The economic benefits from breaking up Federal Group’s
exclusive license to operate electronic gaming machines (EGMs) in pubs and
clubs are an assortment of half-truths and baseless assertions.
Whilst the Federal Group holds an exclusive
license, it does so as the lead member of an oligopoly which includes the pubs
and clubs which provide premises for EGMs in the community.
Currently player losses are split between the
government (via taxes), the pubs and clubs (via commissions) and Federal Group
(network fees), roughly one third each.
The government’s proposal will split losses
between the same three groups. The government will get a larger share as will
pubs and clubs. Federal Group will get a smaller share if it remains as network
manager, which is highly likely. Its network losses will be softened by the extra
from its twelve top performing EGM pubs.
The government rather than use the tax windfall
to fund government services will hand it back to Federal Group as compensation,
by reducing EGM taxes at its two casinos. The current EGM exclusive license was
a gift pursuant to a Deed that is about to lapse. The reason for paying compensation
is yet to be revealed.
The end of Federal Group’s monopoly is an
inaccurate description of what will occur. It will be a continuation of the
same oligopoly but with a different split. The existing sole license plus
permits for each pub and club will be replaced with licenses for each venue. It
will be harder and more costly to monitor compliance. No advantages will flow
except to pubs and clubs who will get a bigger cut. The government’s 2016 policy
was to allocate licenses using a market mechanism such as a tender. The Federal
Group and the Tasmanian Hospitality Association (THA) jointly submitted in
August 2017 that a market based solution “would be very costly and generate uncertainty and
massive disruption for all stakeholders”. The government changed its mind.
Leaving aside questions of social
harm, it’s not the monopoly per se that is a problem. It’s the super profits
that flow to a selected few. Monopolies and oligopolies can be quite benign if
regulated and taxed in the public interest. It’s not as if venues with their own licenses will offer a
more competitive product. Prices, in this case the percentage extracted from
players, won’t change. Any competition will be confined to offers of $10 parmas
and free bus trips for residents of old folk homes.
We’re likely to hear much talk about the need
for ‘competitive’ tax rates. This is based on two false premises. The first is the
industry pretence that the tax burden falls on license holders. EGM players
bear the cost. Woolworths may remit GST but shoppers bear the cost. The after-tax
amounts retained by license holders will be from players. A small amount may
arguably be a payment for providing a leisure experience to players, but most
are excess profits from a government sanctioned oligopoly. How can receiving a
lesser gift be construed as a burden? It’s false to claim taxes need to be
competitive. How player losses are split doesn’t affect player behaviour. Nor
will it affect investment decisions as the second premise, the need to be
competitive compared to other States, implies. We don’t need more EGM
facilities. EGM numbers are capped. Why should EGM operators be allowed to make
much higher returns than the rest of the hospitality industry that already benefits
from a large government funded marketing budget?
Federal
Hotels and the THA, have claimed gifting licenses to existing EGM hotels and
clubs “will allow them to make further
investments in their businesses. These
investments would have a positive impact on the communities in which these
hotels and clubs operate, especially in regional areas that badly need new
investments, increased economic activity and jobs.” That may happen but is equally true of almost every industry
everywhere. It’s hardly a reason for singling out EGM venues for additional government
handouts. There’s no evidence whatsoever that assistance to EGM pubs is the
best way to boost economic activity anywhere.
Back in 1993 the Federal Group was bitterly
opposed to extending EGMs into the community. In its 1993
submission to the Legislative Council inquiry into the matter it observed:
“Claims of substantial economic benefits
through the development of expanded facilities in hotels and clubs may be
overstated. It is generally acknowledged that Tasmania is over supplied with
licensed premises. In this situation, revenue from machine gaming in many
instances would be applied to debt reduction or hoteliers’ profits rather than
improved facilities...” Or maybe to paying $250 million in dividends
to interstate shareholders as the Federal Group has done in the period since
1997 when EGMs were let loose following its change of mind about EGMs in the
community after negotiating a more favourable deal.
The government is always dismissive of the
social harm argument by constantly asserting 99.5 per cent of the population
use EGMs responsibly. That figure includes all those who avoid EGMs like the
plague. Between 25 and 40 per cent of regular players become problem gamblers. We
could similarly trivialise the ice epidemic by using the same deceptive
analysis.
Dismissing problem gambling and instead
focussing on the right to gamble was a message from a Love Your Local
ambassador campaigning in the
last election against a proposal to remove EGMs from the community by suggesting
his mother’s monthly trips to her local to happily lose $10 was a fundamental
right and an important contributor to our social fabric. The right to add 75
cents a week to a pub’s bottom line deliberately diverted attention away from problem
gamblers without whom EGMs wouldn’t exist. It was a disingenuous proposition.
The government has been slow to
detail post 2023 EGM arrangements. Finding economic arguments to justify gifts
to a privileged few at a time of a budget emergency will be a Sisyphean task.
The writer is a non-executive director of a
company with tourism interests. Published in The Mercury 11th
January 2020.
The drug pusher mentality of the Federal Group and all of the pokies venues ignore the self-exclusion option for addicts due to the knowledge that without the addict dollar the EGMs would not be profit making enough to have in their venues. The only reason that pokie venues remain open in the early AM hours of the morning is the fact that only addicts make up almost all of people who play at this hour which is so convenient for the government and pokie barons. Due to this fact, neither Federal or the other pokie venues deserve their pokie licences.
ReplyDeleteThe Liberals look after their pokie baron cronies and blame the addict and ignore the proven fact that pokies addiction is as serious as crack cocaine or heroin.