1. Utilitarian Ground Truth
2. Individual Autonomy

The primary argument for this Bill is based on the principle of "user pays" or, more accurately, "polluter pays." Since the interactive wagering industry is the source of the social costs associated with problem gambling, it is only right that the industry—rather than the general public—funds the mechanisms designed to mitigate that harm [Judgment]. Expanding the levy to cover promotion is a logical extension of this; a self-exclusion register is only effective if the people who need it actually know it exists.

From a utilitarian perspective, the social benefit of reducing gambling harm—which spans "finances, relationships, emotional and psychological issues, physical health, work and study performance" [Explanatory Memo page 5]—far outweighs the marginal cost to wagering providers. By ensuring the Department has a guaranteed funding stream for awareness campaigns, the Bill increases the likelihood that at-risk individuals will utilize BetStop, thereby preventing significant personal and economic distress.

Furthermore, this Bill supports individual autonomy. BetStop is a tool for self-exclusion; it empowers individuals to make a proactive choice to protect themselves from an addictive service. Ensuring this tool is well-promoted simply ensures that individuals are aware of the options available to them to exercise their agency in managing their own behavior.

1. Value-Neutral / Epistemic Objection
2. Propertarianism

One might object to this Bill on the grounds of regulatory overreach and the potential for "mission creep" in cost recovery. While recovering the direct administrative costs of a register is standard, allowing the government to levy private companies for the costs of its own "promotional" and "awareness" activities sets a concerning precedent [Judgment]. There is a risk that "reasonable expenditure" on communications could be interpreted broadly, effectively turning the levy into a blank check for government-funded advertising campaigns that may or may not be efficient or effective.

From a propertarian standpoint, this levy is a compulsory taking of private property (corporate revenue) to fund a government function. While the industry is regulated, the expansion of the levy to include departmental costs and retrospective recovery creates an unpredictable financial burden. The provision for retrospective recovery, in particular, undermines the ability of businesses to plan their finances with certainty, as they may be hit with charges for costs incurred years prior [Explanatory Memo page 9].

Finally, there is an epistemic concern regarding the effectiveness of government-run awareness campaigns. If the goal is to reduce harm, it is not clear that government-led "promotion" is the most efficient use of resources compared to, for example, requiring wagering providers to include prominent links to the register on their own platforms at their own expense, rather than funneling money through a government department first [Judgment].