NM: Let’s bring in Independent MP and Member for Curtin Kate Chaney, who has been a fierce campaigner against these ads. Will it do what the Minister says it will do?
KC: I think there is no chance it will do that. Nadia, I noticed a slight slip of the tongue when you said that some of the Coalition voted against this “bull” instead of this “bill”. I know you meant bill, but I think you were onto something.
It is so complex, and it ignores all the evidence about what actually works.
NM: A slip of the tongue, perhaps. You’ve caught me out there, Kate Chaney. Has the government been tone-deaf on this one?
KC: Absolutely. At least three-quarters of Australians support phasing out gambling ads, as we did with tobacco.
Instead, we’ve got this really complicated combination of different rules for different channels at different times, with exceptions, exceptions to exceptions and last-minute systems that are yet to be designed.
I think the government is just playing to the money and the power. It’s listening to the gambling industry. You might notice there isn’t a single expert who works in this area saying this is a good thing.
NM: You could argue that something is better than nothing.
KC: That’s right. I’m the eternal optimist, and I would love to be wrong about this. I’d be the first to turn around in three years and say, “Well done, government. You defied all the evidence, yet it worked.”
There are some improvements involving jerseys and in-stadium advertising. It’s not nothing, but the problem is that all the evidence shows partial bans don’t work.
Advertising can simply be doubled after 8.30 pm. These companies are really good at this. There’s no evidence supporting the 8.30 threshold, and 83 per cent of children continue watching sport after 8.30. The opt-out option doesn’t work.
The impact analysis says a full ban would have a lower regulatory burden, cost the least to implement and have a more significant positive impact. All of that has been ignored.
NM: That was my next question. We’re watching a game of footy and then it hits 8.30. Am I just going to be saturated with all the ads I didn’t get during the first hour of the game?
KC: That’s right, and your children will obediently trot off to bed at 8.30. That’s what the government is assuming will happen.
There’s simply no evidence showing that this is effective. It’s completely arbitrary. It doesn’t work.
This is a package that really suits the gambling companies, unfortunately. The best thing in it is an amendment requiring a review in three years, so the government will actually have to look at whether it has achieved anything.
That may give a future government the opportunity to be brave and do it properly next time.
NM: What about people who go to the games? Players won’t be able to endorse gambling, gambling companies won’t be allowed on their jerseys and there won’t be advertising in the stadiums. Surely that will have some impact?
KC: There are some good pieces in here, but it is so piecemeal. The problem is that it’s a missed opportunity.
Imagine if, with tobacco, we had said, “Okay, three tobacco ads an hour, every hour during the day, is perfectly acceptable.”
I think the government would have done nothing if we hadn’t kept pushing on this, so there are some small wins. My concern is that, as soon as this is done, we’ll get no more action until we have another leader.
NM: All right, I’ll leave it there. Kate Chaney, thank you so much for your time.
KC: Thanks very much, Nadia.