Caring for each other and reducing harm restores liberty, it doesn’t remove it
Freedom and choice matter. Being able to live your life, take risks and make your own decisions is a core part of living in a free society. But freedom has never meant leaving people to fend for themselves when things go wrong.
In any strong community, when someone is struggling or facing harm, we step in to help. Sometimes that support comes from family or friends. Sometimes it comes from community organisations. And sometimes it comes from government, through laws and policies designed to reduce harm and protect people from systems that can cause real damage. Gambling harm is one of those cases. We know it doesn’t just affect individuals — it ripples out to families, workplaces, communities and government budgets.
Some argue people experiencing gambling harm should simply bear the consequences of their behaviour. That view ignores the biological and psychological realities of addiction — and the environments designed to exploit it. Poker machines are deliberately built to keep people playing, using speed, lights, sounds and near-misses to override self-control. Venues reinforce this by luring people in and keeping them there through lighting, free food and drink, loyalty programs and other inducements. When gambling shifts from choice to compulsion, freedom is already being undermined.
Freedom of choice matters, but we don’t abandon people when addiction takes hold. We don’t stand by and let them sink or swim. Freedom is not just the absence of rules; it’s the ability to make decisions without systems actively working against you. When someone is addicted to gambling, their capacity to choose freely is compromised. Stepping in to reduce harm is not an attack on liberty — it’s an attempt to restore it.
That’s what harm-minimisation policies are about. Introducing guardrails, like a mandatory poker machine pre-commitment card, does not remove the choice to gamble. It allows people to keep gambling, while reducing the risk that harm spirals out of control — just as seatbelts reduce harm without banning driving.
The Tasmanian Government knew this. It asked Deloitte to assess the impacts of introducing a mandatory pokies card with loss limits and other safety features. Deloitte’s conclusions were clear. A mandatory card would significantly reduce gambling harm, cut poker machine losses by up to 46 per cent, boost the state’s economy, create jobs, and reduce long-term costs to government in mental health, housing, policing and corrections.
And yet this week the government formally walked away from that policy, revoking its own 2022 ministerial direction to the Liquor and Gaming Commission to prepare for implementation of the player card. A policy it once proudly described as “nation-leading” has been dumped.
The government now claims it is waiting for national momentum — but concedes there is no interest from other states or territories in a national approach. Instead of acting on clear evidence, it has announced a grab-bag of measures with no demonstrated track record of reducing harm: mandatory facial recognition in venues, extended closing hours, and limits on ticket-in, ticket-out systems.
There is no clear evidence these measures work. There is no detail on how they will be implemented. There is no transparency about costs. In a meeting with the Premier this week, he even appeared uncertain about whether key technology exists yet, or when it might be ready.
What is clear is what these measures avoid: anything that would meaningfully limit losses for people at highest risk — or reduce the profits poker machines generate.
The Premier and his Treasurer defend this approach using the language of “personal freedom”. Tasmanians should not be fooled. Governments restrict harmful behaviour all the time when the evidence supports it. What’s happening here is different. The language of freedom is being used to create the appearance of action on gambling harm, while ensuring poker machine venues can continue to profit from it.
We can have the freedom to choose how we spend our money and a government and community that protect people from the predatory design and harm of poker machines. Freedom without a safety net isn’t liberty. It’s a gamble — and the stakes are far too high.