First stone

David Walsh | Posted on September 14, 2015

Constant access to gaming facilitates problem gambling and, it seems to me, is an invitation to addiction. The US and Chinese model, perhaps inadvertently, places casinos out of harm's way. Vacationers periodically visit Vegas or Macau for a few days, and drink and shag and gamble their allotted entertainment budget away, and then they go home and save up for next year. I think people should have to travel to gamble.
—Me, A Bone of Fact

A Tasmanian politician, Andrew Wilkie, has launched a bit of a crusade against poker machines. I think he’s right. Poker machines allow the punter to control the frequency of the gamble, push a button, get stimulation. Experiments on animal models show that direct stimulation to areas of the brain associated with the anticipation of pleasure cause animals to ignore sex and food in favour of more stimulation. It’s contentious, but predominantly accepted, that similar processing occurs in the human brain. I don’t think gambling is inherently immoral but I agree with Mr Wilkie that pokies are a social evil.
—Me, A Bone of Fact

Our casino would be poker machine-free. As I mentioned before, I think they are a moral outrage. Of course, there are those that think all gambling is a moral outrage. Anyway, it would be table games only, high minimums and maximums, and it would be targeted at rich international patrons of the arts. Our casino would need a name, of course, and a Mona name must be an acronym. The leading candidate at the moment is Monaco, a notorious casino destination, and an only slightly contrived distillation of Mona CasinO.
—Me, A Bone of Fact

Walsh has said he wants to build a pokies-free casino for high rollers. While that is the intention, it must be acknowledged visions change, finances change and, importantly in the gambling industry, technology changes.

When a referendum was held here in 1968 about whether to permit Wrest Point Casino, it was described as a pokies-free, high-roller, tourist-attracting proposal. Today, along with the Country Club Casino in Launceston, it has become a poker machine barn with 1185 machines spread between the two venues.
—Meg Webb (Anglicare), The Mercury

Every hand's a winner, and every hand's a loser.
—Kenny Rogers, The Gambler

Recently I proposed establishing a casino at Mona to shore up Mona's financial position, despite an existing monopoly held by the operator of Tasmania's two casinos, the Federal Group. In the last week or so opinions have been voiced on my proposal in parliament, in the press, and on air. Some commentators pointed out that I may be inadvertently complicit in an extension of the existing monopoly, a scenario that is particularly unappealing in relation to poker machines. This blog expresses my position with respect to these matters, which seem to be of sufficient import to warrant public deliberation.

In the spirit of my proposed new venture let me lay my cards on the table:

1. Yes, I want to build a casino at Mona.

2. No, Mona will not shut down if I can't, or choose not to.

3. I won't build the casino if its licence is conditional on the Federal Group being able to operate poker machines without any new restrictions, and with a monopoly extension.

Expanding on 1. I want to build a casino with the following limitations: no Tasmanian gamblers; 12 tables and no poker machines; high minimums and maximums; and did I say no pokies? All revenue would go to Mona and related projects; if Mona becomes profitable then casino revenue would fuel expansion, acquisitions, social programs and anything else we can think of. All of this is contained within my proposal and would be enshrined within legislation. I also plan to build a 160-room hotel, a function centre, and a thousand-seat theatre based on the largesse of Monaco. Each of these will be smaller if Monaco doesn't eventuate. Beyond that, we are planning a gallery expansion. And before that, we are going to build (assuming planning permission is forthcoming) a wing to house a number of James Turrell works and a new restaurant/function room/bar facility. All up, we are looking to spend more than $200 million.

All that looked to be a winning hand. The plan: take a risk to get some cash from outside of Tasmania. Spend it on Mona. Grow Mona and tourism. Exploit the Mona effect. And although locals wouldn't have access to the casino facility while gambling was taking place, in the daytime we would have another gallery to tour. Along the lines of Kenny's ‘daytime friends and nighttime lovers’, the two groups should only suspect each other's existence. And, of course, Tasmanians would have access to other new facilities generated on the back of Monaco.

But, as is becoming clear, it may not be a winning hand at all. I'll get back to that in a moment.

I know full well that Wrest Point started out with no pokies and is now a pokie palace. I despise poker machines (see the quote from my book, above) and deplore this transformation. That's why I suggested the motto for Monaco could be: No pokies, and no porkies. If my casino is permitted and then proves to be unsuccessful, it will be utilised as a Mona facility. We are confident our design will be worthwhile whatever happens within it (just quietly, our preliminary plans are shit hot). And, anyway, I am a gambler – I'm unafraid of loss, and I am empowered by risk.

When I applied for a casino licence I was aware that the government would have to negotiate with Federal Hotels to vary their monopoly (although it is far from certain that that monopoly is legally sound). I specified that I would not support an increase in the number of poker machines in the community. I did not anticipate, unfortunately, that Federal might link their acquiescence to a Mona Casino licence to an extension of their monopoly. The government has not confirmed this is so, and it may not be, but since someone (Andrew Wilkie?) suggested it, the absence of denial looks a lot like confirmation by default.

So Federal may have played their cards very well indeed. And since I could not support an extension of their poker machine monopoly, it looks like I have played my hand like a novice. I have lead into their strong suit.

That Greg Farrell, the boss of Federal, would want an extension to their monopoly is obvious, in hindsight. This is the status quo; they are accustomed to this enormously beneficial position. I've met Greg a few times, our interactions were convivial, and he is very charming. Federal even supports ‘24 Carrot’, Mona's school garden project, by paying for the garden of one of our schools (Springfield Gardens Primary). He is, however, unlikely to see any harm that pokies might be effecting – he has skin in the game.

When I first opened Mona I wasn't concerned about it surviving in perpetuity. I thought I'd see how it went, and if people bothered to come it might be worth keeping open until I lost interest or capacity. I knew that museums take on new directions when the founder dies, and I saw little reason to plan for my vision being abandoned (this period after my demise, in deference to the Christian calendar, would be known as Mona Anno Domini, or MAD). Then a strange thing happened. People started calling it 'our museum', expressing community ownership and pride. A lady, who told me her name was Kirsten, while thanking me for Mona and the Mofos, eloquently précised the community zeitgeist when she said, 'You gambled and we all won'. This stuff, plus a splash of national and international recognition, and the clear economic benefit that Mona has generated, got me thinking about how to keep Mona open during the MAD period. Monaco is part of my attempt to fulfil that emerging desire.

I want to operate Monaco. But I won't open it (before 2023 when the cooling down period of the present monopoly could end) if my opening it enshrines Federal's poker machine monopoly. So I would ask Greg Farrell to continue to support Monaco being granted a licence, even without a monopoly extension. Monaco, in my opinion, would not affect Federal's business (but if Wrest Point were to establish a bit of a high roller sideline, it's reasonable to expect that Monaco punters might wander down the river for a look). So support it, and ask for nothing in return. As a favour to me, and the community. Or if you need to accrue a benefit to satisfy your board or your business brain, request a reduction in the licence fee, or some other more palatable outcome.

As I've said a number of times, I find poker machines antisocial, unsightly, and insidious. But, unfortunately, they are now a significant source of revenue to the government and our legislators are, therefore, conflicted. That means it's up to those of us who think pokies are a problem (apparently 80 per cent of us) to give a clear indication of the direction we want. Since I'm the idiot that inadvertently started this process, I should lead it now, even if I'm the loss leader.

With no change to the existing regime Monaco could be operational in 2023, although waiting till 2023 is complicated by the fact that the chosen site will be inaccessible after we build the hotel. In 2023 it would also be possible for poker machines to be put to tender, and the winning bidder would not necessarily need to be the highest bidder, in the event of an enlightened government. Social criteria could include: a lower total number of machines (who knows, if my finances are going well I might bid and nominate zero machines); lower individual take-outs; and one-dollar maximums (which, anecdotally, seems to be an idea with wide support).

I have a non-regulatory idea that might be able to put pressure on commercial operators of poker machines. It may prove to be tricky to explain, but I'm going to have a go:

Operators of exchange betting sites, like Betfair, aggregate bets from punters who nominate a price they are interested in having a bet at (on, for example, a horse race). They can nominate a bet that the horse wins, or they can bet that it loses, in which case, if the price is right, they can be matched with each other. An example might serve clarity here: I want to have a bet on Social Cohesion, and I choose to request a price of 4.10 (return for $1, including stake). The highest price presently available is 4, so my bet sits in a queue, awaiting a match. Someone (or many people) comes along and thinks Social Cohesion is an unlikely winner. They offer the requisite 4.10, after all the 4 available is taken. The long-term effect of all this is to force margins on both sides down. In liquid markets the disadvantage is often much less than one per cent. Compare this to the legislative guarantee in Victoria that poker machine must pay at least 87 per cent, and thus profit a potential 13 per cent of turnover (I don't know the figures for Tasmanian casinos and hotels. Do you? If so, post a comment, including your source please). One can easily see that a regime like Betfair operating on pokies could apply tremendous downward pressures on loss rates and, perhaps, make the operation of traditional poker machines unviable.

Could this be done? I think the answer is yes, and at various times I've thought about applying for a patent on my technique for achieving it. I haven't done it, and so that no one else gets a patent, I'll establish prior art by outlining my strategy for achieving this.

On electronic poker machines, a number of payout structures would be available to the punter, and he or she could choose which one to bet into. These payouts (a payout includes, in a poker example, how much to pay on two pairs, or a royal flush) would have a particular disadvantage to the punter that would be calculated and displayed – the punter could choose the lowest disadvantage stream, or maybe a slightly higher disadvantage for bigger maximum payoffs (there is a consistent public preference for high payouts called, in the literature, ‘longshot bias’ – that's why people will buy lottery tickets that only return 50 cents in the dollar).

On the other side, larger operators would be able to offer payout streams. The punter would nominate a payout stream and the machine would calculate the advantage (or disadvantage) that those offered payouts would give the player. They would need to have enough money in their account to cover the largest payoff on a given gamble, but it's attractive to these guys to do this, because they can build in a slight edge (since we know punters will take a big disadvantage, but competition will force the edge down on this side). The upshot of all this: I predict that poker machines could operate at less than a one per cent disadvantage to the player (in fact I have many colleagues who would offer that game). To be competitive, holders of commercial poker machine licences would have to offer similar low margin games. They probably wouldn't be able to, and thus might be forced out of business. Another possibility: in 2023, if the poker machine licence comes up for tender, I wonder if the community could form a consortium to buy it? I don't know exactly how profitable pokies are to the operators, but say they net $20m a year. That suggests at least $200m would be required to buy the licence, and the conversion, for example, to one dollar bet maximums would massively decrease that value after the purchase, but with the accompanying effect of a huge reduction in harm to the community. It might not be an efficient way to do good, but it would certainly do some good. Compensation might need to be paid to some of the smaller poker machine operators for the loss of their honestly entered business model.

In most areas where financial 'services' are provided, we have recently seen the internet disrupt traditional models with lower overhead cost models. Web brokers have reduced transaction costs for share transactions, and we are starting to see on-line art brokers peddling art with a very small cut. I expect this trend to continue – it will move to the gaming machine markets. So even if the scheme outlined above doesn't come to fruition, the days of operators reaping the rewards of high margin machines are numbered (unless those operators are protected by legislation).

Writing this missive reduces my chances of building Monaco in two ways. Both Federal and the government may now have good reason to oppose it. The government, in particular, had every right to expect me to maintain a studied silence until the licensing was independently reviewed, and I apologise for my precipitate intervention. I have no reason to think the process is anything but completely appropriate, and my dealings with Treasury on this matter have been reassuringly professional. It may well be that the reviewer's advice would have been to not support a monopoly extension. Or a monopoly extension might never have been contemplated. But, in the event that the monopoly was to be extended, I would have had to pull out at a much later stage, when community funds and time had been committed. And, this way, the poker machine issue is on the table, with plenty of time to satisfy all interested parties, if satisfaction is possible.

And in the meantime, I'll follow Kenny's sage advice:

Every gambler knows
That the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' what to throw away
And knowin' what to keep.

If needs be, I'll throw away Monaco, to keep my integrity.


Since I wrote this on Saturday, August 29, there have been a few interesting developments, so my blog is becoming a diary. On Monday, August 31, James Boyce had a few interesting things to say, although he said them with an overabundance of self-certain sanctimony, perhaps. He contends that the government can issue Monaco a licence without too much fear of statuary risk, and he is probably right. I don't foresee any government taking this position, however. Incumbents see risk in a very different way than commentators. It's possible a pretender could use this as an electoral device to become the incumbent, however...

Also on Monday I sent an email to Greg Farrell of Federal, and the Treasurer, Peter Gutwein, to inform them of my intention to blog. That precipitated a meeting with the Treasurer and a phone conversation with Mr Farrell. The Treasurer reinforced my notion, not supported by most pundits, that he was taking and would be very likely to follow independent advice (from Deloitte) that would be forthcoming in a couple of weeks. From the government's point of view, this is the appropriate course of action and I have no issue with this process. However, if Deloitte determines that, on balance, a Monaco licence plus an extension of the Federal monopoly is good for the community (which, it seems to me, is essentially the thing they have been briefed to resolve), then the government might feel compelled to chart that course. However, that doesn't mean that a Monaco licence and the termination of Federal's monopoly wouldn't be better for the community, although I acknowledge that achieving that before 2023 is unlikely.

Mr Farrell confirmed that Federal is seeking an extension to its monopoly. He pointed out (claimed) that ‘only’ 0.5 per cent of poker machine players in Tasmania are problem gamblers (the Tasmanian Council of Social Services research suggests that there are 2,500 problem gamblers in Tasmania; that is 0.5 per cent of the population, but there are many people who don't gamble, so 2,500 represents a higher percentage of participants. And 2,500, in any case, is a large pool of suffering individuals). He also revealed a planned capital investment in Wrest Point and other assets if the monopoly is extended, a strategy similar to the commitment to Saffire made when securing the 2003 monopoly; a strategy criticised by James Boyce in The Mercury earlier the same day.


I received this letter from the Treasurer:

While I have to quibble on one point – I didn't meet with Mr Farrell, we spoke on the phone – this exemplifies my contention that the Treasurer is handling this matter appropriately. I followed up again with Federal, but as will be made obvious in my reply to the Treasurer (below), we were unable to reach agreement. Federal seem to be planning a spending spree in an attempt to convince the Government that a monopoly extension is a good idea.

The Treasurer,

Yesterday I made the following proposal to the Federal Group, in relation to my attempt to secure a licence for the proposed casino at Mona (Monaco).


As you know, I can't support an extension of your licence monopoly, even though I acknowledge that you might secure it anyway. I do not believe that Monaco affects Federal's business model (except, possibly, the hotel which I will build anyway).

Here I propose an alternative.

If you withdraw your application for a monopoly until after I am granted a licence, and if I am granted a licence by 31/12/16, I will:

Warrant not to attempt to secure, for myself or any agents, a licence to operate poker machines and compete with Federal in 2023. As I've outlined I believe there is a low-cost model that can undercut existing business models, while massively reducing costs to the punter.

Not attempt to secure a general casino licence that allows Tasmanian customers in 2023.

Pay Federal $500,000 upon approval of my licence.

Support Federal if they apply for a reduction in the licence fees paid to the Government annually, to an amount of not more than $250,000 pa.

After some thought my present position is that I will build my casino whether or not I have secured a licence. The waterfront placement is problematic, and after I build the hotel I will not have access to the site. I believe it is quite possible that, with a groundswell of community support, that a political party (and thus a potential component of government) could go to an election with a Monaco licence as part of their platform, and thus engage the statutory risk that breaking Federal's monopoly entails. High level legal opinion suggests this is not particularly fraught, since parliament cannot be bound by its own monopoly, and since the broader business community will see Mona/Monaco as a special case.

If this proposal could meet with Federal's approval I'm happy to meet with you later today (Wednesday 9/9/15) or tomorrow.

Thanks for your attention,

David Walsh

This morning (Thursday 10/9/15) Mr Farrell called to discuss my proposal. He asserted that a proposal for expansion of Federal Group's tourism facilities was in play prior to our proposal for Monaco, and that a monopoly extension was to be sought with or without the Federal Group's acquiescence to Monaco. He had no appetite for acceding to a Monaco licence without a monopoly extension. For this reason, and in response to your request, I wish to withdraw my formal application for a casino licence (unless it can be contemplated outside of the existing monopoly legislation).

As outlined in my note to Mr Farrell, I intend to seek approval to build the structure that would have housed the casino, in any case. I intend to ascertain if the political will exists to attempt to overturn the existing monopoly, and in the event that abrogating the monopoly legislation proves not to be feasible, to seek a licence in 2018 for 2023. I note that, in the event of the Federal Group receiving a monopoly extension, an application for a licence in the future will face the same obstacles as the present application, and I request that the government consider this while processing Federal's application.

Thank you for your attention (and for your goodwill),

David Walsh

Further, I ask permission to publish, as a component of an explanatory blog, your letter addressed to me. Thank you.

So I have arrived at a place that looks like the place that I departed from. On the other hand, although I hold no malice for them, I do hope that the Federal Group is further from their desired destination than ever. As I stated before, there are at least 2,500 problem gamblers in Tasmania, and for the vast majority that problem is with poker machines. I am not the one who can afford to cast the first stone. But now, for the first time in a long time, our community is within a stone’s throw of having the opportunity to mitigate the stagnant status quo.

A few years ago I read a report concerning a Médicins San Frontiéres intervention in East Timor. With relentless honesty the author, who was an MSF executive, concluded that their attempts to provide medical aid made them complicit in the interventionist Indonesian regime, by making bad look good. I almost made the same mistake. But at least I've got Kenny in the background chiding me to learn from my errors:

If you're gonna play the game, boy
You gotta learn to play it right.


Blog Home


Show all responses

Emilie | October 27, 2015 at 10:58 pm

Quite surprised to learn of the problem with your licence on ABC7.30.
I didn't realize you would only be attracting 50 or so gamblers a year and this would not impact on the general population.
It seems so unreasonable to be denied a revenue that would help fund your museum...which has really rejuvenated Tasmania..
What other ways could you circumnavigate this dilemma ? Monaco sounds a real hoot of an idea.
Why not build your accommodation and have the gambling on an old steamer...maybe you can get a commercial vessel licence through the Australian Maritime Safety Authority who are a different regulatory authority and Federally run
In any case I don't know much, just sending good wishes for you project and I think Federal are shrewd operators and they need a kick up the ass.
It is nice to know you don't support the blood sucking one arm bandits so goodluck with your project

Ricky Pfeiffer | September 15, 2015 at 07:06 pm

Thank you David,
thank you for despising EGM, thank you for showing your hand and making the stand. Like yourself I despise pokies and what they have done empowering problem gamblers. I despise them being in RSL and sporting clubs, being ex service I refuse to enter any RSL with pokies in it.
I watched my father lose a multi million dollar family company to pokies.
You have shown the way to move forward, I wish eyes would open and see what you see and know could be possible with "Our MONACO" and hotel complex. This perceived ownership by us gives pride to being a local far beyond any claim of having the first legal casino.
Again thank you (MAD) David.

Gregory James | September 15, 2015 at 05:25 pm

The concept of a monopoly in Casinos, poker machines or any other section of the economic community should be shunned by all political parties. The Federal Hotels monopoly and advantages they have been given have produced over the years a retarded tourism industry. That is until David and MONA invested unknowingly but introduced competitive stimulation into this can of worms. The Casino is tired and past its use by date, it has no real reason to exist in today's tourist economy and it consumes too many state owned assets in response to the damage it does to the community through poker machines.
Note that Casinos never repay embezzled money, but when firms go bankrupt, people lose jobs and the corrupt are imprisoned. It is you and I that pay taxes to repair the damage. Centrelink, imprisonment, psychologists for children and parents financially crippled by their addiction, police and court processes, it all mounts up but the Casino pays nothing and we the community bear the cost.
The only winner here is the Federal Family who have diverted the disposable income of the Tasmanian communities away from the local shopping centres and into a horse farm for their private use.
Why, because Federal Hotels donate to the two large parties, pay lobbyists to work over the parliamentarians with fear and use their advertising dollars to intimidate the leaders.
Prepare to get Tasmania rolled again and prepare to see Gutwein give away everything to Federal Hotels and receive nothing in return but misery for 2,500 citizens.

SJC | September 17, 2015 at 01:36 am

The notion of reducing the advantage in order to push the existing venues out is something I have been thinking about for years. However through whatever mechanism this could be achieved, (and I do believe your concept has merit) I believe it would have to transpire into a tangible operating model to have the desired effect.

Given it would be a unrealistic to think the introduction of legislation that would result in a 1% house advantage for all venues across the state would ever see the light of day, (you may as well ask the government to throw all the machines off the Tasman Bridge) it seems more realistic that having the house advantage set within a chosen range, (1% to the existing through 13%) by the operator would be more palatable to the legislator.

On paper it would read as fairer to the punter and a step towards responsible gaming legislation. While behind the closed office door of the legislators it would be unrealistic an unforeseen for an operator to run a venue at an advantage that only covered operating costs, (which I believe would actually be closer to 2% depending on other variables associated with operation) and risk sacrificing their sacred revenue cash cow. It would be sold as a model that promoted competition which would provide an increase in service standards whilst delivering a safer product for the punter. Of course as discussed it would be potentially devastating to the venues if someone was eccentric enough to offer a 2% house edge. While I can certainly think of one eccentric person who might qualify, I do prefer the suggestion of a community consortium.

The system you discussed would possibly have an effect on turnover and habits which would have an inevitable effect on drop hold. For example; Given while the house advantage on Blackjack is usually set at around 0.5% with the average Australian player losing at 1.6% due to deviation from basic strategy and a drop a hold of around 15%, one would expect a poker machine with a 13% house advantage to have a much higher drop old then it's 33%, (as I believe it to be the case in Tasmania). Of course there is a big difference between Blackjack and machine gaming, just as there is a difference in the mechanics of what you are suggesting to the current model.

In regard to the idea that people should have to travel to gamble, I believe this to be a smart approach, (you are one of the few people I have heard raise this notion. My friends are probably tired of me harping on about it). I have always thought that the system of requiring a foreign passport to enter the gaming floor, as ironically is the case in Monaco, (on the Mediterranean not the Derwent) was well thought out as it prevented the local negative social impact and HIG'S, (high impact/frequency Gamblers as they are known in the gaming industry) whilst profiting purely on foreign capital.

to broaden that model to not just overseas but interstate players would work well in a high roller room with twelve tables, and I believe Mona would be the perfect venue. One thing casinos, (with the exception of places such as the aforementioned Monaco who's identity is founded in tradition and nostalgia) are constantly doing is reinventing their image to project a contemporary ambience and one up the next casino. This can be anything from a passive change in decor to the extreme of a complete demolition, (a spectacle in itself). However, the most powerful device, the thing that gets the punter in every time is novelty. A commodity in no short supply at Mona.

expansion and investment are always part of the deal when it comes to licensing and in particular a Monopoly. Mona's input in this regard has been substantial and looks to maintain the trend. To say the least they have earned the right to twelve tables. Given that public opinion is political currency, I believe Monaco has a serious stake in this fight. After all, has this Monopoly ever been properly challenge before? When I say properly challenged, I mean in an age of social media? Perhaps I am writing this with my rose coloured glasses on, but Mona is on everyone's lips not federal. A well thought out, well organised social media campaign could see some serious pressure on decision makers.

Essentially there needs to be a change in legislation and a break in Monopoly.

I do hope David that you are wrong when you say that writing that missive will reduce your chances of building Monaco and I fully support any efforts to as the Whitlam said, "Blow up the pokies".

I'm pleased to see you focused on this, good luck!

Kym Goodes | September 14, 2015 at 10:19 pm

Dear David, Thank you for "playing it right" As you point out, gambling (and specifically Poker Machines) impact on the lives of many Tasmanians, their families and communities. The possibility of the extension of the Federal licence without full consideration of the social impact, the community impact that looks beyond the economic analysis was of great concern to many in our community and the community sector. Let's now make sure as a community we take the opportunity to mitigate the stagnant status quo as you suggest. Thank you (and Kenny in the background!).
Kym Goodes, CEO, TasCOSS

Lois Dann | September 16, 2015 at 07:08 pm

You are the only one who can make the Government openly accountable for giving Federal such a lucrative monopoly....then they scream poor....can't afford to continue supporting the Apt Railway....and the Government let them out of their contract!!!

Tassie Essie | September 14, 2015 at 10:22 pm

Wow! Thank you for taking this stand.

Sean | September 14, 2015 at 11:03 pm


I wouldn't pay Federal anything. Fuck them. (I hope that helps saying the first-word, you're so polite on this blog)

If you can determine whether there is political support to overcome this tyranny (monopoly) then the 'community' if convinced of your pledge and the necessity of the contained evil should support it. Would Wilkie support it? That, and a legal prong should have Federal scamper off.

What has Federal done besides 24 Carrot support in Tasmania? How is Wrestpoint a tourist magnet of any significance? No one interstate or international mentions "Wrestpoint gotta go gotta go", they do however are intrigued by MONA.

Federal could always create another MONA, called MOAN or just MONA . Perhaps a monopoly is needed for Arts venues?

Ross Stokell | November 29, 2015 at 06:47 am

I heard “Son, I've made a fortune, Out of writin' songs and singin',
 Knowin' feelins' gits 'em cryin'
 By the way they held their eyes,
 So, if you don't mind me stayin'
Cos I don't want you to failin'
 I'll give you advice on numbers, That could be your Holy Grail.

We both swigged on our Comfort
 And sucked down our last swallow
 He fixed me with his rheumy glare
 Feelin' lucky, wanna' fight?
 And the room went deathly quiet,
 And his face lost all expression.
 If yer gonna' play the game I teach,
 Yer' gotta learn to play it right!

 Yer gotta know how to keep em gessin'
 When the Gummint starts ter messin,
With a licence to breed friggin' leeches,
(That doesn't sound quite right/),
And ifn yer wanta know some more,
Yer'll have ta ask me for yerself!.

Ben Armitage | September 14, 2015 at 11:39 pm

As per your book Mr Walsh a fascinating read, poker machines in my opinion could have their harm coefficient reduced dramatically with one very easy step, a step that aligns to table games. If I am playing a table game in casino each bet is paid out physically and then replaced (admittedly wagers can be left to stand, but not winnings). In Tasmania the spin limit is set to a minimum of 3 seconds (or 20 a minute) even with a $1 minimum and the 85% legally defined 'minimum payout' you could put in a $100 and just over half an hour later won $560 and lost $660 so have $0 left. My proposal would be simple, equality with table games, make them physically pay out wins (even if not wagers), people are far less likely to put $660 into a machine (and it would take a lot longer than half an hour).
The gaming industry works on the notion that the punter first of all doesn't understand EV (or doesn't care i.e. destination gambling for fun) and secondly and most importantly doesn't equate the currency of gambling to real life (chips and credits). The gambling industry relies on a calculation of risk by two parties, with normally both feeling they have an edge, in this case the punter is invariably, but not always wrong. In my opinion the gaming industry is FAR worse, by the way I include poker in the gambling industry NOT the gaming, but would be interested in people opinions of that.
Drunken rant over

scott goldsmith | September 14, 2015 at 11:48 pm

If you’re gonna play the game, boy
You gotta learn to play it right.

Can Mr Farrell cook eggs ?
Has David kept a stony face and the current card is just a BLUFF ?
Read this somewhere, on a billboard deep in the back of my mind.
People often talk about the cards of life that are dealt, some good and some bad.
But in the end it’s not the cards that count as much as how you play the card in the game of life.
Don’t play the good cards poorly and always play the bad cards well !!!!!!

I would suggest Mr Farrell that the offer may have been relatively fair.
$500,000 in the pot and raise you $250,000 a year and you walk away.
I think it will be a very cheap day when the game is finished for MONA as eggs
are only $6.00 bucks a dozen ( free range of course ) and if Mr Farrell is capable
of cooking eggs it will still be a difficult assignment to remove them from face to pan.

Phillip Somerville | September 14, 2015 at 11:51 pm

#Monastery is a more subversive name for a palace dedicated to the single minded pursuit of the profane. Tourists on a Monastic retreat to Tas... While you're at it, trade-mark 'Monanism' for art-wank, 'Monad' as the unit of casino currency.

Greg Wilson | September 15, 2015 at 07:18 am

Like your plan David, if only we could get your entrepreneurial flair infused throughout the whole of Tasmania. It is coming to the surface in pockets but we now need the groundswell to grow on the back of the legacy you continue to provide with your contribution to tourism for Tasmania.

I have no doubt the process you have put in place to achieve your goal will happen.

Creating Mona along with your other cultural activities has opened the minds of many to another world.

Each and every Tasmanian needs to stand up and be counted when it comes to promoting their own State. Be proud of what we offer and are going to offer in the future - then tell the world. There are a million opportunities for the current temporary guests on this magnificent piece of land. It is time we looked within, and then see what is there in this sleeping giant. The momentum will shift on this island, it is only a matter of time - the lifestyle is just too good to ignore.

Individual people is what makes the difference - like yourself - took a calculated risk - backed yourself in and made a difference.

Good luck to your David.

Robert Meredith | September 15, 2015 at 11:39 am

Minimum RTP (return to player) on poker machines in Tasmania is 85%, can be found on pg 116 of the Australia / New Zealand Gaming Machine National Standard (most recent version can be accessed at

Great blog entry, thanks David.

klektik | September 15, 2015 at 11:48 am

Maybe you could get someone to build a faux MONACO as a curatorial exercise? Something we could look at and decide its future? For those of us who in our wildest fantasies wouldn't be able to enter if it was a real high rollers room.

Oscar Jeney | September 15, 2015 at 01:34 pm

David !! Never despair. You and your entourage may still have an Ace up your sleeve.. How?.. take heed of Monte Carlo. and the ;The Principality of Hutt River,as an independent province!

Get to work. Can be done.

Be the Governor of your own Principality, and ignore all government red tape.

I'll be glad to see you pulling that of.. Wrest Point owes me for physically abusing me, and baring me from the Casino. for being declared as: Card Counter. Technically; I 'v taken the bullet..
Cheers: Oscar (Old Sport from 1981 uni years.)

Oscar Jeney | September 15, 2015 at 01:48 pm

Jo McCray | September 15, 2015 at 07:52 pm

Wonderful! Leadership that we truly need in this country that destroys individuals and their families through the greedy taxation of gambling. God Bless you Mr Walsh for playing a remarkable hand x

tassiedi | September 19, 2015 at 08:59 am

Thankyou David (and also James Boyce) for exposing this underbelly of the Tasmanian political and business class that I for one was unaware of. I hope that the thousands of Tasmanian families who are in the grip of the pokies will eventually benefit from your extraordinary and open-hearted contribution on this issue.

Judi | September 21, 2015 at 10:23 pm

Love your balls Walshie