Opinion Column: Starling On Casino Gaming Act
[Opinion column written by Jonathan Starling]
The Government tabled the Casino Gambling Act 2014 last Friday, November 28th. It is a 117 page act, and has been tabled with the explicit purpose of being passed by parliament before Christmas.
The OBA was not elected to introduce casino gambling. Rather, they were explicitly elected – as regards casino gambling – to ‘Hold a referendum on casino gaming’.
That is, they weren’t elected to decide to implement casino gambling, but to consult the people about introducing it. Casino gambling was understood to be an issue with such serious potential pros and cons that a referendum was understood as the ‘right thing to do’ in order to ensure buy-in from the largest stakeholder of all – the electorate.
In fact, it was universally understood on December 17th, 2012 that the issue should be decided only by way of a referendum, with both political parties promising such in their election platforms.
Referendums are not simply about making a definite decision on a matter, and empowering the government to act on that decision. A key aspect of a referendum is that it allows all the pros and cons of an issue [whether it be casino gambling or something else] to be fully discussed and understood by all of society.
A referendum would have allowed the pro-casino lobby and those opposed to fully discuss the pros and cons and ensure an informed citizenry could come to a firm conclusion, one way or another.
When the referendum question was released, it was roundly criticised by all, including from pro-casino positions. In hindsight it increasingly seems that this was a calculated move to manufacture uproar over the phrasing of the question in order to justify abandoning the promised referendum – which is ultimately what happened.
With the revelations that public funds were used by the Minister of Tourism to a special advisor [a political, rather than a civil service appointment] to develop a strategy to abandon the promised referendum on casino gambling, and later – still unresolved – revelations concerning Jet Gate, with casino interests funding a pro-OBA ‘dirty tricks’ campaign, it’s hard not to look back and see the OBA’s actions as disingenuous.
Having abandoned the promise to hold a referendum on the issue, the OBA promised widespread public consultation – while at the same time undermining the ‘consultation’ part by stating that casino gambling would be introduced, legislatively, via a three-line whip.
For those new to parliamentary jargon, a three-line whip is when a party [in this case the OBA] forces its MPs to vote according to the party line [in this case to introduce casino gambling] or face disciplinary action. This rendered the ‘public consultation’ little more than a public relations fait accompli.
There were a handful of these PR stunts early in the year. And yet almost a year after the Government was apparently ready to call a referendum on the issue, the Government has suddenly unveiled a massive 117 page Act and stated that it intends to rush it through parliament before the Christmas break.
Having broken their promise to hold a referendum on casino gambling – and manufacturing the reasons for doing so – the Government should have spent the last twelve months developing this legislation through regular consultative public meetings. Each section of the Act could have been discussed in detail, ensuring buy-in from the people.
Instead it is being rushed through while people are focused on Christmas shopping [a tactic that has been criticised under the PLP Government regarding controversial planning decisions, leading little time for critiques].
Additionally, with a developing scandal regarding the redevelopment of the airport and the bread and circuses of the America’s Cup announcement, it seems that the Government is trying to slip this Act through under the cover of distraction.
Even at the best of times, a 117 page Act is not a document to be easily reviewed in detail, especially one written in legalese, which is not always easily understood by all – be it by design or accident.
An honourable Government, one that claimed to ‘do politics differently’ and founded on the values of ‘opportunity, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, fairness and equity and public service’ which believes that ‘political power belongs to the people’, would not have gone back on its promise of holding a referendum on casino gambling.
And having done so, the least such a party should do would be to ensure the people have the time and opportunity to review the proposed legislation and lobby their representatives concerning it.
The irony of course is that we could have had a referendum, using a neutral question, and settled this issue long ago, providing clarity and stability to all, whichever way the decision went. And we would all have collectively understood what the Government was proposing and what it would mean. Instead the Government seems intent on forcing a decision on us under the cover of darkness.
The Government should use the parliamentary option to ‘rise and report progress’ on the Casino Gambling Act 2014 – which essentially postpones voting on the Act – and allow the people the opportunity to critically review the Act.
In the process the Government should hold a series of town-hall consultations discussing the Act section by section. Having done this, the Government could return the Act to parliament in early 2015 and make amendments, as needed, rather than rush it through as it currently is.
We have not had a full discussion of the pros and cons of what this Act allows and what may be the consequences of its passing.
In our rush – be it out of desperation, false hope or cynical calculation – we disenfranchise our people, and risk ushering in questionable legislation.
This is not the politics of change or doing politics differently that we were told to expect on December 17, 2012.
- Jonathan Starling
Read More About
Category: All
Comrade, can we hear your opinions on the ethics of setting up gambling dens in less affluent neighbourhoods to prey off the mathematically challenged?
Didn’t think so.
And shouldn’t the BMA be vetting the investors a little more closely?
Good Point. I did not hear any critique on the opening of a specific gambling place in a vulnerable area that consists of an economically challenged demographic from ‘social commentators’. I can bet my bottom dollar that if that place of business was opened by a person of a specific shade or political party all hell would have broke loose.
And have a commercial on the airwaves that say, “Your future begins with Paradise”… really? Your future begins with gambling?
No time for politics, Starling. The Americas Cup is here and we need to get things done instead of going back and forth about things like casinos which is already a foregone conclusion!
We all know they were not elected because of gambling. It was irrelevant in folks decision.
I think the months and months of your petitioning with plenty of media reminders and access to folks resulted in a petition that proved that any referendum was an absolute waste of time.
Starling, why can’t you do something that actually benefits Bermuda in terms of job creation and revenue generation from overseas, rather than constantly trying to put something around our neck.
You will come to the end of your life and wake up to the reality that what you did really has no meritable benefit for the people, instead it caused red tape, frustrated a population, resulted in downturn of productivity and burdened the average persons innovation and opportunity.
Use your brain to do constructive work, not constrictive work.
where is your outrage at Port Royal, Berkerly, the Cement Company etc.
Where is your outrage at Mark Beans alleged value of women or do hold the same view? we hear nothing from you on this. Why?
He’s actually commented on his blog about the allegations.
And who are you to judge the merits of what he’s done in life? Hell, we need more people challenging what Governments past and present have done, and fewer blind cheerleaders of all stripes.
He’s actually commented on his blog about the allegations.
and ?
… um, and that should serve to refute your statement about ‘where is your outrage’ and ‘we hear nothing from you’…
Your argument falls flat and is silly – so you are good with casinos but via a costly ref?!
Hello ! There is such a thing as doing the RIGHT THING for the country when you know the Christian voters will generally not support gambling. So please stop with this argument.
If there is ultimately not buy-in secret or public from the largest stakeholder of all – the electorate – well then they can vote out the OBA. Duh! Let’s start putting Bermuda first unless you are OK with the UK completely taking over
LOL! By your own admission this is a fait accompli so why do you then state that the OBA is “forcing a decision on us under the cover of darkness”??????
We all know the real reason why there wasn’t a referendum and you can put the blame at the feet of the opposition. Full stop end of story. Now I’m gonna do something constructive and learn how to be a croupier!!!!
All his opinion pieces clearly show that he is on the party payroll or on the “if you help to get us elected we’ll give you whatever you want” plan like Adderly, People’s Campaign, congress of unions, Famouss
I don’t know about him being on the PLP payroll, but one can guess who’s on the OBA payroll by all the trolling responses on this piece. None of them have bothered to comment on his piece regarding disabilities.
Can’t wait to double down and watch new resorts constructed! Long over due!
As Marc Bean said in March 2013….bring it OBA! (re: foregoing referendum and passing casino legislation)
Get on with it!!
Let it go dude, its a done deal. And you sound like a broken record…..a boring one, and no cares that its broken
I think Jonathan Starling has written a very good opinion piece here, with some very valid points. This is a long and lonely road for those of us who do not believe that legalising gambling in Bermuda is in our best interest. Unfortunately, most don’t want to consider the price some in our community will pay for this decision… yet.
If it was up to Comrade Stalin, we would be living in communes and selling trinkets to the developed world.
Can people contribute decent responses instead of trolling, just because they don’t like the author of the article?
Comrade Starling, your views are needed back home. Please come back to the motherland!!
Get a life for the name of sanity. You don’t like dont do it let the test of us make up our own minds and have our own opinions.
I want to gamble! Let me to my own devices
where can i read the 117 page report? thanks
What is “the bread and circuses of the America’s Cup announcement”? How does Bread figure into the America’s cup?
Another thin edge of the wedge or foot in the door, watch out for the amendments.