Saturday, 21 April 2012

The Failure of the ALP

Regardless of Andrew Wilkie's analysis of the wording designed to save the Government's useless legislation what resounds from the events of Friday, 20 April 2012 is the failure by the ALP of simple management.

Poker machine reform is supported by the electorate. Andrew Wilkie was willing to support the Prime Minister's choice to take her government down the path of mandatory pre-commitment. Mandatory Pre-Commitment was the Gillard Deal.

Mr Wilkie's support was given to the Gillard Deal despite Mr Wilkie's preferred evidence-based option of the $1 bet coupled with a ceiling on losses of no more than $120 per hour. This was the Productivity Commission's recommendation that could be implemented without a trial.

What happened was that the hard work of poker machine reform was assumed to be done by someone else. Mr Wilkie assumed the Prime Minister would do this within caucus and with the independents. Maybe Ms Gillard thought Mr Wilkie was going to do the hard yards with other independents. Neither did either. For whatever reason.

But Andrew Wilkie is not the government. The ALP are and the ALP demonstrate garbage government and garbage management. The Gillard government has failed to discharge its responsibility to those damaged by these dangerous machines.
Our Prime Minister seems more obsessed with the retention of her own position within her party.


The result of Mr Wilkie's consideration of new wording to the proposed legislation will either nothing or a shit bill that accomplishes nothing and likely to be thrown out in the Senate anyway.

The harm of poker machines continues.


quiet said...

Sadly I agree with most of these comments. I always saw Labor's appointment of Slipper as Speaker as Machiavellian move to lessen Wilkie's influence. Gambling reform lost out to the influence of the NSW Labor Right who are reported to have orchestrated that move to protect their vulnerable seats in Western Sydney.

What has happen with Slipper's disgrace is sheer karma for Gillard and her party.

If Gillard had kept her promise to Wilkie and put it to the test, Labor would have been seen as principled and who knows what would have happened after that?

If the reforms had not gone through the Liberals would have been disgraced themselves because the community does want reform. Maybe some acceptable compromise could have been more transparently negotiated,

I personally don't think pre-commitment will work. Keeping bets at $1 would be more effective, and cutting back on machine availability is another possible approach. Something better than pre-commitment might have been negotiated if Gillard been willing to put the matter to the vote.

She has lost my vote now.

Anonymous said...

Paul, can you explain why you believe the information supplied by cyenne on formspring (today 25.5.12) is 'sweetly naive'.

PokieWatch said...

On the issue of introduced bills, one should remember that Sen X introduced a bill for $1 bets in 2009 that has failed to even get remembered.

To your question....

"Naive" is defined as "showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment"

"Sweet" in this context is defined as "charming and endearing"

For Tom to suggest given the experience of the last few years that two bills might ever get through parliament shows a charming (given his good intentions) lack of experience.

It is the equivalent of Sarah Palin's "wishful thinking".