In my previous post I made the unequivocal statement that “I wouldn’t trust John Key as far as I could throw him.” Several people commented that I really ought to provide some evidence in support of that conclusion. I could perhaps respond that the general theme of the post was that our opinions of other people (and politicians in particular) are often based on feeling or intuition unsupported by demonstrable facts and incapable of empirical proof. Intuition can be a pretty reliable tool for judging others. Nonetheless, I think the question ‘Why would you not trust John Key as far as you could throw him?’ deserves an answer.

You’ll find part of the answer in John Key – ‘There There’ Prime Minister which I posted on March 2. But you have to look to the ‘pokies for payola’ deal which Key negotiated with Sky City to really understand where I’m coming from. What that deal told me was that our Prime Minister is a man devoid of social conscience or a moral compass. The Hippocratic Oath, sworn by many doctors around the globe, contains the following sentence: “I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone.” It seems to me that this principle of never doing harm to anyone can properly apply to any person whose decision-making power can influence the lives of others.

Politicians certainly come into that category and none more so than a president or prime minister. It’s worth noting that Hippocrates’ principle is tempered in the oath by the physician’s ‘ability’ and ‘judgement’. He/she must understand the consequences of their actions and use their judgement to make an informed decision. So in negotiating a deal with Sky City was John Key informed on the social harm which granting Sky City the right to increase the number of pokies on the casino floor by 230 while further adding an additional 40 gaming tables, making it possible for 17% of pokie machines and automatic table games to accept banknotes of denominations greater than $20 and introducing card-based cashless gaming technology on all pokie machines and automatic table games… was the Prime Minister informed on the social harm which those measures would inevitably cause?

Quite clearly he was. But his and his government’s expressed view was that the benefits which would accrue to Auckland and New Zealand in terms of job creation, increased tourism and cash outweighed any harm which the concessions to the casino operators might bring. It was, if you like, a price worth paying. It was certainly worth it to Sky City. Investment bank Goldman Sachs estimated the new pokies and other concessions could add $42 million a year to the casino’s profits. So John Key was certainly informed about the social harm which his deal with Sky City would do; he used his judgement to weigh that harm against the largely financial benefits to Auckland and New Zealand which the deal offered; he made a deliberate decision to proceed. So in my book he must take credit for both the benefits and the subsequent social harm.

The funny thing about pokies is that they look like the most innocent form of gambling: chuck a few coins in the slot, press the button, enjoy the excitement of the lights, the noise, the spinning numbers, your heart racing and every now and then the thrill when the machine pays out, the coins tumbling into the metal tray. But pokies are the most addictive form of gambling. The pyrotechnics are all part of that; the occasional payout is there to keep you interested, a form of partial reinforcement. And though the individual punter may very occasionally strike a big payout, the generic punter always loses. The machine is engineered to ensure profits for the casino, not for you. How else do you think those additional machines, courtesy of John Key, could add $42 million a year to Sky City’s profits? Well, there’s harm and harm. Maybe I’m exaggerating. And if this were an academic exercise I just might be.

But this is a very personal issue for me. I have seen the devastation that addiction to the pokies has caused first hand, in my own family and in Judy’s. I’m qualified to say that this is an addiction up there with heroin and P. It destroys marriages, breaks up families, leaves men and women without jobs, children without parents. It leads to despair and, not infrequently, to suicide. To be informed about all of this, to weigh these outcomes in the balance against financial profit, whether for a company or a city or a country, and to decide that the inevitable social harm was a price worth paying… That is what John Key did. And that is why I say that that this Prime Minister is a man without conscience or moral compass. John Key is what he is and has always been – a dealmaker and a bloody good one. But I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.