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 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.
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.
In his statement, Wilkie said:
“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.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join the conversation
Comments (12)
Bruce Moon
Bystander! (logged in via email @imap.cc)
.
We know the views of the politicians in Canberra and both the pokie industry and anti-pokie lobby.
But, I can't recall reading anything about how ordinary Australians are thinking on this matter.
I'm not talking about the 'heads' for either the pokie industry or anti-pokie lobby, but the larger society.
I suggest that voice may be instructive as to how this debate should/may continue.
Cheers
Paul Richards
(logged in via Twitter)
Bruce - We saw big business trying to take over the internet with the SOPA bill in the US stopped in it's tracks. Voices can be heard if directed.
http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/pokies-reform/pokies/pokies-petition
Paul Richards
(logged in via Facebook)
Wilkie has a point, we need to put better quality politicians up;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvlIvVkoyZA
Scott Brown
PhD Candidate, UNSW (logged in via email @kodamapixel.com)
Malcolm Turnbull conducted a small survey on attitudes toward problem gambling late last year: http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/uncategorized/survey-on-problem-gambling-the-results/
The results should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt, but it does show some interesting links between those electorates in which problem gambling has been identified and resistance to the proposed laws.
Terry Mills
lawyer retired (logged in via email @skymesh.com.au)
Ever since this idea of mandatory pre-commitment was first suggested wise heads have been saying that we need a monitored trial it to see if it actually changes the betting habits of addicted gamblers. For some reason Andrew Wilkie has resisted this and has insisted it's his way or the hiway. I think that Julia Gillard has adopted the prudent and sensible approach in insisting on a monitored trial to see if this expensive strategy actually works. This is what I expect from our Prime Minister.
Rob Crowther
Architectural Draftsman (logged in via email @westnet.com.au)
I though it was the Productivity Commission's way or the highway.
My understanding is Xenophon gave him a clear suggestion very early on that if was to get anywhere he needed to stick to expert report and subordinate his own prejudices on the matter.
The expert report is from the Productivity Commission.
I personally thought he did a fairly good job of it.
As for cost.
I am no expert in programming but can cobble together some useful code in Visual Basic if pushed. I would be looking at using Object Oriented Programming but only because the rest of the world has been doing so since I don’t know when.
Given OOP then everything is already declared and debugged so the change is likely northing more then
decMaximumBet = 1.00
with the 'decMaximumBet =' already written.
I would be happy to get 25 grand per machine for changing 3 digits and a decimal point.
Peter Evans
Retired (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
I have yet to see any commentary or analysis of the gambling reforms proposed by the Government, limits on ATM withdrawals etc. Certainly they are not all the answer but I hope like the first steps to reduce smoking they can grow over the years to something really effective and like the reforms on smoking attract real community aceptance and support along the way. As the changes with smoking have shown it can take a long time to entrench lasting change in community views. It is certainly interesting that Clubs Australia seems to be acting like the tobacco companies with its support for such insidious behaviour and opposition to change.
Wilke has withdrawn his guarantee of support but should remember that he has made gambling reform front page news and got what might be the first steps in real action. I understand that he has said he will support the reforms proposed by the Government. It will be very interesting to see if the Opposition supports these changes.
Ross James
Engineer (logged in via email @bigpond.net.au)
"I will consider budget measures on their merits.” - Hang on - isn't that what he's supposed to always do?
Phil Kelly
Retired (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
Anyone who plays the pokies knows they defy the laws of probality. In the old days you could go and spend a couple of hours after lunch with your friends, lose twenty each and no one was the poorer for the experience. Try it now and you are home before the washing up is done.
Talk to pokie addictS and they generally agree that pre commitment is a good idea. They feel they would stop before they go into the chase mode. They generally agree that the clubs are no longer there to serve the needs of their members and that their campaign clearly demonstrated the hideousness of the sector.
Hardy Gosch
Mr. (logged in via email @hotmail.com)
What fascinates me is the over reliance of the MSM these days on "opinion polls" manufactured by the five major opinion poll pushers. It is interesting to monitor the effect this constant bombardment has on the psyche of the nation especially this far out from an election.
wilma western
(logged in via email @bigpond.com)
The article concentrates on hypothetical political outcomes of the government's decision not to present legislation that mirrors Mr Wilkie's position rather than the pros and cons of the various policy positions re pokies reform . If the issue is so important to Australian society , it should be examined on its merits , and the campaign should aim at convincing all political players , not concentrate on pillorying the PM. I agree with the measured and sensible comments of Peter Evans . Is there…
show full comment
Paul Richards
(logged in via Facebook)
No one has to pillory the PM, she has a microscope on her because she is a woman. Any deviation from the political centre of gravity on this issue and she carries it's weight greater than a male.
Is this morally, ethically or spiritually right. No.
That is the nature of the political centre of gravity, it's a force without reason.