Speaker 1: From sports media. I'm Daniel James. This is seven am.
Speaker 1: They're hard to miss the number of gambling ads flooding
Speaker 1: our screens and devices every day. They've become such an
Speaker 1: inescapable part of sport that a parliamentary inquiry was formed
Speaker 1: which looked at the impacts the ads are having on
Speaker 1: the community. In the final months of her life, the
Speaker 1: Labour MP Peter Murphy was the chair of that inquiry,
Speaker 1: and after hearing from the gambling industry, dependent sporting codes
Speaker 1: and families impacted by gambling addiction, her position was unequivocal.
Speaker 1: All ads for online gambling should be banned. There's been
Speaker 1: more than fourteen months since the government received her recommendations,
Speaker 1: and yet the proliferation of gambling ads has continued unabated.
Speaker 1: Now the Government could be set toward a down a
Speaker 1: ban in favor of caps on the number of ads
Speaker 1: per hour. Today, Independent Senator David Pocock from the stranglehold
Speaker 1: the gambling industry has on Australian sport and politics and
Speaker 1: what could be done to change it? Is Tuesday August six.
Speaker 2: A.
Speaker 1: Senator Pocock, thanks for your time.
Speaker 3: Hey Daniel, good to be with you.
Speaker 1: It seems to be part of the business model but
Speaker 1: also part of the culture of several sports. Now we
Speaker 1: know Australians lose more on gambling than anywhere else in
Speaker 1: the world. Can you tell me about how big an
Speaker 1: issue it is and who was impacted by this?
Speaker 3: Well, we're the biggest losers in the world when it
Speaker 3: comes to gambling. We're number one on a per capita
Speaker 3: basis twenty five billion dollars a year. We're losing and
Speaker 3: no one's suggesting that adults be banned from gambling. This
Speaker 3: conversation really is around what does it mean when you
Speaker 3: have a sports betting industry that is spending two hundred
Speaker 3: and eighty million dollars a year on advertising, to the
Speaker 3: point that three out of four eight to sixteen year
Speaker 3: olds think that sports betting is now just a normal
Speaker 3: part of enjoying sport, it's what you do. And we've
Speaker 3: got gamblers anonymous groups reporting that more under eighteens are
Speaker 3: stigned to access their services. This is really about protecting
Speaker 3: young people and we have Peter Murphy's review.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the Standing Committee
Speaker 4: on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, I present the Committee's
Speaker 4: report entitled You Win some you lose more online gambling
Speaker 4: and its impacts on.
Speaker 3: Those a report that didn't mince its words. Peter Murphy
Speaker 3: said in her report, gambling ads are grooming children.
Speaker 4: And what we heard from submitters, ranging from people with
Speaker 4: lived experience to researchers and academics and even people in
Speaker 4: the industry, is that ankering around the edges isn't going.
Speaker 2: To cut it either.
Speaker 3: And they had a host of recommendations, including a three
Speaker 3: year phase out of all gambling advertising, working with sports
Speaker 3: and industries that will be affected, and instead of backing
Speaker 3: that piece of work in we're seeing the federal government
Speaker 3: not have the courage to take on the gambling industry.
Speaker 3: Haven't seen the full details, but it sounds like they're
Speaker 3: going to be introducing caps on advertising.
Speaker 1: So they may not be a total band, but there
Speaker 1: may be a ban on gambling gigs on social media.
Speaker 1: It seems like the government is leaning towards implementing that.
Speaker 1: Aspect of the report, what impact do you think an
Speaker 1: online ban will have.
Speaker 3: One of the really worrying things talking to researchers who've
Speaker 3: been looking at this is because these gambling companies have
Speaker 3: such huge budgets, not just to place ads on social
Speaker 3: media and online platforms, but also to develop them. The
Speaker 3: feedback from particularly young young men and boys is that
Speaker 3: they actually really enjoy the ads they're entertaining. It's their
Speaker 3: favorite sports star or it's Shaquille O'Neil, and they're funny
Speaker 3: and then they really speak to that audience. And that's
Speaker 3: incredibly worrying because what they're pushing is something that we
Speaker 3: know has significant harm and I think only a total
Speaker 3: phase band will ensure that we delive on what Australians
Speaker 3: overwhelmingly want and what advocates are telling us is needed
Speaker 3: to start to turn this around. When you implement a
Speaker 3: patchy ban, you're going to get patchy results and companies
Speaker 3: will find workarounds and loopholes.
Speaker 1: And so what we've heard over the weekend in relation
Speaker 1: to that, Senator is that the government is not looking
Speaker 1: to have the same band for commercial television. We're looking
Speaker 1: at two gaming ads per hour and each channel until
Speaker 1: ten pm and banning ads an hour before and after
Speaker 1: a live sport. What do you make of that?
Speaker 3: As a so we kin'd have gambling companies dictating government policy. Clearly,
Speaker 3: the government rather than backing in a report that had
Speaker 3: the backing of every party in the Parliament of Independence.
Speaker 3: They're saying, well, we see your report, but actually we're
Speaker 3: going to do more, something that's more in line with
Speaker 3: what the gambling industry wants. And it's not hard to
Speaker 3: understand why when you see the FI documents that reveal
Speaker 3: that the Minnesota Office met sixty six times with gambling
Speaker 3: executives in six months. That's a lot of meetings about
Speaker 3: an upcoming reform. And you talk about advocates really trying
Speaker 3: to push for Australian's health and well being to put
Speaker 3: front and center in this, they certainly not getting that
Speaker 3: kind of access and this is having a very real
Speaker 3: impact on thousands and thousands of Australians. I was recently
Speaker 3: at a parliamentary event on on gambling and we had
Speaker 3: a family come and talk about their son who struggled
Speaker 3: with a sports betting addiction to the point that he'd
Speaker 3: tragically taken his own life. And I remember sitting there
Speaker 3: as they read his suicide note, thinking what are we doing.
Speaker 3: How can we still be debating whether we should be
Speaker 3: allowing rampant advertising for gambling while families are losing their
Speaker 3: mostly sons to these products.
Speaker 1: After the break the links the gambling lobby has gone
Speaker 1: to to prevent change, Senator Pacock. The parliamentary inquiry heard
Speaker 1: from advocates for change, but also heard from gambling companies
Speaker 1: and the sports codes.
Speaker 2: And while the IFIL hasn't a prominent sponsori relationship with
Speaker 2: their betting partner, sports bet and Product for Ranger.
Speaker 1: Gilan mclochlin was chief executive of the AFL at the time.
Speaker 1: In his submission he talked about the fact that gambling
Speaker 1: revenue generated by the AFL is reinvested into grassroots sport
Speaker 1: and he opposed the ban.
Speaker 2: On our sport which allows us to invest in integrity
Speaker 2: and the grass roots participation in the growth of our sports.
Speaker 1: We believe if the band was to be implemented, what
Speaker 1: impact do you think would have on grassroots sport?
Speaker 3: And this was part of the consideration of the Murphy
Speaker 3: Review and that's why they proposed a three year phased approach,
Speaker 3: as well as a range of other recommendations like establishing
Speaker 3: a national gambling regulator, developing a national harm minimization strategy,
Speaker 3: a levy on gambling operators to pay for some of
Speaker 3: the harms that they cause. And we've heard from sports
Speaker 3: when tobacco advertising was banned. We heard all the same
Speaker 3: arguments that it would mean less revenue. It tends to
Speaker 3: be existential for them. For me, this is about one
Speaker 3: putting Australian's health and well being ahead of mostly multinational
Speaker 3: gambling companies and secondly, really trying to go to the question, well,
Speaker 3: what is sport for? Is sport something that is there
Speaker 3: to be enjoyed, somewhere where people can feel like they're
Speaker 3: part of something bigger than themselves, that they can challenge
Speaker 3: themselves and then when they support their favorite team, to
Speaker 3: feel that excitement and exhilaration of supporting a team with
Speaker 3: thousands of other people and being part of that crowd.
Speaker 3: Or is it simply a product that allows administrators to
Speaker 3: flog other things that we know are harmful and are
Speaker 3: particularly harmful to young people. And what I'm hearing as
Speaker 3: an independent senator is that people want sport to be
Speaker 3: the first thing and that's going to mean that we
Speaker 3: have to break this nexus between gambling and professional sport.
Speaker 5: Former AFL boss Gil mcgloughlin has been appointed as the
Speaker 5: new CEO of Tabcorp.
Speaker 3: And yeah, it's no surprise that someone like Gil McLachlin
Speaker 3: then goes and works for the gambling industry.
Speaker 5: He is a familiar face to many, having steered the
Speaker 5: AFL to great success for a long time, and he
Speaker 5: joins Tabcorp. Now that's got some challenges on its hands.
Speaker 3: I dare say they wouldn't be making that higher if
Speaker 3: we had actually implemented the Murphy Review recommendations.
Speaker 1: What does it say about the relationship between sport and
Speaker 1: gambling that someone like Gilian McLoughlin has gone on as
Speaker 1: the new role of chief executive of Tabcorp, Australia's largest
Speaker 1: gambling company.
Speaker 3: Well, it says that it's with some particular sports, it's
Speaker 3: become totally enmeshed. It's no longer just a sponsor. It's
Speaker 3: part of the business model and we have to break
Speaker 3: and that's what the Murphy Review did. And this is
Speaker 3: something that Independence and minor parties in the Parliament have
Speaker 3: been pushing the Government on because we're here to represent
Speaker 3: our communities, we're not here to represent the gambling industry.
Speaker 3: And what we're hearing is that people want this dealt with.
Speaker 3: There's the political will in the Parliament and it's incredibly
Speaker 3: disappointing and I think displays a real lack of courage
Speaker 3: from the government to not follow through with it.
Speaker 1: Last year, the Communications Minister Michelle Roland faced calls to
Speaker 1: resign after it was revealed that sports Bet had made
Speaker 1: financial contributions to her election campaign. You also mentioned earlier
Speaker 1: that the minister has met with gambling companies on numerous occasions.
Speaker 1: What faith should Australians have in the political process when
Speaker 1: we hear stories like that.
Speaker 3: Well, I was very concerned about hearing that sports Bet
Speaker 3: had made donations. The Minister hadn't declared them because they
Speaker 3: were below the the threshold, and the government sort of said, well,
Speaker 3: there's been no wrong committed here, which I think points
Speaker 3: to how sort of lacking political donation and transparency arrangements
Speaker 3: when it comes to our elections. And then also I
Speaker 3: think when it comes to lobbying, we only know about
Speaker 3: all these meetings because of FOI requests. There's currently a
Speaker 3: very loose lobbyist register, ministerial diaries aren't released. These are
Speaker 3: all things that I think should also happened. But the
Speaker 3: most worrying thing is that after the whole thing, after
Speaker 3: the election campaign, the minister then gets wined and dined
Speaker 3: on her birthday by the gambling industry and again doesn't
Speaker 3: think that there's any issue with that, which I think
Speaker 3: is pretty extraordinary. And I think when you see the
Speaker 3: Murphy Review alongside the Center from the majority of Australians,
Speaker 3: you know, I think the last polling I saw was
Speaker 3: seventy percent of Australians want a total gambling ad ban.
Speaker 3: When you compare that to what the government's now going
Speaker 3: to offer up as their solution, you have to start
Speaker 3: asking questions about vested interests, about access, about the power
Speaker 3: of lobbyists and industry to get the outcome they want,
Speaker 3: not the outcome that's good for Australians. This requires political
Speaker 3: courage and people want to see this happen and this
Speaker 3: will certainly be something that I will continue to push
Speaker 3: the government on now and into the election.
Speaker 1: Send it to pay a Cock. Thank you for your time,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me, Daniel Chairs. If you're affected by
Speaker 1: gambling and need support, there is a website help online
Speaker 1: dot org dot aye. Also in the New Use today,
Speaker 1: ASIOL has lifted the terror threat to probable. Asio's director
Speaker 1: General Mike Burgess said more Australians are being radicalized and
Speaker 1: more quickly, making our security situation volatile. And unpredictable. He
Speaker 1: said the conflict in Gaza has been a significant driver,
Speaker 1: though was not the cause for raising the terror threat.
Speaker 1: The terror threat has been in the lower level of
Speaker 1: possible since November twenty twenty two, and the new Minister
Speaker 1: for Indigenous Australians Well and Dearie McCarthy says the Federal
Speaker 1: government has not abandoned plans to establish a Macarata truth commission.
Speaker 1: At the Garment Festival in Northeast darnham Land over the weekend,
Speaker 1: mister Albanez he said a truth telling commission was not
Speaker 1: what the government was proposing, instead saying he met Macarata
Speaker 1: as simply coming together after a struggle. Key Yes campaigners
Speaker 1: have criticized mister Albinezi for breaking a key election promise,
Speaker 1: but Senator McCarthy says he was misrepresented and the government
Speaker 1: is sticking with its commitment. That's awful today. If you've
Speaker 1: enjoyed this episode, please share it with a friend. It
Speaker 1: helps a lot. I'm Daniel James. This is seven AM.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening.