I’M not usually big on conspiracy theory. My experience has been that things go wrong through stuff-up rather than carefully orchestrated plans run in secret, prepared in muffled voices behind closed doors.

Although no decision has yet been made on allowing the casino to have gaming machines there are great temptations for the government.

Being able to argue that they have reduced the number of gaming machines will be well received and removing the conflict of interest that Labor has in making decisions around gaming machines would be a monkey off their back. This was illustrated clearly by former Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, writing in the “CityNews” in March explaining why Labor should sell its interest in clubs.

In October, the Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee reported on its extensive investigation into the most effective way to handle ACT clubs and the problems associated with gaming machines. The committee largely reached tri-partisan agreement and was roundly welcomed by the clubs industry.

The government was unusually quick tabling a relatively unpopular response in mid-November. They even failed to seriously address the issue of problem gambling, which is considered responsible for up to 40 per cent of gaming-machine revenue.

Parallel to the investigations is a drive by the owners of the casino, Aquis and its CEO Justin Fung, to gain access to the gaming machines. The sweeteners include redevelopment around the casino precinct with up-market shops and hotels and other support for the Canberra community. Aquis has already worked closely with the government to secure an $8 million support-package for the Canberra Brumbies over six years. The question is how much more closely will government be working with the casino into the future?

Step one has already been taken for Aquis to be able to gain access to gaming machines with gaming machines now a tradable commodity between clubs. The ACT government has set (an appropriate) restriction on the number of gaming machines in the ACT. Supply and demand will determine their value. If the casino is allowed access to the 500 or so machines that they seek, the value will skyrocket.

Now for the conspiracy theory: if limited supply and high demand created by the casino means the price is right, ACT Labor can sell a considerable number of its machines to the casino, bank a huge windfall gain into its Foundation 73 (Labor’s fund-holding entity) and rely on the interest from investments to fund Labor’s campaigns for years to come. It will not just be ACT Labor that’s a winner, but the Federal party has also long been sucking on the ACT gaming-machine teat for support.

Labor will escape the conflict-of-interest accusations, have enough money to run its campaigns and no longer be vulnerable to constant accusations about not doing enough for problem gambling. Moreover, it will be able to reduce the overall number of machines and, at the same time, have a consistent and reliable income for the party.

But what about the community interest? The ACT has the lowest gaming machine taxation rate in Australia – in 2012-13 this was $35.71 million. Shouldn’t there also be revenue from the commercial sales? Clubs provide a range of community services. What will happen to these?

The Productivity Commission has provided disturbing evidence that the harm associated with gaming machines in casinos is on average three times greater than the harm when used in community clubs. And its recommendations around maximum $1 bets and mandatory pre-commitment have been ignored.

The way things have been developing in 2015 it really is looking like ACT Labor may well get a pleasant visit from Santa.

Michael Moore was an independent member of the ACT Legislative Assembly (1989 to 2001) and was minister for health.

PS: In last week’s column, Michael Moore pointed out that Chris Bourke was the last person pre-selected in the seat of Ginninderra for Labor. However, under Labor pre-selection rules Mr Bourke was guaranteed a spot on the ticket and he was phoning Labor members asking them to vote for others rather than himself.