Gambling reforms defended amid criticism of 'cowardly' outcome

Tasmania's treasurer has defended the state's proposed pokie reforms, saying any improvement in harm minimisation is better than sticking with the current system.

The government previously committed to implementing a "nation-leading" mandatory pre-commitment card, which would have capped losses at $100 a day, or $5000 a year.

But, that policy was dropped in favour of different measures, including a 'ticket in, ticket out' system, facial recognition technology to identify people on the self-exclusion list, and limits on ATM withdrawals.

The government has said the cashless card has been "parked" until there is a "national approach".

On Friday, Eric Abetz faced questioning by a parliamentary committee over the government's policy change, which has faced heavy criticism from anti-gambling advocates and concern from the state's own Liquor and Gaming Commission.

Mr Abetz told the upper house committee that comparisons should only be made to the current system.

"The reality is operational complexities of the proposed card-based system, for example the need to create a centralised banking system, would have delayed implementation and increased cost significantly," he said.

"I would say that I invite everybody to judge the reforms … against the current system as it exists. 

"If you do the compare and contrast with that, you will see substantial improvements".

Approach criticised as 'cowardly'

Earlier this week, anti-gambling and lived experience advocates told the committee the government's measures would have minimal harm-minimisation benefits, and in some cases could even increase losses.

Mark Kempster, from the Alliance for Gambling Reform, urged the government to have the "courage" to reinstate its cashless-card plans.

"It's just cowardly to try and push back to the other states to go 'we're just going to fall in line and follow suit with everybody else'," he said.

"You have to at some point stand up for what's right and what the vast majority of people probably really do want, and to stop gambling harm across the country and across our state."

Anglicare Tasmania chief executive Dr Chris Jones told the inquiry that even if the government's suite of proposed measures were tallied up, the impact would still be "minuscule".

Mr Abetz said he appreciated many would like to see the reforms go further.

"I accept that and understand that, but to assert that all the changes I've outlined somehow don't increase the capacity for harm minimisation, I think, defies logic," he said.

The treasurer said the assessment that improvements would be "minuscule" still demonstrated a "positive change" to the current system, even if "minimal".

Consultation in the spotlight

Mr Abetz was asked what evidence had been the basis for the reforms, and who had been consulted with, including any independent harm-minimisation experts.

"As a government, we make decisions on the basis of all the evidence that we've got together, including from Treasury, and we stand by our decision as being a sensible, middle-of-the-road type decision which enhances harm minimisation," he said.

"If people want to say it doesn't go far enough, you know what, with respect, I can understand that.

"But to try to suggest and assert that this is somehow at the behest of the industry, and they somehow wanted this package, all I can tell you is no."

Mr Abetz said there was consultation with peak body Hospitality Tasmania.

"Because what we didn't want to see was business disruption to the extent that it would prejudice the viability of businesses, and that's what you have to balance up with all these things," he said.

"I think we've landed in a good space."

Earlier this year, it was revealed Mr Abetz had not consulted with the Liquor and Gaming Commission before taking the new policies to cabinet for approval, and that the Commission was concerned the measures would "take Tasmania backwards".

Under scrutiny of this, the treasurer said it was "definitely not" deliberate to exclude them from that process.

"Could we, should we have consulted more with them? Happy to accept that observation," he said.