WEBVTT - Immigration, gambling and big tech: Labor’s big policy push 0:00:01.200 --> 0:00:03.880 I'm Jacqueline Maley, and you're listening to Inside Politics from 0:00:03.880 --> 0:00:06.480 the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. 0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:09.680 Today we're going to talk about gambling reform. We're going 0:00:09.680 --> 0:00:11.640 to talk about immigration, and we're going to talk about 0:00:11.640 --> 0:00:15.040 the news media bargaining code. Joining me from Canberra, we 0:00:15.040 --> 0:00:18.439 have our chief political correspondent, Paul Satchell, and our chief 0:00:18.440 --> 0:00:21.240 political reporter, Natassia Chrysanthos. Welcome to you both. 0:00:21.760 --> 0:00:23.080 Good morning. Good morning. 0:00:23.480 --> 0:00:25.760 Paul. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke was due to give 0:00:25.760 --> 0:00:28.480 a speech to the Press Club on Thursday to unveil 0:00:28.480 --> 0:00:31.400 the government's new immigration policy, but he was a late cancellation. 0:00:31.400 --> 0:00:32.160 What happened? 0:00:32.880 --> 0:00:35.560 Yeah, this was a curious one, Jack. For a government 0:00:35.560 --> 0:00:39.520 that prides itself on its kind of coherence, cabinet process 0:00:39.520 --> 0:00:43.680 and adult managerial style, this was an odd moment that 0:00:43.680 --> 0:00:46.960 you don't often see from this labor administration. So the 0:00:46.960 --> 0:00:49.600 Prime Minister is away on leave. He has, I think, 0:00:49.640 --> 0:00:52.560 4 or 5 days off. He's with his wife, Jodie. 0:00:53.040 --> 0:00:55.360 The acting prime minister, Richard Marles, said the other day 0:00:55.360 --> 0:00:57.680 that he often encourages the prime minister to take more 0:00:57.680 --> 0:00:59.840 leave than he does. But he's a workaholic, so never 0:01:00.240 --> 0:01:03.610 agrees with with the suggestion. But perhaps the Prime Minister 0:01:03.610 --> 0:01:06.929 should have stuck around this week, because the perception is 0:01:06.930 --> 0:01:09.889 that the one week when the PM misses a cabinet 0:01:09.890 --> 0:01:13.490 meeting which was held on Monday, the whole show goes 0:01:13.490 --> 0:01:17.290 off the rails. Now, that's a simplistic interpretation of what's 0:01:17.290 --> 0:01:19.410 happened here. It's far more complicated, and that would be 0:01:19.410 --> 0:01:22.250 a cynical view. But that is one view out of this, 0:01:22.250 --> 0:01:25.450 that on a Monday, um, scheduled cabinet meeting, there was 0:01:25.450 --> 0:01:28.770 an important debate on Tony Burke's big immigration announcement, which 0:01:28.770 --> 0:01:31.410 was due for Thursday, as you said, and the debate 0:01:31.450 --> 0:01:34.289 got a bit messy. There were concerns from some ministers 0:01:34.290 --> 0:01:37.090 that there would be lots of left wing blowback on 0:01:37.130 --> 0:01:41.130 pushing too hard on the migration question, potentially aping Hanson 0:01:41.290 --> 0:01:44.370 questions around family reunion visas, which tasks will get to 0:01:44.410 --> 0:01:48.050 in a sec, and also some unresolved policy implications about 0:01:48.050 --> 0:01:51.530 how lower migration numbers would feed into the budget and 0:01:51.530 --> 0:01:54.770 the workforce question, particularly at a moment when there are 0:01:54.770 --> 0:01:57.970 labour supply issues. So a decision was taken, I'm told, 0:01:57.970 --> 0:02:00.210 by Burke. Others say there was a view from the 0:02:00.210 --> 0:02:03.050 Prime Minister, who chipped in from leave that this should 0:02:03.050 --> 0:02:06.650 be delayed until next week or the week after to us. 0:02:06.690 --> 0:02:09.450 Tony Burke was expected to announce that they were going 0:02:09.490 --> 0:02:13.329 to bring net migration down by 75,000 people a year, 0:02:13.570 --> 0:02:16.290 and migration numbers have been climbing, climbing. They sort of 0:02:16.330 --> 0:02:19.090 went on a spike after the pandemic when people couldn't 0:02:19.090 --> 0:02:21.690 get in, and then people sort of rushed in after that. 0:02:21.810 --> 0:02:23.650 I just want to ask, what are the main visa 0:02:23.650 --> 0:02:26.290 classes that Labour is proposing to restrict? 0:02:26.930 --> 0:02:29.649 Yeah. So I think what's just to go back one step, 0:02:29.650 --> 0:02:32.810 I think what's interesting is that reduction in the migration 0:02:32.810 --> 0:02:37.290 programme by 75,000 people is already kind of baked into 0:02:37.290 --> 0:02:40.730 the budget. That's already the forecast. So at the moment, 0:02:40.770 --> 0:02:45.970 the annual overall net migration intake is about 300 000 people. 0:02:46.010 --> 0:02:48.810 The budget papers say this is going to get down 0:02:48.810 --> 0:02:54.290 to 225 000 people within two years time. So the 0:02:54.290 --> 0:02:56.290 the lower number is there and has been there for 0:02:56.290 --> 0:02:59.049 a while. The issue is that Labour never meets the 0:02:59.050 --> 0:03:01.780 lower number. So we've actually got quite an interesting debate 0:03:01.780 --> 0:03:03.900 where it's not actually about setting a new number or 0:03:03.900 --> 0:03:06.700 setting a lower number. It's about how do we actually 0:03:06.700 --> 0:03:09.580 get to that number? Because at no point have they 0:03:09.620 --> 0:03:11.500 been able to. And this is where we have to 0:03:11.540 --> 0:03:14.940 we this is where the government have to have more 0:03:14.940 --> 0:03:19.700 serious conversations, I suppose, about policy settings and where sections 0:03:19.700 --> 0:03:22.299 of the migration programme need to be tightened. So that 0:03:22.300 --> 0:03:27.180 that's actually achievable, because this constant overshooting of migration forecasts 0:03:27.180 --> 0:03:30.940 has become a political problem for Labour. Mhm. So and 0:03:30.940 --> 0:03:33.220 this is then when we get to this question about, 0:03:33.220 --> 0:03:37.980 well which visa classes do you go to. Um I'll 0:03:37.980 --> 0:03:40.420 try and do a migration programme in a nutshell. But 0:03:40.420 --> 0:03:44.780 essentially um there's temporary visa holders. There's permanent visa holders. 0:03:44.780 --> 0:03:48.620 There are two different streams, the permanent visa holders. That 0:03:48.620 --> 0:03:52.300 is a set number of people each year, about 185,000. 0:03:52.500 --> 0:03:54.940 A lot of them are already in the country. Um, 0:03:54.940 --> 0:04:00.550 so the big pressure on the overall migration um intake. 0:04:00.550 --> 0:04:03.670 And that net intake comes from temporary visas because that's 0:04:03.670 --> 0:04:06.870 people coming in each year. A lot of those visa 0:04:06.870 --> 0:04:12.430 classes are demand driven. They're not capped. So working holidaymakers backpackers, 0:04:12.430 --> 0:04:15.150 that's a special class of visa, but they're not capped. 0:04:15.150 --> 0:04:19.390 So they could realistically, you know, balloon by 100,000 people. 0:04:19.390 --> 0:04:21.950 If 100,000 young British people decided they want to come 0:04:21.950 --> 0:04:26.070 to Australia one year a similar with New Zealand as well. 0:04:26.070 --> 0:04:28.510 So the issue for the government is figuring out, okay, 0:04:28.550 --> 0:04:31.310 how can we clamp down or issue more controls on 0:04:31.350 --> 0:04:36.109 that part of the temporary visa system? Um, another kind 0:04:36.110 --> 0:04:38.669 of class of temporary visa that has blown out is 0:04:38.670 --> 0:04:41.270 bridging visas. Now, these are people who come here on 0:04:41.270 --> 0:04:44.830 a temporary visa, want to apply for another visa, kind 0:04:44.830 --> 0:04:47.870 of get stuck in a bit of administrative limbo, um, 0:04:47.910 --> 0:04:51.110 while applying for a visa, a visa, um, and then 0:04:51.110 --> 0:04:53.190 get this kind of visa to hold them over. Now 0:04:53.190 --> 0:04:56.430 we have more than 400 000 people in that category 0:04:56.430 --> 0:05:00.670 at the moment, which is far higher than it's ever been. Um, 0:05:00.830 --> 0:05:03.390 a big issue is how for the government, how do 0:05:03.390 --> 0:05:05.789 they take people out of that backlog and either kind 0:05:05.790 --> 0:05:08.750 of get them to go home or streamline moving them 0:05:08.750 --> 0:05:11.310 into other visa classes. And that's where now there's a 0:05:11.310 --> 0:05:15.870 conversation about how people can apply for family visas, for example, students, 0:05:15.870 --> 0:05:17.589 asylum seekers, backpackers. 0:05:17.630 --> 0:05:19.350 So it seems like there's sort of three main groups 0:05:19.350 --> 0:05:22.110 that they're going after, if that's the right verb, the 0:05:22.150 --> 0:05:25.670 asylum seeker, working rights and appeal rights and backpacker visas, 0:05:25.670 --> 0:05:28.590 as you mentioned, and also family reunions. That's certainly what 0:05:28.589 --> 0:05:32.229 was briefed out ahead of Burke's non-appearance at the Press Club, 0:05:32.230 --> 0:05:34.710 which is, of course, just been postponed. I want to 0:05:34.710 --> 0:05:36.830 ask you both about the pressure points for labor, because 0:05:36.830 --> 0:05:38.870 on the one hand, they do have business groups who've 0:05:38.870 --> 0:05:43.630 come out and said businesses depend on backpackers and particularly 0:05:43.630 --> 0:05:48.630 on skilled migrant intake, and I guess secondarily on family 0:05:48.630 --> 0:05:52.510 reunion visas, because that helps attract people, attract the best 0:05:52.510 --> 0:05:55.070 talent to Australia. So Paul, just talk about the pressure 0:05:55.070 --> 0:05:57.229 points for labor. There's business and there's also some of 0:05:57.270 --> 0:05:59.600 the electorates, the home electorates of the MPs. 0:05:59.920 --> 0:06:03.400 Totally, I. There's probably no area of government policy where 0:06:03.400 --> 0:06:06.160 there are more trade offs than the immigration space, I think, 0:06:06.440 --> 0:06:09.960 and really sharp imperatives on either side. As you mention, 0:06:10.000 --> 0:06:12.080 there's big pressure from the business groups today in the 0:06:12.080 --> 0:06:14.760 newspapers saying don't go too hard and fast here. We've 0:06:14.760 --> 0:06:17.480 got labor shortages everywhere, and we need these numbers to 0:06:17.520 --> 0:06:22.159 remain high. Otherwise, um, you know, wages will be unsustainable. 0:06:22.160 --> 0:06:25.640 It's bad for the economy. Um keep the, keep the levels, 0:06:25.680 --> 0:06:27.920 you know, at a, at a reasonable rate. On the 0:06:27.920 --> 0:06:32.440 other hand, Labor's confronting an electorate that's becoming increasingly uneasy 0:06:32.480 --> 0:06:36.400 on this question. There's no policy, uh, topic on which 0:06:36.400 --> 0:06:38.920 Hanson has a bigger lead on Angus Taylor and Anthony 0:06:38.920 --> 0:06:42.360 Albanese than and on migration. She's the clear leader in 0:06:42.360 --> 0:06:46.839 terms of trust on that issue. And even though the vast, 0:06:46.839 --> 0:06:50.960 vast majority of Labor's voting base has not followed the 0:06:51.120 --> 0:06:56.040 Jacinta Price online right into adopting fringe rhetoric around mass 0:06:56.040 --> 0:07:00.520 migration and replacement theory, there is a growing view that 0:07:00.520 --> 0:07:04.640 Labour ministers are very acutely aware of in the community 0:07:04.640 --> 0:07:07.719 that the high levels of migration post the pandemic, when 0:07:07.720 --> 0:07:10.920 borders were shut, there was a natural correction, have led 0:07:11.040 --> 0:07:15.360 to increased strain on services, have exacerbated the housing crisis 0:07:15.360 --> 0:07:18.880 and have generally led to a flatter economy. People are 0:07:19.200 --> 0:07:23.920 blaming that topic, accurate or otherwise. Yeah, the tension for 0:07:23.920 --> 0:07:29.120 Labour is that its voting coalition is underpinned in significant 0:07:29.120 --> 0:07:33.000 part by migrant communities and people from non-English speaking backgrounds. 0:07:33.160 --> 0:07:35.920 Labor caucus members have been surprised in recent months at 0:07:35.920 --> 0:07:41.520 how many non-English as their first language voters are shifting 0:07:41.560 --> 0:07:44.520 to Hanson, so they don't think there is a don't, 0:07:44.560 --> 0:07:47.560 you know, assume there is a monolithic group here that 0:07:48.000 --> 0:07:50.480 looks at Hanson and another group that rejects her. But. 0:07:50.480 --> 0:07:52.720 So they're trying to tread this path of acknowledging this 0:07:52.720 --> 0:07:55.960 serious concern around the migration program, which is feeding into 0:07:56.000 --> 0:07:59.050 broader cost of living unease at the same time as 0:07:59.050 --> 0:08:03.850 not going to not not betraying that migrant voting bloc, 0:08:03.850 --> 0:08:06.570 which once labor to retain a sense of compassion in 0:08:06.570 --> 0:08:07.690 its rhetoric and language. 0:08:07.730 --> 0:08:09.730 Well, also, I think for a lot of people, you know, 0:08:09.770 --> 0:08:12.770 in particularly in the electorates, that some of the cabinet 0:08:12.770 --> 0:08:15.690 ministers hold in the south west of Sydney, it's it's 0:08:15.690 --> 0:08:17.850 a very real pressure for them because they have enormous 0:08:17.850 --> 0:08:22.050 migrant communities there. And the migrant communities are particularly interested 0:08:22.050 --> 0:08:24.930 in the family reunion visa stream, and they don't want 0:08:24.930 --> 0:08:27.210 to see it restricted. We had a really nice piece 0:08:27.210 --> 0:08:30.850 from Mustafa Rajwani, who's one of our reporters who went 0:08:30.850 --> 0:08:33.050 out to Watson, which is Tony Burke's electorate was in 0:08:33.050 --> 0:08:36.290 in the paper on Thursday, and he was interviewing people saying, 0:08:36.330 --> 0:08:39.130 you know, we want our families here. And, you know, 0:08:39.490 --> 0:08:42.970 the government should be bringing families together, not trying to 0:08:42.970 --> 0:08:46.929 keep families apart in its immigration processes. I want to 0:08:46.929 --> 0:08:50.250 move on to gambling advertising reform tasks. You've been covering this. 0:08:50.290 --> 0:08:52.170 We had a couple of days of Senate committee hearings 0:08:52.170 --> 0:08:55.570 where the gambling, gambling company bosses and lobbyists were grilled, 0:08:56.010 --> 0:08:58.980 and some quite lurid allegations were aired about the tactics 0:08:58.980 --> 0:09:02.179 of these companies. What were some of the things the 0:09:02.179 --> 0:09:02.980 hearing heard? 0:09:03.540 --> 0:09:05.660 Mhm. So we had on the it was the first 0:09:05.660 --> 0:09:11.059 opening session of the inquiry on Monday. Um, gambling reform advocates, 0:09:11.100 --> 0:09:14.100 people with experience of gambling harm and gambling addiction themselves 0:09:14.100 --> 0:09:17.620 gave evidence. Um one of those was Luke Bateman, former 0:09:17.620 --> 0:09:22.300 NRL player who's now more known, I believe, as a 0:09:22.580 --> 0:09:26.260 potential fantasy fiction author. He's big on BookTok. 0:09:26.580 --> 0:09:27.140 Fanfic. 0:09:27.140 --> 0:09:29.260 Guy. Yeah, he's really good. He's just gonna be on 0:09:29.300 --> 0:09:30.820 he's got a two book deal. 0:09:31.059 --> 0:09:31.420 Oh, wow. 0:09:31.460 --> 0:09:32.020 Yeah, yeah. 0:09:32.059 --> 0:09:34.179 So he's become a book influencer. 0:09:34.660 --> 0:09:37.220 Yeah. And he's got a really, um, yeah, like a 0:09:37.220 --> 0:09:41.100 really significant kind of footprint influence around, around, I would 0:09:41.100 --> 0:09:46.500 say kind of Gen Z millennial Australians. So having someone 0:09:46.500 --> 0:09:49.380 like that, I think front the inquiry, someone who's been 0:09:49.420 --> 0:09:51.540 like deep in the world of sport now kind of 0:09:51.580 --> 0:09:54.180 talks to a very different audience, speak so candidly about 0:09:54.179 --> 0:09:59.540 his experience. Um, and he described, You know, in the 0:09:59.540 --> 0:10:02.980 depths of his gambling addiction in his early 20s, being offered, 0:10:03.820 --> 0:10:06.260 you know, thousands of dollars worth of free bonus bets 0:10:06.300 --> 0:10:08.420 to keep him betting he was stealing from his mom 0:10:08.420 --> 0:10:12.380 and his, um, his siblings and his partner for that 0:10:12.700 --> 0:10:16.540 being offered kind of whatever drugs he wanted. Um, by 0:10:16.580 --> 0:10:19.220 betting companies being flown into state for events. And then 0:10:19.220 --> 0:10:21.100 he described one event where he said he was in 0:10:21.100 --> 0:10:24.980 a room, basically with the entire C-suite of this betting 0:10:24.980 --> 0:10:28.140 company all doing drugs. So he was saying, you know, 0:10:28.300 --> 0:10:31.179 these companies are very aware of that culture and the 0:10:31.179 --> 0:10:34.940 tactics they use. Um, and this was among other evidence 0:10:34.940 --> 0:10:37.339 as well, other people in the inquiry said, you know, yeah, 0:10:37.340 --> 0:10:39.620 we hear this all the time. Then we had the 0:10:39.620 --> 0:10:44.220 peak body, uh, responsible Wagering Australia, uh, Sportsbet, Tabcorp come 0:10:44.220 --> 0:10:46.380 in the next day and say, we have no evidence 0:10:46.380 --> 0:10:49.660 of this whatsoever. If other people do, they should report 0:10:49.660 --> 0:10:51.180 it to the police because that's illegal. 0:10:51.260 --> 0:10:52.980 I think one of them said the immortal line, this 0:10:52.980 --> 0:10:56.900 is not part of our offering, which I liked. So 0:10:56.900 --> 0:10:59.790 they're basically saying if these tactics are used or inducements, 0:10:59.790 --> 0:11:02.790 I think they're called euphemistically, then then they're illegal and 0:11:02.790 --> 0:11:05.070 they're not they're not they're not condoned by the companies. 0:11:05.070 --> 0:11:08.109 And they they said they hadn't actually seen any evidence 0:11:08.110 --> 0:11:12.110 apart from the guy who was giving evidence saying these things. 0:11:12.270 --> 0:11:15.230 And on that inducements euphemism, which you just picked up, 0:11:15.230 --> 0:11:18.110 which is interesting, the betting companies drew drew a line. 0:11:18.270 --> 0:11:22.510 So inducements are kind of colloquially these things that encourage people, 0:11:22.670 --> 0:11:23.550 you know, to bet. 0:11:23.750 --> 0:11:26.070 They're not drugs. Just to be clear, they're ads, the 0:11:26.110 --> 0:11:27.750 ads which say if you sign up, we'll give you 0:11:27.750 --> 0:11:28.910 a $50 bonus bet. 0:11:28.950 --> 0:11:31.430 Yeah. But for the purpose, I guess, of the discussion, 0:11:31.429 --> 0:11:33.830 it's anything that could induce someone. Right? So the drugs 0:11:33.830 --> 0:11:38.350 were being brought into this into this conversation, which which 0:11:38.550 --> 0:11:41.670 the betting companies were like, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not inducements. Um, 0:11:41.710 --> 0:11:45.870 but the Murphy report, which is the kind of gambling 0:11:45.870 --> 0:11:49.990 reform advocate, gold standard for gambling reform, recommended an immediate 0:11:49.990 --> 0:11:53.230 ban on inducements. Again, more the inducements of the kind 0:11:53.230 --> 0:11:56.630 of like here's a free $10,000 batted away so forth. 0:11:57.030 --> 0:12:00.320 The Albanese government's legislation does not touch this. So this 0:12:00.320 --> 0:12:02.520 has emerged as one of the bigger missions in the 0:12:02.520 --> 0:12:05.920 gambling package. Yeah. Um, just to go back, the gambling 0:12:05.920 --> 0:12:09.240 companies drew a clear line. They said, look, there's inducements 0:12:09.240 --> 0:12:11.959 which are these free bets? Um, or the racing industry 0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:18.520 called them generosities. Yeah. Um, there's so sorry. Yeah. They 0:12:18.520 --> 0:12:22.560 called them promotions and generosities. Yeah. Then they said inducements. 0:12:22.559 --> 0:12:26.040 They described inducements as something like offering people to sign 0:12:26.040 --> 0:12:28.160 up and recruiting new members. And they said, we're not 0:12:28.160 --> 0:12:29.960 allowed to do that. We don't do that. And then 0:12:29.960 --> 0:12:34.000 they said, yeah, offering of drugs and escorts is just illegal. 0:12:34.000 --> 0:12:37.520 So they're talking about the grey area is now, okay, 0:12:37.760 --> 0:12:41.240 should these promotions where someone. And there was another example 0:12:41.240 --> 0:12:45.240 where someone had gambled $500,000 or $500,000 in a month, 0:12:45.240 --> 0:12:48.520 and he was given $50,000 of free bets, should that 0:12:48.520 --> 0:12:50.800 be allowed? And now this is an issue that the 0:12:50.800 --> 0:12:53.840 coalition has taken issue with. 0:12:53.880 --> 0:12:55.719 Yeah. So just I just want to stop you there. 0:12:55.720 --> 0:12:57.679 Just for the listeners who won't be familiar with the 0:12:57.679 --> 0:13:00.079 gambling package as it is basically what the government has 0:13:00.080 --> 0:13:03.319 put forward as their reforms. They don't touch this inducements issue. 0:13:03.360 --> 0:13:07.400 They talk about advertising and they've sort of restrict gambling advertising, 0:13:07.400 --> 0:13:11.199 like on prime time TV, basically between until 8:30 p.m. 0:13:11.240 --> 0:13:13.400 you can only show three ads an hour, which still 0:13:13.400 --> 0:13:16.160 seems like quite a lot of ads, and they haven't 0:13:16.160 --> 0:13:19.120 really done much else besides. From what I can tell. 0:13:19.440 --> 0:13:24.040 There's a couple of extra things around online and offshore 0:13:24.080 --> 0:13:25.520 lotteries which. 0:13:25.559 --> 0:13:25.800 Which. 0:13:26.200 --> 0:13:27.440 Someone would argue kind. 0:13:27.440 --> 0:13:28.280 Of lotteries. 0:13:28.320 --> 0:13:32.360 Yeah. There's stuff around, um, sponsorships on jerseys and stuff. 0:13:32.360 --> 0:13:35.520 But in terms of basically what people have been calling 0:13:35.520 --> 0:13:39.320 for was a full advertising blackout on all platforms. And 0:13:39.760 --> 0:13:42.400 that hasn't happened. It's this kind of limits across. 0:13:42.720 --> 0:13:45.480 There's also the issue of online advertising, because so many 0:13:45.480 --> 0:13:49.360 people bet online now and also children's exposure to advertising. 0:13:49.360 --> 0:13:51.240 So basically there's a lot of people who are unhappy 0:13:51.240 --> 0:13:54.559 with what the government's put forward there. Um, you know, independent, 0:13:54.559 --> 0:13:56.800 some of the independents like David Pocock, the Greens don't 0:13:56.800 --> 0:13:58.410 like it. And Now the coalition has said they're not 0:13:58.410 --> 0:14:00.970 going to support the reforms either. So Paul, where does 0:14:00.970 --> 0:14:03.210 this leave the reforms? Is the government going to work 0:14:03.210 --> 0:14:05.250 with the coalition or the crossbench, or are they just 0:14:05.250 --> 0:14:06.010 going to drop them? 0:14:06.929 --> 0:14:09.850 It's a good question. Hard to predict. The Prime Minister, 0:14:09.850 --> 0:14:13.610 though privately and he's alluded to this publicly, is not 0:14:13.610 --> 0:14:17.050 for shifting. If people will recall, and perhaps our listeners 0:14:17.050 --> 0:14:20.170 weren't following closely at the time, but this debate was 0:14:20.170 --> 0:14:23.010 subject to years of to and fro in the Albanese 0:14:23.050 --> 0:14:25.690 government's first term. There was a lot of pressure from 0:14:25.730 --> 0:14:29.770 teal independent Zoe Daniel and others in the first term 0:14:29.770 --> 0:14:32.370 of the Albanese government, particularly off the back of this 0:14:32.370 --> 0:14:34.890 report by the labor MP Peter Murphy, who tasked just 0:14:34.890 --> 0:14:39.810 mentioned to blanket ban gambling advertising. The Prime Minister was 0:14:39.810 --> 0:14:43.450 resistant to this and really didn't really avoided it for 0:14:43.450 --> 0:14:46.330 years leading into the last election, and then pulled a 0:14:46.330 --> 0:14:50.250 proposal that was drafted by his then commerce minister, Michelle Rowland, 0:14:50.250 --> 0:14:52.530 about a year out from the election and pushed it 0:14:52.530 --> 0:14:56.330 out till this term. He came to it this term 0:14:56.330 --> 0:14:59.500 with a more open mind, and realized that there was 0:14:59.700 --> 0:15:02.100 quite a lot of angst in the labour base and 0:15:02.100 --> 0:15:06.700 in the general progressive part of the labour movement, but 0:15:06.700 --> 0:15:09.780 also more generally outside of the labour movement, that something 0:15:09.780 --> 0:15:12.700 needed to be done here. But he's his conviction was 0:15:12.700 --> 0:15:15.740 that he needed to find a middle road that satisfied 0:15:15.740 --> 0:15:19.460 both both the big sporting codes, media companies like ours, 0:15:19.460 --> 0:15:22.460 who draw a lot of wagering revenue as well as 0:15:22.460 --> 0:15:25.380 the activists. In his mind, the activists were never going 0:15:25.420 --> 0:15:28.100 to be satisfied with the government's response, so he wanted 0:15:28.100 --> 0:15:30.620 to find something that find a middle ground that pacified 0:15:30.620 --> 0:15:33.020 the issue and allowed the government to move on. Yeah, 0:15:33.060 --> 0:15:35.620 the government really didn't want to have this inquiry. They 0:15:35.660 --> 0:15:37.620 were annoyed behind the scenes that the great. 0:15:37.820 --> 0:15:40.380 I think even that framing though of, you know, oh, 0:15:40.420 --> 0:15:42.980 it's kind of the activist versus the code kind of 0:15:43.020 --> 0:15:46.540 shows it potentially, you know, that might may well be 0:15:46.540 --> 0:15:50.300 the Prime Minister's view. But I think it's, it's, it's 0:15:50.300 --> 0:15:52.660 not your kind of bread and butter left wing activists, right? 0:15:52.700 --> 0:15:55.340 Like there are a lot of people across, across a 0:15:55.340 --> 0:15:58.540 range of experience. Yeah, yeah. And it's people with experience 0:15:58.540 --> 0:16:01.700 of gambling harm and gambling addiction. And that doesn't discriminate 0:16:01.700 --> 0:16:03.780 based on politics. And that's why I think it's interesting 0:16:03.780 --> 0:16:06.380 that the coalition has bought into this issue. And there 0:16:06.420 --> 0:16:07.660 are some people in the coalition. 0:16:07.780 --> 0:16:08.220 The coalition. 0:16:08.420 --> 0:16:10.940 Have. Yeah. Well, they've they've they've at least drawn a 0:16:10.940 --> 0:16:13.740 line at this point. There's backbenchers within the coalition who 0:16:13.740 --> 0:16:17.020 want it to go forward. I think the question will be, um, 0:16:17.180 --> 0:16:22.340 how far the coalition pushes it. Um and if at 0:16:22.340 --> 0:16:24.780 the end of the day, the government who has been 0:16:24.780 --> 0:16:27.460 talking with the coal like Wells and Sarah Henderson, who's 0:16:27.460 --> 0:16:30.100 the coalition communications spokeswoman, have been talking this week, I 0:16:30.100 --> 0:16:33.100 think the question is, if they land a relatively modest 0:16:33.100 --> 0:16:36.060 set of tweaks that the government is happy with, I 0:16:36.060 --> 0:16:41.180 think dropping it all together for Albanese will create troubles 0:16:41.180 --> 0:16:44.060 with his backbench and with the labor base, who just 0:16:44.060 --> 0:16:47.260 last month put into the labor national platform and even 0:16:47.260 --> 0:16:50.980 stronger position on gambling. So I don't really think dropping 0:16:50.980 --> 0:16:52.060 it is. 0:16:52.420 --> 0:16:54.340 He would want to do it. And because he wants 0:16:54.340 --> 0:16:56.100 to sort this issue out and move on. Yeah, I 0:16:56.190 --> 0:16:59.470 wouldn't underestimate the extent to which ministers and the Prime 0:16:59.470 --> 0:17:03.790 Minister believe this to be a third or fourth order issue. Um, 0:17:03.830 --> 0:17:07.070 if you talk to pollsters and party officials who speak 0:17:07.070 --> 0:17:09.350 to voters in focus groups, they believe that this is 0:17:09.350 --> 0:17:12.109 one of those issues that captures attention in Canberra, because 0:17:12.109 --> 0:17:15.310 it's symbolic of the government's alleged lack of progressive instinct, 0:17:15.310 --> 0:17:17.030 but really doesn't register out there. 0:17:17.350 --> 0:17:18.750 So it's a kind of it's a. 0:17:18.790 --> 0:17:20.550 It's a nice to have for some voters, but it's 0:17:20.550 --> 0:17:22.710 not a bread and butter issue because with cost of living, 0:17:22.710 --> 0:17:23.990 immigration and so forth. 0:17:24.310 --> 0:17:26.510 Exactly. And that's, that's how the that's how the cabinet 0:17:26.510 --> 0:17:29.310 sees it. And the view also from senior ministers. 0:17:29.310 --> 0:17:30.669 Get some kind of deal done. 0:17:30.710 --> 0:17:32.310 Yeah. They want to just get it done. 0:17:32.350 --> 0:17:32.870 And square. 0:17:32.869 --> 0:17:34.670 It away. Tas there is I mean, on the other 0:17:34.670 --> 0:17:36.909 side of this there is, you know, the gambling, the 0:17:36.910 --> 0:17:40.550 gambling companies, whether or not you believe this, this by 0:17:40.550 --> 0:17:43.790 this they do say that if people don't gamble with 0:17:43.830 --> 0:17:47.510 Australian companies, then they'll gamble online, you know, through illegal 0:17:47.510 --> 0:17:52.750 gambling streams online. And there's also the issue of gambling 0:17:52.790 --> 0:17:55.990 advertising is of course propping up or. It's an important 0:17:56.119 --> 0:17:59.040 revenue stream for some of the media companies. Which brings 0:17:59.040 --> 0:18:01.760 me to my next topic, because we're one of those companies. Nine, 0:18:01.760 --> 0:18:05.000 which publishes the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age has 0:18:05.000 --> 0:18:08.880 some gambling advertising on it, on its various platforms. It's 0:18:08.880 --> 0:18:12.639 an important revenue stream for us. Uh, and this is 0:18:12.640 --> 0:18:15.119 a time when media companies need all the revenue streams 0:18:15.119 --> 0:18:18.640 they can get. The news media bargaining code is another 0:18:18.640 --> 0:18:21.280 piece of legislation or draft legislation that the government's put 0:18:21.280 --> 0:18:24.440 forward this week. The media companies are not happy with it, 0:18:24.440 --> 0:18:27.440 or certainly big media companies, I should say like nine. Paul, 0:18:27.480 --> 0:18:29.480 can you just tell us what this is about? Because, again, 0:18:29.520 --> 0:18:31.960 it's a fairly niche issue that that maybe listeners won't 0:18:31.960 --> 0:18:32.919 won't be familiar with. 0:18:33.280 --> 0:18:36.359 It is it is niche. It's important because it pits 0:18:36.359 --> 0:18:40.399 the government against very powerful stakeholders, both big media companies 0:18:40.400 --> 0:18:43.360 in Australia, including ours and News Corp and Channel seven, 0:18:43.400 --> 0:18:48.119 who can obviously wage campaigns against the government, which frightens, uh, ministers. 0:18:48.119 --> 0:18:50.840 But also the Trump administration is a big stakeholder in 0:18:50.840 --> 0:18:53.520 this one too. And the reason for that is Trump 0:18:53.520 --> 0:18:56.679 has come into power with an agenda of protecting US 0:18:56.680 --> 0:19:01.280 tech firms from any tax in either Europe or Asia 0:19:01.280 --> 0:19:05.040 or Australia, which they believe are punitive attempts to, uh, 0:19:05.080 --> 0:19:08.399 you know, eek into the to dig into the revenue 0:19:08.400 --> 0:19:11.959 of US tech darlings and hurt the US's interests. So 0:19:12.160 --> 0:19:16.720 they've been taking retaliation against, uh, European nations or at 0:19:16.760 --> 0:19:22.520 least threatening retaliation against European authorities who have suggested digital taxes. 0:19:22.520 --> 0:19:27.320 And they consider this Australian framework, which is a coalition era, uh, 0:19:27.359 --> 0:19:30.880 scheme which has been revamped by labor, which effectively pushes 0:19:30.880 --> 0:19:34.200 or forces big tech firms like meta, Google and others 0:19:34.200 --> 0:19:36.920 who have snatched revenue under the feet of media companies 0:19:36.920 --> 0:19:40.520 like ours to pay Australian media firms for news articles 0:19:40.520 --> 0:19:44.040 on their platforms. Yeah, the websites, the platforms themselves say 0:19:44.640 --> 0:19:47.400 the newspapers need them much more than they need us, 0:19:47.440 --> 0:19:49.879 and we actually need their distribution channels. And so we 0:19:49.880 --> 0:19:53.200 should be helping them. We argue that they've stolen all 0:19:53.200 --> 0:19:56.530 our revenue, taken all our eyeballs, and have a. To 0:19:56.570 --> 0:19:59.930 maintain their social license should contribute to public interest journalism. 0:19:59.970 --> 0:20:03.570 Yeah. So basically when when someone posts on their Facebook page, 0:20:03.609 --> 0:20:06.890 a Paul Sakhile article about gambling reform or a Natasha 0:20:06.930 --> 0:20:11.330 Chrysanthos article about gambling reform, we say the media companies say, well, 0:20:11.330 --> 0:20:13.810 we're giving you content. You should pay for that content. 0:20:13.850 --> 0:20:16.570 The social media companies say, well, actually, we're giving you 0:20:16.570 --> 0:20:19.970 another distribution platform. You should be paying us, if anything. 0:20:20.250 --> 0:20:23.050 So the government is trying to bring a revenue stream 0:20:23.050 --> 0:20:25.730 to the big media companies. They've they've cooked up this model. 0:20:25.770 --> 0:20:27.449 Can you just tell us a little bit about the 0:20:27.450 --> 0:20:28.450 model they've cooked up? 0:20:28.890 --> 0:20:32.889 Yeah. So it mimics the coalition era model that Josh 0:20:32.890 --> 0:20:36.410 Frydenberg as treasurer led and negotiated directly with Mark Zuckerberg. 0:20:36.450 --> 0:20:39.050 It's one of the achievements that he talks about was 0:20:39.050 --> 0:20:41.970 one of his proudest moments. Labor argues that his model 0:20:41.970 --> 0:20:46.090 eventually became broken. And so they've created a new, quite 0:20:46.130 --> 0:20:50.250 technical scheme which would if these tech firms didn't strike 0:20:50.250 --> 0:20:53.570 voluntary deals with companies like ours, they'd be forced to 0:20:53.609 --> 0:20:56.170 pay a charge. Labor Labour doesn't call it a tax 0:20:56.170 --> 0:20:59.209 because that would, uh, irk the Trump administration further. They 0:20:59.210 --> 0:21:01.250 call it a charge, which was going to be a 0:21:01.250 --> 0:21:04.970 percentage of their overall revenue. Yeah. There's an 11th hour change, 0:21:04.970 --> 0:21:08.090 which has really drawn the ire of companies like nine 0:21:08.090 --> 0:21:11.970 and News Corp, which has amended the revenue base from 0:21:12.010 --> 0:21:14.930 being total revenue, which is obviously a bigger figure to 0:21:14.970 --> 0:21:19.290 a smaller revenue pool related to digital digital advertising. Now, 0:21:19.330 --> 0:21:21.970 in part behind the scenes, this move was designed to 0:21:22.010 --> 0:21:24.770 ameliorate the concerns of the tech firms who are dealing 0:21:24.770 --> 0:21:27.530 with the white House and pushing the white House to 0:21:27.570 --> 0:21:30.890 retaliate against Australia. So it's a really tricky position for 0:21:30.890 --> 0:21:34.410 Albanese to be in, because he wants to put this 0:21:34.410 --> 0:21:37.650 scheme forward, to keep our businesses alive or to keep 0:21:37.650 --> 0:21:42.010 them healthy. Um, and our, our bosses are, uh, putting 0:21:42.010 --> 0:21:44.450 a lot of pressure on the government publicly. This ties 0:21:44.450 --> 0:21:47.969 into the wagering advertising conversation because the same bosses of 0:21:47.970 --> 0:21:50.690 media firms like ours who are pushing for this scheme 0:21:50.690 --> 0:21:54.129 are also pushing against the government's gambling advertising bill. So 0:21:54.130 --> 0:21:58.100 there's a there's a enmeshment here with all these issues. 0:21:58.300 --> 0:22:00.020 And and on the other hand, they're trying to keep 0:22:00.020 --> 0:22:03.020 the US onside. So it's it's difficult. But these 11th 0:22:03.020 --> 0:22:06.619 hour changes have been put without any consultation, which is 0:22:06.619 --> 0:22:09.900 quite typical of this government to put significant changes that 0:22:09.900 --> 0:22:12.660 annoy stakeholders quite late in the process. And so it's 0:22:12.660 --> 0:22:13.580 become quite messy. 0:22:14.140 --> 0:22:16.860 So the Trump administration, you know, I think it's fair 0:22:16.859 --> 0:22:19.139 to say on behalf of the tech companies, hates the 0:22:19.140 --> 0:22:22.740 social media ban. Um, they also don't like local content 0:22:22.740 --> 0:22:25.100 laws that we've imposed or the government's imposed for the 0:22:25.100 --> 0:22:29.300 big US streamers, the big international streamers. And now this, um, 0:22:29.340 --> 0:22:32.300 you know, imposition of basically, let's call it a tax 0:22:32.300 --> 0:22:36.139 on the social media companies for using news content. Um, 0:22:36.380 --> 0:22:39.379 what I mean, the Albanese government is big. You know, 0:22:39.380 --> 0:22:42.700 Anthony Albanese often says I make laws in Australia's best interests. 0:22:42.700 --> 0:22:44.500 I make laws in the sovereign interest. But the sovereign 0:22:44.500 --> 0:22:46.780 interest here is not so clear cut because on the 0:22:46.780 --> 0:22:48.820 one hand, you have you know, I would say the 0:22:48.820 --> 0:22:53.340 very worthy, uh, aim of keeping media companies alive. And 0:22:53.420 --> 0:22:56.430 on the other, you have the possibility of further tariffs 0:22:56.430 --> 0:22:59.470 or higher tariffs being imposed. If we to do too 0:22:59.470 --> 0:23:02.390 much digital taxation of the big media tech companies in 0:23:02.390 --> 0:23:02.910 the US. 0:23:03.510 --> 0:23:06.150 You're right on those all those conflicting imperatives, Jack. But 0:23:06.150 --> 0:23:08.750 if you're in the US and you're an official in 0:23:08.750 --> 0:23:11.310 the Trump administration and you see some small sovereign nation 0:23:11.310 --> 0:23:14.510 like Australia who is really who is in truth reliant 0:23:14.510 --> 0:23:17.030 on the US, not the other way around in defence 0:23:17.030 --> 0:23:19.949 and other other matters. You'd say, why are you guys, 0:23:19.990 --> 0:23:22.910 those little guys down in Australia setting this precedent for 0:23:22.910 --> 0:23:25.070 the rest of the world to tax our firms, to 0:23:25.109 --> 0:23:29.630 pay for dying businesses when we want to unleash the, 0:23:29.670 --> 0:23:32.869 you know, growth and dynamism of these firms to help 0:23:32.869 --> 0:23:36.350 boost us prestige and economic clout across the world. Yeah. 0:23:36.390 --> 0:23:39.270 So if you are someone who believes in tech regulation, 0:23:39.310 --> 0:23:42.189 Albanese deserves huge credit for going so forcefully on the 0:23:42.190 --> 0:23:45.030 social media ban and taking on the US there. So 0:23:45.030 --> 0:23:47.310 this is another example of Australia punching above its weight 0:23:47.310 --> 0:23:49.590 in that regard. But there are limits on how hard 0:23:49.590 --> 0:23:50.390 and fast we can go. 0:23:50.390 --> 0:23:52.750 And we have seen other countries, particularly in Europe, follow 0:23:53.109 --> 0:23:55.870 our example on the social media ban, the. The US 0:23:55.869 --> 0:23:58.590 trade Representative has already said, you know, these laws amount 0:23:58.590 --> 0:24:01.909 to foreign extortion. This sort of suite of laws. Anyway. 0:24:01.950 --> 0:24:05.590 The new Australian ambassador, Greg Moriarty, will have his work 0:24:05.590 --> 0:24:07.270 cut out for him dealing with the white House on 0:24:07.270 --> 0:24:09.790 this stuff. Guys, thanks so much for clipping through all 0:24:09.830 --> 0:24:13.270 of those extremely diverse topics with such aplomb. Thank you 0:24:13.270 --> 0:24:15.110 very much. We'll see you both again soon. 0:24:15.710 --> 0:24:16.629 Great to chat. Talk to you. 0:24:16.630 --> 0:24:17.510 Soon. See ya. 0:24:22.470 --> 0:24:22.910 You can read. 0:24:22.910 --> 0:24:27.790 All of our political news on our website, si.com.au and smh.com.au. 0:24:28.510 --> 0:24:31.390 Today's episode was produced by Kai Wong with help from 0:24:31.390 --> 0:24:34.790 Debbie Harrington. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills, and our 0:24:34.790 --> 0:24:39.109 podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. Before 0:24:39.109 --> 0:24:41.670 you go, follow Inside Politics and leave a review for 0:24:41.670 --> 0:24:45.950 us on Apple or Spotify. I'm Jacqueline Maley. Thanks for listening.