I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven AM. For years, gambling advertising has spread far beyond the outbreak, becoming a familiar part of how Australians watch sport, follow news about sport,
and spend time online. Three years after the Murphery Review called for a comprehensive ban, the Albanezi government has finally responded, but the government's plan to reign in online gambling advertising has drawn sharp criticism, with campaigners and cross benches arguing it falls well short of what was recommended, and in that gap, a bigger fighters opened up about how deeply
betting has worked its way into Australian media and Australians' lives. Today, Krikey Media reporter Danny Say on the government's plan to reduce gambling ads and why it's longer waited response is already under fire. It's Friday, April seventeen, Danni. Gambling ads are everywhere. It's impossible to listen to a sports podcast in Australia that it isn't sponsored by a sports betting company.
But it's not just sports podcasts. A lot of other podcasts of villas and YouTube serve an absurd amount of gambling.
Ads, multis or build your own combining player markets like total goals disposals.
Even Karl Stefanovic's new YouTube show is sponsored by a sports betting company. Being a man that may well fit into the target demographic for this, I'm sure you've noticed the same thing.
Yeah, absolutely, Daniel. It kind of blows my mind a little bit. That's even people who I've spoken through in the gambling industry who make their living off of this, who are absolutely incentivized in the most literal sense to continue the bombardment of gambling ads that we do have have come out said I am gone on the record and said, okay, it's a bit much. And I can't think of a single other industry where we've reached a level of saturation where people employed by the industry say
the advertising for their livelihood is a bit much. Vested interests is a powerful thing. It's extraordinary when you go too far.
So to address this torrent of gambling ads that we see on every screen we look at. Just before the Easter break, the federal government finally announced its planned around gambling ad restrictions, something that advocates and campaigners have been waiting three years for.
We are getting the balance right, letting adults have a punt if they want to, but making sure that our children don't see betting ads everywhere they look.
So remind me and those listening to this, what was actually announced by the Alberanza government on this front.
Yeah, so there's a couple of top line reforms and we're going to get a better idea of them sort of in the next sitting week. Conveniently that'll also get overshadowed by the federal budget. But we're looking at a restriction on gambling advertising on broadcast television to know more than three ads an hour between six am and eight thirty pm.
We will ban all gambling ads on radio during school pickup and drop off.
We're going to see a banning of gambling ads on online platforms unless you have a long DIN account over eighteen and have the option to opt out of gambling advertising. So that sounds it's a little bit in the weeds, and there's probably some bits and pieces to work through there and some moving parts there.
We will ban cross promotion content that mixers commentary with odds, will end advertising on jerseys and jumpers and in stadiums, and will ban.
But there was a report that came out in the last couple of days that said that enerl clubs will be allowed to sort of see out the duration of those deals. So these reforms are going to kick in from the first of January twenty twenty seven. A lot of those gambling deals relating to uniforms and so on sort of extend beyond that, and they'll be allowed to sort of see those out.
So while it sounds like there's a fair bit going on with these reforms, it's still a pretty watered down version of what Peter Murphy in her inquiry was recommending.
If the status quo on online gambling regulation, including but certainly not limited to advertising, was to continue, Australians will continue to lose more, more money, more relationships, more love sport for the game rather than for the odds.
It's been really widely criticized. It's been criticized by all sides of politics, and noting that Peter Murphy's sort of committee that put this report together back in during twenty twenty three was bipartisan committee and had people from both sides of politics. But the Manifay report said that partial bands on advertising don't work it's really clear about that. It's a fair deal of research on that. We know
that this is a parcelband. We know that the Murphy Report called for a national regulator, and there's no mention of that. There might well still be a response to that, but this announcement so far doesn't mention it. There's also no mention of inducements, so things like bonus bets and bet returns, things that sort of keep gamblers or customers money cycling through betting apps and betting platforms. Those were
recommended to be outright banned by the Murphy Report. There's no mention of that in this suite of reforms that the government's announced.
The fact that it's taken so long, Dannie and it's so watered down from what the Murphy Review recommended, does that show how influential the gambling lobby is in Australia. I mean, just how hard has the campaign against these reforms being.
It's been really, really hard. I think it does. That's the criticism that has been put to me by adverts by MPs, by the cross bench, by members of the Labor Party, both sort of in the parliament and outsided from the rank and file, that are pushing for reform. This has been a really consistent criticism that the government has a really close relationship with the gambling lobby. And
not just the gambling lobby. There are other stakeholders through that the government has close relationships with that it doesn't want to jeopardize, so things like broadcasters that rely on the advertising revenue, things like the sporting codes themselves.
Broadcasters are hooked on this revenue, now, aren't they.
Yes, broadcasters are hooked on this as well. And they've sort of flagged that there might be changes to revenue models and so on, or warned or threatened that there might be changes to staff, or to revenue models or to how aughts of programming. I think that's a bit
of an empty threat. A lot of these broadcasters are doing very well for themselves, and as we speak, Peter landers Is, the chair of the Ruguy League Commission, has been given quotes to the newsp papers about the massive multi billion dollar deal, the broadcast deal that he's ready to sign and has many many sushes for so cynically, I would say they'll do just fine.
You mentioned that there's been some voluntary action from some of the betting agencies because during that long delay in the response to these proposed reforms, these recommendations, have the gambling companies built ways to potentially get around these bands and reach customers. Because it seems like, as you said, already, most of the sports gambling companies have their own podcasts,
their own content channels with subscribers and followers. Would those things be defined as advertisements in relation to these reforms.
We're not entirely clear on that yet. Like the short answer is yes, they'll probably try to get around them in some form. This is part of the reason why a partial band doesn't work, and this is why say partial bands don't work, just because gambling companies find new and creative ways to get around them. The gambling companies have already like bobbied really really hard on this over
the last three years. In August twenty twenty four, it was reported that the then Communications Minister now the Attorney General, Michelle Roland, had sort of met with a number of stakeholders, including the big wagering companies, and the proposal at the time was something to the effect of two gambling ads an hour. It was then reported in January that Anthony Albanize had come over the top of Major Captain's call and vetoed gambling advertising reform before the twenty twenty five election.
Now we're an early twenty twenty six to three a year on from that election. We've seen a new minister and the proposal now is three gambling ads, so it's an additional ad per hour on what gambling companies were
sort of already exposed to. So there's a criticism that has come with this latest suite of reforms from gambling companies that all we were consulted on these changes and the reality is that gambling companies have been consulted in quite some depth a really significant period of time, so they're very aware of the machinations of this.
Coming up, how gambling has become part of Australian sport Danney. These reforms are still yet to get through Parliament. The Greens and Independence like David Panncock are unhappy with what's been announced. Is there any real chance that these reforms get strengthened from here?
See this is I think really interesting. The short answers, I don't know. The longer answer is maybe the coalitions sort of very broadly support gambley advertising reform. It's not really clear where they sit on this current announcement, but it's worth bearing in mind. And again this sort of highlights the absurdity of how long this government has taken that they were outflanked to the left by Peter Dutton
and Sports Bear. But Peter Dutton came out a long time ago in twenty twenty three, I think I think it was semberish and came out and said we're in support of gambling advertising reform. We think it's much The government could very well take coalition support for this set of reforms and take it through the Senate, but the Greens are really critical of the proposal as it stands Now, if you get the Green support, you're more or less through,
but they would want to see it significantly strengthened. The Green spokes Ferston on this Siah Hanson Young is called the government squips on this suite of reforms. They really don't think it goes far enough. Have some guts.
Just like they complained and squealed about tobacco, they're squealing and complaining and excusing about.
Likewise. David Pocock one of the three independents in the Upper House. He's been one of its most vocal critics.
The Albanezy government has failed Australians when it comes to banning gambling advertising.
Lydia Thorpe, obviously an independent form of Green, has previously called for a total ad band hasn't sort of said anything in detail yet Jackie Lamby has consistently voted in face of gambling advertising reform.
You'd rather take those Stone nations than worry about the future of our kids. You are absolutely you should not be sitting in this place. You should not be a representative in Parliament. I'll say that right now.
You are doing nothing.
But hurting our Australian kids and their families.
And then One Nation is a bit of a wire card in the sense you've got four sentences, but many of them are actually just never in the Senate, so it's not super clear where one Nation stand at the moment.
The other thing I wanted to speak to you about Danny Wall We've got you is Nick Foot, the afl umpire. His employment with sports Bet has recently come under the spotlight, and of course there's no suggestion that Foot has done anything wrong, but it does feel like an example of how deeply ingrained gambling has become spot absolutely.
There was a great analysis piece by the ABC's Cart Pollard, who's one of their digital sport editors, on this, and he makes the point that it is absurd and the obsurdity of it been highlighted now that this story has become a national issue and NRL communities, people above the Barrassi line have sort of expressed to me, this is insane. How do you have an umpire whose.
Fell out of my chair when I heard that we had an umpire employed by a gambling agency.
The AFL's rationalist that he analyzes racing, he doesn't do football, and obviously there are a number of integrity scandals over the years involving brown lows, involving umpires and votes and so on. The AFL were previously comfortable with it. My understanding is they might be a little bit less comfortable now in AFL house. But whether that leads Channing change
is another thing. He's been reappointed for this weekend's game again between gold Coaster and Essenden, And it's also worth noting that AFL umpires aren't full time professionals, so there is a necessity of umpires needing to earn a living wage by other means it's been a long term debate in the AFL about making umpires full term professionals, and one of the things that we mitigate is situations like this in integrity concerns.
So, finally, Dannie, is this now bigger than a simple advertising debate? Is it really a question about whether Australian sport has become too culturally and commercially entangled with betting And does it seem to you like labor is trying to make gambling ads less visible without really addressing the harms that online gambling has on Australians.
Yes, I think this debate is one of like fundamentally, when you when you sit down in the pub with a beer and you have this conversation with punters. They do see this as a debate around what gambling's relationship is like relatives of sport. And we've sort of seen the effects of it going unregulated in the United States, who sort of en mass deregulated sports betting over the last few years, and it has seen a losion of a of revenue, be of just a complete change in
how sport is presented in the United States. And I would argue that most strangers don't necessarily want to see us go down that path. And this is I think the politics of it anything other easys relied on for a really long time, and I don't think it hits the same anymore. Is he said? Oh well, I want to protect the right of Australians to have a punt. I endorse free choice for responsible adults, and no one's
questioning that, of course. But I think that line must have had some sort of cut through and whatever focus script Labor Party had for it, I wonder whether it will continue. I struggle with the idea that the current state of affairs can can continue, and I suspect most Australians do as well.
Donny, thank you so much for your time.
Thank you so much for having me mate.
Also, in the years the PM is wanted, there will be consequences for our fuel supply. After a massive blaze at one of only two Australian oil refineries, the Geelong Refinery, which supplies ten percent of the country's fuel, has temporarily slashed production of petrol, diesel and jet fuel. Workers were forced to flee from what's been described as a bloody
big fireball. Fortunately no one was hurt. An anti protest laws brought in after the Bondai terror attack have been struck down by New South Wales's highest court, in a major loss for the men's government. The law, which effectively meant protesters could not march with that risk of arrest, was challenged by three activist groups, the Black Caucus, Palestine
Action Group and Jews Against the Occupation. The Court of Appeal found the Public Assembly Restriction Declaration, or PARD as it was known, infringed on protesters constitutional right to freedom of communication on government and political matters. I'm Daniel James. Thanks for listening to seven AM. We'll be back tomorrow.