Interviewer: All right, well, West Australian Teal independent Kate Chaney was a member of the committee that originally recommended a total ban on online gambling advertising just over a year ago. She’s also had a briefing, as far as it went, from the government on that subject, and she joins us now. Kate, welcome back to the programme. I understand that the way these briefings are conducted somewhat limits, I think, the discretion you have to speak about its contents. But what can you tell us, as much detail as you can give, about what you gleaned on where the government’s going?

Kate Chaney: Well, unlike some companies a few weeks earlier, I didn’t sign a non-disclosure agreement. But really, all the information about what’s in the package was the same as what had been leaked to the press previously. My big concern about it is that it’s being framed as a public health package, but really it’s being driven by protecting the sustainability of broadcast media, doing as little as possible while protecting the revenue streams, and I think that’s very disappointing.

Interviewer: All right. I have some questions about broadcast television and how that might be dealt with separately to gambling advertising. But you’re confirming that it’s the limit of two ads per hour, none at all in the shoulder period of an hour before and an hour after a live sporting broadcast. That is still a significant reduction in the volume of ads that we’re seeing at present. Why wouldn’t that have a matching but proportional improvement in health if it’s being wound back so far?

Kate Chaney: Well, in the committee inquiry that I sat on, which finished 14 months ago, we heard evidence from lots of experts that said partial bans don’t work. We tried partial bans with tobacco in the 1970s—they didn’t work, and finally, we implemented a full ban. I haven’t seen any new evidence since the hearing finished that says partial bans now do work. So I’m relying on the expert evidence that we heard, and I think the minister should also be relying on that evidence.

Interviewer: If it’s so pernicious and so dangerous, have you ever given thought, either within the context of the committee or subsequently, to an outright ban on the product itself?

Kate Chaney: That hasn’t really been on the table. What I hear from constituents all the time is that the fact that the ads are everywhere is what they object to. People might want to have a punt—that’s their choice—but if people are experiencing problems with gambling and everywhere they look, they’re reminded of it, that’s when I think we’ve got a really deep societal problem.

Interviewer: Did you get a sense of how far into the preparation or finalisation of this bill the government is? Because we’ve been hearing for some time that it was imminent, that it would go to Labor’s backbench and caucus processes pretty soon. Is that what you discovered?

Kate Chaney: As far as I understand, it’s not imminent. It’s been 14 months since that inquiry was completed. The government was meant to respond within six months. And even of the 31 recommendations, the discussion was about one of them, which relates to advertising. So there’s still a lot of work to be done. I take some heart from the fact that it’s not imminent, in that I think the government still has the opportunity to implement a full ban, which is what the community wants, and there is still time to get that done before the next election.

Interviewer: That’s obviously the major sticking point. But as you point out, there was an awful lot in the report. Did you cover the breadth of that with the government? Do you know how many of those recommendations, was it 31 for memory, might be picked up?

Kate Chaney: We’ve only talked about one so far, which is the advertising. There are some other really important recommendations in there that go to how we regulate gambling, including having one minister who’s responsible and a national gambling regulation framework. Instead, we’re seeing this regulation which goes to one part of it. It’s the piecemeal approach that leaves our regulation as a bit of Swiss cheese, full of holes, causing all the problems. I’d like to see a much broader approach like we did with tobacco, with the advertising ban being part of that.

Interviewer: I understand. Let’s move to what many people see as a separate body of work, which somehow has become intertwined in all of this, and that is the health of free TV broadcasters in metropolitan areas. But principally, I think the concern on the government’s part is in regional Australia. Do you see a need for those broadcasters to be supported financially, with or without a gambling advertising ban?

Kate Chaney: We definitely need media diversity, and if that is the issue, then the conversation should be framed about what is an appropriate way to provide that support. Gambling ad revenue is one way. We could bring back tobacco ads—that would be a different way to support it—or there are a whole lot of other options as well. I would really like to see that conversation being had explicitly rather than it being hidden through the lens of this health-focused gambling ad ban or reform. So absolutely, let’s have the conversation, but let’s keep it separate from the health issue and make the decision about gambling ads based on what the public health experts say.

Interviewer: So there’s a recognition there by you, I think, that if that revenue stream were to be cut off, we could lose things like commercial news services in the regions, if not the cities themselves. Do you acknowledge that?

Kate Chaney: Well, the media companies were very coy in the inquiry process about disclosing how much they depend on gambling revenue. I think that’s because either it’s not that much, in which case there’s not a leg to stand on, or it’s the case that our media is propped up by the gambling industry. If that’s the case, it’s a huge issue, and we need to talk about whether that’s a decision we want to make as a country and whether there are other models of funding it. So yeah, I’m happy to see a broader discussion. I don’t want to see broadcast media falling over, but I also don’t want us to make the trade-off, which is that we’ll have a generation of kids addicted to gambling in exchange for regional TV stations.

Interviewer: One of the proposals put by Free TV Australia, I think, is a reduction, if not waiving, of their spectrum licence fees. I think in total that amounts to $43 million or thereabouts. Would you see that as acceptable as part of a different discussion?

Kate Chaney: I think all options should be on the table. We need a robust media, but funding it through gambling is not the answer.

Interviewer: All right, Kate Chaney, thank you for the update. It looks like we might be in for a longer wait than we had anticipated on the final package from the government, but that’s been enlightening. We appreciate it so much.

Kate Chaney: Thanks.