Click to the link below to listen

Gary: Alright, ok, so we know that there's been plans, there's been... Look, I think I'm not surprised that this is coming to it because there seem to be moves amongst the federal government to not back up other promises previously around bans on online gambling, ok?

The advertising that is there for all to see. We are saturated with it.

But the Australian Financial Review are reporting that the government is expected to abandon those plans for a total ban on online gambling advertising. Let's bring in Kate Chaney, the independent MP for Curtin, who's certainly been campaigning to have this happen. What do you make and what are you hearing about these reports of them walking away from it, Kate?

Kate Chaney: Well, hi, Gary. Thanks for having me. And I am really hoping that these reports are not true. I think if the government walks away from gambling reform, this will be the Prime Minister's legacy, doing the bidding of gambling companies. Really broad support for reform here. Everyone knows we're saturated with these ads and it's making gambling a normalised part of sport for young people. And there is actually a solution. I was part of the committee that recommended, made 31 recommendations, including phasing out gambling ads. And the government still hasn't even responded to that report, let alone actually dealing with any of the issues in it.

Gary: One of the suggestions is that it's because they are bringing in the under-16 social media ban, of course, soon, and that will take away some of the advertising that's targeting teenagers. What do you say to that?

Kate Chaney: Well, it will take away some of it, but we're just shifting the problem, not solving it. So if young people are not on social media as much, they may then spend more time on traditional media. So they might now be watching the footy on the TV where they'll be bombarded, you know, watching MasterChef with their family. They see all those ads over and over again. They'll still see them in the stadium, on jerseys. What we've seen in the past is when you put partial bans in place, it just shifts the ads to different areas. And also they'll turn 16 and they've still got two years of normalising gambling on social media as well before they're allowed to legally gamble. So these ads work on young people. 75% think gambling is a normal part of sport. And I think it's just a distraction saying that the social media ban is going to solve this really different problem about gambling ads.

Gary: So what about if there was a compromise and some of the hours of advertising were restricted? That's a possibility.

Kate Chaney: Yeah, I mean, anything is better than the situation we have at the moment. The evidence we heard on the committee was that partial bans do move the problem around. But I think parents are so frustrated with the sheer volume of ads that they see everywhere that I would hope that the government will do something about this and not just completely, will continue to completely ignore the recommendations in that report.

Gary: Was there a timeline ever put on it when the government would come back and respond and perhaps come up with policy on it or not? Because we're talking next year now, aren't we?

Kate Chaney: Well, when the committee puts in a report like this with recommendations, the government is supposed to respond within six months. It's now been 874 days since that report was released.

Gary: Not that you're counting.

Kate Chaney: I am counting every single day because every single day Australians lose another 87 million dollars gambling. So every day counts. So they still haven't even given a response to that, which is now more than 650 days overdue. And we just keep seeing them kicking their can down the road. And I think it's really clearly because the gambling lobby is doing a very good job of getting into the government's ear and preventing action. And we're seeing all the same techniques that the tobacco lobby used 20 years ago. And now is the time for us to actually stand up to big gambling money like we did with big tobacco a generation ago.

Gary: Can I ask you, though, whether you think, and look, I wouldn't mind betting it's in the consideration, and that is the, I think quotes are around $300 million of advertising revenue that might take away from free-to-air TV, for example. In some way, the government, if they go and do that, and we all know that advertising revenue is falling, so that could be curtains for some networks, perhaps one that comes to mind here in Australia. Is that enough of a reason for the government to say, look, you know, these are parts of people's lives, free-to-air TV. If we pull the rug from under them on gambling, we could indeed shut them down. What would you say to that?

Kate Chaney: Gambling ads represent less than 4% of TV stations' reported annual ad revenue of $3.3 billion. So sure, it is something, but it's only 4% of the total ad revenue. If the real issue here is having sustainable media, let's talk about how we might solve that problem rather than assuming the only way to do it is to normalise gambling for teenagers in relation to sport. We have other options and we need to make sure that we're using the right tools to solve the right problem. But actually what we found, you know, when tobacco ads were phased out, all the media sports said it's the end of the world and we'll fall apart. And they didn't. So in the report, we recommended a phase out, do that over three or four years so that there is an opportunity and time to actually replace that ad revenue. The other thing that I've proposed is a gambling levy where we actually put a levy of 0.5 cents on every dollar that's wagered and that would bring in more than a thousand times what's needed to replace the lost revenue for media companies. So we can solve these problems and we see these arguments being trotted out, but really they are just gambling company talking points. Of those arguments, of course, came from Peter V'landys during all of this discussion. He's the head of the NRL. He said that all that's being talked about from people like you and others is nanny state ideologies.

Kate Chaney: Yeah, I'm sure the tobacco companies said exactly the same thing. The reality is these are predatory companies that prey on vulnerable people, who are experiencing problems with gambling and are bombarded by those ads all the time. We heard evidence in the committee of some of the practises of these companies. It's like the Wild West, they're all regulated out of the Northern Territory because that's where the least regulation is in Australia. And it's just, it's so appalling seeing some of the behaviours of this industry and the way they prey on people who are at their weakest or at their most vulnerable. So I don't buy the nanny state argument. We're not talking about banning gambling. We're just talking about removing the ads so that it's not normalised as part of sport.

Gary: Just before I let you go, your reaction to this compromise deal that seems to have been done between Australia and Turkey over the COP summit, the climate summit. Do you think what we've done is good enough? We become the, according to what the Prime Minister said this morning, we are the negotiator. We have a role in there amid all the discussion. What do you think?

Kate Chaney: Well, I think it's good that we will have a role. It's a pretty strange mechanism to work out who's hosting.

Gary: So it's probably not what you would do. You know what the mechanism is? Because I don't get it.

Kate Chaney: Well, it sort of has to be a consensus or else it reverts. And if one person doesn't agree, only one country doesn't agree, then it's not a consensus and it reverts to Germany.

Gary: So it's pretty odd.

Kate Chaney: But I think in the context, it's a shame. Like, I think it would have been good to have it in Australia and, you know, that would mean we would have more of a role in setting the agenda with our Pacific neighbours. But having a role as chief negotiator does mean that we will be part of that conversation and we will still, you know, I think it will still have additional media attention and focus and be an opportunity for Australia to show some leadership on behalf of our neighbours in the Pacific.

Gary: Alright, Kate Chaney, thanks very much for joining us.