The annual deluge of political donations data has been public since Wednesday morning and in media terms it proved to be a one-day wonder.
The $14 million spent by the tobacco industry fighting plain packaging legislation was the biggest single number that stood out, but the pokies industry could yet trump that number when the 2011-12 figures are finally released on February 1 next year. Pokies industry donations for 2010-11 got a brief mention in yesterday’s coverage and they certainly make for interesting reading when totalled up. Try this for size:
Labor pokies money
ACT ALP
Canberra Labor Club: $613,511
Federal ALP
AHA: 101,600
Clubs NSW: $27,500
Australian Casinos Association: $2266
NSW ALP
Sutherland District Trade Union Club (“Tradies”): $100,000
Clubs NSW: $79,850
AHA: $79,850
Victorian ALP
AHA: $150,000
Crown Casino: $25,000
WA ALP
Burswood Casino: $22,000
Total for ALP: $1.2 million
Liberal and National Party pokies donations
Federal Liberals
AHA: $105,000
Woolworths: $16,500
Clubs NSW: $15,000
NSW Liberals
AHA: $330,000
Clubs NSW: $207,000
The Warringah Club: $50,000
Star City Casino: $40,000
Harbour Beach Hotel: $11,000
NSW Nationals
AHA: $125,705
Clubs NSW: 50,000
Star City Casino: $64,300
Victorian Liberals
AHA: $70,000
Victorian Nationals
AHA: $50,000
WA Liberals
Burswood: $25,000
SA Liberals
AHA: $20,000
Total for Liberal and National parties: $1.18 million
How amazing that the industry managed to give almost exactly the same figure to the two major parties, both of which appear to be committed to Australians remaining the world’s biggest gamblers.
As the largest hotel group in the country, it is clear that Woolworths has been the biggest single contributor through the Australian Hotels Association (AHA). This will make the position of federal Liberal gambling spokesman Kevin Andrew quite interesting when Manningham City Council moves to introduce a “double rates” regime on four Woolies pokies venues and one non-Woolies venue in 2012-13.
Kevin and I have had quite a spat in the local Murdoch paper over the past fortnight, which began when the following letter was published in The Manningham Leader on January 25:
Is anyone else appalled that Manningham’s federal representative, Kevin Andrews, is continuing to perform his role as Tony Abbott’s attack dog opposing proposed reforms to reduce the estimated $5 billion a year lost on the pokies by problem gamblers?
Manningham councillors from across the political divide voted 8-1 in favour of comprehensive Federal action last year and polls have consistently showed that a strong majority of voters support pokies betting limits and/or mandatory pre-commitment to end Australia’s embarrassing status as the world’s biggest gamblers in per capita terms.
Perhaps Mr Andrews should conduct a straw poll of the hundreds of residents who will gather on Australia Day at the council offices to see who has received his annual “Menzies Awards” for community services.
It is shameful and enormously socially damaging that more than $60 million is lost on the pokies in Manningham each year — a figure comparable to the total amount of rates received by council.
As a prominent political conservative and devoted Catholic, why is Mr Andrews opposing reform when church groups from across the board are demanding action?
Indeed, Catholic Social Services was named as a founding member of the new “Stop The Loss” coalition launched by Andrew Wilkie, Tim Costello and Nick Xenophon in Sydney last Friday.
The following feisty response from Kevin Andrews was published in the Manningham Leader two days ago:
It comes as no surprise that Stephen Mayne (“Losses too great”, Opinion, January 25) would attempt to misrepresent those he disagrees with.
The Coalition is committed to helping problem gamblers. We believe that any proposal that is to effectively deal with problem gambling has to go beyond just any one measure.
This is why the Coalition is undertaking a robust policy development process that is canvassing industry and community views to find a sensible approach to gambling reform.
We want to help problem gamblers overcome their problem.
We believe that this can only be achieved by a range of measures, including improved counselling and education measures that afford long-term relief from problem gambling.
All Stephen Mayne and Julia Gillard would do is to prolong the problem to fuel their politically opportunistic agenda.
That Stephen Mayne would suggest I turn a ceremony honouring volunteers in our community into a political event just shows how out of touch he really is.
But then again, we have come to expect this grandstanding from Stephen Mayne.
Kevin Andrews MP, Doncaster
Hmmm, after three years of cordial relations with our local federal MP, it seems this pokies issue is going to really liven up proceedings leading into council elections at the end of October.
*Stephen Mayne is a City of Manningham councillor and was not paid for this contribution
12 thoughts on “Mayne v Andrews: big parties awash with pokies cash”
jchercelf
February 3, 2012 at 2:17 pmKevin Andrews
It would be difficult for me to agree with anything that man thinks is right.
he is not on the side of the angels, and is particularly disliked by the 80% + of Australians who have expressed their urgent approval for a bill to legalise Assisted Suicide in this country.
kevin along with another supposedly DO GOODER were resonsible for scuttling the NT Euthanaisa Bill which had become LAW in the 1990’s
He is a man of no import …
JC Herself
John C
February 3, 2012 at 2:55 pmI think the donation under NSW Libs should read Harbord Beach Hotel, not Harbour. This is the establishment of former AHA president John Thorpe who once said: “Look, democracy’s not cheap. Democracy’s not cheap”
klewso
February 3, 2012 at 3:44 pmI thought “community views” were pretty well established – as were those of the industry “making a living off people losing money/gambling”?
klewso
February 3, 2012 at 3:50 pmBut one makes bigger “donations”?
(What’s this “Word Press Error/You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.”?)
Stephen Hoy
February 3, 2012 at 8:17 pmHas Andrews outlined the coalition’s “robust policy development process” or “range of measures” ? Don’t want to discredit a very long sitting member, if you will, but surely by now “robust policy development process” is a sad and useless spin phrase for “we’re not doing much but the proposal is bad, ok.”
LJG..............
February 3, 2012 at 10:58 pmWhat Irritates me is this constant talk about “counselling” as a method of solving the problem when the idea of pre-commitment/low impact pokies is to stop people from getting into trouble in the first place. Walk into any boarding house in the nation and have a chat to any alcoholic or drug addict about some counselling and see how far it gets you. Yes it may work when the person with the problem has reached a point where they are willing to change but it’s mostly up the person themselves to do the work. By the time the gambler has got to counselling the industry will have their cash thank you very much.
Oh and ads. Yep they really work. I wonder how effective drink driving ads would be without booze buses. Or speeding ads without fines. Or smoking ads without the price hikes. Please.
dennisargall
February 4, 2012 at 8:31 amConsult the community is code for won’t change mind, I suppose.
Mainly the community is ‘consulted’ by Abbott weighing with another rednecked appeal to gutter instincts on any issue. Still no sign of capacity to govern, but with the poverty of community faith in the whole business of democratic government, that probably does not matter any more…
Banpokies1
February 4, 2012 at 2:04 pmPoliticians all must support a bill enough to be a majority…to get it passed. We are getting a plebiscite on Carbon Tax, if that bill goes through parliament successfully…so why not ask our politicians to ALL support a plebiscite for pokies? Cheaper to run these plebiscites at the same time perhaps?…and unlike a referendum they are not binding, but the ‘community view’ would be clearly established once and for all. Or are they ALL too scared to ask US? The people?
The fact that Liberals and others would support 2 supposedly effective pokies reforms…1) increased counseling [that already HAS failed…as people are too embarrassed to use it…and it comes in too late] and 2) Optional or voluntary pre-commitment…[that is PROVEN to have failed whenever it has been used]….makes us suspicious.
The Liberals are as we speak organizing a ‘task force’ to interview pokies-affected people…and they have cherry-picked those invited…to make sure that they get the answers they are seeking.
We need to license pokies users, to make them aware that they are NOT playing harmless games with harmless toys! OR….BAN POKIES!
linda domaschenz
February 5, 2012 at 2:04 amMajor parties are addicted to cash cows from not just Clubs Aus or Phillip Morris. Take time to reflect on privatisation of our railways etc. The $ being pumped into coffers was a godsent for the Nats re TOLL etc. Refer to the AEC.
Until the general public realises why some policies or promises don’t eventuate due to lobbying and the donations we have no hope of true democracy.
And- why does it take the AEC so long to produce the donations figuires for public perusal? That is what I personally find infuriating. We probably all know how the coffers are filled but surely the AEC could serve us better.
This particular issue gets me mad,hopping mad.
And yet when Graeme Wood donates to The Greens at the last Fed election it was plastered all over MSM and portrayed as hypocrisy?
To read today that the Vic Govt has overruled the Castlemaine community in Vic is of much concern. The Shire doesn’t want any more pokies, the Enough Pokies community representative group don’t want any more pokies-yet that the state Govt is allowing 65 in Castlemaine is cause for concern. Like I first stated- Govt reliant on the cash cow.
Perhaps these major political parties should seek a wider membership base, eg higher membership fees or come clean with the average punter aka voter. Something has to give- it’s not on, influencing major policies.
But unfortunately the average voter is unaware of what really goes on behind the scenes and is continually influenced without realising- just go to the Hun comments for verification of that.
warwick
February 6, 2012 at 1:00 amId imagine its tax purposes Linda.