This week, the Coalition announced its plans for gambling regulation and reform. Should the party win power, it will do away with the national gambling regulator and leave gambling reform up to pub and casino representatives. As expected, the plan was not met with a positive response.
The opposition has announced a number of harm reduction measures that would aim to reduce problem gambling rates across the country – but would they actually result in a decline? The Coalition has proposed banning gaming operators from offering credit to players while expanding problem gambling counselling and support services.
On the other side of the coin, however, the group will further delay plans for a trial of mandatory pre-commitment technology. The opposition has also ignored simpler harm reduction strategies, such as reducing betting limits to $1. The Coalition also wants to abolish the national gambling regulator and give up power to gaming industry representatives.
The group has proposed the founding of an advisory council that will consist of such professionals. They would be able to provide more accurate insight into player behaviour, but there are concerns that they would only look out for their best interests. "It's just bizarre to put the gambling industry in charge of the advisory group," said Dr Colin McLeod of the University of Melbourne.
"What you're asking the industry to do is to find ways to curtail the spending of its most profitable customers." There are also concerns that doing away with a national regulator would also fragment the country’s gambling market. Instead of having one regulating body to create rules and regulations for all pokie clubs, it would be left up to individual state councils.
States rely heavily on gambling revenue, so it would be counterproductive to attempt to curb gambling spending at this level.
About the Author
