Adelaide newspaper The Advertiser ran an article yesterday about poker machine reforms. Titled “Wilkie proposal a gamble: Authority”, the article (written by state editor Greg Kelton) covered comments made by Alan Moss, the presiding member of the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority.

The tone of the article was quite clear. Moss had made a series of statements in the IGA annual report to parliament that strongly suggested that the current proposed poker machine reforms (mandatory pre-commitment and low-spending poker machines) carried with them a number of significant risks… and that they were, as the headline said, a “gamble”. Costs were mentioned, both in terms of revenue for the state government and implementation costs for the industry. Yet despite this, they were still supporting the reforms.

This seemed a little odd to me. As far as I knew, the IGA had always been strong supporters of the pre-commitment concept in general, and these reforms in particular. These remarks seemed out of character… or perhaps, out of context.

So I decided to take a look for myself. Two minutes on Google was all it took to find the IGA’s annual report for 2010-2011, which is where Moss’ comments were made. Ten minutes was all it took to read his report. And the reality of Moss’ statement is very different from what Kelton’s article led me to believe.

Alan Moss’ statement was four pages long. The part that concerned poker machine reforms was two pages long. Yet this article focused on maybe a dozen lines, taken completely out of context.

In his statement, Moss made it quite clear that the IGA were long-term supporters of pre-commitment for poker machines, saying this (near the start):

“Pre-commitment is not a new idea, or even a particularly revolutionary one. It has featured in regulatory and policy discussions over the last 15 years. It was recommended by this Authority in the report of its 2005 inquiry into Smartcard Technology. It was unequivocally recommended by the Productivity Commission in
2010.”

And concluding with this:

“The public debate on pre-commitment still has a way to go. The Authority will continue to support the Wilkie Proposal in the public debate and to encourage others to do so also. The end outcome will be determined by Australia’s law-makers. Regardless of the outcome, the Authority is satisfied that those deciding that outcome will have been fully informed about the issues, the risks and the possibilities and will be fully able to account for their decision.”

On the matter of costs, Kelton’s article had this to say:

“It has been estimated that the State Government would lose up to $421 million over three years if a compulsory pre-commitment scheme is introduced and would cost SA hotels and clubs up to $200 million to upgrade software and replace almost 12,700 machines.”

Yet this was not part of Moss’ statement. These estimates come from the South Australian government and the gambling industry; their inclusion in the article (sandwiched between statements attributed to Moss) makes them appear to come from the IGA. In reality, Moss said this:

“It has noted the claims of some in the industry about cost (which mirror submissions the Authority found unpersuasive in 2005)…”

And while Moss did speak of risks, he immediately followed by stating how those risks should be mitigated:

“What will be key for casino, hotel and club licensees is a concerted and focused program to enrol regular customers into a pre-commitment system or to inform them about their low-intensity gaming options, and to develop the staff and management competencies to deliver on these. What will be key for regulators and governments will be to create the optimal environment for this work to be done.”

In other words, it is important for clubs and pubs to embrace the reforms and make every effort to encourage their patrons to do the same… and it is important for governments to come to the party and not stand in the way.

Kelton made no mention of this. He focused solely on the risks stated by Moss and made no reference whatsoever to the solutions. And given that it is the industry and state governments that are putting up the strongest opposition to these reforms, then surely the risks are of their own making.

Ultimately, Alan Moss’ statement in the IGA annual report confirms their support for the reforms, and highlights risks and how they should be handled. It does NOT state that they are a “gamble”, as Greg Kelton’s article suggests; quite the opposite.

And given that Moss’ statement in the annual report was made more than two months ago (30th September 2011), I fail to see how this can be considered news at all.