‘Who’s gonna win?’
Stuart Kennedy writes: Should gambling ads be banned, à la tobacco ads? Abso-bloody-lutely! (“With updated taglines, will gambling face the same fate as befell big tobacco?”) I am just sad it has taken so long for it to even be discussed seriously. For years I have bemoaned the normalisation of gambling when watching NRL — often in kids’ viewing time — with promos for not just a simple “Who’s gonna win?” but for all sorts of exotic punts, e.g. “Manly 3.5 points start…”, “First try scorer…”, “First points scorer…”, et al. Kids watching with mum and/or dad presumably think that a bet on the footy is part of the entertainment. Even worse, every NRL team has a gambling company as a sponsor. We have to do better, or Australians’ reputation as the world’s biggest losers will only get worse.
Kevin Tait writes: Our government(s) are our most prominent gambling addicts. If their anti-gambling efforts become analogous in any way to their treatment of the smoking industry the ultimate result will be a smaller core of gambling addicts (compared with the current situation) who just get more heavily taxed. Government take will always be protected. After all, we now have a dramatically reduced smoking population but the excise taxes they pay massively exceed all government revenues from coal mining.
John McCombe writes: How about “Keep a record of your bets and do a complete reconciliation every Friday.”
Chris Thatcher writes: Taglines are a start, but there is such an undercurrent to this industry that needs to be addressed. It’s the dressing-up of gambling that really gets to me and it’s those small, overlooked details that seep into the psyche of someone hoping to win.
In horse and dog racing, I’m annoyed by the ads showing joyful mates having a laugh, carefree with phones. And what’s the go with a pub full of people celebrating a win? Not everyone in a pub bets on the same horse or dog. Not everyone will be jumping and cheering. Where’s the grumpy person tearing up their ticket? Deception in a business would not be tolerated by society. Why are dismal odds that are made to look like a good opportunity tolerated?
‘Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide’
Dianne Cudby writes: The idea of digital ID regarding the individual’s rights is the main thing that concerns me (“Home Affairs Department revives its dystopian biometric dream”). If we are to believe all that is out there in social media we would be led to feel helpless and defeated, not only as individuals but as a society. Those outside this zombie field will have to suffer its consequence and at times there is a feeling that there is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. If you have an army of soldiers made up of those who wish to take a stand against this I would like to join up.
Jock Webb writes: We need to get rid of Mike Pezzullo. It was also on his watch that we allowed the sex-trafficking visas. He has been dysfunctional as the Home Affairs Department head and has been a protected species for a decade. Enough. The whole joint needs the river of truth because it has become an Augean stable of incompetence and lies.
Debt and disaster
Gary Shepherd writes: The royal commission will not fix the root cause of robodebt (“Was the robodebt fiasco pure ideological bastardry?”). Part of it was ideologically driven, but the overwhelming cause of the failure was the unprecedented contempt the Liberal-National Coalition showed for rules and the law. Now we will see information previously denied to the public. Maybe an unintended outcome is beefed-up FOI legislation. The Morrison government ignored requests and court orders when its stalling practices failed. There should’ve been consequences.
Taste tests
Jennifer Manson writes: So far Magda’s Big National Health Check is looking good, squarely examining societal causes, and looking at those who design and manage suburbs and towns that discourage good physical and mental health (“‘Medicalise everything’: how progressives are implementing neoliberalism on health”). Whether they be politicians or town planners or developers, we have many places where there’s nowhere enjoyable to walk, poor public transport, and busy roads without decent footpaths or parks. Additionally, the encouragement to eat fast food because it’s easy and cheap can be resisted only by those who have good alternatives or the time, money and expertise to prepare nutritious food day in, day out. Few people can, certainly not those on low incomes or insecure work. A great idea was suggested of drive-throughs that sold only healthy food for those in a rush, but also of places that provide fresh food as part of an easily accessible social outing in the community.
What we have yet to see is an examination of remote communities, especially Indigenous ones where healthy fresh fruit and veg are either unavailable or priced at levels that only the wealthy can afford.
Gavin Miller writes: As I approach my 62nd birthday, I find I’m adopting more of the philosophy of an epicurean — well, my interpretation of it. Do the fun things but not to the detriment of anyone, the environment, the planet, the cosmos, etc. A bit like reading Crikey and writing a letter to the editor. It’s been fun, and other than a tiny bit of coal/gas that may have been burnt producing electricity to email it to you, the planet hasn’t been harmed (too much).
Tom Benjamin writes: Keane’s article briefly touched on the huge mental health portion of this sector, noting the concept “your mental habits undermine you”. The Medical Benefits Schedule specifically funnels people into conceding such as a “mental disorder”. Few realise that the subsidy for a mental health treatment plan is premised on the patient accepting the disorder label. And they are to receive treatment, rather than generic counselling. A disorder is presumed to be disproportionate to the stresses, not a normal response. This effectively creates a lifelong psychiatric label that passes to the next generation as a “family history of mental disorder”. Any barrister could bring this up decades later to thwart a compensation claim, supported by the documentation of a medical practitioner having issued, and the patient having accepted, the label.
Our system of royal commissions and public inquiries encourages experts and recipients to testify. It seldom hears from the public, volunteers who carry the load, or those put out of business in the mental health sector by the competitors who benefit from medicalisation. There are many incentives for overdiagnosis and overtreatment in the mental health sector. The ACCC has the authority to turn the onus of proof on to those who restrict trade, but its commissioners have publicly reported they had been warned to “back off” the health sector. Until there is the political will to take on this sector, its growth will continue unchecked.
Bob Hawkins writes: Bernard Keane’s piece on the evils of public health interventions is truly partial and one-eyed. I am in Chile where air pollution in the capital is horrendous, and the population appears afflicted by chronic respiratory complaints. Public health interventions to reduce air pollution are consistent with sound medical advice and make good economic sense, given the public-good nature of clean air. Similarly pesticide residues in foodstuffs, heavy metals in the water supply, harmful bacteria in cafe meals, etc. It is only a small step to applying similar thinking to food containing trans fats, and then to artificial sugars, emulsifiers and preservatives.
Keane needs to get out of his tunnel and adopt a wider perspective.
Shirley Phillips writes: Bernard Keane tells us he is leaving his comments about the “nanny state” and “paternalists” at the door, but he doesn’t. Apparently health messaging is “big government” telling us what to do to minimise spending and maximise productivity. And the silly progressives can’t see it. Perhaps big business is not as benign as he assumes.
Chris Ansted writes: Despite Australia’s relatively good health status, we do have some serious, community-wide health problems, particularly in the areas that the current health programs on the ABC are addressing — namely poor diets and increasing obesity and diabetes. Reducing ill health may improve our economic productivity, but more importantly, it will improve people’s lives and — even in our predatory capitalist world — that will be deeply appreciated by those whose health can be improved.
Keane suggests Australia doesn’t need public health programs, because our health is better than that of countries such as Denmark which do run public health programs. This is a superficial approach to the serious issue of improving public health. One could be equally superficial and suggest he compare Australia’s public health with that of the land of the free and the home of the brave, whose health statistics are considerably worse and deteriorating. That’s where rejecting any role of government in helping its citizens make better choices leads. And if public health programs are an underhanded way of pursuing the neoliberal agenda, why does business so strongly oppose restrictions on advertising? Does Keane really believe that business has put so much money into advertising cigarettes, alcohol, soft drinks, sugar-filled breakfast cereals and gambling to improve our lives? Pull the other one.
If you’re feeling pleased, annoyed or inspired, write to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
