Strike two !

If the old " Three strikes and you are out " adage applies, Julia Gillard's first strike was when she went to an election on a " No Emissions tax " promise - and promptly broke it when holding onto power was only possible in coalition with the Greens.

She also needed the votes of all the independents, and each extracted a firm promise in exchange for their support.   Andrew Wilkie was an anti-gambling fanatic, and he demanded a complex pre-commitment scheme on poker machines and gained the prime minister's handshake that this would be implemented by May of this year.

Strike two !     Gillard has walked away from that commitment - now that a Labor speaker has been consigned to the backbench to gain a critical vote.   In place she has suggested a watered down version that will have a test run only in the Australian Capital Territory - and not even start until 2013.    It will include a $ 250 daily limit on withdrawals from ATM's in gaming venues -and a ban on live odds being featured in sporting coverage.   Strangely, this latter inclusion was not part of Wilkie's demand - and it's addition is a mystery.

Andrew Wilkie has withdrawn his support for Labor.   He upheld his part of the deal and voted with the government when that vote was crucial in getting legislation passed.   He has every right to question the integrity of this country's prime minister.   Trust was once a matter of a handshake sealing a deal.

Two strikes down.   Is there a third to come ?

Some people will be suspicious that there is more than meets the eye in that move on live odds.   The anti-gambling lobby have long held the view that giving odds on events is an inducement to gamble - because it illustrates just how much can be won if a long odds bet comes home.

Just imagine if - somewhere down the track - events force this prime minister to appease the anti-gambling lobby because their support is essential to holding onto office.   Could we see the odds on horse races disappear from the sporting pages - and the ultimate horror - could the field  for the Melbourne Cup be simply a list of the runners - with any mention of the prospects of each horse being banned by law ?

On past performance, even a promise by the prime minister that such an event will never happen would be treated with great suspicion by many people.

As Andrew Wilkie would attest -  It seems that firm commitments are always " negotiable ! "