Joining me live now is LNP Senator Paul Scarr. Thank you for your time. You’re not pleased with this deal. Why not?
Senator Paul Scarr: I’m not happy with the legislation as it’s been presented to the Senate. I don’t think it goes far enough in stopping gambling advertising to children. I also don’t think it goes far enough in preventing inducements, those predatory inducements that lure, particularly young Australians, into gambling and then encourage them to gamble more frequently and place larger bets.
I’m also concerned about the process for the statutory review and whether these changes will actually be effective. Taking all of that into account, I’ve come to the position that I cannot support the legislation.
Tom Connell: What’s your understanding of how inducements would work? Say someone loses $200 in an afternoon. Gambling companies have a lot of information about their customers. Will they still be able to trigger offers like, “Deposit another $50 and we’ll match it”?
Senator Paul Scarr: Absolutely. There would be no real change.
Theoretically, responsible gambling mechanisms should be triggered. The company should identify red flags and say, “This person is losing a lot of money. We shouldn’t be encouraging them to gamble more.”
But that’s the issue, Tom. Theoretically.
The gambling companies themselves will largely be controlling that process, and we won’t have a national regulator acting as the cop on the beat. I’m not comfortable with that position.
I’m also not comfortable because all the research tells us these inducements serve a purpose. Their purpose is to lure people, particularly young people, into betting more, placing larger bets and ultimately losing more money.
Tom Connell: Is it difficult when we’re dealing with a legal product? There are limits to how much regulation people accept. If someone buys three bottles of red wine every day, no one expects the attendant to stop them.
Senator Paul Scarr: But we do have licensing conditions. A bottle shop can’t run out into the street and hand alcohol to children.
What I’m calling for is better regulation that protects children from gambling advertising and prevents predatory inducements from being offered as a routine part of the gambling experience.
Tom Connell: Is that the key issue? The inducements? Is that where problem gambling is really being driven? The whole environment has changed. When I was growing up, if you wanted to have a bet, you went into a TAB, used cash, had a bet on the horses and walked away.
Senator Paul Scarr: Absolutely.
Tom Connell: Now it’s all accessible on a phone. Someone loses money and immediately receives another offer to gamble.
Senator Paul Scarr: Absolutely.
I think the gambling ecosystem has fundamentally changed because of online gambling.
Young people can sit alone in their bedroom, on their phone, in complete privacy, and destroy their lives.
It’s very different from when there were social checks and balances.
Tom Connell: You’re not in front of a parent or a mate saying, “You’ve had enough. Come and have a beer.”
Senator Paul Scarr: Exactly.
Those checks and balances aren’t there anymore.
Tom Connell: The media is obviously reliant on advertising revenue. Is there a role for government in helping soften the blow if gambling advertising is reduced?
Senator Paul Scarr: Potentially, Tom.
I understand the importance of those revenue streams. Many media organisations are facing increasing financial pressures, and gambling advertising has become a significant source of revenue.
But there has to be a line in the sand.
Tom Connell: Do you mean there could be taxpayer support to help offset that loss, or is it simply a matter for businesses to sort out?
Senator Paul Scarr: There may be opportunities for support in appropriate circumstances, particularly where it helps maintain journalism and reporting capacity that serves the public interest.
I think there is a legitimate public policy discussion to be had in that respect.
But we cannot cross the line where children continue to be exposed to gambling advertising and young Australians are drawn into gambling through predatory inducements.
Tom Connell: So perhaps something like access to a government fund if a company agrees to eliminate gambling advertising altogether?
Senator Paul Scarr: Perhaps.
Tom Connell: Let me ask you about the veterans issue. Matt Keogh is facing criticism over the proposal for a $5,000 cap on allied health services. If there is concern about fraud within the system, not from veterans but from service providers, would you support stronger compliance measures?
Senator Paul Scarr: Absolutely. Crack down on fraud.
But don’t impose a $5,000 cap.
Around 25,000 veterans each year exceed that allied health cap. My concern is how the department is going to process approximately 25,000 applications to ensure those veterans continue to receive uninterrupted care.
Tom Connell: So someone might receive 20 psychology sessions and then suddenly be cut off?
Senator Paul Scarr: Exactly.
At the same time, many of the veterans who exceed the cap are dealing with complex and multiple health conditions.
Tom Connell: So you’re comfortable with stronger compliance measures, but not with the cap itself?
Senator Paul Scarr: Yes, absolutely.
Tom Connell: Paul Scarr, appreciate your time.
Senator Paul Scarr: Thanks, Tom.
