tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/andrew-wilkie-2146/articlesAndrew Wilkie – The Conversation2024-02-19T19:05:01Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2212172024-02-19T19:05:01Z2024-02-19T19:05:01ZAfter years of avoiding extradition, Julian Assange’s appeal is likely his last chance. Here’s how it might unfold (and how we got here)<p>On February 20 and 21, Julian Assange will ask the High Court of England and Wales to reverse a decision from June last year allowing the United Kingdom to extradite him to the United States. </p>
<p>There he faces multiple counts of computer misuse and espionage stemming from his work with WikiLeaks, <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/20/julian-assange">publishing sensitive</a> US government documents provided by Chelsea Manning. The US government has repeatedly claimed that Assange’s actions <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/29/julian-assange-us-rejects-australias-calls-to-free-wikileaks-founder-during-ausmin-talks">risked its national security</a>.</p>
<p>This is the final avenue of appeal in the UK, although Stella Assange, Julian’s wife, has indicated he would <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/julian-assanges-appeal-against-us-extradition-is-life-or-death-wife-says-2024-02-15/">seek an order</a> from the European Court of Human Rights if he loses the application for appeal. The European Court, an international court that hears cases under the European Convention on Human Rights, can issue orders that are binding on convention member states. In 2022, an order from the court <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/european-court-humam-right-makes-11th-hour-intervention-in-rwanda-asylum-seeker-plan">stopped the UK</a> sending asylum seekers to Rwanda pending a full review of the relevant legislation.</p>
<p>The extradition process has been running for nearly five years. Over such a long time, it’s easy to lose track of the sequence of events that led to this. Here’s how we got here, and what might happen next.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-australias-bid-for-julian-assanges-freedom-presents-formidable-problems-for-joe-biden-213152">View from The Hill: Australia's bid for Julian Assange's freedom presents formidable problems for Joe Biden</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Years-long extradition attempt</h2>
<p>From 2012 until May 2019, Assange resided in the Ecuadorian embassy in London after breaching bail on unrelated allegations. While he remained in the embassy, the police could not arrest him without the permission of the Ecuadorian government. </p>
<p>In 2019, Ecuador allowed Assange’s arrest. He was then convicted of breaching bail conditions, and imprisoned in Belmarsh Prison, where he’s remained during the extradition proceedings. Shortly after his arrest, the United States <a href="https://theconversation.com/assanges-new-indictment-espionage-and-the-first-amendment-117785">laid charges against Assange</a> and requested his extradition from the United Kingdom.</p>
<p>Assange immediately challenged the extradition request. After delays due to COVID, in January 2021, the District Court decided the extradition <a href="https://theconversation.com/julian-assanges-extradition-victory-offers-cold-comfort-for-press-freedom-152676">could not proceed</a> because it would be “oppressive” to Assange. </p>
<p>The ruling was based on the likely conditions that Assange would face in an American prison and the high risk that he would attempt suicide. The court rejected all other arguments against extradition.</p>
<p>The American government appealed the District Court decision. It provided assurances on prison conditions for Assange to overcome the finding that the extradition would be oppressive. Those assurances led to the High Court <a href="https://www.iclr.co.uk/document/2021005727/casereport_3d8af061-9914-4a2d-bd2d-fa5260deeb2c/html">overturning the order</a> stopping extradition. Then the Supreme Court (the UK’s top court) refused Assange’s request to appeal that ruling. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-rocky-diplomatic-road-julian-assanges-hopes-of-avoiding-extradition-take-a-blow-as-us-pushes-back-210806">A rocky diplomatic road: Julian Assange's hopes of avoiding extradition take a blow as US pushes back</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The extradition request then passed to the home secretary, who <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jun/17/julian-assange-extradition-to-us-approved-by-priti-patel">approved it</a>. Assange appealed the home secretary’s decision, which a single judge of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/09/julian-assange-dangerously-close-to-us-extradition-after-losing-latest-legal-appeal">High Court rejected</a> in June 2023. </p>
<p>This appeal is against that most recent ruling and will be heard by a two-judge bench. These judges will only decide whether Assange has grounds for appeal. If they decide in his favour, the court will schedule a full hearing of the merits of the appeal. That hearing would come at the cost of further delay in the resolution of his case.</p>
<h2>Growing political support</h2>
<p>Parallel to the legal challenges, Assange’s supporters have led a political campaign to stop the prosecution and the extradition. One goal of the campaign has been to persuade the Australian government to argue Assange’s case with the American government. </p>
<p>Cross-party support from individual parliamentarians has steadily grown, led by independent MP Andrew Wilkie. Over the past two years, the government, including the foreign minister and the prime minister, have made stronger and clearer statements that the <a href="https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/australianoutlook/julian-assange-the-state-of-play-at-the-end-of-2023/">prosecution should end</a>. </p>
<p>On February 14, Wilkie proposed a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/27604/&sid=0001">motion</a> in support of Assange, seconded by Labor MP Josh Wilson. The house was asked to “underline the importance of the UK and USA bringing the matter to a close so that Mr Assange can return home to his family in Australia.” It was passed.</p>
<p>In addition, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/feb/14/australian-mps-pass-motion-urging-us-and-uk-to-allow-julian-assange-to-return-to-australia">confirmed</a> he had recently raised the Assange prosecution with his American counterpart, who has the authority to end it.</p>
<h2>What will Assange’s team argue?</h2>
<p>For the High Court appeal, it is expected Assange’s legal team will once again argue the extradition would be oppressive and that the American assurances are inadequate. A recent <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/un-special-rapporteur-torture-urges-uk-government-halt-imminent-extradition">statement</a> by Alice Edwards, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, supports their argument that extradition could lead to treatment “amounting to torture or other forms of ill-treatment or punishment”. She rejected the adequacy of American assurances, saying:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>They are not legally binding, are limited in their scope, and the person the assurances aim to protect may have no recourse if they are violated.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The argument that extradition would be oppressive remains the strongest ground for appeal. However, it is likely Assange’s lawyers will also repeat some of the arguments which were unsuccessful in the District Court proceedings. </p>
<p>One argument is that the charges against Assange, particularly the espionage charges, are political offences. The United States–United Kingdom extradition treaty does not allow either state to extradite for political offences. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-charges-does-julian-assange-face-and-whats-likely-to-happen-next-115362">Explainer: what charges does Julian Assange face, and what's likely to happen next?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Assange is also likely to re-run the argument that his leaks of classified documents were exercises of his right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. To date, the European Court of Human Rights has never found that an extradition request violates freedom of expression. For the High Court to do so would be an innovative ruling. </p>
<p>The High Court will hear two days of legal argument and might not give its judgement immediately, but it will probably be delivered soon after the hearing. Whatever the decision, Assange’s supporters will continue their political campaign, supported by the Australian government, to stop the prosecution. </p>
<p><em>Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated Julian Assange lived in the Ecuadorian embassy after breaching bail on unrelated charges. He had not been charged with any offences and was instead wanted for questioning in Sweden over sexual assault allegations. The Swedish investigation has since been dropped with no charges laid.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/221217/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Holly Cullen has been a volunteer for the Australian Labor Party, including for Josh Wilson, MP.</span></em></p>Efforts to extradite Wikileaks founder Julian Assange from the UK to the US have gone on for years. Here’s what’s been going on and what might happen in court this time.Holly Cullen, Adjunct professor, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2181082023-11-20T04:45:09Z2023-11-20T04:45:09ZDavid McBride is facing jailtime for helping reveal alleged war crimes. Will it end whistleblowing in Australia?<p>The long-awaited trial of former Australian Defence Force lawyer David McBride was short-lived.</p>
<p>He stood accused of putting national security at risk by sharing confidential information with journalists, who then reported on <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-11/killings-of-unarmed-afghans-by-australian-special-forces/8466642">alleged Australian war crimes</a> in Afghanistan. </p>
<p>An unexpected strategic move by the Department of Defence succeeded in withholding key documents from the ACT Supreme Court, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/17/australian-military-whistleblower-pleads-guilty-over-afghan-files-leak">all but dismantling</a> McBride’s claim for whistleblower protection.</p>
<p>Having now pleaded <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-17/military-whistleblower-david-mcbride-trial-leaked-adf-war-crimes/103119808">guilty</a> to unlawfully sharing classified material, what happens to McBride? And what does it say about the state of whistleblower protection laws in this country?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-and-why-australian-whistleblowing-laws-need-an-overhaul-new-report-195019">How and why Australian whistleblowing laws need an overhaul: new report</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The end of a winding road</h2>
<p>David McBride was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/07/whistleblower-charged-with-exposing-alleged-military-misconduct-not-afraid-to-go-to-jail">charged in 2019</a> for disclosing secret military information to two ABC journalists. </p>
<p>His concerns had included Australian soldiers being sent to Afghanistan by a government he believed was more concerned with <a href="https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/the-leadership-rewarded-and-encouraged-dishonesty-20231106-p5ehuu">politics</a> than the troops. Interestingly, the court heard last week McBride was also concerned about the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-17/military-whistleblower-david-mcbride-trial-leaked-adf-war-crimes/103119808">“over-investigation”</a> of misconduct by special forces. </p>
<p>Instead, that information revealed allegations of war crimes by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan and a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-19/afghanistan-war-crimes-report-igadf-paul-brereton-released/12896234">culture of cover-up</a> in the Defence Force. </p>
<p>The ABC used the information to publish the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-11/killings-of-unarmed-afghans-by-australian-special-forces/8466642">Afghan Files reports</a>. Many allegations were later supported by the inspector-general of the Australian Defence Force in the <a href="https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/afghanistan-inquiry">Brereton report</a>. </p>
<p>That report, released in November 2020, recommended the chief of the Defence Force refer 36 matters relating to 25 incidents and involving 19 individuals to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1725386166906863823"}"></div></p>
<p>So far, the only charges to have been laid as a result of these investigations are against McBride himself. A brief of evidence was also prepared against ABC journalist Dan Oakes, though the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/oct/15/abc-journalist-dan-oakes-will-not-be-charged-over-afghan-files-reporting-afp-says">declined to prosecute</a> Oakes on public interest grounds.</p>
<p>It took four years for McBride’s case to get to court. Delays due to the pandemic and issues around maintaining the secrecy of classified information in court prolonged this process. </p>
<p>Eventually, the Department of Defence claimed public interest immunity over key information. This allows the government to withhold evidence (such as classified material) from the court on public interest grounds. </p>
<p>It means neither party can rely on the information. </p>
<p>This strategic decision meant McBride faced difficulties establishing key aspects of his whistleblower case. This included whether the information revealed relevant wrongdoing, his attempts to tell the department or police about his concerns, or whether the extent of the disclosure was necessary to establish wrongdoing. </p>
<p>On the other hand, the information McBride disclosed was security classified defence material that journalists were not authorised to receive. It is, therefore, not particularly surprising that he pleaded guilty to disclosure offences. </p>
<p>His only hope had been to avoid prosecution by grasping the shield of whistleblower protections.</p>
<h2>What next for McBride?</h2>
<p>McBride will now be sentenced for his offences, likely <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-17/military-whistleblower-david-mcbride-trial-leaked-adf-war-crimes/103119808">next year</a>.</p>
<p>There is a chance the court will show leniency in sentencing, taking into account the demonstrated public interest in McBride’s disclosures. </p>
<p>This happened in the prosecution of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-18/act-witness-k-sentencing-hearing/100226438">Witness K,</a> who conspired to reveal an alleged spying operation in East Timor during oil and gas treaty negotiations.</p>
<p>They were not covered by whistleblower laws because the legislation does not apply to intelligence information, and also pleaded guilty to secrecy offences. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/tax-office-whistleblowing-saga-points-to-reforms-needed-in-three-vital-areas-187608">Tax office whistleblowing saga points to reforms needed in three vital areas</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Alternatively, the judge may not be swayed by the public interest in McBride’s disclosures and McBride could face a lengthy jail term.</p>
<p>The length of any jail term will depend on a number of factors, such as:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the extent of information disclosed</p></li>
<li><p>the deliberate nature of the disclosures</p></li>
<li><p>a need to deter future disclosures of classified defence information. </p></li>
</ul>
<h2>What does this mean for whistleblowers?</h2>
<p>The punishment of McBride would have tragic impacts on whistleblowing in Australia. </p>
<p>Far from being a crime, research has identified whistleblowing as “the single <a href="https://parkesfoundation.org.au/activities/orations/2019-oration/">most important way</a> that wrongdoing or other problems come to light in organisations”.</p>
<p>Whistleblowing led not only to the Brereton report, but the Robodebt inquiry, the Banking royal commission, and <a href="https://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/about-us/our-history/fitzgerald-inquiry">Fitzgerald inquiry</a> into police misconduct, to name but a few high profile examples. </p>
<p>The importance of whistleblowing has been recognised in Public Interest Disclosure Acts across Australia, protecting whistleblowers from reprisals, victimisation and prosecution. </p>
<p>The importance of these protections is heightened in recent years by the government’s willingness to prosecute whistleblowers such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/27/ato-whistleblower-richard-boyle-face-trial-after-immunity-defence-fails">Richard Boyle</a> (who accused the Australian Taxation Office of using <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-09/whistleblower-exposes-ato-cash-grab-targeting-small-businesses/9633140">aggressive tactics</a> to retrieve money), David McBride, and Witness K for calling out government wrongdoing. </p>
<p>Whistleblower protection law is not perfect. Calls for <a href="https://parkesfoundation.org.au/activities/orations/2019-oration/">its improvement</a> point to a need for greater consistency across private and public sector protections. </p>
<p>They also call for better protection for <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawJl/2021/44.html">intelligence and defence</a> whistleblowers, and supports for <a href="https://law.uq.edu.au/files/64972/whistleblowing.pdf">press freedom</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/its-a-new-era-for-australias-whistleblowers-in-the-private-sector-119596">It's a new era for Australia's whistleblowers – in the private sector</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The protections are yet to be tested. McBride’s case would have been the first opportunity to see how courts interpret and apply whistleblower law. </p>
<p>But the government’s decision to withhold information from court stopped these laws from being tested.</p>
<p>It’s easy to see how the government’s reaction to McBride’s decision to blow the whistle will deter future whistleblowers, sending a bad message about transparency, accountability and the importance of calling out wrongdoing by those in positions of power.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218108/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Ananian-Welsh receives UQ Advancement Funding.</span></em></p>David McBride helped bring about a reckoning with the Australian Defence Force, but came at a legal cost. Will it stop others coming forward?Rebecca Ananian-Welsh, Associate Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1950192022-11-23T05:50:40Z2022-11-23T05:50:40ZHow and why Australian whistleblowing laws need an overhaul: new report<p>Recent developments in Australian whistleblowing cases have shown how critical it is to get our whistleblower protection laws back up to world standards. </p>
<p>Fortunately, there are signs the new government will press ahead with reforms – but what’s involved in truly getting these right?</p>
<p>The importance of whistleblowing has been reinforced by parliamentary debate over Australia’s new National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which resumed this week. On November 10, the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/National_Anti-Corruption_Commission_Legislation/NACC/Report">Joint Select Committee</a> reviewing the government’s bill expressed unanimous support for “wider-ranging whistleblower protection reforms” to follow, including “specific” consideration of an independent whistleblower protection commission.</p>
<p><a href="https://ministers.ag.gov.au/media-centre/speeches/australian-public-sector-anti-corruption-conference-16-11-2022">Federal Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus</a> has announced reform will start within days, with some “priority amendments” to the whistleblowing law for federal public servants, even as the long awaited anti-corruption body is debated and finalised. He has also flagged there will be more to follow.</p>
<p>How much more, and why is it vital? A <a href="https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/1657813/Protecting-Australias-Whistleblowers-The-Federal-Roadmap-2022-EMBARGOED-23NOV.pdf">new research report</a>, published today by Griffith University, the Human Rights Law Centre and Transparency International Australia, seeks to present a clear roadmap for getting these reforms right.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/tax-office-whistleblowing-saga-points-to-reforms-needed-in-three-vital-areas-187608">Tax office whistleblowing saga points to reforms needed in three vital areas</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Expectation vs reality</h2>
<p>In theory, there’s strong consensus in favour of protections for “public interest whistleblowers”. These are the insiders who play a vital role in our integrity systems by speaking up about suspected wrongdoing, usually internally but also to regulators or, if necessary, publicly.</p>
<p>However, protecting whistleblowers often becomes much more controversial in reality, depending on whose interests are affected.</p>
<p>On Monday, federal independent MP Andrew Wilkie – himself a prominent former national security whistleblower – initiated a fresh parliamentary debate in support of stronger protections. He <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/21/andrew-wilkies-claims-in-parliament-of-coal-industry-concerning-resources-minister-says">claimed</a> some in the coal industry had lied about the quality of Australian exports. A mining industry whistleblower lay at the heart of the allegations.</p>
<p>Three weeks ago, former army lawyer David McBride <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-mcbride-public-interest-defence-fiasco-shows-labor-is-also-out-to-get-the-whistleblower/">dropped</a> his attempted defence under the Public Interest Disclosure Act against criminal charges for releasing Defence information about war crimes in Afghanistan. Federal prosecutors claimed the information he sought to use was, itself, too secret to even be admitted in a closed court. This effectively rendered the whistleblower protection law null and void.</p>
<p>In June 2021, the former intelligence operative known as “Witness K” <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-17/witness-k-pleads-guilty-to-conspiring-to-reveal-classified-info/100223306">pleaded guilty</a> to revealing alleged commercial espionage by Australia against our close neighbour Timor Leste. Again, the whistleblowing law failed to help because the categories of “intelligence information” that cannot be revealed under the act are so wide, they effectively mean nothing can be.</p>
<p>The attorney-general withdrew his consent for the prosecution of Witness K’s lawyer, Bernard Collaery. But he has come under <a href="https://whistleblowingnetwork.org/News-Events/News/News-Archive/Australia-Leading-NGOs-urge-end-to-criminal-prose">international pressure</a> to do more to end the prosecutions of McBride and <a href="https://theconversation.com/tax-office-whistleblowing-saga-points-to-reforms-needed-in-three-vital-areas-187608">Australian Taxation Office whistleblower Richard Boyle</a>. The latter is awaiting a decision on his public interest defence, after four damaging years of charges without even yet getting to a trial.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1546740766097260545"}"></div></p>
<h2>Why we need an overhaul of whistleblowing laws</h2>
<p>The government’s commitment to overhaul whistleblower protections is good news. But however worthwhile, the “priority amendments” recommended by a now out-of-date <a href="https://www.ag.gov.au/about-us/publications/review-public-interest-disclosure-act-2013">2016 review</a> involve few steps towards addressing the deeper defects in the laws.</p>
<p>Most of those 2016 recommendations were designed to make it easier for agencies to navigate their roles, more than improve the protections.</p>
<p>This is why having a forward plan for a full overhaul of federal whistleblowing laws in 2023 is so important.</p>
<p>High among the issues is the lack of effective machinery to enforce whistleblowers’ rights. This problem is shared not only by the public sector law, but by private sector protections in the Corporations Act 2001, <a href="https://www.transparency.org/en/blog/whistleblowing-reforms-in-australia-show-the-way">reformed as recently</a> as 2019.</p>
<p>A whistleblower protection authority was recommended by the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Corporations_and_Financial_Services/WhistleblowerProtections">Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services</a> in 2017. Such an authority also formed part of the national integrity commission proposals put forward by independents Cathy McGowan and Helen Haines, and the Greens, before the 2019 and 2022 elections.</p>
<p>As well, our analysis shows that defective public sector protections have now spread into private sector laws, and even state laws in the case of NSW. Despite other innovations, our federal laws impose tough tests before aggrieved whistleblowers can claim civil compensation for any damage they suffer. They effectively require a criminal reprisal before this can happen.</p>
<p>These protections fall short of European or United States’ standards for when a whistleblower can claim for damage. They’re also increasingly inconsistent across different areas of federal regulation.</p>
<p>Under the Aged Care Act and National Disability Insurance Scheme Act, for example, whistleblowers can also only claim protection if deemed to have complained “in good faith”, irrespective of the truth of their information. They must also identify themselves when making any disclosure. They get no protection if they speak out publicly, even if their internal complaints have been entirely ignored.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-whistleblowers-must-be-kept-confidential-just-look-at-what-happened-to-me-126403">Why whistleblowers must be kept confidential – just look at what happened to me</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Union whistleblowers operate under different rules again. And in many areas of federal regulation, unless they’re employees of a corporation, many whistleblowers get no protection at all.</p>
<p>In the US, whistleblower protections are split across more than 47 different pieces of regulatory legislation. Australia can avoid this nightmare of red tape, duplication, confusion and inconsistency.</p>
<p>All this is solvable if whistleblowing law reform is approached systematically, as a whole-of-government initiative – not in the rushed, piecemeal fashion that caused the problems in existing laws.</p>
<p>With trust in the new National Anti-Corruption Commission hinging on the ability of public and private employees to safely bring forward information, the need for comprehensive reform couldn’t be clearer.</p>
<p>We know what needs doing. The challenge now is how best to follow the larger roadmap for reform, beyond its first stages, and ensure this time we complete the whistleblower protection mission.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195019/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>AJ Brown has received funding from the Australian Research Council and all Australian governments for research on public interest whistleblowing, integrity and anti-corruption reform through partners including Australia's federal and state Ombudsmen, Australian Securities & Investments Commission, and other regulatory agencies, parliaments, anti-corruption and private sector bodies (see most recently 'Whistling While They Work 2: Improving Managerial and Organisational Responses to Whistleblowing in the Public and Private Sectors' (<a href="https://whistlingwhiletheywork.edu.au/">https://whistlingwhiletheywork.edu.au/</a>). He was a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Expert Panel on Whistleblowing (2017-2019), and is a board member of Transparency International, globally and in Australia. He was proposed to be called as an expert witness in the public interest defence proceedings brought by David McBride.</span></em></p>Recent developments in Australian whistleblowing cases have shown how critical it is to reform our laws - which are far from world standard.A J Brown, Professor of Public Policy & Law, Centre for Governance & Public Policy, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1816042022-04-20T05:27:31Z2022-04-20T05:27:31ZPolitics with Michelle Grattan: Andrew Wilkie invites independent candidates to call him for a chat about approaching a hung parliament<p>Andrew Wilkie, MP for the Tasmanian seat of Clark, has “lived” a hung parliament. In 2010, Wilkie did a formal “deal” to support Julia Gillard. When later she didn’t deliver on his key issue of gambling reform, he broke it off. </p>
<p>In this podcast Wilkie explains how he would approach the situation if the election produces no clear winner. No deals. But maybe a letter on giving confidence and supply. </p>
<p>He suggests independent candidates – who are being assailed with questions about which side they would support in a hung parliament – should contact him for a chat about how to approach that situation, and the role of crossbenchers generally. </p>
<p>“If they give me a call and ask what I think, I’ll tell them how I’ve navigated my way through the last 12 years and what my community has thought of it,” he says. </p>
<p>“I’ve explained how I’m going to approach things, and it’s always been well received by my community. In fact, my primary vote and two-party preferred has increased in every election. So whatever formulation I’m using seems to work. </p>
<p>"It might be something that some of these new independent candidates might want to just observe and think about. I think it is useful to give some indication of your thought processes,” Wilkie says.</p>
<p>“I see my role as being a constructive one. It’s to ensure we have an effective government for the next three years. My job isn’t to pull down any party or pull down any government. So if the Australian community elects a group of people and no party has an absolute majority, I will look for ways to be constructive.”</p>
<p>Wilkie strongly defends the role of crossbenchers, rejecting Scott Morrison’s argument that a hung parliament would make for instability. Their role can be useful even when there is majority government, Wilkie says.</p>
<p>He concedes that when crossbenchers are in a position of power – as under Gillard – their electorates get favoured treatment and that this isn’t “fair” (although he admits he was happy to seek and take the funds).</p>
<p>He recalls favourably Anthony Albanese’s performance as manager of government business in the Gillard government. “I credit him with being very skilled and effective at corralling the crossbench and ensuring stability of the parliament.”</p>
<p>“If Anthony Albanese finds himself negotiating with the crossbench, he’s got form. And I suppose I can probably say the same about Scott Morrison over the last few years, because he’s been almost in minority for most of it, and he’s managed to keep what I’ll call the independent crossbenchers pretty much in line.”</p>
<p>As for the election campaigning, “In my opinion, this is the worst campaign I’ve observed as far as the mudslinging and the dishonesty. I mean, there used to be some limits on the dishonesty of the political parties in the candidates, but there seem to be no limits at this election.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181604/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan speaks with Independent MP Andrew Wilkie about how he would approach the situation if the election produces no clear winner. No deals. But maybe a letter on giving confidence and supplyMichelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/822452017-08-10T04:42:22Z2017-08-10T04:42:22ZUsing the ABS to conduct a same-sex marriage poll is legally shaky and lacks legitimacy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181617/original/file-20170810-32211-1jglvcd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">For the ABS, even the basic task of sending out ballot papers will not be straightforward.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media-release/2017/08/08/commitment-national-plebiscite-same-sex-marriage">Turnbull government’s decision</a> to put the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in charge of a voluntary postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage has left many scratching their heads. It was expected the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) would run the vote, not the body responsible for the five-yearly census.</p>
<p>By giving the job to the ABS, the government has <a href="http://theconversation.com/explainer-with-no-free-vote-for-now-where-next-for-marriage-equality-82156">sidestepped questions</a> about its constitutional authority to pay for an AEC-run plebiscite. But it has opened up new avenues of legal challenge and established a process that lacks legitimacy.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-with-no-free-vote-for-now-where-next-for-marriage-equality-82156">Explainer: with no free vote for now, where next for marriage equality?</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Legal questions</h2>
<p>On Wednesday, Treasurer Scott Morrison <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L01006">directed</a> the Australian Statistician to ask the ABS to collect statistical information about the proportion of electors who are for or against the law being changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. This information is to be requested on a voluntary basis.</p>
<p>The same day, independent MP Andrew Wilkie and two others <a href="http://andrewwilkie.org/high-court-challenge-marriage-equality-postal-vote/">announced</a> they would launch a High Court challenge against the ABS poll. It <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/09/marriage-equality-postal-vote-to-be-challenged-in-high-court-by-andrew-wilkie-and-advocates">is likely</a> that at least two grounds of challenge will be put.</p>
<p>The first concerns the power of the ABS to run the plebiscite. Under the Census and Statistics Act, the Australian Statistician <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/casa1905241/s9.html">can</a>, if directed by the minister, collect “statistical information” on a range of <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/casr2016201600706348/s13.html">prescribed matters</a>, including “births, deaths, marriages and divorces”, “law”, and “population and the social, economic and demographic characteristics of the population”. </p>
<p>Separately, the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act provides that <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/abosa1975337/s6.html">one of the functions</a> of the ABS is “to collect, compile, analyse and disseminate statistics and related information”.</p>
<p>The key question is whether information about Australians’ opinions on same-sex marriage is “statistical information”.</p>
<p>Surveying people on their views about marriage is very different from collecting factual data about, say, the numbers of marriages taking place in Australia.</p>
<p>And given the postal ballot will be voluntary, the views of some social groups (like those more likely to use postal services) will feature <a href="http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/postal-plebiscite-australias-biggest.html">more heavily</a> than others. Arguably, such an “unweighted” data set falls short of the rigorous standards of “statistical information”.</p>
<p>More broadly, if opinions about marriage law are considered “statistical information”, it is hard to think of what sorts of information do not fall into that category. Is it the case that any collection of data is a statistical exercise? If so, the ABS’s powers are very broad.</p>
<p>The second legal question concerns the government’s authority to spend money on an ABS-run postal vote. Finance Minister Mathias Cormann acted quickly <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L01005">to source</a> the A$122 million required from a little-used “advance” <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017A00060">appropriated</a> by parliament in this year’s budget.</p>
<p>However, the minister’s advance fund is reserved for “urgent” and “unforeseen” expenditure. It is doubtful that spending on a postal plebiscite falls into either of these categories. </p>
<p>By way of comparison, in 2016 the government gave the AEC $101 million in “advance” funds to help it implement major changes to Senate voting in time for the July federal election.</p>
<p>There is no similar urgency in a vote on same-sex marriage. And, if anything, the need to spend money on same-sex marriage poll was entirely predictable. The government’s <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2017-18/content/bp1/html/">budget papers</a> anticipated spending $170 million for this purpose.</p>
<h2>The ABS is poorly equipped</h2>
<p>Legal questions aside, the ABS is poorly equipped to run a plebiscite on same-sex marriage. </p>
<p>It has significant expertise in collecting factual information on the economy, housing, crime and many other matters that is of immense value to governments and researchers. But it has never run a poll of this kind.</p>
<p>The closest precedent occurred more than 40 years ago. In 1974, the ABS conducted a telephone survey of 60,000 Australians, asking for their preferences on the national anthem. But that is altogether different from the massive logistical exercise of administering a postal ballot for 15 million voters on a contentious social issue. </p>
<p>The stakes are higher and the risk of mistakes is greater. And there will be little tolerance for error.</p>
<p>For the ABS, even the basic task of sending out ballot papers will not be straightforward. Unlike the AEC, it does not have direct access to the electoral roll. </p>
<p>The Commonwealth Electoral Act <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s90b.html">sets down rules</a> about who can access the electoral roll and for what purpose. Under <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/earr2016309/sch1.html">regulations</a>, the AEC “may” provide the ABS with information on the roll for the purpose of “collecting, compiling, analysing and disseminating statistics and related information”. It would therefore be open to the AEC to refuse the ABS access to the roll, including on the basis that a poll on marriage is not about “collecting statistics”.</p>
<p>Assuming that the ABS gains access to the roll, it is unclear whether it will be able to send ballot papers to all registered voters. The position of silent electors is particularly uncertain. </p>
<p>The addresses of <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Special_Category/Silent_Electors.htm">silent electors</a> are not displayed on the roll: to do so would put their safety, or the safety of their family, at risk. Also, the AEC is <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s90b.html">not permitted</a> to provide information about silent electors to agencies such as the ABS. As a result, silent electors may wonder if they will be able to participate in the poll.</p>
<p>The addresses of eligible overseas voters also do not appear on the roll. However, Cormann has said they will receive ballot papers provided they have “registered as an overseas voter and provided their overseas address”.</p>
<p>More generally, the ABS lacks the AEC’s institutional capacity when it comes to conducting nationwide votes. These are highly complex exercises, which involve distributing, collecting and transporting ballot papers, and then counting them quickly and securely. </p>
<p>Cormann has said AEC officers <a href="http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media-release/2017/08/08/commitment-national-plebiscite-same-sex-marriage">will be seconded</a> to the ABS to “assist” the process.</p>
<h2>Other problems</h2>
<p>ABS involvement in the plebiscite raises particular problems, but the shortcomings of a voluntary postal vote go well beyond who is administering it. </p>
<p>Even if turnout is high, we cannot be confident that the result is representative of community opinion. For example:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Young people move address more frequently than the rest of the population and are less likely to receive the ballot papers. </p></li>
<li><p>Homeless electors and grey nomads may also find it hard to participate. </p></li>
<li><p>Communities with limited access to reliable postal services (including Indigenous people living in more remote parts of Australia) may be disadvantaged.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Also worrying is that the postal vote will take place without the <a href="http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/2016/11/29/public-law-review-update-december-2016/">usual protections</a> of election law. Campaigners will be able to circulate unauthorised material – including posters and pamphlets with harmful messages about same-sex couples and their families – without fear of legal consequences.</p>
<p>And, if the result is close, there will be no clear process for resolving claims about the formality of votes and other contentious administration issues.</p>
<h2>It should be abandoned</h2>
<p>The voluntary postal vote on same-sex marriage should be abandoned. Not only does it rest on shaky legal foundations, it risks damaging the standing of two of our most trusted national institutions. </p>
<p>The absence of standard legal protections is worrying, and the polling method is so flawed that neither side can have confidence in the outcome.</p>
<p>And, at the end of it all, the result is non-binding. The federal parliament is the only institution that can resolve the issue of same-sex marriage definitively. It should do so now, without resorting to such a flawed and expensive venture.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82245/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Kildea has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>The key question in a legal challenge to the ‘postal plebiscite’ is whether information about Australians’ opinions on same-sex marriage constitutes ‘statistical information’.Paul Kildea, Senior Lecturer, UNSW Law School; Director, Referendums Project, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/731312017-02-22T19:19:27Z2017-02-22T19:19:27ZGambling lobby gives big to political parties, and names names<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/157811/original/image-20170222-20339-10gccf7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The gambling lobby continues to provide substantial support to political parties.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The gambling industry declared A$1,294,501 in donations to Australian political parties in 2015-16. Our analysis of the latest <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au">Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) donation</a> disclosures shows various branches of the Australian Hotels Association (AHA) were by far the biggest donors among gambling industry groups.</p>
<p>Collectively, the AHA showered the major parties with $522,478 in declared donations. Lagging a little behind the AHA last year was ClubsNSW, which donated $155,603.</p>
<p>Two casino operators, Crown and Star Entertainment, declared $168,491 and $77,200 respectively in 2015-16. Tabcorp and Tattersall’s chipped in $164,650 and $94,329 respectively. </p>
<p>Assorted other entities such as ClubsQld, the Sutherland Tradies Club and the Randwick Labor Club declared donations of between $17,050 and $50,000 each.</p>
<p>Overall, the Coalition parties were the “winners” from gambling donations reported in 2015-16, receiving a total of $770,861. The ALP received $523,640. This was a 60:40 split.</p>
<p>The gambling lobby invested quite disproportionately in individual Labor candidates, donating $116,000 to individual campaigns. Liberal and National Party candidates were recorded as receiving $41,000 in specific campaign donations. </p>
<p>This doesn’t mean such donations weren’t made – but it is revealing that mostly ALP candidates’ details were disclosed. </p>
<h2>Donations to MPs</h2>
<p>Big donations from the gambling lobby are clearly <a href="https://theconversation.com/paying-the-piper-and-calling-the-tune-following-clubsnsws-political-donations-60639">not new</a>. But this year’s returns demonstrate that even when the stakes aren’t that high, the gambling lobby continues to defend its interests with major political parties. </p>
<p>Between 2010 and 2012, when stakes were higher, these actors and others spent $3,478,581 on <a href="https://theconversation.com/paying-the-piper-and-calling-the-tune-following-clubsnsws-political-donations-60639">campaign costs to defeat</a> the gambling reforms agreed between then prime minister Julia Gillard and independent MP Andrew Wilkie. </p>
<p>Wilkie and another long-time gambling reformist, Senator Nick Xenophon, list <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4503734.htm">donations reform</a> as an important element of any decent gambling reform package. They know how much influence the gambling lobby can afford to buy. </p>
<p>The funding of specific politicians has also continued. ClubsNSW turned this into something of an art form when the Wilkie-Gillard reforms were proposed and then defeated. Undoubtedly, influential caucus members articulating the gambling lobby’s perspective helped underline the political dangers of reform. </p>
<p>The 2015-16 returns don’t include all the donations made in respect of the 2016 election. This was demonstrated by the curious case of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-01/turnbull-admits-donating-1.75-million-to-election-campaign/8233244">own donation of $1.75 million</a> to the Liberal Party. So, we can expect to find out a bit more in about a year – barring some much-needed substantial reform of the system.</p>
<p>In the 2015-16 returns, however, the federal branch of the AHA identified specific beneficiaries of its largesse. Its original return included notations of donations to the campaigns of the following politicians:</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/4i6qH/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="402"></iframe>
<p>A subsequent amendment to the return, dated February 1 2017, has now been submitted to the AEC, excluding these names. </p>
<p>ClubsNSW also noted donations on its return to the following:</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/HCRlw/3/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="262"></iframe>
<p>This may provide some insight into what the gambling lobby thinks is the best way to focus attention of specific members of parties. </p>
<p>For example, the effectiveness of the anti-reform campaign in 2010-11 was based on the carrot-and-stick approach <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/the-lobby-group-that-got-much-more-bang-for-its-buck">adopted under the leadership of ClubsNSW</a>. This involved campaigning against individual politicians who were seen to support the Gillard-Wilkie agreement. </p>
<p>At the same time, the lobby actively supported politicians who were <a href="https://theconversation.com/paying-the-piper-and-calling-the-tune-following-clubsnsws-political-donations-60639">perceived as friends</a> for whatever reason. </p>
<p>Federal MP Kevin Andrews also gleaned a contribution of $2,000 to his Menzies 200 campaign fund from ClubsNSW. This was for a dinner he organised at Melbourne’s Athenaeum Club. ClubsNSW donated a <a href="https://theconversation.com/paying-the-piper-and-calling-the-tune-following-clubsnsws-political-donations-60639">total of $40,000 between 2013 and 2015</a> to Andrews even though he represents a Victorian seat.</p>
<p>With donations from the AHA included, Andrews’ campaign fund <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/machine-men-how-the-aha-and-clubsnsw-seek-political-influence-20160929-grrxe9.html">received a total</a> of $90,000 from gambling industry interests over this period. </p>
<p>He was the opposition spokesman for gambling matters prior to the 2013 election. After this and on his appointment as the responsible minister, he quickly repealed the already watered-down pokie reforms the Gillard government had passed.</p>
<h2>Road to reform</h2>
<p>There is no suggestion or implication politicians or political parties are influenced in their decision-making or policy positions by political donations. Nonetheless, a more transparent and much more timely political donations reporting system would enhance public confidence in the quality of decision-making, and its relationship to the public’s best interests. </p>
<p>Details of donations are often lacking. This is because declaration requirements of the current system are limited. Donations of <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/financial_disclosure/Overview.htm">less than $13,000</a> do not need to be specifically disclosed. Cumulative donations to different branches of the same organisation (otherwise known as <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-01/political-donations-likened-to-money-laundering/8227952">donation splitting</a>) can amount to more than this without any need for disclosure.</p>
<p>Further, donations to “associated entities” are used to muddy the waters – in effect, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-01/political-donations-likened-to-money-laundering/8227952">to “launder” donations</a> by disguising the name of the donor. This also avoids disclosure. </p>
<p>Both Labor leader <a href="https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/34396924/shorten-wants-more-donation-transparency/#page1">Bill Shorten</a> and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-08/malcolm-turnbull-indicates-open-changing-political-donations-law/7826060">Turnbull</a> have signalled recently they want donations reform on the table. It may be time to remind them a complete loss of faith in political processes is not inevitable. It’s something politicians can tackle, and relatively easily. </p>
<p>Serious political donations reform is a big step towards a more trusted political system. You can bet on it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73131/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation and The (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He is a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Australian Greens.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maggie Johnson is a recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) funded by the Australian government. She has also undertaken research on gambling industry political donations for the Alliance for Gambling Reform. </span></em></p>The gambling industry continues to make handsome donations to our politicians, and recently named some of those it supports.Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityMaggie Johnson, PhD Student, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/704942016-12-21T19:01:50Z2016-12-21T19:01:50ZWhen it comes to election campaigns, is the gambling lobby all bark and no bite?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151172/original/image-20161221-14203-1cppkff.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Poker machines are wildly unpopular in the electorate – so why fight an election on them?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Jeffers</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/11/ka-ching-how-the-gambling-lobby-won-the-fight-over-pokie-reforms">gambling lobby’s influence</a> in overriding popular opinion and the public interest in Australia <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/the-lobby-group-that-got-much-more-bang-for-its-buck">is well-known</a>. But is its electoral power exaggerated? A look at this year’s ACT election suggests that perhaps the gambling industry is less influential than it appears to be.</p>
<h2>Generating fear</h2>
<p>One crucial weapon in Big Gambling’s lobbying arsenal is its threat to campaign against MPs at elections.</p>
<p>Former politicians <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/20/politicians-fear-being-targeted-by-the-gambling-lobby-rob-oakeshott-says">describe the fear</a> generated by threats of being targeted at elections: that the gambling industry will bring such financial resources to bear in an election campaign that proponents of gambling reform will be defeated at the ballot box.</p>
<p>The 2011 campaign against federal independent MP Andrew Wilkie’s poker-machine reform agenda provides evidence of this electoral fear. Aided and abetted by a <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/09/27/the-conflicts-of-interest-muddying-the-anti-pokies-campaign/">conflicted media</a>, the gambling lobby <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/pokies-industry-precommits-40m-to-see-mps-lose-20111013-jafgk">boasted of a A$40 million war-chest</a> that would “eviscerate the government’s ranks of ministers and parliamentary secretaries at the next election if no compromise was reached” on Wilkie’s reforms. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/the-lobby-group-that-got-much-more-bang-for-its-buck">marginal seats campaign was promised</a>, in which vulnerable government MPs would be targeted with vast electoral resources to blast those who did not acquiesce to Big Gambling’s wishes out of office.</p>
<p>History shows this campaign was successful in spooking the Gillard government. It <a href="https://theconversation.com/gillards-pokie-rethink-shows-weakness-while-wilkie-wavers-4979">reneged on its promised reforms</a> well before the 2013 election. This gave the gambling industry an easy victory without an election being fought on the issue.</p>
<p>We don’t know if the gambling industry’s promised electoral strategy would have been successful because it has never been tested. Its great success has been in the <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/the-lobby-group-that-got-much-more-bang-for-its-buck">fear it generates among politicians</a> well before any election is called.</p>
<p>However, there are good reasons to think the industry’s popular support is lacking. For one, poker machines are wildly unpopular in the electorate. <a href="http://www.gamblingandracing.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/846901/2014-Survey-on-Gambling,-Health-and-Wellbeing-in-the-ACT-.pdf">In 2014</a>, 86% of ACT residents stated a belief that pokies do more harm than good, and a majority would like to see the number of machines reduced. </p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="http://lyceum.anu.edu.au/wp-content/blogs/3/uploads/ANUpoll-%20Gambling1.pdf">a national study</a> conducted during the gambling reform debate in 2011 found 74% in favour of mandatory pre-commitment.</p>
<h2>What happened in the ACT?</h2>
<p>With such little popular support for Big Gambling among voters, the wisdom of fighting an election campaign over pokies is questionable.</p>
<p>The 2016 ACT election finally put this question to the test. The issue was the Labor government’s decision to allow the Canberra Casino to <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberra-casino-to-get-200-poker-machines-20160505-gon6ol.html">purchase 200 pokie licenses from ACT clubs</a>, allowing the machines in the casino for the first time. </p>
<p>Lobby group ClubsACT <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/clubs-launch-campaign-against-casino-pokies-bid-20160322-gnp2ke.html">promised to campaign</a> hard on the casino issue, arguing it was a threat to the clubs sector’s viability in Canberra. But ACT Labor did not back down prior to the election, and decided to face a concerted electoral campaign by the gambling industry.</p>
<p>ClubsACT, which is reliant on pokies for the <a href="http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/726407/Sub-No.-55-ACT-Gambling-and-Racing-Commission.pdf#page=24">majority of its income</a>, launched a campaign against Labor and the Greens. It <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/clubs-act-sells-deakin-offices-to-pay-for-campaign-against-pokies-in-the-casino-20161209-gt7i15.html">reportedly spent</a> $185,000 funding the creation of a new political party, Canberra Community Voters (CCV), headed by lobbyist Richard Farmer. Most of this money was reportedly <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-election-2016/clubs-bankrolling-100k-of-minor-partys-antilabor-ads-20161004-grugwm.html">spent on TV advertising</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M4a169PPuvE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A ‘Your Canberra Clubs’ ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>CCV’s signature issue was the future of clubs in the ACT. While it always seemed unlikely that it would gain seats in the Legislative Assembly, the political strategy appears to be one of diverting primary votes away from Labor and the Greens, and directing preferences to the Liberals. </p>
<p>A second front of attack was launched directly through the clubs themselves. During the months leading up to the election, banners and beer coasters appeared in Canberra’s community clubs bearing the slogan:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Imagine Canberra without community clubs. </p>
</blockquote>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"775928458937368576"}"></div></p>
<p>And, on election day, text messages were sent to club members, imploring them to “save your community club” by voting Liberal.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151192/original/image-20161221-14185-1axm6tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151192/original/image-20161221-14185-1axm6tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151192/original/image-20161221-14185-1axm6tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151192/original/image-20161221-14185-1axm6tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151192/original/image-20161221-14185-1axm6tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=531&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151192/original/image-20161221-14185-1axm6tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=668&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151192/original/image-20161221-14185-1axm6tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=668&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151192/original/image-20161221-14185-1axm6tw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=668&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A text message sent to a voter on the morning of the ACT election.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Francis Markham</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In all, ClubsACT reportedly <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/clubs-act-sells-deakin-offices-to-pay-for-campaign-against-pokies-in-the-casino-20161209-gt7i15.html">spent $240,000</a> on its electoral efforts. </p>
<p>But this much-feared campaign amounted to very little. CCV <a href="https://www.electionresults.act.gov.au/">received just 1,703 first-preference votes</a>, or 0.7% of validly cast votes, at a cost of $109 per vote. Clubs in the ACT collectively have more employees than CCV received votes. </p>
<p>If the clubs’ <a href="http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/726440/Sub-No.-68-Clubs-ACT.pdf">claim of 200,000 members</a> across the ACT is taken at face value, then less than 1% of members voted according to their wishes. Ultimately, the sitting Labor government was <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-wins-act-election-decisively-67120">returned for a fifth term</a>. The Liberals, the supposed beneficiary of the clubs’ campaign, received a swing against them of 2.2%.</p>
<p>While it is impossible to know exactly what role the gambling industry’s campaign played in this election, the clubs’ monopoly over pokies clearly wasn’t a decisive issue. Few voters were swayed to change their vote by the clubs’ arguments or CCV’s advertising blitz. In the final analysis, the clubs’ willingness to spend almost a quarter-of-a-million dollars on campaigning came to little.</p>
<p>This should embolden governments around Australia that have a mind to deal with the social fallout caused by poker machines. Poker machine reform remains very popular in Australia. What we now know is that the gambling industry’s much-vaunted electoral power is more bark than bite.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70494/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Francis Markham has been employed on projects funded by the Australian Research Council, the government of the Northern Territory and the government of the Australian Capital Territory. He is currently employed on a project funded by the Community Benefit Fund of the Northern Territory. He is a member of the Public Health Association of Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Young has previously received research funding from the Australian Research Council, Gambling Research Australia, and several state government departments. His research is currently funded by the Community Benefit Fund of the Northern Territory Government. In addition to his SCU position, he a Visiting Fellow, Fenner School of Environment and Society, ANU.</span></em></p>The gambling lobby’s failure to seriously influence the 2016 ACT election should embolden governments around Australia that have a mind to deal with gambling reform.Francis Markham, PhD Candidate, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National UniversityMartin Young, Associate Professor, School of Business and Tourism, Southern Cross UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/701242016-12-13T19:06:14Z2016-12-13T19:06:14ZGambling industry finds plenty of political guns for hire to defend the status quo<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149556/original/image-20161212-31364-1kraoqz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Stephen Conroy is to head up a new gambling industry body, Responsible Wagering Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Former Labor senator Stephen Conroy, who left parliament in September, has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/stephen-conroy-to-head-up-responsible-wagering-australia-body/news-story/654a0ae279758b78584751702968f322">gone to work for</a> the gambling industry as head of a new body, Responsible Wagering Australia.</p>
<p>This is unsurprising. Conroy has been preceded in this course by several colleagues and opponents, including Labor’s former national secretary <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/bitar-says-casino-role-is-to-promote-tourism-20110525-1f4hv.html">Karl Bitar</a> and ex-Labor senator <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/casino-empire-grows-with-help-from-powerful-friends-20130622-2opa0.html">Mark Arbib</a>. <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-man-of-influence/2007/05/11/1178390548792.html">David White</a>, a former minister in the Cain-Kirner Victorian Labor government, ended up working as a lobbyist for Tattersalls via lobbyist firm Hawker Britton.</p>
<p>Of the Liberals, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/peta-credlin-takes-up-packer-policy-position-at-consolidated-press-holdings-20160827-gr2inc.html">Peta Credlin</a>, former chief-of-staff to Tony Abbott, works for James Packer’s Consolidated Press Holdings, which owns a major share of gambling giant Crown. And one-time federal Liberal minister <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-26/coonan-offered-position-on-casino-board/2856858">Helen Coonan</a> continues to be a board member of Crown.</p>
<p>Former NSW premier <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/former-nsw-premier-barry-ofarrell-appointed-racing-australias-new-chief-executive-officer-20161207-gt5qrh.html">Barry O’Farrell</a> recently accepted a job as CEO of the industry body Racing Australia. He replaces former federal National Party minister Peter McGauran, who has gone off to work for Tabcorp.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1579&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1579&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1579&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1985&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1985&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/149811/original/image-20161213-1596-1ki9v06.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1985&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, the gambling industry certainly holds an attraction for former politicians. Perhaps it’s all that money and the attraction of staying in the game – even if at a peripheral level.</p>
<h2>The ‘responsibility’ of gambling</h2>
<p>Conroy’s job seems a little different to most; his new employer is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/stephen-conroy-to-head-up-responsible-wagering-australia-body/news-story/654a0ae279758b78584751702968f322">Responsible Wagering Australia</a>. It was born from the ashes of the Australian Wagering Council, an industry peak body that imploded under the weight of <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/australian-wagering-council-to-disband-after-inplay-bet-ban/news-story/2b4ee70e82e2839040cbfc9e6917cbd0">its own contradictions</a>. This time around, it looks and sounds like a SAPRO, or social aspect public relations organisation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110957/">SAPROs</a> have been around for a long time, particularly in the alcohol field. But none have so far popped up in Australia for gambling.</p>
<p>The key international SAPRO is the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490544/">International Center for Alcohol Policy</a>. Its function is to provide the appearance of concern and action on the part of a specific industry while keeping things on an even keel. Business as usual is very much the unwritten motto of any SAPRO.</p>
<p><a href="https://drinkwise.org.au/">DrinkWise</a> is a good Australian example. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21781203">It says</a> it is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… an independent, not-for-profit organisation. Our primary focus is to help bring about a healthier and safer drinking culture in Australia. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It seeks to do this by promoting change in the way Australians drink alcohol. It is also worried about the age at which young people are introduced to the products manufactured or sold by its <a href="https://drinkwise.org.au/about-us/about/#">14 industry sponsors</a>. And, like the UK gambling SAPRO the Responsible Gambling Trust (recently rebranded as <a href="http://about.gambleaware.org/about/">GambleAware</a>, DrinkWise also commissions research.</p>
<p>Importantly, what DrinkWise does is nuance its message around “responsible drinking” – that is, the idea that individuals are essentially responsible for their own behaviours. The solutions it suggests are those from the more ineffective end of the harm reduction/prevention spectrum, such as education and individual behaviour change.</p>
<p>What you won’t find in DrinkWise’s repertoire (or, indeed, in that of other SAPROs) are interventions that affect the industry’s bottom line. Forget about price increases, restrictions on advertising, or proliferation of alcohol outlets. It’s all about individual responsibility.</p>
<p>Tobacco consumption <a href="http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco">has declined</a> in Australia and some other parts of the world because we stopped telling people what to do (“don’t smoke”) and helped them make better decisions about smoking. </p>
<p>The way to do this was to stop tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sport, restrict where smoking was permitted, increase the price of tobacco, and help people quit. The effect has been a dramatic reduction in the incidence of lung disease, especially <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2953697.htm">lung cancers</a>. None of that would have been achieved had a “responsible smoking” mantra held sway.</p>
<p>The Australian gambling industry, up to this point, has not seen the need to launch a SAPRO. Perhaps the bookies are feeling a little pressured, given the federal government <a href="https://www.mhs.gov.au/media-releases/2016-11-10-coalition-government-introduces-legislation-combat-illegal-offshore-wagering-0">has introduced legislation</a>, including some consumer protection interventions, to help stop people getting hooked on online gambling. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://lovethegame.vic.gov.au/?gclid=CNuyrcOm7tACFYSYvAodoicCxA">bombardment of advertising</a> from bookies inflicted on anyone who watches sport on TV (including lots of kids) has helped make everyone hate the bookies. The evidence is the bookies make a lot of money out of people experiencing <a href="https://financialcounsellingaustralia.org.au/getattachment/Corporate/Home/FINAL-PDF-Duds,-Mugs-and-the-A-List-The-Impact-of-Uncontrolled-Sports-Betting-low-res.pdf">high levels of gambling harm</a>. So, ramping up the “responsible gambling” rhetoric and arguing that you don’t want anyone to get into trouble with your product might seem like a good idea.</p>
<p>“<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14459790701601810">Responsible gambling</a>”, like “responsible drinking”, is a clever-sounding way of deflecting attention away from the product. Gambling, like alcohol and tobacco, is an addictive product that generates significant super profits from those it addicts. This is why the industry has <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25175598">tried very hard</a> through various means to hang on to its current arrangements.</p>
<h2>How will Conroy go?</h2>
<p>Conroy was a <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=3L6">senior minister</a> in 2010 when independent MP Andrew Wilkie signed <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110620/wilkie/docs/agreement.pdf">his agreement</a> with Julia Gillard to introduce a mechanism to let people decide in advance how much they wanted to lose on the pokies. The industry launched a <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/the-lobby-group-that-got-much-more-bang-for-its-buck">massive campaign</a> to stop that happening. </p>
<p>In addition, it has donated <a href="https://theconversation.com/paying-the-piper-and-calling-the-tune-following-clubsnsws-political-donations-60639">considerable amounts</a> to help keep politicians on side.</p>
<p>Conroy is known to be from the <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Whatever_it_Takes.html?id=FLdUAAAACAAJ">whatever-it-takes school of politics</a>. His approach to his new job will therefore be interesting to observe. His connections are impeccable and his capacity to persuade appears to have been perfected by years of influence in the ALP’s internal machinations.</p>
<p>Ultimately, his job will be to make sure it is business as usual for the online bookies. If successful, that means hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of Australians will suffer avoidable harm (and in some cases illness and premature death) because of the harms associated with gambling.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70124/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from Victorian and South Australian government agencies (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Centre, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He is a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Australian Greens and of the Alliance for Gambling Reform. </span></em></p>The gambling industry certainly holds an attraction for former politicians. Perhaps it’s all that money, and the attraction of staying in the game – even if at a peripheral level.Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/642992016-08-24T02:34:07Z2016-08-24T02:34:07ZGambling gallops on, stats reveal – but what can be done to curb its harms?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/135237/original/image-20160824-30231-mryeca.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sports betting in Australia has been growing rapidly in recent years – all that advertising seems to be paying off.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Data <a href="http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/aus-gambling-stats/">released late last week</a> reveal Australia’s gambling habit is growing as fast as ever. The Australian Gambling Statistics for 2014-15 show adult Australians, on average, lost A$1,242 a year on gambling. </p>
<p>The amount varies dramatically by state: in New South Wales the average loss was $1,518; in Tasmania, $762.</p>
<p>Most gambling expenditure goes on the pokies. Out of a total of $22.7 billion in 2014-15, $11.6 billion (51%) was lost on poker machines in pubs and clubs. </p>
<p>This also varies by state. In NSW, $5.7 billion was spent on such pokies. In Victoria, it was $2.6 billion. In Western Australia, nothing. </p>
<p>Casino gambling (which includes poker machines in casinos) grew by more than 16% in real terms (that is, adjusted for inflation) to $5.2 billion. The biggest chunk of that ($1.9 billion) was in Victoria. NSW placed second, with $1.4 billion in casino losses.</p>
<p>Surprisingly, growth rates in many gambling products have been strong. Sports betting has been growing rapidly in recent years – up to 17% per year to June 2014. </p>
<p>This growth was initially fuelled by a <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/horse-racing/court-ruling-a-spur-for-betfair/2008/03/27/1206207302919.html">High Court</a> decision in 2008 that allowed interstate bookies to operate in states where they didn’t hold a licence. It got a second kick from <a href="https://theconversation.com/tom-waterhouse-takes-the-money-what-now-for-gambling-in-australia-16893">a series of takeovers</a> by big overseas bookies. However, the latest figures show recent growth has eclipsed even the very strong growth rates of earlier years, with real growth of 28.2% to June 2015.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/sport-tom-waterhouse-and-the-gamblification-of-everyday-life-13170">All that advertising</a> seems to be paying off. Australians lost $814.6 million on sports betting last year.</p>
<p>The pokies are still the biggest game in town, however, and by a fair margin. Of the $1,518 lost per head in NSW, $978 (64.8%) went into pokies in pubs or clubs. This is unsurprising, given NSW has around 95,000 poker machines; 70% in clubs. The rest of Australia (bar WA) has to make do with the remaining 100,000.</p>
<h2>Is this growth a problem?</h2>
<p>Pokies are far and away the biggest cause of gambling harm. Around 75% or more of those directly experiencing harm from gambling <a href="http://www.problemgambling.gov.au/facts/">do so because of poker machines</a>. And most people don’t use them. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/information-and-resources/research/recent-research/study-of-gambling-and-health-in-victoria">recent study</a> found only about 16% of adult Victorians use pokies. What that means is the per-capita expenditure of actual users is not an average of $559 per year, but about $3,493. Among that group, a smaller proportion use pokies regularly, and that group sustains losses many times greater than the average. </p>
<p>Gambling harm is becoming more concentrated. A body of evidence now indicates it is <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/16066359.2012.727507">concentrated in highly stressed communities</a>, where disadvantage and poverty are turbo-charged by gambling losses.</p>
<p>The growth in sports betting is, to put it mildly, phenomenal. Most worryingly, a body of research is beginning to demonstrate that <a href="http://www.responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/information-and-resources/research/recent-research/child-and-parent-recall-of-gambling-sponsorship-in-australian-sport">children are highly exposed</a> to gambling ads. This is because voluntary broadcast <a href="http://www.freetv.com.au/media/Code_of_Practice/Free_TV_Commercial_Television_Industry_Code_of_Practice_2015.pdf">advertising rules</a> allow gambling ads during G-rated programming – if it is a sports broadcast. </p>
<p>This loophole defies explanation, other than to acknowledge that gambling ads are now a lucrative source of revenue for broadcasters. Sporting codes get a share via broadcast rights payments, pumped up by the advertising budget of bookies with deep pockets and a desire to grow their market.</p>
<h2>What can be done?</h2>
<p>The new parliament offers an opportunity to rein in some of these excesses.</p>
<p>The lowest-hanging fruit is the unrestricted advertising that exposes kids to a regular dose of gambling normalisation. The federal government has complete control of this; it could end it whenever it wants. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/government-ignores-elephant-in-the-room-in-response-to-online-gambling-review-52751">consumer protection measures</a> promised before the election are a good start, but advertising is the elephant in the room that needs to be tackled.</p>
<p>And the pokies? Substantial political donations and careful support of selected major party politicians <a href="https://theconversation.com/paying-the-piper-and-calling-the-tune-following-clubsnsws-political-donations-60639">have worked wonders</a> for the pokie lobby since 2010, when the Gillard-Wilkie agreement threatened their rivers of gold. But the concerns of crossbench MPs like Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilkie are unabated.</p>
<p>Again, the federal government has clear power to act. Xenophon and Wilkie have <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-19/xenophon,-wilkie-to-take-pokies-fight-to-marginal-seats/7642218">made it clear</a> they expect gambling reform to be front and centre in the new parliament. </p>
<p>These latest figures throw fuel on the fire of their concern. Gambling harm is a major source of harm to the health and well-being of the community. It’s right up there with major depression, <a href="http://www.responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/information-and-resources/research/recent-research/assessing-gambling-related-harm-in-victoria-a-public-health-perspective">for example</a>. State taxes are one thing; wholesale attacks on the health and well-being of the community are another thing entirely.</p>
<p>Whatever the new parliament holds, gambling reform seems certain to be part of the mix.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64299/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from Victorian and South Australian government agencies (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Centre, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He is a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Australian Greens and of the Alliance for Gambling Reform. </span></em></p>Gambling losses in Australia are now close to $23 billion. What’s driving this? And do we need to reform gambling regulation?Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/621162016-07-11T02:18:13Z2016-07-11T02:18:13ZExplainer: who are the independents and minor parties in the lower house?<p>Five crossbench members of the House of Representatives will take their seats in the 45th parliament when it convenes in coming weeks.</p>
<p>Joining veteran Queensland politician Bob Katter are third-term independent member of parliament (MP) Andrew Wilkie, the Greens’ Adam Bandt, and the returning independent MP for Indi, Cathy McGowan. This seasoned group will be joined by a first-time MP for the Nick Xenophon Team, Rebekha Sharkie.</p>
<p>After a slim victory, how the Coalition works with the crossbench MPs will prove important to the success and stability of the Turnbull government.</p>
<h2>Bob Katter (Katter’s Australian Party) – member for Kennedy</h2>
<p>Katter has a long and colourful history in politics. A former National Party member for the state seat of Flinders, he served as a minister in Queensland’s Bjelke-Petersen government from 1983 to 1989. </p>
<p>Katter entered federal parliament in 1993 as a National Party MP. He resigned in 2001 to become an independent, citing an <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2001/s326098.htm">irreconcilable ideological difference</a> on the Coalition’s economic direction. </p>
<p>Now he is set to commence his 23rd year and ninth term in federal parliament as head of Katter’s Australian Party (KAP). He formed KAP in 2011 as a response to a weakness he saw among independent MPs: the inability to affect change for their constituencies. </p>
<p>Katter is known for his erratic and often eccentric style. He favours an interventionist and protectionist approach in support of agriculture and rural industry. He believes in statehood for Northern Queensland and is a fierce supporter of the union movement.</p>
<p>In lending his qualified support <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/politics/election/election-2016-bob-katter-sides-with-malcolm-turnbull-20160707-gq0n3z">to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull</a> should the Coalition require his vote, Katter indicated he would be mindful of issues such as support for live cattle exports and going ahead with the Hell’s Gate dam to help boost jobs in the state’s north.</p>
<p>A challenge for Katter in this new parliament may well be reconciling his support for greater protectionism and the union movement with the Liberal Party’s focused economic liberalism. </p>
<h2>Andrew Wilkie – member for Denison</h2>
<p>Wilkie has <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-wins-more-crossbench-support-as-governments-numbers-still-to-be-finalised-62225">given Malcolm Turnbull his assurance</a> that he will back the government on supply and confidence. But he <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-03/election2016-independent-andrew-wilkie-rules-out-deals/7565626">wants to maintain his independence</a>) as a representative of his electorate.</p>
<p>Wilkie has won the former safe Labor seat of Denison in Tasmania with an increased margin at each election since 2010. </p>
<p>A former Army officer and manager with contractor Raytheon Australia, Wilkie joined the public service as a senior strategic analyst in the Office of National Assessments in 2001. </p>
<p>In 2003 he <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/s804540.htm">famously resigned</a> in opposition to the Howard government’s participation in the Iraq War. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/30/1054177726543.html">He argued</a> the intelligence leading to Australia’s involvement was predicated on a lie. </p>
<p>Wilkie has been a member of the Liberals and Greens, running for the latter in 2004 and 2007. Neither was a good fit. </p>
<p>Running as an independent in 2010, he stood on an anti-gambling platform and railed against the parlous state of mental health services – issues he still champions. He also threw his support behind Labor to help secure Julia Gillard minority government.</p>
<p>In recent years, Wilkie has been highly critical of the live export trade, Australia’s failure to legalise same-sex marriage, and the treatment of asylum seekers. </p>
<p>The challenge for the government will be working with Wilkie on a case-by-case basis, particularly on these issues and others concerning his electorate.</p>
<h2>Adam Bandt (Greens) – member for Melbourne</h2>
<p>Bandt was first elected to parliament in 2010, winning the previously safe Labor seat of Melbourne. </p>
<p>A lawyer by profession, Bandt has had a strong interest in human rights and social justice issues in both his legal and political careers. His PhD examined governments’ suspension of human rights.</p>
<p>In the 45th parliament, the Greens indicated they would focus on Medicare, subsidised dental care, the formation of a national body to protect the environment, and the end of offshore detention of asylum seekers.</p>
<p>It is also likely that Bandt will revisit issues he raised in the past for which he might find crossbench support. These include reforming politicians’ entitlements and political donations, and the need for a national anti-corruption body.</p>
<p>A Coalition government will continue to find working with Bandt and the Greens a challenge. Ideologically they are poles apart on issues from school funding and the environment to unions.</p>
<p>Bandt has stated that while the Greens <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/adam-bandt-says-greens-would-be-open-to-laborgreens-coalition-ahead-of-election-20160509-goq96g.html">would not be averse</a> to entering a coalition arrangement with Labor, they would <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/election-2016:-adam-bandt/7575916">not support a Liberal-National Coalition</a> government. </p>
<p>In the House of Representatives, Bandt could add weight to the sizeable Labor opposition.</p>
<h2>Cathy McGowan – member for Indi</h2>
<p>McGowan was re-elected for a second term in 2016. She <a href="http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-20499-218.htm">increased her margin</a> in the former long-term Liberal-held safe seat against Sophie Mirabella. </p>
<p>McGowan is a former Liberal Party member and electorate staff member for Ewen Cameron, a previous Indi MP. She has worked as a teacher in rural Victoria, a public servant, a consultant on issues affecting rural communities, an academic, researcher and company director. </p>
<p>McGowan’s strong local presence and deep understanding of local issues have seen her speak out on economic disadvantage, rural employment, improving infrastructure, telecommunications, renewable energy and transport. </p>
<p>While her <a href="http://www.cathymcgowan.com.au/parliament">voting record indicates</a> she has strongly supported the Coalition government’s policy agenda, her focus has been very much on the needs of Indi.</p>
<p>Since the election, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-03/election-2016-independent-mcgowan-rejects-speaker-talk/7565478">McGowan has said</a> she would work productively with the Coalition and would <a href="https://theconversation.com/turnbull-wins-more-crossbench-support-as-governments-numbers-still-to-be-finalised-62225">back the government on supply an confidence</a>. She has also highlighted her positive working relationship with Turnbull. </p>
<p>The government will face fewer challenges working with McGowan than some of the other independents and minors, but she will clearly put her electorate’s needs first, and is likely to favour the National Party’s regional agenda.</p>
<h2>Rebekha Sharkie (Nick Xenophon Team) – member for Mayo</h2>
<p>Sharkie is the political novice on the crossbench. The newly elected member for the South Australian seat of Mayo is also the first House of Representatives member of the newly formed Nick Xenophon Team (NXT). She is not, however, completely new to politics. </p>
<p>While coming from an administrative, conveyancing and small-business background, Sharkie has tertiary qualifications in politics and experience working for MPs. She worked with state Liberal MP and party leader Isobel Redmond and, for a brief time before resigning, with the man she unseated, Jamie Briggs. </p>
<p>During the election campaign, Sharkie drew attention to issues in her electorate, including youth employment, transport and access to medical services. She wants to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/06/30/there-is-a-bitter-battle-in-mayo-that-is-much-bigger-than-jamie/">focus on a range of issues</a>.</p>
<p>Her party leader Nick Xenophon has had discussions with Turnbull about issues of concern to NXT in the forthcoming parliament, including free-trade agreements (FTAs) and the future of the Arrium steelworks. The party believes FTAs are not in Australia’s national interest and wants to see them reviewed at the very least. </p>
<p>Sharkie tripped up on the issue of FTAs on the campaign trail and it’s unclear whether her inexperience and potentially loose party discipline will see NXT fracture like the Palmer United Party. Xenophon is, however, a more experienced leader and is more likely to hold the team together</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62116/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After a slim victory, how the Coalition works with the crossbench MPs will prove important to the success and stability of the Turnbull government.Tracee McPate, Manager, Strategic Programs and Outreach, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith UniversityRobyn Hollander, Associate Professor School of Government and International Relations, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/606392016-06-24T23:28:24Z2016-06-24T23:28:24ZPaying the piper and calling the tune? Following ClubsNSW’s political donations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/127054/original/image-20160617-11101-1mr4ssl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former NSW premier Barry O'Farrell struck a deal with ClubsNSW while in opposition.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Himbrechts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Part of the reason why the poker-machine lobby is successful in defeating any attempt to contain it is its capacity to give big money to political parties. It can also outspend most lobbyists on public campaigns.</p>
<p>We have identified 31 individual politicians or specific re-election campaigns from both sides of politics receiving ClubsNSW donations. These are the donations <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=48&ClientId=16043">we can track</a>; currently, donations of less than A$13,000 <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-does-our-political-donations-system-work-and-is-it-any-good-60159">do not need</a> to be publicly disclosed.</p>
<p>There is no suggestion the donations directly influence MPs’ decision-making. But while such donations don’t determine decisions they do, presumably, allow ClubsNSW to gain access to policymakers. </p>
<p>What’s also apparent is politicians hear the voice of ClubsNSW and other pokie operators loud and clear. Those seeking to reform poker-machine and other gambling regulations would argue this is to the detriment of good policy, and harmful to the well-being of those affected by gambling harm.</p>
<h2>Carrot-and-stick campaigning</h2>
<p>In October 2010, New South Wales’ then-opposition leader Barry O’Farrell <a href="http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=3D1D98B49789B59B0E460BF1B4B74CBE?sy=afr&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=3&clsPage=1&docID=SHD120520F61H12ISQK5">signed a “memorandum of understanding”</a> with ClubsNSW. This provided a raft of benefits for the clubs if he was elected, including a $300 million tax break and limits to competition.</p>
<p>Two months before O’Farrell and his gaming spokesman George Souris signed the deal, Julia Gillard began to stitch up a deal of her own with various crossbenchers to become prime minister. One independent MP, Andrew Wilkie, undertook to support Labor <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3001404.htm">on the basis</a> that it would introduce a system of pokie pre-commitment.</p>
<p>Half of Australia’s 200,000 pokies are in NSW; 70% of those are in clubs. Pokies make their operators a fortune – <a href="http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/aus-gambling-stats/index.php">more than $11 billion per year</a>, as of 2013-14, with about $5.4 billion of that in NSW.</p>
<p>It’s no surprise, then, ClubsNSW went to war over the Wilkie-Gillard reforms. If they were effective, they would strip out a substantial chunk of the pokie revenue – maybe as much as the 42% of pokie losses estimated to <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling-2009/report/gambling-report-volume1.pdf">come from problem gamblers</a>. With some clubs in NSW getting 80% or more of their revenue from pokies, any serious harm-minimisation measures would push them to the edge.</p>
<p>What the clubs did was textbook political campaigning. It involved both a carrot and a stick. </p>
<p>The carrot? Political donations to the major parties, and in particular to selected politicians from within the major parties. </p>
<p>The stick? A <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/the-lobby-group-that-got-much-more-bang-for-its-buck/">highly effective</a> marginal seats campaign, coupled with broadcast advertising and local campaigns targeting specific politicians proposing gambling reform.</p>
<p>The result was a very nervous Labor backbench, <a href="http://www.armidaleexpress.com.au/story/935470/labor-mps-revolt-over-pokies-deal/">particularly in NSW</a>. Kevin Rudd capitalised on this, promising to ditch the reforms <a href="https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/12996948/clubs-confirm-pokie-reforms-meeting/">if re-elected as leader</a>. In the end, Gillard gave in, abandoning the deal with Wilkie and overcoming her government’s dependency on his support by appointing Liberal defector Peter Slipper <a href="http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=3D1D98B49789B59B0E460BF1B4B74CBE?sy=afr&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=3&clsPage=1&docID=SHD120520F61H12ISQK5">as speaker</a>. </p>
<p>If that was the solution, the problem Gillard faced must have been wicked indeed.</p>
<h2>Money, money, money</h2>
<p>A search of the Australian Electoral Commission political donor records reveals that between July 1999 and June 2015, ClubsNSW declared political donations <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=56&ClientId=16043">worth $2,569,181</a>. Almost all of this money went to either the ALP ($886,505) or the Coalition parties ($1,682,676). </p>
<p>Other funds went to entities linked to the parties, including a <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=51&ClientId=16043">$29,600 donation</a> to the Liberal Party-linked Millennium Forum in 2012-13. This was just before the body was drawn to the public’s attention in unhappy circumstances before <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-liberals-launch-fundraising-body-to-replace-discredited-millennium-forum-20140725-zwppv.html">NSW’s Independent Commission Against Corruption</a>.</p>
<p>For its campaign against the Wilkie-Gillard reforms, ClubsNSW allied with casinos, the Australian Hotels Association, and major players such as the Woolworths subsidiary, pokie operators ALH Ltd. It declared additional expenditure of $3,478,581 for this during <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/PoliticalExpenditure.aspx?SubmissionId=48&ClientId=16043">2010-11</a> and <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/PoliticalExpenditure.aspx?SubmissionId=49&ClientId=16043">2011-12</a>. Of that, $2,989,600 was for broadcasting expenses.</p>
<p>Another $490,624 was spent on polling and electoral research – some of which may well have found its way <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/gambling-and-alcohol-money-to-target-antipokies-senator-nick-xenophon-greens-20160604-gpbjl5.html">into party-political hands</a>.</p>
<p>Lobbying politicians effectively may sometimes require exchanges of ideas and, clearly, the exchange of funds. Until 2010, ClubsNSW donated only to Labor and Coalition party coffers directly. After that period, donations began to flow regularly to individual politicians and their campaigns.</p>
<p>A number of individual politicians, or their re-election campaigns, were substantial beneficiaries of ClubsNSW’s largesse after 2010. These included the Coalition’s <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=55&ClientId=16043">Craig Laundy</a> ($20,000), <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=51&ClientId=16043">Craig Kelly</a> ($6,500), <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=51&ClientId=16043">Bob Baldwin</a> ($4,000), and <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=51&ClientId=16043">Luke Hartsuyker</a> ($3,000). On the Labor side, the recipients included <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=55&ClientId=16043">Joel Fitzgibbon</a> ($8,500), <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=48&ClientId=16043">Jason Clare</a> ($9,250), <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=51&ClientId=16043">Chris Bowen</a> ($3,700) and <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=51&ClientId=16043">Mike Kelly</a> ($3,000).</p>
<p>And a donation of $50,000 <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=49&ClientId=16043">went directly</a> to a Gold Coast PO box, naming then-Liberal Party federal director Brian Loughnane, in 2011-12.</p>
<p>Liberal MP Kevin Andrews received $40,000 in donations for his Menzies campaign account up until 2014-15. <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=55&ClientId=16043">Two of these donations</a>, for $20,000 and $10,000, were originally earmarked as being for the Liberal Party’s Victorian division. However, they were, in fact, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/follow-the-money-clubs-nsw-donated-to-kevin-andrews-victorianbased-menzies-200-club-20150726-gikryw.html">intended for Andrews’ campaign</a>.</p>
<p>Clubs NSW donated a <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Donor.aspx?SubmissionId=56&ClientId=16043">further $10,000</a> to Andrews’ campaign in 2014-15.</p>
<p>Andrews was a frontbencher with responsibility for gambling policy in the lead-up to the 2013 election. He opposed the regulation of poker machines, and was supported strongly by ClubsNSW <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/video/video-news/video-national-news/clubs-nsw-paid-20000-to-support-kevin-andrews-20150727-3zyr6">in the election campaign</a>.</p>
<p>Andrews became social services minister and was responsible for gambling once the Abbott government was elected. He repealed the Gillard government’s very modest gambling reforms <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2013/November/Gambling_reforms_to_be_wound_back">in November 2013</a>, just two months after winning government.</p>
<h2>Toward reform</h2>
<p>It seems there is a coterie of politicians on both sides who are trusted, or at any rate supported by, the pokies lobby. Whether they are agents of influence, intelligence conduits, neither, or both, we do not know. </p>
<p>What is clear is that gambling reform has been stymied by powerful vested interests. This has been facilitated – in fact, made possible – by very poor political donation disclosure laws. </p>
<p>If we are to have anything like a timely window into who is giving money to our politicians, and perhaps buying influence with them, reform of this system is urgently needed.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading:</strong> <a href="http://theconversation.com/is-there-any-hope-for-gambling-reform-in-a-new-parliament-60638">Is there any hope for gambling reform in a new parliament?</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60639/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from Victorian and South Australian governments (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Centre, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He is a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Australian Greens and of the Alliance for Gambling Reform. He submitted to the O'Farrell review and met with Mr O'Farrell during the course of his review. The research reported in this article was funded by the Alliance for Gambling Reform.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maggie Johnson is a recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award (APA) funded by the Australian government. </span></em></p>There is a coterie of politicians on both sides who are trusted, or at any rate supported by, the pokies lobby.Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityMaggie Johnson, PhD Student, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/606382016-06-23T20:05:48Z2016-06-23T20:05:48ZIs there any hope for gambling reform in a new parliament?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126846/original/image-20160616-19913-4ymbki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The poker machine industry is a business with a lot at stake – about $11 billion a year, in fact.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Jeffers</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since then-prime minister Julia Gillard appointed Peter Slipper to the speaker’s chair in 2011, the gambling lobby has appeared triumphant in defeating any substantial reform of gambling regulation.</p>
<p>Slipper became speaker because Gillard was under enormous pressure to back down on her agreement with independent MP Andrew Wilkie. Wilkie had agreed to support her minority government in the parliament, but one of his conditions was to introduce a pre-commitment system for poker machines.</p>
<p>The gambling industry took this very seriously. ClubsNSW and various associates saw the reforms off with a <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/the-lobby-group-that-got-much-more-bang-for-its-buck">highly effective and multi-pronged campaign</a>.</p>
<p>Kevin Rudd was agitating for restoration to the prime ministership, and promised to <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/leadership-speculation-kevin-rudd-the-reluctant-hero/story-fn7q4q9f-1226185157224">abolish the pre-commitment deal</a>. Nervous backbenchers were taking notice. Wilkie was let go, and Slipper’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/speaker-slipper-slips-in-as-gillard-claims-a-tactical-victory-4453">defection from the Liberal Party</a> meant Gillard kept the numbers on the floor of the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>Kevin Andrews, the Abbott government’s first social services minister, oversaw <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd051">the abandonment</a> of even the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1213a/13bd051">very modest reforms</a> Gillard legislated after she reneged on her agreement with Wilkie. These involved the introduction over a period of time of:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a “voluntary” pre-commitment system;</p></li>
<li><p>imposition of a A$250 daily limit on ATM withdrawals in gambling venues;</p></li>
<li><p>establishment of a national gambling research centre; and </p></li>
<li><p>establishment of a national gambling regulator. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Only the research centre survived.</p>
<h2>What is the federal government’s role?</h2>
<p>State governments traditionally regulate gambling in Australia. They tend to work closely with “industry” to promote gambling’s benefits, as they see them. </p>
<p>These benefits include <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5506.02014-15?OpenDocument">revenue</a> for cash-strapped state treasuries (about $5.75 billion a year, $3.5 billion of it from pokies), glitzy tourist attractions (even if most of the money lost <a href="https://theconversation.com/casino-wars-packer-echo-and-the-battle-for-the-grind-16031">comes from locals</a>), and happy gambling-business operators.</p>
<p>The downside – significant harm to gamblers and their families, friends and others – tends to be downplayed. Recent reports funded by the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, an arms-length government agency, puts the scale of gambling harm at about the <a href="http://www.responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/information-and-resources/research/recent-research/assessing-gambling-related-harm-in-victoria-a-public-health-perspective">same order of magnitude</a> as the harms of alcohol.</p>
<p>A lack of effective policy from state governments is why Nick Xenophon, and others like Wilkie and the Greens, have looked to the federal government to reform Australia’s gambling environment. </p>
<p>But the powerful forces arrayed against reform have kept it off the table since Gillard’s backdown. </p>
<h2>Where to start?</h2>
<p>There’s little doubt the federal government can regulate gambling. It has clear power to make laws about telecommunications – thus, internet gambling is its domain. The <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/iga2001193/">Interactive Gambling Act</a>, for all its faults, is evidence of that.</p>
<p>However, the <a href="http://workplaceinfo.com.au/resources/employment-topics-a-z/corporations-power-the-australian-constitution">corporations power</a> given to the Commonwealth by the constitution also provides a basis for regulating any activity undertaken by a corporation. Gillard was convinced that her government could do so.</p>
<p>But as the events of 2010-13 demonstrated, power doesn’t always flow from the words of the constitution, however elegant. Well-resourced business interests, whether they’re clubs, hotels, casinos or multinational bookies, have a habit of wanting – and getting – their own way.</p>
<p>Right now there is no enthusiasm among the major parties for gambling reform. The Liberals’ <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20to%20Help%20Problem%20Gamblers.pdf">2013 gambling policy</a> looked like the clubs <a href="https://theconversation.com/coalition-problem-gambling-policy-putting-the-fox-in-charge-of-the-henhouse-17232">wrote it</a>. It doesn’t appear to have one for this election – and nor does Labor. Perhaps they learned their lessons last time around.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the Coalition <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/communities-and-vulnerable-people/programmes-services/gambling/government-response-to-the-2015-review-of-the-impact-of-illegal-offshore-wagering">has proposed changes</a> to the Interactive Gambling Act. But none of these have been legislated, nor is any draft legislation available. </p>
<p>If these changes do come into effect, they may well be positive. Prohibiting online in-play betting, credit betting, and establishing a national self-exclusion register would be positive steps.</p>
<p>What hasn’t been contemplated, by either major party, is a prohibition on gambling advertising during sporting broadcasts. It also wasn’t countenanced by the O’Farrell review of the Interactive Gambling Act, and wasn’t considered in the government’s response.</p>
<p>It is probably not the gambling industry that has been most effective on keeping that off the agenda, however. The revenue that flows from all those TV ads goes into the coffers of the broadcasting industry. From there, it finds its way onto the bottom line of the major sporting codes, via inflated broadcast rights.</p>
<p>It is hard to find a politician who wants to get on the bad side of the TV networks, sporting codes and bookmakers all at the same time.</p>
<p>However, a phase-out of TV gambling advertising is likely to be effective at reducing the uptake of gambling problems. It was an initial and successful element of the <a href="http://www.quit.org.au/resource-centre/policy-advocacy/policy/advertising-and-promotion">campaign against tobacco</a>. Such a policy could be introduced over a number of years to allow the financial impacts to be factored in.</p>
<h2>What about the pokies?</h2>
<p>The biggest issue in Australian gambling, however, is the pokies. As Gillard found, this is a business with a lot at stake – about $11 billion a year, in fact, and largely in New South Wales.</p>
<p>Making pokies less addictive would be a great start to tackling the harm they bring. Changes to the machine’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/bright-lights-big-losses-how-poker-machines-create-addicts-and-rob-them-blind-49143">features</a> like the reinforcement schedules, uneven “reels”, and “losses disguised as wins” would help do this, as would reduced maximum bets and effective (not “voluntary”) pre-commitment.</p>
<p>Taxing giant clubs like the corporations they actually are might be a useful way to ensure the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-real-are-claims-of-poker-machine-community-benefits-49136">community benefits</a> asserted by the gambling industry actually flow. This was certainly the <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling-2009/report">Productivity Commission’s view</a>.</p>
<p>It would be great to get out from under Australia’s reputation as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/04/gambling-australians-bet-more-lose-more">world’s biggest gambling losers</a>. If Xenophon, Wilkie and others can influence the new parliament, the seeds of this might well be sown.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60638/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone has received funding from Victorian and South Australian governments (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Centre, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He is a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government's Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Australian Greens and of the Alliance for Gambling Reform. He submitted to the O'Farrell review and met with Mr O'Farrell during the course of his review.</span></em></p>Polls suggest that Nick Xenophon’s team will win a bag of Senate seats. Along with a re-elected Andrew Wilkie, and the Greens, will there be enthusiasm for gambling reform in the next parliament?Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/333632014-10-27T03:29:36Z2014-10-27T03:29:36ZWill the International Criminal Court prosecute Australia for crimes against humanity?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62775/original/56jx2ck2-1414363424.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Andrew Wilkie claims the Australian government is inflicting crimes against humanity upon asylum seekers and refugees.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Independent federal MP Andrew Wilkie has written to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), requesting the body investigate and prosecute the prime minister, Tony Abbott, and his 19 cabinet ministers over the treatment of asylum seekers.</p>
<p>In the letter, sent last week, Wilkie <a href="http://www.andrewwilkie.org/content/pdf/Andrew_Wilkie_Letter_to_the_ICC.pdf">alleges</a> that the Australian government is inflicting crimes against humanity upon asylum seekers and refugees in violation of the ICC’s <a href="http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf">Rome Statute</a>. </p>
<p>The acts Wilkie cites as evidence of these crimes include: </p>
<ul>
<li>imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; </li>
<li>deportation and other forcible transfer of population; and</li>
<li>other international acts causing great suffering, or serious injury to body and mental and physical health.</li>
</ul>
<p>Wilkie also claims that the government is violating provisions of the <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.htm">Refugee Convention</a>, <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx">Convention on the Rights of the Child</a> and the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx">International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</a>.</p>
<p>But what is the ICC, and what are the chances it will investigate Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers?</p>
<h2>Reaction to the claims</h2>
<p>Liberal MP Andrew Nikolic has <a href="http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/570545/20141023/australia-asylum-seeker-refugee-convention-tony-abbott.htm#.VEsW94uUeFZ">condemned</a> Wilkie’s “vague” and “embarrassing” accusations. He argues that the majority of Australians would see the claims as offensive and <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/liberals-hit-back-at-wilkies-decision-to-write-to-the-icc-seeking-to-prosecute-the-abbott-government/story-fnjj6013-1227098752092?nk=d9a2ca9b7a5335515c9a64d93f5b3d3d">against Australia’s national interest</a>.</p>
<p>Immigration Minister Scott Morrison <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-22/wilkie-want-international-probe-of-asylum-policies/5832702">derided</a> Wilkie’s request as an “attention-seeking” stunt. In his view:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia is a sovereign country that implements our policies consistent with our domestic laws and our international obligations.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Morrison said that the Australian government would <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/govt-not-intimidated-by-wilkie-court-move-20141022-3ilff.html">not be intimidated</a> into:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… a return to the failed policies of the past that resulted in unprecedented cost, chaos and tragedy on our borders.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>What is the ICC?</h2>
<p>The ICC is the first permanent international court of criminal jurisdiction. It was <a href="http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/about%20the%20court/Pages/about%20the%20court.aspx">established</a> under the 1998 Rome Statute to end impunity for the most grave international crimes. </p>
<p>Since its establishment, the ICC has opened 21 cases from nine locations. All those investigated to date have been <a href="http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/Pages/situations%20and%20cases.aspx">nationals of African states</a> and implicated in armed conflict. </p>
<p>The ICC operates on the <a href="http://legal.un.org/icc/general/overview.htm">principle</a> of individual criminal responsibility, as established in the Nuremburg war crimes trials: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State … crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Under Article 5 of the Rome Statute, the ICC has <a href="http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf">jurisdiction</a> over the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.</p>
<h2>Testing Wilkie’s claim</h2>
<p>Australia is a party to the Rome Statute and <a href="https://www.dfat.gov.au/un/international-law.html">states its commitment</a> to the ICC’s objectives. Heads of government and other state officials are <a href="http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf">not immune</a> from prosecution by the ICC. </p>
<p>For the ICC to initiate a prosecution, it would have to be persuaded that Australia’s prime minister and cabinet have committed grave violations of international law. In order to convict Abbott and his ministers of crimes against humanity, the ICC would <a href="http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf">need to conclude</a> that the acts alleged by Wilkie were:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since its establishment, the ICC has initiated only two investigations <em>propio motu</em> (on the prosecutor’s initiative), as sought by Wilkie. The first of the ICC’s two convictions to date was against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. The Congolese warlord was convicted of enlisting and conscripting <a href="http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/situations%20and%20cases/situations/situation%20icc%200104/related%20cases/icc%200104%200106/Pages/democratic%20republic%20of%20the%20congo.aspx">child soldiers</a> to engage in armed conflict. </p>
<p>The second of the ICC’s convictions was also against a Congolese militant. Germain Katanga was found guilty of being an accessory to war crimes in relation to a massacre of 200 Hema civilians.</p>
<p>A prosecution against members of the Australian government would be unprecedented. </p>
<p>Announcing his request to the ICC, Wilkie <a href="http://www.andrewwilkie.org/content/index.php/awmp/home_news_extended/icc_requested_to_investigate_prosecution_of_abbott_government">argued</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the government is pandering to racism, xenophobia and selfishness instead of acting like leaders … if they won’t listen to the swathe of community outrage, then hopefully they’ll listen to the International Criminal Court.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wilkie denied that his initiative was a “stunt”. He and his advisor, prominent lawyer Greg Barns, are confident that the Australian government is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-22/wilkie-want-international-probe-of-asylum-policies/5832702">guilty of crimes against humanity</a>.</p>
<p>Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers and refugees undermines our self-perception as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-global-reputation-at-stake-in-high-court-asylum-case-28951">responsible international citizen</a>. Australia has been condemned for <a href="http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/%28httpNewsByYear_en%29/5878309E774A4B2FC1257D4D0035F6D5?OpenDocument">violations of human rights</a> in this context, particularly in relation to its treatment of <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/human-rights-commission-keeping-asylum-seeker-children-in-detention-doesnt-stop-people-smugglers--so-why-do-it-20141007-10rcz3.html">child asylum seekers</a>. </p>
<p>However, the ICC is unlikely to initiate a prosecution against Abbott and his cabinet. Should it do so, the Australian government would surely reject the ICC’s claim of jurisdiction and refuse to volunteer its officials for trial in The Hague. In that case, the ICC would have no enforcement capacity and a conviction could not result in the punishment of the individuals involved. </p>
<p>Regardless, Wilkie’s initiative is a distinctive means of bringing the Australian government before the court of national and international public opinion. Enhanced international scrutiny is an important, if limited, means of holding Australia to account for its obligations to some of the world’s most vulnerable people.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33363/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amy Maguire does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Independent federal MP Andrew Wilkie has written to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), requesting the body investigate and prosecute the prime minister, Tony Abbott…Amy Maguire, Lecturer in International Law, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/311122014-09-02T00:52:05Z2014-09-02T00:52:05ZExplainer: Australia’s war powers and the role of parliament<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57873/original/d64rnfch-1409573881.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Andrew Wilkie argues that parliamentary debate and authorisation should be necessary for Australia to go to war.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Gary Schafer</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-to-deliver-arms-in-iraq-at-us-request-tony-abbott-20140831-10ajfj.html">announcement</a> of Australia’s involvement in dropping aid to Kurdish fighters engaged against Islamic State extremists in northern Iraq, questions have again arisen about who should control Australia’s military powers.</p>
<p>The most recent actions have been taken under the federal government’s prerogative power to deploy military force. The Greens and independent MP Andrew Wilkie <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/we-are-part-of-the-war-andrew-wilkie-and-greens-angry-at-iraq-announcement-20140831-10alrm.html">have argued</a> that the exercise of these powers should be preconditioned on parliamentary debate and authorisation.</p>
<h2>The government’s war powers</h2>
<p>Under <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s61.html">Section 61</a> of Australia’s <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/">Constitution</a>, the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen, exercisable by the Governor-General. By convention, this power is exercised on the recommendation of the Governor-General’s ministers. (The few exceptions, known as the “reserve powers”, are not relevant here.)</p>
<p>The Commonwealth’s executive power includes those powers vested in the Governor-General by the Constitution, powers vested in the government by legislation, and other powers that are supported by the common law. </p>
<p>This last category includes the prerogative powers. Prerogatives are those powers that are unique to government: powers that non-government entities, such as individuals and corporations, do not share. This category also includes the common law capacities: the powers enjoyed by everyone, which include the power to spend money, enter contracts and hold land.</p>
<p>A number of different types of executive power are relevant when we talk about Australia’s military, or war, powers. The first is <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s68.html">Section 68</a> of the Constitution. This vests the command-in-chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth in the Governor-General.</p>
<p>The second is the ancient prerogative power to deploy the armed forces overseas, including in war and other conflicts. This is an unusual and strong prerogative power. </p>
<p>Most prerogative powers are non-coercive. But under the war prerogative, the executive can undertake military engagements, including the deprivation of liberty, the infliction of intentional harm and even death. </p>
<p>Today, this prerogative power is supplemented by provisions in the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/da190356/">Defence Act</a> such as <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/da190356/s50c.html">Section 50C</a>, which states that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Members of the Army may be required to serve either within or beyond the territorial limits of Australia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The final power that is relevant is what is commonly referred to as the “nationhood” executive power. The nationhood power includes all those powers that the Commonwealth necessarily exercises as a sovereign nation. </p>
<p>In the past, this power has been found to support legislation criminalising sedition, and legislation enacted in response to the economic emergency caused by the global financial crisis.</p>
<h2>Relationship between the war powers and parliament</h2>
<p>The Commonwealth government does not require parliament’s approval before it decides to exercise its prerogative and deploy armed forces or declare war. However, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty mandates that parliament controls the executive and executive power. As the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1990/7.html">High Court</a> has explained:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whatever the scope of the executive power of the Commonwealth might otherwise be, it is susceptible of control by statute. A valid law of the Commonwealth may so limit or impose conditions on the exercise of the executive power that acts which would otherwise be supported by the executive power fall outside its scope.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The prerogative powers and the Commonwealth government’s “nationhood” power are both susceptible to control by parliament; they can be changed and even abolished. However, a 2001 Australian Federal Court <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2001/1329.html">decision</a>, involving the deployment of SAS troops onto the MV Tampa to prevent it from docking at Christmas Island with its cargo of rescued asylum seekers, indicated that the statutory displacement of the prerogative is not easily achieved. </p>
<p>In the decision, Justice Robert French – now Chief Justice of the High Court – held that while parliament could displace a non-statutory power, it would not be easily found that it had done so, particularly if the power was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… intimately connected to Australia’s status as an independent, sovereign nation state.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is also a question as to whether parliament could control or curtail the exercise of an executive power that is expressly conferred by the Constitution, such as the command-in-chief power vested in the Governor-General by Section 68. While it is not entirely certain, it would seem that parliament may control the exercise of these powers, but may not remove or curtail them to a significant degree.</p>
<p>What this means is that the Australian parliament may pass legislation that would require parliamentary approval for the deployment of military forces, or even require statutory backing to do so. However, these requirements would have to be explicit to displace a prerogative as important as the government’s war powers and must not go so far as to remove the commander-in-chief power.</p>
<h2>Should going to war require parliamentary approval?</h2>
<p>Parliament could enact legislation that sets up a pre-approval process for the exercise of the war powers. However, such legislation would have to be passed through both houses. Passage through the House of Representatives appears unlikely (for now), with <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/09/01/no-parliament-debate-on-iraq-involvement.html">bipartisan support</a> for maintaining the current position.</p>
<p>Maintaining the current position certainly has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/parliamentary-vote-would-dangerously-restrict-executive-in-war/story-e6frg6zo-1227044259489">benefits</a>. Relying on the prerogative allows the government to act decisively and respond flexibly to emergencies when they arise. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57941/original/5zs776rr-1409618293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/57941/original/5zs776rr-1409618293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57941/original/5zs776rr-1409618293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57941/original/5zs776rr-1409618293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57941/original/5zs776rr-1409618293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57941/original/5zs776rr-1409618293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/57941/original/5zs776rr-1409618293.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Debate about whether parliament should be involved is best undertaken at a time when military deployment is not imminent.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Peled</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Parliamentary approval will add (sometimes significant) delay to such responses. Parliament may not be sitting at the time a crucial decision is required. Parliamentary debate and procedure will itself lead to additional delay. Parliamentarians may be hampered in debating and coming to a decision by lack of access to highly classified information. </p>
<p>Parliamentary authorisation may limit the government in the prosecution of armed hostilities. This may give rise to the need for additional authorisation to be sought if the initial approval proves insufficient. There is also the possibility that by involving parliament, partisan politics could colour the decision-making process, and military actions may be approved or refused based on matters other than the national interest.</p>
<p>There is, nonetheless, much to be said for a parliamentary approval process. Involving parliament in this important government decision would bring a much larger, more representative institution into the decision-making process. This brings different perspectives to the debate and increases the legitimacy of any decision in the eyes of the wider public. </p>
<p>Involving parliament would allow the assertions of factual positions, such as the <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/howard-ignored-advice-and-went-to-war-in-iraq-20130411-2ho5d.html">now fabled</a> existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003, to be tested in a public forum.</p>
<p>A number of countries, including Ireland, South Africa, the United States and the Netherlands, now require some level of parliamentary involvement in the decision to deploy military force. Parliamentary participation in this decision comes in many forms. </p>
<p>Debate about whether the Australian parliament should be involved must be undertaken in a considered manner. This would preferably occur at a time when military deployment is not imminent, and the debate is not coloured and clouded by that conflict.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31112/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabrielle Appleby receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>With the announcement of Australia’s involvement in dropping aid to Kurdish fighters engaged against Islamic State extremists in northern Iraq, questions have again arisen about who should control Australia’s…Gabrielle Appleby, Deputy Director, Public Law and Policy Research Unit, Adelaide Law School, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/172322013-08-25T20:26:04Z2013-08-25T20:26:04ZCoalition ‘problem gambling’ policy: putting the fox in charge of the henhouse?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29803/original/y5gnpksy-1377234891.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Coalition's policy to combat problem gambling is treatment focused, excludes potential online competitors and makes no funding commitment. What influenced its creation?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Peled</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Coalition has <a href="http://lpaweb-static.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Coalition%E2%80%99s%20Policy%20to%20Help%20Problem%20Gamblers.pdf">released its policy</a> “to help problem gamblers” under that very title. If the betting markets are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-betting-markets-are-quite-accurate-17188">any guide</a>, the Coalition is poised to win government on September 7, so the likelihood is that this will be Australian government policy for some time to come. What does it promise?</p>
<h2>Specifics of the Coalition policy</h2>
<p>The Coalition policy is focused on providing services to people who have developed a gambling problem. It argues for more and better counselling and other treatment services, and more effective self-exclusion programs. It asserts that the best way to deliver these services is by establishing an industry council comprised of representatives of clubs and other gambling venues. </p>
<p>The policy attacks the Julia Gillard-Andrew Wilkie <a href="http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/gillard-government-defiant-on-poker-machine-pre-commitment-scheme/story-e6frfkp9-1226245169673">precommitment proposals</a> as a “licence to play”, echoing the line adopted by the clubs during their anti-reform campaign.</p>
<p>It does support a venue-based voluntary precommitment system. This would require a different card or account for every venue where poker machines are used. The Gillard-Wilkie proposal takes a jurisdiction-wide approach, where one card would fit all. Available <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/95708/25-appendixc.pdf">research on voluntary systems</a> suggests they are extremely unlikely to be utilised, however.</p>
<p>Further, the Coalition policy proposes no liberalisation of the online gambling environment. In doing so it attacks the Labor government’s rather modest proposal to allow online poker (with protections in place). The clubs also <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/clubs-push-for-online-casino-games-monopoly-20120706-21mj1.html">oppose</a> the liberalisation of online gambling – unless they get the licence to operate it.</p>
<p>The Coalition policy echoes current government policy on <a href="https://theconversation.com/live-sports-odds-ban-does-the-governments-plan-go-far-enough-14661">sports betting advertising</a>. If the industry doesn’t effectively self-regulate to stop live odds during games, the government will step in.</p>
<p>A sub-heading in the policy makes a reference to “better research” but no mention of this appears in the text.</p>
<h2>Harm minimisation and the policy’s limitations</h2>
<p>Harm minimisation is the idea that systematic reform can reduce harm, or perhaps stop problems developing in the first place. This is at the forefront of contemporary practice in dealing with dangerous products, especially those associated with addiction. </p>
<p>This concept is not mentioned. Neither are the concepts of consumer safety or consumer protection, the proposition that dangerous products should be modified to reduce harm. Both of these ideas are central to the thinking behind the <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling-2009/report">Productivity Commission’s 2009 approach</a> to reducing the costs of gambling, and improving the benefits.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29786/original/sp5mhvkx-1377226981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29786/original/sp5mhvkx-1377226981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29786/original/sp5mhvkx-1377226981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29786/original/sp5mhvkx-1377226981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29786/original/sp5mhvkx-1377226981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29786/original/sp5mhvkx-1377226981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29786/original/sp5mhvkx-1377226981.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An agreement between Julia Gillard and independent MP Andrew Wilkie over mandatory poker machine pre-commitment eventually fell apart.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, the Coalition’s policy is treatment focused, excludes potential online competitors and makes no funding commitment. It would be driven and delivered by the industry. This is itself at odds with the principle that those benefitting directly from a dangerous product have a rather obvious vested interest in making sure nothing disrupts their bottom line.</p>
<p>It alludes to the “small but important percentage” of gamblers who get into trouble, positioning the issues associated with gambling problems at the level of the individual - something the industry <a href="http://theconversation.com/disordered-gambling-focusing-on-more-than-just-problem-gamblers-16607">strongly supports</a>. </p>
<p>It is largely at odds with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission’s report on the gambling industry, but at the same time as it criticises the current government for being too focused on the commission’s poker machine recommendations. Of course, the commission focused on poker machines itself, since they account for more than 75% of Australia’s gambling problems.</p>
<h2>Where did the policy come from?</h2>
<p>The Coalition’s policy is unsurprising, coming from the party of individual responsibility. But it does represent a huge win for the gambling lobby, particularly Clubs Australia, which has opposed any effective harm minimisation measures (such as reduced maximum bets, effective precommitment systems or reductions in machine numbers). </p>
<p>It also guarantees the gambling lobby an exclusive place at the table. Little wonder they greeted the Liberal policy with <a href="http://www.clubsaustralia.com.au/election-news">unabashed enthusiasm</a>. They might well have written it themselves.</p>
<p>Given this, the context in which this policy came into being needs scrutiny as well.</p>
<p>Gambling is worth A$20 billion a year. More than $10 billion of it is via poker machines in clubs and hotels sprinkled throughout Australia’s suburbs. This is particularly so in NSW, where local venues make about $5 billion annually from their poker machines. The Productivity Commission has conducted two major inquiries into gambling’s effects. We know very well what needs to be done to alleviate the significant harm associated with gambling.</p>
<p>But operators of gambling venues stand to lose a great deal if effective reforms are enacted. The Productivity Commission estimated that 40% of poker machine revenue comes from problem gamblers, for example. The industry’s interest in policy is thus profound. This interest was well on display over the last couple of years, as Clubs Australia rolled out a well orchestrated and strongly resourced campaign against the Wilkie-initiated reforms of the Gillard government.</p>
<h2>Clubs Australia’s involvement</h2>
<p>The Clubs Australia campaign centred on spooking already nervous backbenchers, and has been <a href="http://inside.org.au/the-lobby-group-that-got-much-more-bang-for-its-buck/">well documented</a>. A measure of its effectiveness was that it certainly contributed to the Gillard government’s decision to recruit Peter Slipper as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Even a casual observer of Australian politics might have pointed out that such a move was unlikely to end well.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29788/original/n2pyt4vy-1377227230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29788/original/n2pyt4vy-1377227230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29788/original/n2pyt4vy-1377227230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29788/original/n2pyt4vy-1377227230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29788/original/n2pyt4vy-1377227230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29788/original/n2pyt4vy-1377227230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29788/original/n2pyt4vy-1377227230.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Casinos, live odds during sporting broadcasts, mandatory precommitment and harm minimisation remain important issues in Australia for gambling policy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Supplied</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For the clubs, however, this was a major watershed. Their power was now on display in federal politics as well as at the state level. In NSW, for example, the then-O’Farrell opposition entered into an <a href="http://www.maynereport.com/images/2012/05/13-16W2YUFKW00.pdf">agreement with NSW clubs</a> on gambling policy in 2010, in advance of O’Farrell’s electoral rout of the ALP in 2011.</p>
<p>This agreement promised tax breaks for bigger clubs (those making more than $1 million per year from poker machine gambling) and opposed the Gillard government’s precommitment proposals. Further, it promised to work with the clubs to improve counselling services, introduce voluntary (not mandatory) precommitment, and continue current settings for poker machines – such as the $10 maximum bet, the $10,000 load up, the easy availability of ATMs, and so on.</p>
<p>It also promised to allow clubs to operate multi-terminal gambling machines (MTGMs, which allow bets up to $100 and are effectively automated casino table games), and to oppose a second casino.</p>
<p>With the exception of the second casino, these provisions appear to have been honoured. So, the clubs (and their bedfellows in the hotel industry, including Australia’s largest operator of poker machine venues, Woolworths) have developed a pretty good relationship with the Coalition parties. From the Coalition’s perspective, the agreement cemented a relationship that had become possible by the divorce from Labor that the Wilkie proposals initiated. Driving a solid wedge into that relationship would have been well worth the deal.</p>
<p>For their part, the clubs and pubs took this relationship seriously, as the <a href="http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/altruistic-political-donations-wanna-bet/679/">pattern of their political donations</a> over recent years reveals. These donations spiked between September and December 2010 when $1.3 million was donated, most of it to the LNP. This was the timeframe within which the federal government was considering its options for poker machine reform.</p>
<p>The Coalition policy is highly risk averse. It poses no threat to the gambling industry, proposes no effective reforms, and posits the problem as one of a few disordered individuals. It also insures against the gambling industry making up with the ALP any time soon, thus denying them a traditional fellow traveller in important parts of working class Australia.</p>
<p>All in all, a perfect outcome for an industry with a lot to lose.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17232/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone was a member of the Ministerial Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. This group canvassed a range of research policy issues relevant to this article and reported to ALP Government Ministers Macklin and Shorten. Dr Livingstone's remuneration for participation in this group was paid to his employer (Monash University). The gambling industry was also represented on this group.</span></em></p>The Coalition has released its policy “to help problem gamblers” under that very title. If the betting markets are any guide, the Coalition is poised to win government on September 7, so the likelihood…Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, Global Health and Society, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/168392013-08-15T20:49:42Z2013-08-15T20:49:42ZVictory in Denison: a Shakespearean question?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29248/original/cgttpwm6-1376463200.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Andrew Wilkie will have to fight off challengers from the ALP, Coalition and the Greens to retain his seat of Denison.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>To Wilkie, or not to Wilkie? </p>
<p>That is the question confronting the electors in the Tasmanian seat of Denison on September 7.</p>
<h2>The last three years</h2>
<p>It’s been a long time since former prime minister Julia Gillard and Denison MP Andrew Wilkie signed the <a href="http://resources.news.com.au/files/2010/09/02/1225913/461143-aus-file-wilkie-deal.pdf">eight page agreement</a> on September 2, 2010, that helped secure minority government for Labor. In turn, it elevated Wilkie from an independent who secured <a href="http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-194.htm">21% of the first preference vote</a> and ran third behind the Labor and Liberal candidates on first preferences to a place in Australian political history.</p>
<p>Wilkie’s victory, elevated in the count by Greens preference flows and ironically finally secured on the back of Liberal Party preferences, brought largesse to Denison via significant investment in hospital funding and political influence in the 43rd parliament. That agreement also provided unprecedented access to the prime minister for Wilkie.</p>
<p>However, it all ended in great disappointment. Labor was able to <a href="https://theconversation.com/gillard-bets-the-house-while-wilkie-walks-over-pokie-reform-4991">ditch its commitment</a> to Wilkie’s poker machine reform on the back of Peter Slipper’s elevation to the speakership and the subsequent shift in numbers in the House of Representatives.</p>
<h2>What about this time around?</h2>
<p>The uncertainty attached to Denison has two explanations: one purely speculative and the other so odd that it invites a range of potential conspiracy theories. </p>
<p>Both explanations have a timeline divided by the Gillard minority government and Kevin Rudd’s resurrection as prime minister. When Julia Gillard was prime minister with a September 14 election date in sight, Wilkie’s prospects were clouded by a certain Coalition victory and the “New England syndrome”. Why would voters place their faith in an independent without influence in a parliament and government now in majority, with a massive majority as well?</p>
<p>Significantly, the Liberals – after a long delay - nominated a political novice to run in Denison from “out of town”, <a href="http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/06/21/381928_tasmania-news.html">Tanya Denison</a>, who had arrived in Tasmania from Queensland in December 2012. Opposition leader Tony Abbott <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-16/abbott-left-red-faced-over-denison-gaffe/4823802">couldn’t remember her name</a> when he visited northern Tasmania in July 2013, and Denison was also <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-21/liberals-name-denison-candidate/4771072">forced to remove comments</a> about the GST that suggested Tasmania was a burden on the other states from her Facebook page. </p>
<p>So, where was the high profile Liberal candidate who, on the back of a Coalition landslide, might challenge Wilkie and Labor in Denison? In April, prior to the selection of Tanya Denison as the Liberal candidate, Labor state secretary John Dowling suggested that Wilkie had done a deal with the Liberals and was effectively the de facto Liberal candidate, who would support the Coalition if elected.</p>
<p>At present, Labor and Wilkie are locked in a battle over a Labor billboard that proclaims: “Vote for Wilkie equals Get Abbott”. Wilkie <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-13/wilkie-demands-removal-of-27defamatory27-alp-billboard/4882708">claims</a> the material is defamatory and misleading and has written to the prime minister to demand its removal.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29249/original/2pvfm9h5-1376463517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29249/original/2pvfm9h5-1376463517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29249/original/2pvfm9h5-1376463517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29249/original/2pvfm9h5-1376463517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29249/original/2pvfm9h5-1376463517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29249/original/2pvfm9h5-1376463517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29249/original/2pvfm9h5-1376463517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Andrew Wilkie has demanded this billboard linking him with Tony Abbott be removed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/David Beniuk</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In addition, there was some speculation that if Wilkie was unsuccessful at the federal poll he would contest the state election in 2014, and if elected he would support the Liberals either in minority or majority state government. Wilkie has rejected this theory, but it remains unclear as to why the Liberals couldn’t find a competitive local candidate.</p>
<p>Labor selected a hard-working but relatively unknown novice candidate in social worker, Jane Austin. By contrast, the Greens have a high profile activist, Anna Reynolds, as their candidate. Denison is likely to be contested by at least seven candidates including <a href="http://palmerunited.com/staff/debra-thurley/">Debra Thurley</a>, contesting on behalf of the Palmer United Party.</p>
<p>To retain Denison, Wilkie must repeat his 2010 position – finish third at worst – and hope for preference flows from the Greens to elevate him to a winnable position. This might be complicated by the levels of animosity between Wilkie and some Greens’ supporters, but is unlikely to be decisive even if Labor and the Greens were to do a preference deal.</p>
<p>Denison is Tasmania’s Green seat, and Reynolds’ profile should deliver a primary vote in the 20% plus range. However, it will not be higher than Wilkie’s anticipated primary vote, which could out-poll the Liberal candidate.</p>
<p>Two local issues – a proposed <a href="http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/02/27/373336_tasmania-news.html">cable car</a> on Mt Wellington and a <a href="http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/04/12/376753_todays-news.html">light rail system</a> to the northern suburbs of Denison – will attract the attention of voters. On a national scale, the level of Newstart and youth allowances, Kevin Rudd’s asylum seeker policy, the carbon tax and the potential change to GST distribution are of interest.</p>
<p>For the 70,000 electors in Denison - largely snuggled under the majesty of Mt Wellington, taking in the cities of Hobart, Glenorchy and northern parts of the relatively affluent Kingborough municipality - who to elect in Denison remains a complex question with an uncertain answer.</p>
<p>A couple of weeks into the official election campaign and the political outcome in Denison is as foggy as when the infamous <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2009/05/13/2569108.htm">Bridgewater Jerry</a> – a meteorological fog – descended on the Derwent River and its upper reaches.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/16839/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony McCall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>To Wilkie, or not to Wilkie? That is the question confronting the electors in the Tasmanian seat of Denison on September 7. The last three years It’s been a long time since former prime minister Julia…Tony McCall, Senior Lecturer, Politics and International Relations Program, School of Social Sciences, , University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/131312013-04-01T20:30:25Z2013-04-01T20:30:25ZKeeping us honest: protecting whistleblowers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21828/original/4t8tdcwd-1364430667.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mark Dreyfus has put forward a new bill to protect whistlerblowers, but it falls short in several areas.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia has been fortunate enough to see mostly honest governments. We’ve experienced neither the corruption of 1950s Italy nor the tyranny of 1970s Brazil. We are not, however, without our issues: give a government enough time and it is almost inevitable that corruption or serious wrongdoing will arise.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-man-who-would-be-commissioner-bjelke-petersens-crooked-pick-12610">institutional corruption</a> of the Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland showed this. This was followed by the <a href="http://www.pic.nsw.gov.au/RoyalCommission.aspx">Wood Royal Commission’s revelations</a> of a thoroughly rotten NSW police force. </p>
<p>Currently, the Reserve Bank is embroiled in the nation’s biggest <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/reserve-bank-account-named-in-bribery-case-20120815-249bl.html">bribery scandal</a> through its subsidiary Securency. The Gillard government’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-12/gillard-launches-royal-commission-into-child-abuse/4367364">announcement of a royal commission</a> on child sexual abuse was a response to mounting evidence, including allegations of police collusion. These patterns of wrongdoing repeat. </p>
<p>Whistleblowing provides one system to reveal such serious wrongdoing. Done properly, it creates a method of improving integrity in government. Importantly it also prevents a small problem turning into a full scale catastrophe. As an example, no government can be sure that every person they hire will be honest: whistleblowing provides a fail-safe for this.</p>
<p>Last month, federal attorney-general Mark Dreyfus released <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5027">proposed legislation</a> designed to protect whistleblowers. However, while a step in the right direction, the bill fails to do so in important situations.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21838/original/7nnrqjj6-1364433458.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21838/original/7nnrqjj6-1364433458.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=927&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21838/original/7nnrqjj6-1364433458.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=927&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21838/original/7nnrqjj6-1364433458.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=927&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21838/original/7nnrqjj6-1364433458.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1165&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21838/original/7nnrqjj6-1364433458.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1165&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21838/original/7nnrqjj6-1364433458.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1165&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Julia Gillard announced a royal commission into alleged child abuse and cover-ups in the Catholic church.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Stephanie Flack</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Politicians</h2>
<p>The bill won’t protect people from making disclosures about the conduct of ministers (including the prime minister), the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate in many circumstances.</p>
<p>Clearly this is an utterly self-interested move by politicians and ought to be changed.</p>
<h2>Intelligence agencies</h2>
<p>The bill has exclusions for intelligence agencies and the use of intelligence information that result in whistleblowers effectively not being protected in a range of circumstances.</p>
<p>Intelligence agencies and their information must be included exactly because there is so little transparency around them. Such agencies employ people who seek to serve the public, but like the NSW police force in the early 1990s, it is possible pervasive corruption may erupt at some point. Given the far-reaching powers gifted to these agencies, it is vital corruption is stamped out early.</p>
<p>One could argue that the intensive screening processes used by such agencies would provide an effective fail-safe but as we saw in 2011, it too can fail. The Defence Security Authority pushed through thousands of falsified security checks on would-be employees, including top secret level clearances <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3218543.htm">sent to ASIO</a>. </p>
<p>How do we know about this major systems failure today? Three whistleblowers went to the media – after they unsuccessfully raised questions about the serious wrongdoing internally and were bullied for it. The initial failure of the fail-safe, and the bullying of whistleblowers that followed, illustrates why intelligence agencies cannot be excluded from this bill.</p>
<h2>The media</h2>
<p>Protection for those going to the media must also be better defined - and provide more solid ground to whistleblowers.</p>
<p>Most whistleblowers simply want to stop the wrongdoing. However, corruption may be systemic – from the bottom all the way to the top – making revealing the wrongdoing difficult or even dangerous. The media may be the only safe option to effect change. </p>
<p>There is strong public support among Australians for protecting whistleblowers and for permitting whistleblowers to go to the media. According to a <a href="http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/n-826">2012 Newspoll</a> commissioned by our research team, 87% of Australians support whistleblowers being able to turn to the media, even if it means revealing inside information to do so.</p>
<h2>The process</h2>
<p>Whistleblowers need to know very specifically when they are protected if they are to make the hard choice to reveal wrongdoing. The bill is vague in this regard. Research shows they do pay attention to formal paths set up for them so these need to be defined in far more detail.</p>
<p>The bill as proposed might not have protected whistleblowers revealing some of the misconduct from a scandal such as <a href="http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/publications/publications.nsf/DocByAgency/EB7A73F79B8C4FCA482569850012E10E/$file/report2.pdf">WA Inc Royal Commission</a> were it at a federal level. This is one way to test the bill’s robustness - and as currently drafted, the bill fails.</p>
<p>The current bill has two main benchmarks for comparison: Andrew Wilkie’s <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F15cdb75b-d437-4738-8c1e-7d076927a391%2F0050;orderBy=customrank;page=1;query=public%20interest%20disclosure;rec=2;resCount=Default">private members bill</a> and the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-23/act-government-whistleblower-legislation/4218198">ACT whistleblowing</a> legislation passed in August last year. Both set a high standard for any new legislation and both are better than Dreyfus’ current proposed bill. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21833/original/2ymnxp33-1364431443.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21833/original/2ymnxp33-1364431443.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=913&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21833/original/2ymnxp33-1364431443.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=913&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21833/original/2ymnxp33-1364431443.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=913&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21833/original/2ymnxp33-1364431443.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1147&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21833/original/2ymnxp33-1364431443.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1147&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/21833/original/2ymnxp33-1364431443.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1147&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Andrew Wilkie is both an advocate of whistlerblower rights and a critic of Dreyfus’ bill.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Penny Bradfield</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, the attorney-general has the opportunity to not only raise the bill to their standard, but to take the new bill a step further still. This could be achieved by providing financial support for the whistleblower. In Britain, often held up as being a zenith of whistleblowing legislation, the high cost of legal defense has become a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media-network/media-network-blog/2012/oct/19/whistleblowing-survey">point of failure</a>.</p>
<p>The new Australian bill could remedy this by a creating a defence fund specifically for whistleblower cases in the public interest. It could be self-funding by taking a percentage of any savings to the public purse realised as a result of whistleblowing. </p>
<p>Such a scheme would be a public interest adaption of the US <a href="http://www.phillipsandcohen.com/Qui-Tam-Whistleblowers/Qui-Tam-Explained.shtml">qui tam</a> legal remedies. Rather than the whistleblower receiving a large cheque (potentially creating the wrong motivation), they would receive free or subsidised legal support via the fund.</p>
<p>Whistleblowing is a core freedom of expression issue. It is critical we properly protect whistleblowers brave enough to step forward. It is not possible to ensure that everyone elected to or employed by government is angelic. But with good whistleblowing laws we can ensure that our collective better angels are watching out for the integrity of our public institutions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/13131/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suelette Dreyfus receives funding from the ARC through DP1095696 'The changing roles, avenues and Impacts of public interest whistleblowing in the era of secure online technologies.' She is affiliated with NGO project Blueprint for Free Speech which was involved with assisting Andrew Wilkie with his whistleblowing bill. </span></em></p>Australia has been fortunate enough to see mostly honest governments. We’ve experienced neither the corruption of 1950s Italy nor the tyranny of 1970s Brazil. We are not, however, without our issues: give…Suelette Dreyfus, Research Fellow, Department of Computing and Information Systems, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/104782012-11-02T03:36:18Z2012-11-02T03:36:18ZGambling research centre: more research or more delay?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17214/original/xk6vp6sr-1351829202.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The government’s reforms to gambling this week, including to the pokie machines seen here, have been described as “watered-down”. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Paul Jeffers</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In an agreement announced on Wednesday, the Greens <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-31/greens-back-pokies-reform-bill/4344746">indicated support</a> for the Australian government’s legislation (described almost ubiquitously in the press as “watered-down”) on poker machine pre-commitment.</p>
<p>The government’s bill provides that all poker machines sold in Australia from 2013 must have a capacity for voluntary pre-commitment, so that those who wish to do so may nominate a limit on their gambling expenditure. It is also proposed that a trial of pre-commitment in the ACT will generate evidence to determine whether mandatory pre-commitment should be implemented.</p>
<p>The legislation represents a considerably diminished version of the government’s earlier agreement with independent MP Andrew Wilkie over a system of mandatory pre-commitment, and for this reason was not originally supported by the Greens.</p>
<p>What appears to have got the legislation over the line is a commitment by the government to the establishment of a National Gambling Research Institute. Although details of this are sketchy, it appears that this will be housed in the Australian Institute of Family Studies and funded to the extent of about $1.5 million a year. It will apparently have an advisory board, with representation from academics, community and, it seems, the gambling industry.</p>
<p>Gambling research in Australia has had a mixed history. Although considerable resources have been devoted to it, particularly over the past 20 years (marking the period of mass expansion of poker machine and other gambling forms) there is sometimes publicly expressed disagreement about the extent and distribution of gambling problems, the exact nature of the harms inflicted by gambling, the relationship between gambling and physical and mental health conditions, the most effective mechanisms to prevent harm, and the efficacy and reach of treatment services.</p>
<p>Amongst the research community, there is a division between those who perceive gambling as an individual pathology, and construe the research agenda accordingly, and those who see it as largely socially determined, based on patterns of regulation, distribution and accessibility. These are far from mutually exclusive domains, but they tend to reflect disciplinary orientations. Further, gambling is a field with an enormous capacity to spawn very focused and detailed studies. These minutiae are often of great academic interest, but they may not advance understanding of the big public policy questions very much.</p>
<p>Much of the apparent uncertainty in the gambling literature, however, reflects industry perspectives. That is, there is much for industry to lose from certain research conclusions, such as whether or not $1 maximum bets on poker machines would reduce harm; such a measure would also almost certainly reduce gambling revenue. As with climate change, industry has variously muddied the waters, often to great effect.</p>
<p>Further, much gambling research in Australia has been funded by state governments, themselves collectively dependent on gambling revenue to the extent of over <a href="http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/gambling_treatment_clinic/resources/Facts_and_Figures%20Gambling_pdf.pdf">$5 billion a year</a>. Critics of this body of work (and I include myself in this category) argue that state-funded research programs have often been construed to avoid difficult questions, and rarely to challenge the status quo. As the political adage has it, one should never get between a state premier and a bucket of money, and it may be that state-funded gambling research programs tend to reflect this verity.</p>
<p>Indeed, when one state government (Victoria) established an independent Gambling Research Panel in the early 2000s, it ended up <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/State-axes-problem-gambling-research/2005/05/22/1116700595650.html">being shut down</a> after a few years of operation, without explanation and well short of its anticipated life. It had asked a few difficult questions, and the answers may not have been pleasing to government.</p>
<p>Whether the new gambling research institute can do a better job than the Productivity Commission’s <a href="http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/gambling-2009/report">two inquiries</a> is an interesting proposition. Indeed, whether it can do better than the commission in determining the efficacy of harm-reducing measures such as pre-commitment and $1 maximum bets is an open question. It will depend on the questions and themes the institute is encouraged to explore, whether it is subject to any form of constraint, and the resources available to it. Although more evidence is almost always desirable, deferring action pending further research is a classic delaying tactic of industries that deal in dangerous products — tobacco provides the classic example.</p>
<p>Promising a new body of research may delay reform more than it supports it, and this will be a challenge that this new institute will have to address. Industry opposition to mandatory pre-commitment was ferocious; the argument that more research, and specifically a trial of pre-commitment was needed, appeared early in the <a href="http://www.clubsaustralia.com.au/docs/default-document-library/15-june--clubs-launch-tv-and-radio-campaign.pdf?sfvrsn=0">Clubs Australia campaign</a>. It seems quite reasonable, but it also delays action for the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>Evidence will never be incontrovertible, or absolute. Even if such evidence were available, it seems inevitable that industry will never agree to harm reduction measures that, in its judgement, seriously threaten its revenue stream. If the new institute helps governments make up their mind, the money will be well spent. Time, as usual, will tell.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10478/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Livingstone received funding from the Victorian Gambling Research Panel in 2005-06.</span></em></p>In an agreement announced on Wednesday, the Greens indicated support for the Australian government’s legislation (described almost ubiquitously in the press as “watered-down”) on poker machine pre-commitment…Charles Livingstone, Senior Lecturer, Global Health and Society, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/49912012-01-21T07:13:19Z2012-01-21T07:13:19ZGillard bets the house while Wilkie walks over pokie reform<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7068/original/hpn2kj4g-1327128904.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Andrew Wilkie has withdrawn his support for the Gillard government.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/David Beniuk</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Gillard government finds itself in the same position it held at the start of 2011. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-21/wilkie-withdraws-support-over-broken-pokies-deal/3786040">withdrawal of support from independent Andrew Wilkie</a> means that, like this time last year, the government holds a one seat majority in parliament. Indeed, the government could not be able to hold its majority had Peter Slipper not been made Speaker last year. </p>
<p>But does Wilkie’s withdrawal mean the government will go bust? He has said has a preference for stable government but the political arithmetic means the government could still face serious problems in future without his support.</p>
<p>In his <a href="http://www.andrewwilkie.org/content/index.php/aw/press_releases/">statement</a>, Wilkie said:</p>
<p>“I can no longer guarantee supply and confidence for the Government because the Prime Minister has told me she can’t honour the promise to introduce mandatory pre-commitment on poker machines by the end of 2014.</p>
<p>"I will only support motions of no confidence in the event of serious misconduct and not support politically opportunistic motions. I will consider budget measures on their merits.” </p>
<p>Wilkie, who first won the Tasmanian seat of Denison in 2010, initially agreed to support the Gillard Government following an agreement that would bring about significant reforms to gaming machines with the aim of tackling problem gambling. </p>
<p>The plan to mandate pre-commitment technology on pokies machines, however, was met with much opposition from pubs and clubs who depend on the revenue from their gaming machines. Clubs Australia launched a major campaign against the proposed reforms and the issue became a major concern for Labor, especially in marginal seats in NSW and Queensland.</p>
<p>With Labor already polling poorly in these states, it was a somewhat pragmatic decision for the prime minister to propose a compromise deal and blunt pokies reform as a political issue for her government. Rather than implement the full suite of reforms, Gillard’s proposal would see a year-long trial of pre-commitment technology in the ACT.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7069/original/cf74yzc9-1327129546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7069/original/cf74yzc9-1327129546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7069/original/cf74yzc9-1327129546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7069/original/cf74yzc9-1327129546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7069/original/cf74yzc9-1327129546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7069/original/cf74yzc9-1327129546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/7069/original/cf74yzc9-1327129546.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Julia Gillard risks her credibility being attacked by walking away from her deal with Andrew Wilkie.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Julian Smith</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While not going ahead with the Wilkie deal may seem like getting pokies reforms off the agenda until the next election, the government appears to have opened up two major issues for itself.</p>
<p>The first issue is that of timing. The next election, if the government was to go the full term, would be held in August next year. This means there are some 18 months which the government must maintain its one seat majority. </p>
<p>But, as this term of parliament has highlighted, the numbers can change at any time. This would be encouraging for the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, as he could seek to sway other independents and try to form a majority and take government now. The ultimate irony would be if Peter Slipper was to somehow decide to return to the Coalition and thus take Labor’s majority away.</p>
<p>Labor would clearly also be hoping for no MP, especially from a marginal seat, to be forced from parliament through ill health or other reasons. Because, based on opinion polls, it would be a struggle for Labor to hold on in a byelection.</p>
<p>The second issue is that which will most likely be pushed by the opposition; trust. Gillard still appears to be carrying the burden of having deposed Kevin Rudd to become prime minister in the first place. Gillard’s famously chronicled “broken promise” of bringing in the carbon tax generated much debate and arguably led the government to slide in the opinion polls last year. </p>
<p>With Wilkie now questioning the prime minister’s ability to keep a promise, the issue of trust will be just that bit more difficult for the government to defend.</p>
<p>The Australian Greens have already vowed to introduce pokies machine reforms through a private member’s bill. If this was to go through parliament it would make the Greens look like a party more capable, if not more willing, to tackle problem gambling compared to Labor. </p>
<p>With the Greens already attracting many former ALP voters, the implications of breaking the Wilkie deal could be damaging for Labor over the longer term. If nothing else, it would make the Greens appear in a stronger position in the policy debate.</p>
<p>Commentators will question Labor’s wisdom on this policy decision, but Gillard still has over a year, and the resources of government, to turn public opinion around. But the problem for Labor is that this will re-energise debates about the “trustworthiness” of the government. The stakes are high and the next tranche of opinion polls will give some insight as to whether Gillard’s gamble has paid off.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4991/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zareh Ghazarian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Gillard government finds itself in the same position it held at the start of 2011. The withdrawal of support from independent Andrew Wilkie means that, like this time last year, the government holds…Zareh Ghazarian, Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/49792012-01-19T02:04:14Z2012-01-19T02:04:14ZGillard’s pokie rethink shows weakness while Wilkie wavers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/7024/original/ztv9x5yw-1326936448.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Andrew Wilkie must decide whether to walk away from the Gillard government.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As speculation about Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s commitment to gambling reform grows, Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie is weighing up the pros and cons of a compromise deal with the government.</p>
<p>Wilkie has previously said he will withdraw support from the minority government unless pokie reform is passed. But Gillard’s new numbers in the lower house, following the installation of Peter Slipper as Speaker, mean she can still govern without the cross-bencher’s support.</p>
<p>Gillard may <a href="http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/wilkie-weighs-up-pokie-deal-threat-20120118-1q58b.html">propose a watered-down version</a> of Wilkie’s original proposal, which will involve postponing legislation until 2016, and implementing a trial of Wilkie’s proposed pre-commitment technology in the ACT.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/wilkie-demands-qbn-clubs-in-pokie-trial/2425246.aspx">Wilkie has now said</a> he will only strike a compromise deal with the government if trials are also slated for the New South Wales town of Queanbeyan, just outside Canberra. </p>
<p>The Conversation spoke with Macquarie University’s Dr Craig Mark about the fallout for the government, and for man-in-the-middle, Andrew Wilkie.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Is Gillard’s backdown on pokies legislation as simple as the fact she has more wriggle room since <a href="https://theconversation.com/speaker-slipper-slips-in-as-gillard-claims-a-tactical-victory-4453">Peter Slipper was appointed Speaker</a>?</strong></p>
<p>Exactly. She can now afford not exactly to ignore Andrew Wilkie, but at least if the deal does fall down and if he does decide to withdraw support for her government, she does have that extra wriggle room. Ideally she should have some form of compromise to make sure Wilkie stays on board, because the numbers are still pretty tight if there’s something happening with Craig Thompson or some other MP falls under the proverbial bus or has to step down.</p>
<p><strong>Do you think former Labor powerbroker Karl Bitar’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/fair-game-why-karl-bitar-lobbying-for-crown-is-undemocratic-1476">appointment by Crown Ltd</a> last year could have anything to do with Gillard’s change of heart?</strong></p>
<p>Cynics would make that connection, but in general, Labor MPs for marginal seats, particularly in New South Wales, have come under intense pressure from lobbyists for the gaming industry. Peter Garrett in particular for Kingsford Smith, as well as other MPs on the central coast and south coast. So anything that gives them some breathing space and reduces the pressure on them will be welcomed by those ALP members who are on very thin margins.</p>
<p>The short-term interests of the ALP might be slightly easier but it’s probably not going to help in the long-term because the pokie lobby, and Clubs Australia in particular, are always going to be opposing any form of pokie reform, including a trial, which is probably the compromise Gillard and Wilkie may head towards.</p>
<p><strong>Does this backdown affect Gillard’s credibility?</strong></p>
<p>It certainly gives Tony Abbott and the Opposition another weapon for them to use against Gillard and the government’s image of unreliability. They already have the line that it’s another broken promise and of course it doesn’t help her relations with the Greens since they’re also in favour of pokie reform. Anti-pokie campaigners such as Senator Nick Xenophon, Tim Costello and now GetUp will also continue to criticise the government.</p>
<p>While the government may be buying itself short-term space in defusing this issue, long-term it’s probably not going to help them. Particularly since out in the community there seems to be a lot of support for some sort of pokie reform. People are, in general, concerned about problem gambling so it’s not ultimately a good look for the government. It shows they’re not really willing to confront admittedly a very difficult issue. So it’s short-term gain for long-term expediency.</p>
<p><strong>Where does all this leave Andrew Wilkie?</strong></p>
<p>Well he faces a difficult position. Whether he backs down and compromises to get a much weaker deal – which he obviously would prefer not to have – or does he actually bite the bullet and make good on his threat to withdraw support from the government? Again, this would not bring down the government, they would still have the numbers for minority government in the parliament with the cross-benchers. </p>
<p>It’s hard to see how backing down would make him better off, since he’s not really in any position to switch support to Tony Abbott and the Coalition. That wouldn’t give the Coalition government, given the change in numbers and Peter Slipper. So he’s in a bit of a difficult position, Andrew Wilkie.</p>
<p>My feeling is he’ll probably back down in the promise of getting more reform later down the road, but again it’s just putting off difficult decisions further down the line, which doesn’t give the image of decisiveness, strength or good governing, really.</p>
<p><strong>What role could the Greens play here? Could they still force Gillard’s hand on pokies?</strong></p>
<p>Say there is a compromise deal which requires legislation, of course they [the Greens] control the balance of power in the Senate, so that’s where they might put more pressure on. They could insist on stronger amendments for pokie pre-commitment, particularly by having $1 limits – that’s the main sticking point. But again, if the government doesn’t want to go down that path under pressure from the pokie industry, well they’re stuck in stalemate. </p>
<p>The Greens could decide to make things more difficult for the government on other issues as well, such as their concern about logging in Tasmania, stronger action against Japanese whaling, welfare reform and a whole bunch of issues. Instability in the Senate in what’s going to be the year before an election doesn’t look good for the government’s image either.</p>
<p><strong>How does this bode for politics in 2012?</strong></p>
<p>It just shows the dire nature of politics for the start of the year. There’s a lack of will to pursue reform that could have some social good. But of course the Opposition and Tony Abbott are showing their “win at all costs” approach of negative Opposition tactics, just to emphasise the image of weakness for the government. It’s not an inspiring start for the political year.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4979/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig Mark does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As speculation about Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s commitment to gambling reform grows, Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie is weighing up the pros and cons of a compromise deal with the government. Wilkie…Craig Mark, Associate Professor of International Studies, Kwansei Gakuin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.