. What does Gillard's agreement with Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott specify? Under paragraph 3.1(f) it requires a full-term parliament with the next election during September-October 2013. Yes, it does actually nominate the timing of the poll.

Calling his independent colleagues "decent men", Wilkie said each had their own legislative agendas and neither wanted an early election.

"An early election is not in the interests of the crossbench, myself included," Wilkie said.

In case the point still escapes you, Wilkie says an early election is "the last thing I would want". Surely. To avoid such horror his fellow independents, therefore, should pass his poker machine reforms.

Labor has every reason to resent Wilkie's tactics. But this reform is justified. Gillard's job and Labor's reputation depend upon it - and caucus should vote it down only if prepared to terminate Gillard and risk an early election. That is the real choice.