Speaker 1: I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven AM. For years,
Speaker 1: gambling advertising has spread far beyond the outbreak, becoming a
Speaker 1: familiar part of how Australians watch sport, follow news about sport,
Speaker 1: and spend time online. Three years after the Murphery Review
Speaker 1: called for a comprehensive ban, the Albanezi government has finally responded,
Speaker 1: but the government's plan to reign in online gambling advertising
Speaker 1: has drawn sharp criticism, with campaigners and cross benches arguing
Speaker 1: it falls well short of what was recommended, and in
Speaker 1: that gap, a bigger fighters opened up about how deeply
Speaker 1: betting has worked its way into Australian media and Australians' lives. Today,
Speaker 1: Krikey Media reporter Danny Say on the government's plan to
Speaker 1: reduce gambling ads and why it's longer waited response is
Speaker 1: already under fire. It's Friday, April seventeen, Danni. Gambling ads
Speaker 1: are everywhere. It's impossible to listen to a sports podcast
Speaker 1: in Australia that it isn't sponsored by a sports betting company.
Speaker 1: But it's not just sports podcasts. A lot of other
Speaker 1: podcasts of villas and YouTube serve an absurd amount of gambling.
Speaker 2: Ads, multis or build your own combining player markets like
Speaker 2: total goals disposals.
Speaker 1: Even Karl Stefanovic's new YouTube show is sponsored by a
Speaker 1: sports betting company. Being a man that may well fit
Speaker 1: into the target demographic for this, I'm sure you've noticed
Speaker 1: the same thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely, Daniel. It kind of blows my mind a
Speaker 3: little bit. That's even people who I've spoken through in
Speaker 3: the gambling industry who make their living off of this,
Speaker 3: who are absolutely incentivized in the most literal sense to
Speaker 3: continue the bombardment of gambling ads that we do have
Speaker 3: have come out said I am gone on the record
Speaker 3: and said, okay, it's a bit much. And I can't
Speaker 3: think of a single other industry where we've reached a
Speaker 3: level of saturation where people employed by the industry say
Speaker 3: the advertising for their livelihood is a bit much. Vested
Speaker 3: interests is a powerful thing. It's extraordinary when you go
Speaker 3: too far.
Speaker 1: So to address this torrent of gambling ads that we
Speaker 1: see on every screen we look at. Just before the
Speaker 1: Easter break, the federal government finally announced its planned around
Speaker 1: gambling ad restrictions, something that advocates and campaigners have been
Speaker 1: waiting three years for.
Speaker 4: We are getting the balance right, letting adults have a
Speaker 4: punt if they want to, but making sure that our
Speaker 4: children don't see betting ads everywhere they look.
Speaker 1: So remind me and those listening to this, what was
Speaker 1: actually announced by the Alberanza government on this front.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so there's a couple of top line reforms and
Speaker 3: we're going to get a better idea of them sort
Speaker 3: of in the next sitting week. Conveniently that'll also get
Speaker 3: overshadowed by the federal budget. But we're looking at a
Speaker 3: restriction on gambling advertising on broadcast television to know more
Speaker 3: than three ads an hour between six am and eight
Speaker 3: thirty pm.
Speaker 4: We will ban all gambling ads on radio during school
Speaker 4: pickup and drop off.
Speaker 3: We're going to see a banning of gambling ads on
Speaker 3: online platforms unless you have a long DIN account over
Speaker 3: eighteen and have the option to opt out of gambling advertising.
Speaker 3: So that sounds it's a little bit in the weeds,
Speaker 3: and there's probably some bits and pieces to work through
Speaker 3: there and some moving parts there.
Speaker 4: We will ban cross promotion content that mixers commentary with odds,
Speaker 4: will end advertising on jerseys and jumpers and in stadiums,
Speaker 4: and will ban.
Speaker 3: But there was a report that came out in the
Speaker 3: last couple of days that said that enerl clubs will
Speaker 3: be allowed to sort of see out the duration of
Speaker 3: those deals. So these reforms are going to kick in
Speaker 3: from the first of January twenty twenty seven. A lot
Speaker 3: of those gambling deals relating to uniforms and so on
Speaker 3: sort of extend beyond that, and they'll be allowed to
Speaker 3: sort of see those out.
Speaker 1: So while it sounds like there's a fair bit going
Speaker 1: on with these reforms, it's still a pretty watered down
Speaker 1: version of what Peter Murphy in her inquiry was recommending.
Speaker 2: If the status quo on online gambling regulation, including but
Speaker 2: certainly not limited to advertising, was to continue, Australians will
Speaker 2: continue to lose more, more money, more relationships, more love
Speaker 2: sport for the game rather than for the odds.
Speaker 3: It's been really widely criticized. It's been criticized by all
Speaker 3: sides of politics, and noting that Peter Murphy's sort of
Speaker 3: committee that put this report together back in during twenty
Speaker 3: twenty three was bipartisan committee and had people from both
Speaker 3: sides of politics. But the Manifay report said that partial
Speaker 3: bands on advertising don't work it's really clear about that.
Speaker 3: It's a fair deal of research on that. We know
Speaker 3: that this is a parcelband. We know that the Murphy
Speaker 3: Report called for a national regulator, and there's no mention
Speaker 3: of that. There might well still be a response to that,
Speaker 3: but this announcement so far doesn't mention it. There's also
Speaker 3: no mention of inducements, so things like bonus bets and
Speaker 3: bet returns, things that sort of keep gamblers or customers
Speaker 3: money cycling through betting apps and betting platforms. Those were
Speaker 3: recommended to be outright banned by the Murphy Report. There's
Speaker 3: no mention of that in this suite of reforms that
Speaker 3: the government's announced.
Speaker 1: The fact that it's taken so long, Dannie and it's
Speaker 1: so watered down from what the Murphy Review recommended, does
Speaker 1: that show how influential the gambling lobby is in Australia.
Speaker 1: I mean, just how hard has the campaign against these
Speaker 1: reforms being.
Speaker 3: It's been really, really hard. I think it does. That's
Speaker 3: the criticism that has been put to me by adverts
Speaker 3: by MPs, by the cross bench, by members of the
Speaker 3: Labor Party, both sort of in the parliament and outsided
Speaker 3: from the rank and file, that are pushing for reform.
Speaker 3: This has been a really consistent criticism that the government
Speaker 3: has a really close relationship with the gambling lobby. And
Speaker 3: not just the gambling lobby. There are other stakeholders through
Speaker 3: that the government has close relationships with that it doesn't
Speaker 3: want to jeopardize, so things like broadcasters that rely on
Speaker 3: the advertising revenue, things like the sporting codes themselves.
Speaker 1: Broadcasters are hooked on this revenue, now, aren't they.
Speaker 3: Yes, broadcasters are hooked on this as well. And they've
Speaker 3: sort of flagged that there might be changes to revenue
Speaker 3: models and so on, or warned or threatened that there
Speaker 3: might be changes to staff, or to revenue models or
Speaker 3: to how aughts of programming. I think that's a bit
Speaker 3: of an empty threat. A lot of these broadcasters are
Speaker 3: doing very well for themselves, and as we speak, Peter
Speaker 3: landers Is, the chair of the Ruguy League Commission, has
Speaker 3: been given quotes to the newsp papers about the massive
Speaker 3: multi billion dollar deal, the broadcast deal that he's ready
Speaker 3: to sign and has many many sushes for so cynically,
Speaker 3: I would say they'll do just fine.
Speaker 1: You mentioned that there's been some voluntary action from some
Speaker 1: of the betting agencies because during that long delay in
Speaker 1: the response to these proposed reforms, these recommendations, have the
Speaker 1: gambling companies built ways to potentially get around these bands
Speaker 1: and reach customers. Because it seems like, as you said, already,
Speaker 1: most of the sports gambling companies have their own podcasts,
Speaker 1: their own content channels with subscribers and followers. Would those
Speaker 1: things be defined as advertisements in relation to these reforms.
Speaker 3: We're not entirely clear on that yet. Like the short
Speaker 3: answer is yes, they'll probably try to get around them
Speaker 3: in some form. This is part of the reason why
Speaker 3: a partial band doesn't work, and this is why say
Speaker 3: partial bands don't work, just because gambling companies find new
Speaker 3: and creative ways to get around them. The gambling companies
Speaker 3: have already like bobbied really really hard on this over
Speaker 3: the last three years. In August twenty twenty four, it
Speaker 3: was reported that the then Communications Minister now the Attorney General,
Speaker 3: Michelle Roland, had sort of met with a number of stakeholders,
Speaker 3: including the big wagering companies, and the proposal at the
Speaker 3: time was something to the effect of two gambling ads
Speaker 3: an hour. It was then reported in January that Anthony
Speaker 3: Albanize had come over the top of Major Captain's call
Speaker 3: and vetoed gambling advertising reform before the twenty twenty five election.
Speaker 3: Now we're an early twenty twenty six to three a
Speaker 3: year on from that election. We've seen a new minister
Speaker 3: and the proposal now is three gambling ads, so it's
Speaker 3: an additional ad per hour on what gambling companies were
Speaker 3: sort of already exposed to. So there's a criticism that
Speaker 3: has come with this latest suite of reforms from gambling
Speaker 3: companies that all we were consulted on these changes and
Speaker 3: the reality is that gambling companies have been consulted in
Speaker 3: quite some depth a really significant period of time, so
Speaker 3: they're very aware of the machinations of this.
Speaker 1: Coming up, how gambling has become part of Australian sport Danney.
Speaker 1: These reforms are still yet to get through Parliament. The
Speaker 1: Greens and Independence like David Panncock are unhappy with what's
Speaker 1: been announced. Is there any real chance that these reforms
Speaker 1: get strengthened from here?
Speaker 3: See this is I think really interesting. The short answers,
Speaker 3: I don't know. The longer answer is maybe the coalitions
Speaker 3: sort of very broadly support gambley advertising reform. It's not
Speaker 3: really clear where they sit on this current announcement, but
Speaker 3: it's worth bearing in mind. And again this sort of
Speaker 3: highlights the absurdity of how long this government has taken
Speaker 3: that they were outflanked to the left by Peter Dutton
Speaker 3: and Sports Bear. But Peter Dutton came out a long
Speaker 3: time ago in twenty twenty three, I think I think
Speaker 3: it was semberish and came out and said we're in
Speaker 3: support of gambling advertising reform. We think it's much The
Speaker 3: government could very well take coalition support for this set
Speaker 3: of reforms and take it through the Senate, but the
Speaker 3: Greens are really critical of the proposal as it stands Now,
Speaker 3: if you get the Green support, you're more or less through,
Speaker 3: but they would want to see it significantly strengthened. The
Speaker 3: Green spokes Ferston on this Siah Hanson Young is called
Speaker 3: the government squips on this suite of reforms. They really
Speaker 3: don't think it goes far enough. Have some guts.
Speaker 2: Just like they complained and squealed about tobacco, they're squealing
Speaker 2: and complaining and excusing about.
Speaker 3: Likewise. David Pocock one of the three independents in the
Speaker 3: Upper House. He's been one of its most vocal critics.
Speaker 4: The Albanezy government has failed Australians when it comes to
Speaker 4: banning gambling advertising.
Speaker 3: Lydia Thorpe, obviously an independent form of Green, has previously
Speaker 3: called for a total ad band hasn't sort of said
Speaker 3: anything in detail yet Jackie Lamby has consistently voted in
Speaker 3: face of gambling advertising reform.
Speaker 5: You'd rather take those Stone nations than worry about the
Speaker 5: future of our kids. You are absolutely you should not
Speaker 5: be sitting in this place. You should not be a
Speaker 5: representative in Parliament. I'll say that right now.
Speaker 3: You are doing nothing.
Speaker 5: But hurting our Australian kids and their families.
Speaker 3: And then One Nation is a bit of a wire
Speaker 3: card in the sense you've got four sentences, but many
Speaker 3: of them are actually just never in the Senate, so
Speaker 3: it's not super clear where one Nation stand at the moment.
Speaker 1: The other thing I wanted to speak to you about
Speaker 1: Danny Wall We've got you is Nick Foot, the afl umpire.
Speaker 1: His employment with sports Bet has recently come under the spotlight,
Speaker 1: and of course there's no suggestion that Foot has done
Speaker 1: anything wrong, but it does feel like an example of
Speaker 1: how deeply ingrained gambling has become spot absolutely.
Speaker 3: There was a great analysis piece by the ABC's Cart Pollard,
Speaker 3: who's one of their digital sport editors, on this, and
Speaker 3: he makes the point that it is absurd and the
Speaker 3: obsurdity of it been highlighted now that this story has
Speaker 3: become a national issue and NRL communities, people above the
Speaker 3: Barrassi line have sort of expressed to me, this is insane.
Speaker 3: How do you have an umpire whose.
Speaker 1: Fell out of my chair when I heard that we
Speaker 1: had an umpire employed by a gambling agency.
Speaker 3: The AFL's rationalist that he analyzes racing, he doesn't do football,
Speaker 3: and obviously there are a number of integrity scandals over
Speaker 3: the years involving brown lows, involving umpires and votes and
Speaker 3: so on. The AFL were previously comfortable with it. My
Speaker 3: understanding is they might be a little bit less comfortable
Speaker 3: now in AFL house. But whether that leads Channing change
Speaker 3: is another thing. He's been reappointed for this weekend's game
Speaker 3: again between gold Coaster and Essenden, And it's also worth
Speaker 3: noting that AFL umpires aren't full time professionals, so there
Speaker 3: is a necessity of umpires needing to earn a living
Speaker 3: wage by other means it's been a long term debate
Speaker 3: in the AFL about making umpires full term professionals, and
Speaker 3: one of the things that we mitigate is situations like
Speaker 3: this in integrity concerns.
Speaker 1: So, finally, Dannie, is this now bigger than a simple
Speaker 1: advertising debate? Is it really a question about whether Australian
Speaker 1: sport has become too culturally and commercially entangled with betting
Speaker 1: And does it seem to you like labor is trying
Speaker 1: to make gambling ads less visible without really addressing the
Speaker 1: harms that online gambling has on Australians.
Speaker 3: Yes, I think this debate is one of like fundamentally,
Speaker 3: when you when you sit down in the pub with
Speaker 3: a beer and you have this conversation with punters. They
Speaker 3: do see this as a debate around what gambling's relationship
Speaker 3: is like relatives of sport. And we've sort of seen
Speaker 3: the effects of it going unregulated in the United States,
Speaker 3: who sort of en mass deregulated sports betting over the
Speaker 3: last few years, and it has seen a losion of
Speaker 3: a of revenue, be of just a complete change in
Speaker 3: how sport is presented in the United States. And I
Speaker 3: would argue that most strangers don't necessarily want to see
Speaker 3: us go down that path. And this is I think
Speaker 3: the politics of it anything other easys relied on for
Speaker 3: a really long time, and I don't think it hits
Speaker 3: the same anymore. Is he said? Oh well, I want
Speaker 3: to protect the right of Australians to have a punt.
Speaker 3: I endorse free choice for responsible adults, and no one's
Speaker 3: questioning that, of course. But I think that line must
Speaker 3: have had some sort of cut through and whatever focus
Speaker 3: script Labor Party had for it, I wonder whether it
Speaker 3: will continue. I struggle with the idea that the current
Speaker 3: state of affairs can can continue, and I suspect most
Speaker 3: Australians do as well.
Speaker 1: Donny, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for having me mate.
Speaker 1: Also, in the years the PM is wanted, there will
Speaker 1: be consequences for our fuel supply. After a massive blaze
Speaker 1: at one of only two Australian oil refineries, the Geelong Refinery,
Speaker 1: which supplies ten percent of the country's fuel, has temporarily
Speaker 1: slashed production of petrol, diesel and jet fuel. Workers were
Speaker 1: forced to flee from what's been described as a bloody
Speaker 1: big fireball. Fortunately no one was hurt. An anti protest
Speaker 1: laws brought in after the Bondai terror attack have been
Speaker 1: struck down by New South Wales's highest court, in a
Speaker 1: major loss for the men's government. The law, which effectively
Speaker 1: meant protesters could not march with that risk of arrest,
Speaker 1: was challenged by three activist groups, the Black Caucus, Palestine
Speaker 1: Action Group and Jews Against the Occupation. The Court of
Speaker 1: Appeal found the Public Assembly Restriction Declaration, or PARD as
Speaker 1: it was known, infringed on protesters constitutional right to freedom
Speaker 1: of communication on government and political matters. I'm Daniel James.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to seven AM. We'll be back tomorrow.