Gambling Reform, Environmental Laws and Political Accountability - Radio 6PR (31 Jan 2025)

Ollie Peterson: A proposal to cut the number and volume of sports betting advertisements has been put on ice until after the federal election. The clampdown on wagering promotions has hit a wall of opposition from media firms, betting companies, and the nation's wealthiest sporting codes, the NRL and AFL, prompting the Albanese government to take the reform off the table before an election, which is due before May.

There has been speculation for months that the government had decided to put off the changes because Labor is trying to avoid unwanted fights in its cost-of-living battle with the opposition. Kate Chaney is the independent member for Curtin, and she joins me live on 6PR today. G'day, Kate.

Kate Chaney: G'day, Ollie.

Ollie Peterson: Something you and I have discussed on a few occasions now—the gambling reforms. I actually thought we may have heard something before the election. Are you surprised this has been put on the back burner?

Kate Chaney: It’s really disappointing because there's broad public support for phasing out gambling ads like we did with tobacco. I was part of the committee that put the recommendations on the table a couple of years ago, and they still haven't responded to it. The government should be held to account for not even proposing anything and putting no legislation forward before the election, which looks like what’s going to happen.

Ollie Peterson: And that is all down to the election. They’re worried about the backlash they may receive from media firms—obviously, Nine owns our radio station, 6PR—and the gambling companies, as well as those major sporting codes.

Kate Chaney: That’s exactly right. I think we’re seeing the government—and I suspect the opposition, too—choosing to listen to money and power instead of the community. They don’t want to annoy the media companies in an election year. Both major parties receive big donations from gambling companies, and they get some pretty good free tickets to sporting games as well. They’re prioritising party interests over what the community wants, which is no more gambling ads.

Ollie Peterson: It’s interesting because Peter Dutton raised this in his first budget reply speech, so you could have expected stronger support for gambling reforms earlier than the federal election this year.

Kate Chaney: Certainly. When Peter Dutton mentioned it—and I think it was the only policy thing he mentioned in his budget reply speech—I thought we were going to get some momentum and maybe even support across the house. But that hasn’t eventuated. There’s been no mention of it from Peter Dutton since then. The government floated some half-baked amendments but has even pulled back from those.

Ollie Peterson: Do you think this will be part of your re-election pitch in Curtin? Are you going to double down on gambling reform?

Kate Chaney: I have had constituents talk to me about it, and it gets broad support. I don’t think it’s the biggest issue we’re facing, but I use it as an example of where the party system is failing us. If party interests get in the way of good policy on something as straightforward as this, how are we supposed to solve much more complicated problems? I’ve had people from inside both major parties tell me to keep pushing on gambling reform because they can’t do anything within the party structure. This is relatively simple, but it highlights how parties prioritise themselves over what the community wants.

Ollie Peterson: Kate, I know the Senate gathers again next week, and on the list for discussion are the nature-positive laws. There’s been a fair bit of commentary out of WA this week—Roger Cook certainly doesn’t want these to move forward, but you do.

Kate Chaney: That’s right. Both sides of politics have said environmental protection laws need to be fixed. It was actually Sussan Ley who initiated the Samuel Review, which found that our laws were cumbersome for business and had comprehensively failed to protect the environment.

Polling shows nearly 80% of Western Australians say we need stronger national environmental laws to protect nature. When we make decisions that affect nature, they’re usually irreversible, so we need to get them right for everyone—not just for companies wanting to push through their projects. It makes sense to have an independent regulator making those decisions so they’re not influenced by vested interests. That has broad support, and I’d like to see Premier Cook prioritise all Western Australians, not just mining companies. Some of these improvements will actually be better for mining companies too because we do need processes to be simpler and quicker while still delivering the right outcomes. So bring it on.

Ollie Peterson: Interesting you say "bring it on" because there’s already a lot of noise from mining companies and lobby groups opposing this. They’ve got deep pockets. If this goes ahead or remains unresolved before the election, do you think we’ll see another big mining-backed campaign against the nature-positive laws?

Kate Chaney: I’d like to see mining companies work constructively to develop a system that benefits nature while simplifying processes. I recognise that regulations can be cumbersome and need improvement, but decisions should be based on what’s best for the long-term future of the country, not just what’s politically convenient before an election. There’s too much short-term thinking. We need to consider what we’re leaving for our kids and grandkids and make decisions we can be proud of—not just ones that will win votes in the next few months.

Ollie Peterson: That short-termism is built into the election cycle. Would you like to see the federal election cycle extended—maybe four years instead of three?

Kate Chaney: I think there’d be broad support for that once people got past the perception that it’s just about politicians wanting to stay in their jobs longer. If we had fixed four-year terms like the states, it would require a referendum to change, and I don’t think either side is keen on running a referendum anytime soon.

Ollie Peterson: I don’t think Australians are too eager for another referendum anytime soon. Shifting gears, on Monday we broke the news that temporary fencing has gone up around Car Park One near the Indiana Tea Rooms in Cottesloe. We’re waiting on details from the local council about whether it’s an engineering issue or a problem with the retaining wall. Do you think the federal government should invest in Cottesloe foreshore redevelopment? The local council is calling for funding, but state money is being allocated elsewhere.

Kate Chaney: Absolutely. I’ve made it my number one priority in Curtin’s pre-budget submissions. I’ve met with the infrastructure minister about it, and this shouldn’t be a political issue—it shouldn’t depend on who holds the seat. The state and federal governments should both be contributing because Cottesloe isn’t just for the western suburbs. It’s used by people from all over Perth and attracts lots of tourists. It’s an iconic destination, but it’s looking tired.

We need investment to ensure good infrastructure that’s accessible for everyone. I’m sick of these decisions being based on election timing and who holds the seat. People are sick of it too.

Ollie Peterson: Taxpayer money—whether state or federal—should go to the projects that need it most, not be handed out based on who needs to win votes.

Kate Chaney: Exactly. More accountability, transparency, and proper processes around taxpayer spending have been a big priority of mine. Neither party wants to change the system because they like having the ability to allocate money when it benefits them politically. But people deserve to know their money is being spent wisely.

Ollie Peterson: Kate Chaney, appreciate your time. Have a good weekend.

Kate Chaney: Thanks so much, Ollie. You too.

Related audio: ABC RN Breakfast - Gambling Advertising (5 Aug 2024)