Before she got to her question, Kate Chaney noted that last year a parliamentary committee had recommended banning all forms of advertising for online gambling. She further noted that, in the same year, gambling companies made political donations of about $600,000 – and that following the tabling of the report the responsible minister, Michelle Rowland, spent months “meeting with powerful companies that make money from gamblingads”.
So, Chaney wanted to know: “Will you listen to the community and ban online gambling ads or will you water down reform to serve your donors?”
In her answer, Rowland said she was concerned about “saturation” gambling advertising and the harm done by online wagering on sport, particularly to young people – but the issue was complicated and so she was continuing to consult with “key stakeholders”.
Chaney asked that question seven months ago and has asked several more on the same subject since. She has received essentially the same response each time – as have other crossbenchers wanting to know when the government will act.
It has now been 14 months since that report, entitled “You win some, you lose more”, was tabled by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy, then chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. Its 31 recommendations, including a comprehensive ban on all forms of advertising for online gambling, to be phased in over three years, were unanimously endorsed by all committee members – Labor, Coalition and the independent, Chaney.
Still, the minister says she is consulting with stakeholders. Her spokesman said it again to The Saturday Paper this week, in response to an inquiry about when we might see some action.
It appears Rowland has determined that the government will stop short of the blanket ban advocated by the committee and supported by about three quarters of Australians, according to multiple surveys.
As first reported by the Nine newspapers this week, she will propose a blanket ban on betting ads on social media and other digital platforms but allow them to continue to air on broadcast media. The number of ads on television will be limited to two an hour per channel until 10pm and banned an hour before and after live sport.
The latter proposal echoes a promise made by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton in his 2023 budget reply speech.
“I announce that a Coalition government will move to ban sports betting advertising during the broadcasting of games,” he said. “Ads would be banned for an hour each side of a sporting game.”
To those who wanted the recommendations of the Murphy report implemented in full, the leaked details served to bolster the imputation of Chaney’s February 24 question: that the major parties are beholden to donors in the gambling industry.
“The major parties receive funds from powerful interests,” the independent member for Goldstein, Zoe Daniel, wrote in Guardian Australia. “Decisions should not be made to pander to those interests, rather than in the interests of our communities, where the link between sport and gambling is now insidiously normalised.”
On Schwartz Media’s daily news podcast, 7am, ACT independent Senator David Poco*ck claimed gambling companies were “dictating government policy”. He linked the weaker reforms firmly to donations, specifically almost $19,000 from Sportsbet to Rowland shortly before the last election.
“Clearly the government, rather than backing in a report that had the backing of every party in the parliament, are saying, ‘Well, we see your report, but actually we’re going to do something that’s more in line with what the gambling industry wants,’ ” Poco*ck said.
“When you see the FOI [freedom of information] documents that reveal that the minister and her office met 66 times with gambling executives in six months … that’s a lot of meetings about an upcoming reform.”
The FOI documents referred to by Poco*ck – and other crossbenchers, including Chaney – were obtained last year by former senator Rex Patrick.
This week, he put in a fresh FOI request, seeking subsequent submissions made to Rowland, as well as detail relating to the government’s attempts to gag those involved in the consultation process through the use of non-disclosure agreements.
While the documents do show 66 closed-door consultations between late June and early December last year on gambling advertising reform, only about a dozen were with representatives of actual gambling companies. More interesting was the other meetings, with a host of companies and organisations that indirectly profit from gambling. Together, they show who is really working to shape the new laws.
There were major sporting bodies, among them Rugby Australia, Racing Australia, Greyhound Racing NSW and Cricket Australia. Also on the list were the big social media players – Google, Meta, TikTok, Snapchat – and the peak body for online advertising, the Interactive Advertising Bureau. The government initiated those meetings and Rowland did not attend.
The documents confirm, however, that Rowland was there in person when free-to-air channels Nine and Seven and the big football codes, the NRL and AFL, sought to meet, arguably providing an insight into whose interests are paramount in the government’s considerations.
It’s not about gambling companies, per se, but about the broader ecosystem dependent on gambling: big sporting bodies and, particularly, free TV.
“To think that this has got anything to do with gambling donations … that’s just naive,” says Anna Potter, a professor of digital media and cultural studies at the Queensland University of Technology. “This is about governments doing whatever it takes to save three commercial broadcasters.”
She cites data to underline her point. “In 2007 free-to-air TV, commercial TV, got 43 per cent of all ad revenue in the market. In 2021 they got 18 per cent, and it would have got worse since then. That’s obviously because it’s all now going to search and social media…”
Revenue is rapidly drying up. The most recent report by ThinkTV, a joint effort by
the Nine, Seven and Ten networks aimed to boost advertising, showed television advertising revenue decreased 10 per cent
for the 12months to December 2023.
A little more than half the ads running were for online gambling providers. It is one of the few areas in which ad numbers and revenue are increasing. According to data from the Australian Communications and Media Authority, almost $240 million was spent running more than a million gambling ads on free-to-air television, metro radio and online between May 2022 and April 2023.
Of that, the largest share – 68 per cent, or $162 million – was spent on free-to-air television.
“Gambling ads have saved the arses of free-to-air over recent years,” says Peter Cox, an economist and veteran media analyst. “I think it’s pernicious. I think it’s awful. But they’re desperate.”
With advertising migrating to the likes of Google and Meta, and the proliferation of streaming services outcompeting them for drama, Cox suggests sport and news are about all the free-to-airs have left.
Even with the revenue from gambling ads, both Potter and Cox question the long-term viability of the three commercial networks. Nine is the healthiest and Ten the most vulnerable.
Tim Costello, chief advocate for the Alliance for Gambling Reform, blames media owners Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Stokes, in particular, for the stalled reforms.
A couple of years ago, Murdoch’s Foxtel and Stokes’s Seven West Media jointly acquired the AFL media rights from 2025 to 2031 in a $4.5 billion deal.
“And they are saying ‘don’t you dare’,” says Costello.
“As I see it, it’s particularly about Kerry Stokes in Western Australia. He owns the only paper in the state. He owns Seven. And they are terrified, thinking the election will be won or lost in the West.”
He adds: “When you’ve got nearly 80per cent of the public that actually want this, normally you’d think politicians will follow. But not where there’s this vested interest. So who really owns our democracy?”
There is a real question of what would happen to sport funding if gambling money were not there. The AFL reportedly takes $40 million to $50 million from gambling interests each year, for sponsorships, signage and “product fees”. Other major sports also depend heavily on it and argue a ban would affect spending on community sport.
“But these are arguments that we have seen from multiple different industries over the years, tobacco being the most obvious,” says Samantha Thomas, professor of public health at Deakin University.
“Financial disadvantage … doesn’t at all justify these companies and organisations being able to promote a product that we know poses a threat to the health of children and young people.
“Instead, governments need to identify sustainable and ethical ways of funding sports and other public services and activities that don’t rely on maintaining the profitability of harmful industries.”
Indeed, the Murphy report offered guidance on that, as Poco*ck notes. “That’s why they proposed a three-year phased approach, as well as a range of other recommendations, like establishing a national gambling regulator, developing a national harm minimisation strategy, a levy on gambling operators to pay for some of the harms that they cause.”
Government sources say Rowland will have to come up with a response to the Murphy recommendations regarding online gambling and advertising sometime in the next parliamentary session, beginning next week.
Too much has already leaked out,
non-disclosure agreements notwithstanding. Some of what we know – such as a ban on online advertising – will go some way to reducing harm.
The removal of ads during sporting events will no doubt help pacify sports watchers who, surveys tell us, find the ads amajor irritation.
As to whether the political pressure from the cross bench will result in a blanket ban? In a toss-up between television interests and anti-gambling activists, you wouldn’t want to bet on it.
This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper onAugust 10, 2024 as "The big gamble".
For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australia’s leading writers and thinkers.We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth.We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care,on climate change, on the pandemic.
All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers.By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential,issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to accountpoliticians and the political class.
There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this.In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world,it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.
Select your digital subscription
