THE politics of pokies in the ACT are quite challenging. Freedom of choice; conflict of interest; party political funding and the harm they cause to many of their users are issues that create an untidy political quagmire.

The new package now links the number of machines to the size of the population. Disappointed, Susan Helyar, of the ACT Council of Social Service, pointed out that the consultation was inadequate and correctly explained that the level of supply is linked to the level of harm.

The Australian Hotel Association has an almost diametrically opposing view. ACT general manager Brad Watts said that “despite extensive lobbying efforts by the hotel industry to the ACT Government, the outcome is disappointing as hotels have been heavily short-changed”. He added “the Gaming Machine Reform Package will give an ‘absolute monopoly’ to the ACT clubs sector”, and that hotels will have to sell their class B gaming machine entitlements to clubs under the proposed scheme.

There might be a reduction in the number of pokies in the Gaming Machine Reform Package, but the commitment to reduce the target to 4000 has been lost with a new cap of 4785 and a link to growth in line with increases in the population. This decision, combined with the “exclusion” of the hotels, simply favours the Labor Party and its elected members – the very people making this decision.

The Labor government does have a conflict of interest in making administrative decisions about poker machines. Over the past five years the Labor Party has received more than $2.4 million from the Labor-affiliated clubs. This is money that provides support for each of the Labor members to get elected.

In 2007 in “CityNews” I drew attention to the work of Alan Rosenthal who, writing in “Ethics and Political Practice”, was saying that: “The fundamental prohibition applies to the legislator who would personally benefit from some piece of legislation in a way or to a degree that other people would not”.

I went on to conclude that it was difficult to understand why, since self-government, not one elected member of the Labor Party has understood this concept and stood aside on poker machines. Each elected member has a huge advantage and personal benefit in the assistance received through donations to party revenue.

In the meantime, Greens minister Shane Rattenbury is in a position to push towards his own policy of $1 bet limits and meeting the 4000 target for a cap on the number of poker machines in the ACT with support from one or other of the major parties!

Having reiterated this point on many occasions since that 2007 article, I wonder how many Labor MLAs have at least asked the commissioner for parliamentary ethics for a considered opinion on the matter.

The extraordinary revelations this year in the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption can be traced back to illegal donations from developers. The same legislation that outlawed donations to political parties from developers (although it does not apply to the ACT) was part of a reform package that also restricted donations from the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. And for good reason.

It is time for Labor to act. Decisions on the regulation of poker machines, as just one example, could be delegated to an arms-length commission appointed by it with power of review by the Assembly. Whatever the solution, it is time they extracted themselves from this mud puddle.