Life With Brian
Leadership not Tantrums
19th Dec 11
Rugby league personality Phil Gould and Fr Chris Riley have much in common. Each has achieved considerable success in his chosen field. Each has a high profile in Sydney. Each is willing to speak authoritatively on his particular domain. Each has a proven capacity for media self-promotion. Each is something of a “pin-up” for a high profile organisation. Each has an audience.
Now each has offered us compelling evidence for the insidious and pervasive nature of poker machine addiction in New South Wales. Each of them has used their profile in their own area of expertise to appear authoritative in a completely different arena.
In July, it was Mr Gould calling a government minister “hysterical” and proposed restrictions on poker machine gambling “unreasonable”, claiming legislation would not help problem gamblers and “will severely damage rugby league and other sports” (The Sun-Herald 10 July 2011). He followed this in October with his very own special brand of hysteria attacking the Prime Minister as “the worst prime minister in Australia’s history” before a crowd of more than 1,000 at Campbelltown RSL. This month it was Fr Riley claiming mandatory pre-commitment technology for poker machines will not help problem gamblers and will deny charities money they currently receive from clubs.
Mr Gould is more flamboyant than Fr Riley but the similarities of their arguments are striking. It is hard to tell whether Phil Gould is the Fr Chris Riley of rugby league or Fr Chris Riley is the Phil Gould of the Catholic Church!
Each speaks on the possible impact of legislative proposals on problem gamblers as authoritatively as if they were speaking within their area of expertise, but with no substantiating evidence. They simply assert proposed measures will not work. Each then has the honesty to reveal his underlying anxiety, that his particular interest may lose its current share of poker machine revenue.
In their own way they reveal that people who lose beyond their means on poker machines are not the only addicts, the organisations Mr Gould and Fr Riley love and represent are also addicted to poker machine revenue.
In doing this they have done everyone a service. They have highlighted the extent of poker machine addiction in our community.
Poker machines have proved so effective at draining money from those who can least afford to lose it and reallocating it to wealthy companies and state governments that many powerful organisations have a vested interest in keeping the cash flowing and increasing it in any way possible.
We cannot blame clubs and hotels and their respective associations from doing their utmost to defend their legal right to fleece the economically vulnerable through poker machines. In doing this they appear to have learnt from the successful campaign of the mining industry against the super profits tax which contributed to Kevin Rudd’s demise last year.
Their strategy is the now recognisable and very successful corporate dummy spit. Like a toddler throwing himself on the ground demanding attention through his rage and threatening to continue until you alleviate his pain, they use their considerable resources, media power and connections to proclaim the world as you know it and your local community will fall apart if there is any move to alleviate the pain of struggling families battling the effects of pokie addiction.
The toddler in the shopping mall tries to intimidate her parents. High profile corporate tantrums are designed to intimidate politicians, sporting and community groups and the community as a whole. They also provide ready material for Sydney shock jocks whose primary skill is tapping and amplifying the ugliest streams of anger and outrage in the community. Mr Gould and Fr Riley have chosen to become the public face of these tantrums.
The tantrums cannot and should not be ignored. As the federal government tackles the scourge of poker machines amongst the economically vulnerable it must recognise how many business models are reliant on poker machine addiction. It must work with clubs, hotels, charities, sporting and community groups and state and local governments to wean the community of New South Wales from this addiction.
However, that does not mean the federal government should not legislate. Despite the discomfort and public embarrassment you do not give in to the tantrums in the mall and the government should not give in to the tantrums in the hotels and clubs. What is needed is firm and understanding leadership which does not focus solely on problem gamblers, but can progressively lead the whole community away from our reliance on their addiction.
Now that’s the sort of leadership which would be worthy of the profile of Phil Gould and Fr Chris Riley.
Written by Brian L Smith, Executive Officer, LCSA
Comments on this article
Well said Brian. I had a tantrum of my own watching this years NRL broadcast when Phil Gould ranted against the pokie reform legislation. As you've said in your blog, it wasn't evidence based just kept repeating, won't work, will hurt. Just like a tantrum! I lodged a complaint with channel 9 and they claimed it was spontaneous opinions of their commentators, despite the fact they had logos and website links on screen which were obviously prepared by the station. Since then they have been caught out as one commentator confessed he was reading off a prepared script. Obviously the truth gets lost in corporate sells interest.
I am sick of big money campaigns by the corporate sector ranting against govt policy, like the mini g tax, when communities most likely to benefit from reforms don't get a matching voice. But Clubs Australia have taken this to a hypocritical new level by claiming they are "standing up for communities". Well Neighbourhood houses in communities around oz see the damage pokie addiction does to the families and children of addicts, and to the person themselves. Any reforms that can limit this damage is vital and a no brainer. Chris Riley has done himself and his org a huge disservice by saying that reforms that.might stop some of the very families and youth he works with becoming homeless in the first place (thru not losing their rent money in these blood sucking machines) are not worthwhile?!!
These reforms must happen, we as a community sector have to support them AND wean ourselves (as you said Brian ) off the income we receive, as it is income drawn from suffering people in our own communities.
So to Phil Gould, clubs Australia and Chris Riley - you don't speak for us or our communities, and so as andrew Demetriuo from the AFL said about clubs Australia , "will you just please shut up"!
Great article Brian. You have expressed very eloquently the nub of my concern. There is a very ugly fashion emerging around political argument at the moment. Just because I say it is bad or worst or won't work then it is thus.
I think it is important to question the evidence for such pronouncements. Often most evidence, on balance, will support progressive policy reform. It seems that for some just the mere hint of contestability of any evidence leads quickly, and sometimes habitually, to denial. My reaction is fast becoming the banal "so you say".
To my knowledge niether Gould or Riley have been particularly vocal on the need for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Bipartisan and collective action on progressive reform based on evidence is still possible.
Phil Gould is now the General Manager of my NRL team - The Penrith Panthers. Our home ground is called 'Centrebet Stadium' after our major corporate sponsor. Do you see a pattern emerging here?
As a Rugby League fan I understand that sports clubs do offer important social outcomes for communities and I appreciate that, much like ourselves, they are not-for-profit organisations that serve social and cultural needs beyond just putting on games to entertain us.
What I notice more and more is the claims by sports and social clubs that they can't survive without the proceeds of gambling and sponsorships. However I also notice that over recent decades sports like Rugby League, which used to be a much more grass roots competition, has become grossly commercialised and now constitute multi-million dollar industries from which media and other corporations make massive profits.
Rugby worked very well as a social and sporting competition well before it became big business and yet now it appears to depend on generating ever more revenue, from any means available, for its survival.
This is a sad example of how the dominant discourse and practices of corporatisation comandeers our social institutions under the guise of sponsorship while enslaving within the business plans of the corporate elites.
I don't have an objection to capitalism per se but I think we are starting to see that social capital is equally, if not more important. If we can no longer rely on economic stability we'd better learn to value our social assets and hope no corporation finds a way to patent them or convince us to gamble them away on the chance of making some quick and easy cash.
Keep up the good work, LCSA members!
A few years ago I was working in South Sydney for an organisation working with a diverse community addressing a myriad of community needs including the effects of problem gambling on families and the community as a whole.
On occasions I was trying the local restaurants, looking for good food, for the right price and a nice environment. Amongst the variety of different cuisines, smells and flavours, the local pub had certainly its place with an affordable meal and live sport coverage in the background!
I liked going to this local pub for a meal in the evening, until I saw so one of our regular participants accessing the problem gambling program, slotting note after note into a poker machine... We came eye to eye, neither of us could say hello (not even insincerely)! We both struggled to ignore the awkward encounter the next day.
As a first generation migrant to Australia I understand that today many people associate pubs with TAB and pokies. I hear pre-pokies stories of how local pubs were the hub of the community, a place to go for everybody, even a breeding ground for aspiring musicians, offering gigs to local talents every night... Wouldn’t I visit my local pub more frequently if that was the case today?