Loading summary
Transcript27 lines
- [00:01]
A
I'm Daniel James and you're listening to 7am. Senator David Pocock has been one of the fiercest advocates of the youe win sum, you lose more report known as the Murphy Review and its recommendations to reduce the harms of online gambling. It took the Albanese government 1049 days to formally respond to the landmark inquiry that called for urgent action to reduce gambling harm, including the phased ban of gambling advertising. When the government did finally release its response this week, it was hidden on budget day and stopped well short of that central recommendation, prompting anger from advocates across benchers who say the government has failed to meet the scale of the problem.
- [00:46]
B
I genuinely do think it's cowardly to try and try and slip it out when there's less attention. And I said it was disrespectful because they didn't even respond to these recommendations. They just said, yeah, we've noted this and we're doing something else. I think they should at least tell us why they don't think we need something like this, a regulator.
- [01:05]
A
Today, Senator David Pocock on the government's handling of the Murphy Review, the power of the gambling lobby and why he says the response shows a failure of political leadership. It's Friday, may 15th. Senator Pocock, in the middle of all the budget coverage this week, the Albanese government fell, finally released its formal response to the Murphy Review into the harms of gambling. What did you make of the timing, Daniel?
- [01:39]
B
Yeah, very suspicious of their timing. After three years, the PM announced publicly what they were going to do in terms of a policy response the day before the Easter break and then the one day of the year where basically every journalist in Canberra is locked up in a room with budget papers without their phone, they decide, well, we're going to respond to this report. And respond is generous because they didn't actually respond to any recommendations, they just noted them.
- [02:08]
A
Why do you think they didn't want anyone to see it?
- [02:10]
B
Well, I think they're genuinely embarrassed about it and there's a lot of pressure from backbenchers. It does not do the Murphy Report justice. As I said, they didn't even respond to individual recommendations. And what they've said that they're going to do this partial ban, some money for an ad education campaign and then cracking down on illegal offshore gambling goes nowhere near the central recommendations and is so out of step with what the vast majority of Australians want. There was a poll that came out the same day they released it. It was like 77% of Australians back a full gambling ad ban and 80% of labor voters. So of course you're just going to try and, you know, squeak this thing out during budget lockup and just hope that there isn't much scrutiny of it.
- [03:00]
A
You've mentioned some of the things that they've touched upon, but what is the government's formal response to the review? What have they said broadly about it?
- [03:08]
B
They've said that they're going to go with a partial ban, which we know partial bans don't work. The government's own regulator says that partial bans don't work. In the past where there's been a partial ban, we've seen more ads from gambling companies and they've also gone with the option. When they released their sort of policy response, there was the underlying analysis from the department that said that a full gambling ad ban is cheaper to enforce and better for Australians, has a larger benefit for Australians. A partial ban will be harder to enforce and won't benefit Australians as much. So, you know, they've just capitulated, sided with vested interests and not the Australian people. As I said, there's some money for an awareness campaign and then cracking down on illegal offshore gambling, which is exactly what the gambling companies have actually been pushing for. And one of the tragic things about their response is it doesn't address things like inducements, which Peter Murphy says was the most urgent thing we can do to reduce gambling harm was to ban inducements. Things like ongoing funding for gambling research, no response. Nationally consistent data collection on gambling harm and suicide, that's a no brainer. We're the biggest losers in the world per capita. Surely we can at least start collecting data on the harm. And then the other big one was establishing a national gambling regulator. It's an absolute travesty that we have gambling companies set up in the NT with basically no oversight.
- [04:43]
A
If we just look at advertising, one of the areas where it seems to be confusing is streaming and online. If someone is watching sport through a streaming app or an online platform, are gambling ads actually banned?
- [04:56]
B
It's not entirely clear yet. They've said that they're going to go with an opt out option where you know there will be gambling ads unless you go through the process of opting out. And we know SVs have done that for a while. I went through the process of opting out and it's actually a lot harder to do than you think or that it should be. And so I just don't understand why you, for something that is a public health issue, that you're just putting the onus on parents and Australians to have to opt out on every service to Nazi gambling ads. So it's a patchy ban. It's not the response we needed. But the legislation hasn't passed. I think there's an opportunity for Australians to ramp up the pressure on their local member or senator who's meant to be representing them here in Parliament House. And the crossbench is certainly going to be putting a lot of pressure on both major parties.
- [05:53]
A
How concerned are you that gambling advertising will just move from TV into social media, podcasts and other digital spaces?
- [05:59]
B
Well, we're already seeing it there. What's happened in the past is that when you block off certain times or one type of media, that money just shifts and you just see so much more. And you know, we've just been so saturated with gambling ads that 3 out of 4 young people now think that gambling is just a normal part of enjoying sport. And you know, as a, as a former professional athlete, I've benefited so much from sport. It's been, it was such a big part of my life. I learned so much about myself, had so many great opportunities and absolutely loved it. And one of the things that Peter Murphy warns about in her forward to the you win some, you lose more report was that we really risk detracting from what sport is actually about. We are undermining this thing that so many Australians love by gambling attaching itself to sport. So, you know, there's a lot, there's a lot at stake here. And that's exactly why we need a phased in gambling ad ban, losses in revenue for free to air, for grassroots sport. We're a very wealthy country. We could slug these Companies with a 1.5% levy or something more than compensate that, or we could just say this is a public health issue and we're going to fund that in other ways through the transition
- [07:24]
A
coming up, how the gambling lobby flexes its muscle. Senator Pocock, you mentioned the absence of a national online gambling regulator as a key criticism. Why does that role matter so much?
- [07:42]
B
It matters because this is, in the words of Peter Murphy, a predatory industry. They will take any loophole they can. And the current regulator, acma, clearly I think, doesn't have the teeth to deal with it. And there's just so much that actually falls out of the scope of current regulation. And the government's own response talks about all these emerging forms of gambling online and how they need to be regulated. That's why you have a national regulator, a one stop shop that is responsible for actually regulating this industry. And Putting Australians health and wellbeing front and centre. So I don't understand why you wouldn't want something like that.
- [08:28]
A
The government is already saying that this is still progress nonetheless and that a partial package is better than no package. Is there anything in it you welcome?
- [08:37]
B
Why on earth should we settle for something partial? 3 ads an hour for kids. Is that acceptable? This is something that so many parents stop being the street about and say you can't get away from these ads. You know, I hear them on Spotify between kids songs like it's why on earth are we saying that it's okay just to have a half baked response? And well, it's better than, it's better than nothing. That doesn't cut it, particularly when you have a crossbench. The government would have the numbers to actually implement the Murphy report in full and there's, there's bills in the House and the Senate that would do that. And everyone knows the human cost that this is having. You know, Daniel, over the last, I don't know, 18 months, the number of young men that have, have stopped me in the street, pulled me aside at events and said, mate, can I just chat to you privately? You know, one, thanks for what you're doing. Pushing for a gambling ad ban, pushing for banning inducements. And two, I've got to tell you my story. And it's always about the shame that people feel about their gambling addiction. You watch the ads. This is about having fun with your mates, you know, having a win, enjoying sport, you know, being an Aussie larrikin. The reality is people lying in bed at 3am, scrolling their phones, chasing losses, getting an inducement, getting back on the, on the bandwagon. It's devastating and we need an evidence based public health response to this. That is the Murphy report. And yet we've got a government that is captured by vested interests.
- [10:18]
A
Mate, if we talk about vested interests here. You work in Parliament. What have you noticed about the strength of the gambling lobby and the way it's been able to speak with decision makers when it comes to formulating this legislation?
- [10:32]
B
Well, they're ever present, they're here a lot. They've in the past paid to be part of the parliamentary sports club so that they can come and play parliamentary sport in the morning. I took exception to the fact that the Parliament House sports club is sponsored by the gambling lobby and was kicked out of the sports club for saying that. Apparently I've been invited back but I haven't actually heard from them. So it's just totally does that mean,
- [11:00]
A
you missed an opportunity to literally tackle some of these lobbyists.
- [11:06]
B
It's mostly non contact, so, but you know, it's, it's. They hear all the time, but we don't actually really know because, you know, we've got a system here where ministerial diaries aren't routinely released. So it's really only through fois order production of documents in the Senate. But a lot of those don't actually get complied with in full by the government. It's, you know, we're dealing with a very secretive government. I don't think this is just the gambling lobby though. I think if you look at someone like Peter Verlandi's clearly got a close relationship with the Prime Minister. He's the chairman of the nrl, the NRL and afl, as I understand it, they won't talk publicly about these details, but they actually get a commission on BET's place now. And so it's no longer just this sponsorship model, it's actually part of the business model and we've seen huge pushback from them. And, and you know, the former head of the AFL, Gil McLachlan, is obviously working at a gambling company now. Peter Verlandis is the, is the chair of gambling organization. So there's really close links there. And then you add in free to air television, who I think just under 10% of the ad revenue comes from gambling ads. And I think those three have really exerted a lot of pressure and I actually have sympathy for the free to air television argument. But we have to ensure that we don't fund free to air television. If that's all that's holding it up, surely we can find another revenue source for that. As I said, a 1.5% levy or some way to actually have good public interest journalism in this country that's in our national interest. So I think we can definitely do both. But the combination of that, I think has meant that the Prime Minister is simply not one to act.
- [12:51]
A
When this legislation does come across your desk, Senator, is there anything in it that can save it from your perspective?
- [12:58]
B
Well, I think broadening the ad ban is a really important step and I've been having conversations with crossbenchers with the opposition about one, ensuring that we actually have a Senate inquiry into it so that we can look in more detail into it. Been a bit of a habit with some controversial legislation that the government does some sort of deal to actually have no Senate scrutiny. So I think that's a really important aspect. And then through that to actually look at how can you broaden the Gambling ad ban inducements are a really important part of this. If you talk to researchers and experts in this space, they're the most damaging thing. And we know from the Murphy inquiry the kind of behaviour from gambling companies where people are on a losing streak and they potentially stop, they're then given an inducement to get back into it. So it's those sorts of things. Ultimately, you'd just like them to do the whole thing. But in the absence of that, I'll be pushing as hard as I can in the Senate to actually put Australians first and say, well, how do we start to protect younger Australians?
- [14:08]
A
And finally, Senator, while we've got you, the government has just handed down its fifth budget. It's made politically difficult changes to the tax system. But I think one thing that wasn't in the budget was the gas export tax that you've been pushing for. Why do you think it still won't move on that particular tax reform?
- [14:26]
B
Well, I think the budget shows that pressure works. Government's clearly under pressure on housing, I think we've finally seen, and huge credit to Treasurer Chalmers here, some bold reform on housing. It's obviously not going to please everyone. There's going to be all sorts of campaigns against it, but I really do think this is the start of starting to treat housing more as something we truly want to be accessible and affordable, rather than just this asset class, this investment vehicle. That's going to take time, but I really give the treasurer credit for that. On the gas export tax, I think this is not going away. And so we just got to keep ramping up the pressure. This is the fiscally responsible thing to do. It's in the national interest. The vast majority of Australians want it. And at a time where these gas exporters are making absolute bank of Trump's war in Iran, now is absolutely the time to do it. And so it was fascinating sort of looking through the budget and hearing that some of the talking points around it with them saying, you know, international stability is not a reason not to do these hard things here, but that's kind of exactly what's being used as an excuse not to do something like a gas export tax. We can be a reliable ally and export gas to Japan, South Korea, the same volumes of gas at the same price, but just get a fair return for that gas and the companies would have to pay us that 25%.
- [15:51]
A
Senator Pacock, thank you once again for your time.
- [15:53]
B
Thanks a lot, Daniel. Cheers.
- [15:58]
A
Foreign. Also in the news, former Jackie Lambie Senator Tammy Tyrrell has made a surprise switch to Labor. The Tasmanian senator fell out with Lambie in 2024, becoming an independent. Now she's become the second senator to join Labor's ranks in 12 months. Anthony Albanese confirmed Tira was courted by the Labor Party. And Coles has been found to have misled shoppers by offering fake discounts, a judge finding 13 of the 14 price cuts submitted to the court weren't genuine savings. The federal court ruled that the supermarket giant didn't sell products at the higher price for long enough before putting them on the down down promotion. Judge Michael o' Brien will rule in a similar case against Woolworths at a later date. You can find out more on the supermarket's dodgy practices and the implications of this decision for shoppers in Tuesday's episode of 7am with Greg Cherico. I'm Daniel James. Thanks so much for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.