Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeyDel
I just wanted to make a couple of points on the Xenophon thing.
For obvious reasons I have never been a big fan of Xenophon, but I went to meet with him due to his strong anti-gambling stance.
Credit where it is due, Xenophon was actually a net positive for our cause. As the email from Morgan (who I also met) said he called for more debate on the issue and pointed out the hypocrisy between Australia's position on sports betting compared to online poker.
We had a very positive chat when Monster Dong and I went and met with him. He asked us to keep it confidential so we will. But the fact that we have had mainstream media coverage and some Senators push for a Senate Inquiry suggests that his assistance probably helped with this.
Also, I have had several Liberal Senators confirm with me that they had spoken to Xenophon privately who had reiterated the point to them that online poker was worthy of a separate debate.
Is Xenophon anti gambling, yes. Are we generally going to disagree with his position a lot of the time, yes. But he did give us a fair hearing and came to a far more rational position than many others who voted against us.
So he voted against the amendment, did he?
I don't see him as the kind of politician that would look to openly disagree with your cause even if there are worse and more pervasive forms of gambling out there that aren't regulated or regulated to a degree that Xenophon wants (which there are such as sports betting and pokies). But to say that overall he wasn't in favour of a clamp down on online poker to the extent that it would be banned is just delusional.
He has an image to protect that he needs to be perceived as being fair to all sides now that he holds the balance of power but he also has a known agenda that he always needs to protect which is anti-gambling because it is what first got him elected and one of the main reasons why he is still there. And it is pretty clear which of these would come first even if he sounded quite convincing to you (which he ought to be given he is a politician).
On a sidenote, if what he said is taken to be true that he wanted more debate on it, why didn't he support Leyonhjelm and Bernardi's inquiry or at least wait until the report was handed down before they voted on the amendment? If anyone could convince the government to hold off on the vote it would be him and it can't be said that it wouldn't be a fair and reasonable position for anyone to take who truly wants more debate on the issue but again appearances can be a whole lot different to actual reality, especially given what I said above about his competing interests.
Last edited by bundy5; 08-13-2017 at 09:55 PM.