S1: I'm Jacqueline Maley, and you're listening to Inside Politics from
S1: the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
S1: Today we're going to talk about gambling reform. We're going
S1: to talk about immigration, and we're going to talk about
S1: the news media bargaining code. Joining me from Canberra, we
S1: have our chief political correspondent, Paul Satchell, and our chief
S1: political reporter, Natassia Chrysanthos. Welcome to you both.
S2: Good morning. Good morning.
S1: Paul. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke was due to give
S1: a speech to the Press Club on Thursday to unveil
S1: the government's new immigration policy, but he was a late cancellation.
S1: What happened?
S3: Yeah, this was a curious one, Jack. For a government
S3: that prides itself on its kind of coherence, cabinet process
S3: and adult managerial style, this was an odd moment that
S3: you don't often see from this labor administration. So the
S3: Prime Minister is away on leave. He has, I think,
S3: 4 or 5 days off. He's with his wife, Jodie.
S3: The acting prime minister, Richard Marles, said the other day
S3: that he often encourages the prime minister to take more
S3: leave than he does. But he's a workaholic, so never
S3: agrees with with the suggestion. But perhaps the Prime Minister
S3: should have stuck around this week, because the perception is
S3: that the one week when the PM misses a cabinet
S3: meeting which was held on Monday, the whole show goes
S3: off the rails. Now, that's a simplistic interpretation of what's
S3: happened here. It's far more complicated, and that would be
S3: a cynical view. But that is one view out of this,
S3: that on a Monday, um, scheduled cabinet meeting, there was
S3: an important debate on Tony Burke's big immigration announcement, which
S3: was due for Thursday, as you said, and the debate
S3: got a bit messy. There were concerns from some ministers
S3: that there would be lots of left wing blowback on
S3: pushing too hard on the migration question, potentially aping Hanson
S3: questions around family reunion visas, which tasks will get to
S3: in a sec, and also some unresolved policy implications about
S3: how lower migration numbers would feed into the budget and
S3: the workforce question, particularly at a moment when there are
S3: labour supply issues. So a decision was taken, I'm told,
S3: by Burke. Others say there was a view from the
S3: Prime Minister, who chipped in from leave that this should
S3: be delayed until next week or the week after to us.
S1: Tony Burke was expected to announce that they were going
S1: to bring net migration down by 75,000 people a year,
S1: and migration numbers have been climbing, climbing. They sort of
S1: went on a spike after the pandemic when people couldn't
S1: get in, and then people sort of rushed in after that.
S1: I just want to ask, what are the main visa
S1: classes that Labour is proposing to restrict?
S4: Yeah. So I think what's just to go back one step,
S4: I think what's interesting is that reduction in the migration
S4: programme by 75,000 people is already kind of baked into
S4: the budget. That's already the forecast. So at the moment,
S4: the annual overall net migration intake is about 300 000 people.
S4: The budget papers say this is going to get down
S4: to 225 000 people within two years time. So the
S4: the lower number is there and has been there for
S4: a while. The issue is that Labour never meets the
S4: lower number. So we've actually got quite an interesting debate
S4: where it's not actually about setting a new number or
S4: setting a lower number. It's about how do we actually
S4: get to that number? Because at no point have they
S4: been able to. And this is where we have to
S4: we this is where the government have to have more
S4: serious conversations, I suppose, about policy settings and where sections
S4: of the migration programme need to be tightened. So that
S4: that's actually achievable, because this constant overshooting of migration forecasts
S4: has become a political problem for Labour. Mhm. So and
S4: this is then when we get to this question about,
S4: well which visa classes do you go to. Um I'll
S4: try and do a migration programme in a nutshell. But
S4: essentially um there's temporary visa holders. There's permanent visa holders.
S4: There are two different streams, the permanent visa holders. That
S4: is a set number of people each year, about 185,000.
S4: A lot of them are already in the country. Um,
S4: so the big pressure on the overall migration um intake.
S4: And that net intake comes from temporary visas because that's
S4: people coming in each year. A lot of those visa
S4: classes are demand driven. They're not capped. So working holidaymakers backpackers,
S4: that's a special class of visa, but they're not capped.
S4: So they could realistically, you know, balloon by 100,000 people.
S4: If 100,000 young British people decided they want to come
S4: to Australia one year a similar with New Zealand as well.
S4: So the issue for the government is figuring out, okay,
S4: how can we clamp down or issue more controls on
S4: that part of the temporary visa system? Um, another kind
S4: of class of temporary visa that has blown out is
S4: bridging visas. Now, these are people who come here on
S4: a temporary visa, want to apply for another visa, kind
S4: of get stuck in a bit of administrative limbo, um,
S4: while applying for a visa, a visa, um, and then
S4: get this kind of visa to hold them over. Now
S4: we have more than 400 000 people in that category
S4: at the moment, which is far higher than it's ever been. Um,
S4: a big issue is how for the government, how do
S4: they take people out of that backlog and either kind
S4: of get them to go home or streamline moving them
S4: into other visa classes. And that's where now there's a
S4: conversation about how people can apply for family visas, for example, students,
S4: asylum seekers, backpackers.
S1: So it seems like there's sort of three main groups
S1: that they're going after, if that's the right verb, the
S1: asylum seeker, working rights and appeal rights and backpacker visas,
S1: as you mentioned, and also family reunions. That's certainly what
S1: was briefed out ahead of Burke's non-appearance at the Press Club,
S1: which is, of course, just been postponed. I want to
S1: ask you both about the pressure points for labor, because
S1: on the one hand, they do have business groups who've
S1: come out and said businesses depend on backpackers and particularly
S1: on skilled migrant intake, and I guess secondarily on family
S1: reunion visas, because that helps attract people, attract the best
S1: talent to Australia. So Paul, just talk about the pressure
S1: points for labor. There's business and there's also some of
S1: the electorates, the home electorates of the MPs.
S3: Totally, I. There's probably no area of government policy where
S3: there are more trade offs than the immigration space, I think,
S3: and really sharp imperatives on either side. As you mention,
S3: there's big pressure from the business groups today in the
S3: newspapers saying don't go too hard and fast here. We've
S3: got labor shortages everywhere, and we need these numbers to
S3: remain high. Otherwise, um, you know, wages will be unsustainable.
S3: It's bad for the economy. Um keep the, keep the levels,
S3: you know, at a, at a reasonable rate. On the
S3: other hand, Labor's confronting an electorate that's becoming increasingly uneasy
S3: on this question. There's no policy, uh, topic on which
S3: Hanson has a bigger lead on Angus Taylor and Anthony
S3: Albanese than and on migration. She's the clear leader in
S3: terms of trust on that issue. And even though the vast,
S3: vast majority of Labor's voting base has not followed the
S3: Jacinta Price online right into adopting fringe rhetoric around mass
S3: migration and replacement theory, there is a growing view that
S3: Labour ministers are very acutely aware of in the community
S3: that the high levels of migration post the pandemic, when
S3: borders were shut, there was a natural correction, have led
S3: to increased strain on services, have exacerbated the housing crisis
S3: and have generally led to a flatter economy. People are
S3: blaming that topic, accurate or otherwise. Yeah, the tension for
S3: Labour is that its voting coalition is underpinned in significant
S3: part by migrant communities and people from non-English speaking backgrounds.
S3: Labor caucus members have been surprised in recent months at
S3: how many non-English as their first language voters are shifting
S3: to Hanson, so they don't think there is a don't,
S3: you know, assume there is a monolithic group here that
S3: looks at Hanson and another group that rejects her. But.
S3: So they're trying to tread this path of acknowledging this
S3: serious concern around the migration program, which is feeding into
S3: broader cost of living unease at the same time as
S3: not going to not not betraying that migrant voting bloc,
S3: which once labor to retain a sense of compassion in
S3: its rhetoric and language.
S1: Well, also, I think for a lot of people, you know,
S1: in particularly in the electorates, that some of the cabinet
S1: ministers hold in the south west of Sydney, it's it's
S1: a very real pressure for them because they have enormous
S1: migrant communities there. And the migrant communities are particularly interested
S1: in the family reunion visa stream, and they don't want
S1: to see it restricted. We had a really nice piece
S1: from Mustafa Rajwani, who's one of our reporters who went
S1: out to Watson, which is Tony Burke's electorate was in
S1: in the paper on Thursday, and he was interviewing people saying,
S1: you know, we want our families here. And, you know,
S1: the government should be bringing families together, not trying to
S1: keep families apart in its immigration processes. I want to
S1: move on to gambling advertising reform tasks. You've been covering this.
S1: We had a couple of days of Senate committee hearings
S1: where the gambling, gambling company bosses and lobbyists were grilled,
S1: and some quite lurid allegations were aired about the tactics
S1: of these companies. What were some of the things the
S1: hearing heard?
S4: Mhm. So we had on the it was the first
S4: opening session of the inquiry on Monday. Um, gambling reform advocates,
S4: people with experience of gambling harm and gambling addiction themselves
S4: gave evidence. Um one of those was Luke Bateman, former
S4: NRL player who's now more known, I believe, as a
S4: potential fantasy fiction author. He's big on BookTok.
S3: Fanfic.
S4: Guy. Yeah, he's really good. He's just gonna be on
S4: he's got a two book deal.
S5: Oh, wow.
S4: Yeah, yeah.
S1: So he's become a book influencer.
S4: Yeah. And he's got a really, um, yeah, like a
S4: really significant kind of footprint influence around, around, I would
S4: say kind of Gen Z millennial Australians. So having someone
S4: like that, I think front the inquiry, someone who's been
S4: like deep in the world of sport now kind of
S4: talks to a very different audience, speak so candidly about
S4: his experience. Um, and he described, You know, in the
S4: depths of his gambling addiction in his early 20s, being offered,
S4: you know, thousands of dollars worth of free bonus bets
S4: to keep him betting he was stealing from his mom
S4: and his, um, his siblings and his partner for that
S4: being offered kind of whatever drugs he wanted. Um, by
S4: betting companies being flown into state for events. And then
S4: he described one event where he said he was in
S4: a room, basically with the entire C-suite of this betting
S4: company all doing drugs. So he was saying, you know,
S4: these companies are very aware of that culture and the
S4: tactics they use. Um, and this was among other evidence
S4: as well, other people in the inquiry said, you know, yeah,
S4: we hear this all the time. Then we had the
S4: peak body, uh, responsible Wagering Australia, uh, Sportsbet, Tabcorp come
S4: in the next day and say, we have no evidence
S4: of this whatsoever. If other people do, they should report
S4: it to the police because that's illegal.
S1: I think one of them said the immortal line, this
S1: is not part of our offering, which I liked. So
S1: they're basically saying if these tactics are used or inducements,
S1: I think they're called euphemistically, then then they're illegal and
S1: they're not they're not they're not condoned by the companies.
S1: And they they said they hadn't actually seen any evidence
S1: apart from the guy who was giving evidence saying these things.
S4: And on that inducements euphemism, which you just picked up,
S4: which is interesting, the betting companies drew drew a line.
S4: So inducements are kind of colloquially these things that encourage people,
S4: you know, to bet.
S3: They're not drugs. Just to be clear, they're ads, the
S3: ads which say if you sign up, we'll give you
S3: a $50 bonus bet.
S4: Yeah. But for the purpose, I guess, of the discussion,
S4: it's anything that could induce someone. Right? So the drugs
S4: were being brought into this into this conversation, which which
S4: the betting companies were like, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not inducements. Um,
S4: but the Murphy report, which is the kind of gambling
S4: reform advocate, gold standard for gambling reform, recommended an immediate
S4: ban on inducements. Again, more the inducements of the kind
S4: of like here's a free $10,000 batted away so forth.
S4: The Albanese government's legislation does not touch this. So this
S4: has emerged as one of the bigger missions in the
S4: gambling package. Yeah. Um, just to go back, the gambling
S4: companies drew a clear line. They said, look, there's inducements
S4: which are these free bets? Um, or the racing industry
S4: called them generosities. Yeah. Um, there's so sorry. Yeah. They
S4: called them promotions and generosities. Yeah. Then they said inducements.
S4: They described inducements as something like offering people to sign
S4: up and recruiting new members. And they said, we're not
S4: allowed to do that. We don't do that. And then
S4: they said, yeah, offering of drugs and escorts is just illegal.
S4: So they're talking about the grey area is now, okay,
S4: should these promotions where someone. And there was another example
S4: where someone had gambled $500,000 or $500,000 in a month,
S4: and he was given $50,000 of free bets, should that
S4: be allowed? And now this is an issue that the
S4: coalition has taken issue with.
S1: Yeah. So just I just want to stop you there.
S1: Just for the listeners who won't be familiar with the
S1: gambling package as it is basically what the government has
S1: put forward as their reforms. They don't touch this inducements issue.
S1: They talk about advertising and they've sort of restrict gambling advertising,
S1: like on prime time TV, basically between until 8:30 p.m.
S1: you can only show three ads an hour, which still
S1: seems like quite a lot of ads, and they haven't
S1: really done much else besides. From what I can tell.
S4: There's a couple of extra things around online and offshore
S4: lotteries which.
S3: Which.
S4: Someone would argue kind.
S3: Of lotteries.
S4: Yeah. There's stuff around, um, sponsorships on jerseys and stuff.
S4: But in terms of basically what people have been calling
S4: for was a full advertising blackout on all platforms. And
S4: that hasn't happened. It's this kind of limits across.
S1: There's also the issue of online advertising, because so many
S1: people bet online now and also children's exposure to advertising.
S1: So basically there's a lot of people who are unhappy
S1: with what the government's put forward there. Um, you know, independent,
S1: some of the independents like David Pocock, the Greens don't
S1: like it. And Now the coalition has said they're not
S1: going to support the reforms either. So Paul, where does
S1: this leave the reforms? Is the government going to work
S1: with the coalition or the crossbench, or are they just
S1: going to drop them?
S3: It's a good question. Hard to predict. The Prime Minister,
S3: though privately and he's alluded to this publicly, is not
S3: for shifting. If people will recall, and perhaps our listeners
S3: weren't following closely at the time, but this debate was
S3: subject to years of to and fro in the Albanese
S3: government's first term. There was a lot of pressure from
S3: teal independent Zoe Daniel and others in the first term
S3: of the Albanese government, particularly off the back of this
S3: report by the labor MP Peter Murphy, who tasked just
S3: mentioned to blanket ban gambling advertising. The Prime Minister was
S3: resistant to this and really didn't really avoided it for
S3: years leading into the last election, and then pulled a
S3: proposal that was drafted by his then commerce minister, Michelle Rowland,
S3: about a year out from the election and pushed it
S3: out till this term. He came to it this term
S3: with a more open mind, and realized that there was
S3: quite a lot of angst in the labour base and
S3: in the general progressive part of the labour movement, but
S3: also more generally outside of the labour movement, that something
S3: needed to be done here. But he's his conviction was
S3: that he needed to find a middle road that satisfied
S3: both both the big sporting codes, media companies like ours,
S3: who draw a lot of wagering revenue as well as
S3: the activists. In his mind, the activists were never going
S3: to be satisfied with the government's response, so he wanted
S3: to find something that find a middle ground that pacified
S3: the issue and allowed the government to move on. Yeah,
S3: the government really didn't want to have this inquiry. They
S3: were annoyed behind the scenes that the great.
S4: I think even that framing though of, you know, oh,
S4: it's kind of the activist versus the code kind of
S4: shows it potentially, you know, that might may well be
S4: the Prime Minister's view. But I think it's, it's, it's
S4: not your kind of bread and butter left wing activists, right?
S4: Like there are a lot of people across, across a
S4: range of experience. Yeah, yeah. And it's people with experience
S4: of gambling harm and gambling addiction. And that doesn't discriminate
S4: based on politics. And that's why I think it's interesting
S4: that the coalition has bought into this issue. And there
S4: are some people in the coalition.
S3: The coalition.
S4: Have. Yeah. Well, they've they've they've at least drawn a
S4: line at this point. There's backbenchers within the coalition who
S4: want it to go forward. I think the question will be, um,
S4: how far the coalition pushes it. Um and if at
S4: the end of the day, the government who has been
S4: talking with the coal like Wells and Sarah Henderson, who's
S4: the coalition communications spokeswoman, have been talking this week, I
S4: think the question is, if they land a relatively modest
S4: set of tweaks that the government is happy with, I
S4: think dropping it all together for Albanese will create troubles
S4: with his backbench and with the labor base, who just
S4: last month put into the labor national platform and even
S4: stronger position on gambling. So I don't really think dropping
S4: it is.
S3: He would want to do it. And because he wants
S3: to sort this issue out and move on. Yeah, I
S3: wouldn't underestimate the extent to which ministers and the Prime
S3: Minister believe this to be a third or fourth order issue. Um,
S3: if you talk to pollsters and party officials who speak
S3: to voters in focus groups, they believe that this is
S3: one of those issues that captures attention in Canberra, because
S3: it's symbolic of the government's alleged lack of progressive instinct,
S3: but really doesn't register out there.
S5: So it's a kind of it's a.
S1: It's a nice to have for some voters, but it's
S1: not a bread and butter issue because with cost of living,
S1: immigration and so forth.
S3: Exactly. And that's, that's how the that's how the cabinet
S3: sees it. And the view also from senior ministers.
S4: Get some kind of deal done.
S3: Yeah. They want to just get it done.
S5: And square.
S1: It away. Tas there is I mean, on the other
S1: side of this there is, you know, the gambling, the
S1: gambling companies, whether or not you believe this, this by
S1: this they do say that if people don't gamble with
S1: Australian companies, then they'll gamble online, you know, through illegal
S1: gambling streams online. And there's also the issue of gambling
S1: advertising is of course propping up or. It's an important
S1: revenue stream for some of the media companies. Which brings
S1: me to my next topic, because we're one of those companies. Nine,
S1: which publishes the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age has
S1: some gambling advertising on it, on its various platforms. It's
S1: an important revenue stream for us. Uh, and this is
S1: a time when media companies need all the revenue streams
S1: they can get. The news media bargaining code is another
S1: piece of legislation or draft legislation that the government's put
S1: forward this week. The media companies are not happy with it,
S1: or certainly big media companies, I should say like nine. Paul,
S1: can you just tell us what this is about? Because, again,
S1: it's a fairly niche issue that that maybe listeners won't
S1: won't be familiar with.
S3: It is it is niche. It's important because it pits
S3: the government against very powerful stakeholders, both big media companies
S3: in Australia, including ours and News Corp and Channel seven,
S3: who can obviously wage campaigns against the government, which frightens, uh, ministers.
S3: But also the Trump administration is a big stakeholder in
S3: this one too. And the reason for that is Trump
S3: has come into power with an agenda of protecting US
S3: tech firms from any tax in either Europe or Asia
S3: or Australia, which they believe are punitive attempts to, uh,
S3: you know, eek into the to dig into the revenue
S3: of US tech darlings and hurt the US's interests. So
S3: they've been taking retaliation against, uh, European nations or at
S3: least threatening retaliation against European authorities who have suggested digital taxes.
S3: And they consider this Australian framework, which is a coalition era, uh,
S3: scheme which has been revamped by labor, which effectively pushes
S3: or forces big tech firms like meta, Google and others
S3: who have snatched revenue under the feet of media companies
S3: like ours to pay Australian media firms for news articles
S3: on their platforms. Yeah, the websites, the platforms themselves say
S3: the newspapers need them much more than they need us,
S3: and we actually need their distribution channels. And so we
S3: should be helping them. We argue that they've stolen all
S3: our revenue, taken all our eyeballs, and have a. To
S3: maintain their social license should contribute to public interest journalism.
S1: Yeah. So basically when when someone posts on their Facebook page,
S1: a Paul Sakhile article about gambling reform or a Natasha
S1: Chrysanthos article about gambling reform, we say the media companies say, well,
S1: we're giving you content. You should pay for that content.
S1: The social media companies say, well, actually, we're giving you
S1: another distribution platform. You should be paying us, if anything.
S1: So the government is trying to bring a revenue stream
S1: to the big media companies. They've they've cooked up this model.
S1: Can you just tell us a little bit about the
S1: model they've cooked up?
S3: Yeah. So it mimics the coalition era model that Josh
S3: Frydenberg as treasurer led and negotiated directly with Mark Zuckerberg.
S3: It's one of the achievements that he talks about was
S3: one of his proudest moments. Labor argues that his model
S3: eventually became broken. And so they've created a new, quite
S3: technical scheme which would if these tech firms didn't strike
S3: voluntary deals with companies like ours, they'd be forced to
S3: pay a charge. Labor Labour doesn't call it a tax
S3: because that would, uh, irk the Trump administration further. They
S3: call it a charge, which was going to be a
S3: percentage of their overall revenue. Yeah. There's an 11th hour change,
S3: which has really drawn the ire of companies like nine
S3: and News Corp, which has amended the revenue base from
S3: being total revenue, which is obviously a bigger figure to
S3: a smaller revenue pool related to digital digital advertising. Now,
S3: in part behind the scenes, this move was designed to
S3: ameliorate the concerns of the tech firms who are dealing
S3: with the white House and pushing the white House to
S3: retaliate against Australia. So it's a really tricky position for
S3: Albanese to be in, because he wants to put this
S3: scheme forward, to keep our businesses alive or to keep
S3: them healthy. Um, and our, our bosses are, uh, putting
S3: a lot of pressure on the government publicly. This ties
S3: into the wagering advertising conversation because the same bosses of
S3: media firms like ours who are pushing for this scheme
S3: are also pushing against the government's gambling advertising bill. So
S3: there's a there's a enmeshment here with all these issues.
S3: And and on the other hand, they're trying to keep
S3: the US onside. So it's it's difficult. But these 11th
S3: hour changes have been put without any consultation, which is
S3: quite typical of this government to put significant changes that
S3: annoy stakeholders quite late in the process. And so it's
S3: become quite messy.
S1: So the Trump administration, you know, I think it's fair
S1: to say on behalf of the tech companies, hates the
S1: social media ban. Um, they also don't like local content
S1: laws that we've imposed or the government's imposed for the
S1: big US streamers, the big international streamers. And now this, um,
S1: you know, imposition of basically, let's call it a tax
S1: on the social media companies for using news content. Um,
S1: what I mean, the Albanese government is big. You know,
S1: Anthony Albanese often says I make laws in Australia's best interests.
S1: I make laws in the sovereign interest. But the sovereign
S1: interest here is not so clear cut because on the
S1: one hand, you have you know, I would say the
S1: very worthy, uh, aim of keeping media companies alive. And
S1: on the other, you have the possibility of further tariffs
S1: or higher tariffs being imposed. If we to do too
S1: much digital taxation of the big media tech companies in
S1: the US.
S3: You're right on those all those conflicting imperatives, Jack. But
S3: if you're in the US and you're an official in
S3: the Trump administration and you see some small sovereign nation
S3: like Australia who is really who is in truth reliant
S3: on the US, not the other way around in defence
S3: and other other matters. You'd say, why are you guys,
S3: those little guys down in Australia setting this precedent for
S3: the rest of the world to tax our firms, to
S3: pay for dying businesses when we want to unleash the,
S3: you know, growth and dynamism of these firms to help
S3: boost us prestige and economic clout across the world. Yeah.
S3: So if you are someone who believes in tech regulation,
S3: Albanese deserves huge credit for going so forcefully on the
S3: social media ban and taking on the US there. So
S3: this is another example of Australia punching above its weight
S3: in that regard. But there are limits on how hard
S3: and fast we can go.
S1: And we have seen other countries, particularly in Europe, follow
S1: our example on the social media ban, the. The US
S1: trade Representative has already said, you know, these laws amount
S1: to foreign extortion. This sort of suite of laws. Anyway.
S1: The new Australian ambassador, Greg Moriarty, will have his work
S1: cut out for him dealing with the white House on
S1: this stuff. Guys, thanks so much for clipping through all
S1: of those extremely diverse topics with such aplomb. Thank you
S1: very much. We'll see you both again soon.
S3: Great to chat. Talk to you.
S2: Soon. See ya.
S5: You can read.
S1: All of our political news on our website, si.com.au and smh.com.au.
S1: Today's episode was produced by Kai Wong with help from
S1: Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our
S1: podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. Before
S1: you go, follow Inside Politics and leave a review for
S1: us on Apple or Spotify. I'm Jacqueline Maley. Thanks for listening.