ABC RN Breakfast: Gambling Ads and Domestic Violence: a Call for Stronger Action (10 July 2024)
Interviewer: Well, there's a good chance you missed it last week, but Parliament passed what's known as the prominence and Anti-siphoning Bill. The new laws support free TV services and sports coverage in the streaming era, including rules around when certain kinds of ads can be shown. The government rejected an amendment to bring rules around gambling ads on digital TV in line with other broadcast media, and that's cast fresh doubt on their commitment to implementing the recommendations of a crossbench committee on online gambling that was chaired by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy. The independent MP for Curtin, Kate Chaney, was on that committee and she joins us now. Welcome back to breakfast.
Kate Chaney: Thanks very much.
Interviewer: Was the prominence and anti-siphoning bill an opportunity, albeit a small opportunity for the Albanese government to introduce some forms of restrictions on gambling advertising?
Kate Chaney: Well, it was, but I still hold out hope that the reason they didn't accept that amendment is because they intend to do it properly. What we've found, and what the research shows, is that partial bans don't work. We currently have restrictions about ads during live sport, but we see that it just moves the ads around. People still have a strong sense that ads are being shown during sport. So actually what we need is the full ban, as was recommended by the committee that had people from all parts of politics on it.
Interviewer: That committee you mentioned recommended a comprehensive ban on all forms of advertising for online gambling over a year ago. Where are we at with the government's response to that particular point and the 30 other recommendations made in that inquiry report?
Kate Chaney: We are still waiting for the government to respond. The response has been, "We're working on it, we're working on it. It's complicated." But really, the clock is ticking. Given that Australians lose $25 billion every year and a third of money that's lost is lost by people experiencing problems with gambling, every week counts. I think the government has to show some guts and implement those recommendations because it's really what the community wants.
Interviewer: The Prime Minister did say that the government was indebted to the late Peta Murphy who chaired that committee for her contribution to what is a critical issue. And that is a direct quote. But as you point out, it's more than a year and there has been no action. Do you think this is looking like a betrayal of Peta Murphy's legacy?
Kate Chaney: Peta did a great job chairing that committee. As a newcomer to Parliament, I hadn't realised how rare it was to have unanimous recommendations with no dissenting comments from any party or representatives. It was really a great achievement and a good sign that there's broad community support for this. What worries me is that gambling companies may have made $1.7 million in political donations recently. We really need to see the government get some guts and do what the community wants, not what the gambling companies want.
Interviewer: You make the point about the political donations by the gambling companies. But there is also an issue of media companies that are increasingly reliant on gambling companies. And we're talking predominantly sports betting companies here. They're relying on them for advertising income. We're within 12 months of an election. Is the government going to take on the power of the sports betting companies, given what you mentioned about the donations and how reliant the media companies are on them?
Kate Chaney: Gambling advertising has tripled in the last ten years. It is less than a year out from an election, but I think the government needs to choose whether it cares about voters more than it cares about the media companies. We saw the banning of tobacco ads decades ago. Of course, the media companies then said this is terrible, but they survived. It really comes down to who the government values more, the powerful vested interests or the voters.
Interviewer: But the federal government makes the case that they've made a number of changes, such as introducing the national bet stop self-exclusion register, new anti-gambling ads, and a ban on credit cards for wagering. Is there evidence that those interventions have made a difference?
Kate Chaney: Every little bit helps, and I'm very glad that the government has done some things on reforming gambling. But our 31 recommendations in the committee report show that there is just so much more work to be done. We regulate gambling a bit like Swiss cheese. There are holes everywhere, and we take a lowest common denominator approach across the country. There's still so much work that needs to be done. The online gambling advertising phase-out is only one of those things, but that was set out over a four-phase process so that the media companies and the sporting codes have time to find new sources of revenue. There are a lot of other changes that need to happen too, around public education, more obligations on banks, and more obligations on gambling providers to actually have a duty of care.
Interviewer: Would you like to see the introduction of a national gambling regulator like the Gambling Commission that exists in the UK? Because currently, sports betting is really regulated out of Darwin, where those companies are based for tax minimisation reasons.
Kate Chaney: Absolutely. That was a key recommendation of the committee: that we have a national online gambling regulator that manages all licensing and regulation, then levies gambling operators to fund a national strategy, and is included in a ministerial portfolio. Because at the moment, as you say, it all happens out of the Northern Territory because that's where they have the lowest fees and the lowest regulation. It's not good for the whole country to have that approach. These are online companies, so the state borders become pretty irrelevant. It really is a national issue.
Interviewer: On RN breakfast at 17 minutes to eight, and we're talking to the independent MP for Curtin, Kate Chaney. I just wanted to turn to another issue. Yesterday, the Prime Minister issued a statement reflecting on the lives lost to domestic violence. You've seen the impact of domestic violence in your electorate. What policies do you think could make a difference?
Kate Chaney: We've had a terrible incident a few months ago where a man murdered a mother and daughter while he was looking for his ex-wife, which technically doesn't count as domestic violence, but he was with a gun looking for his ex-wife. That's been really harrowing for my community. Since then, a lot of women have come and told me their stories and what they think needs to change. It's a combination of state and federal changes that are needed. A lot of women have told me that they've gone to the police and haven't been taken seriously when they're in fear of their lives, or else they have a restraining order and then can't get it actually enforced. I think there's work to be done through the police system and the justice system. I sit on a different committee for social policy and legal affairs that's currently doing an inquiry into family violence orders and the family court system because I've also heard from women about how the court system can be weaponised and used as another domestic violence tool. I think there is great appetite for change across the country, and we just have to make sure that appetite for change turns into real change and doesn't get lost in the bureaucracy.
Interviewer: Kate Chaney, we'll have to leave it there, but thanks for your time this morning.
Kate Chaney: Thanks very much, Steve.
