Politics with Michelle Grattan: Andrew Wilkie on the need to go harder to curb gambling advertising
- Written by: Weekend Times
Gambling is a policy area where there’s a major mismatch between the public and the government.
The public and advocates want much more
restriction put on gambling advertising, while the government – beset with pressure from stakeholders, including the industry itself and media companies wanting the revenue from the ads – drags its feet.
The Albanese government’s currently has legislation before parliament that would, among its changes, restrict the number of gambling ads that can be played during certain hours, bans radio ads during school pick-up and drop-off times, and ban ads in sports venues and on players’ jerseys.
But critics say the legislation, now before a Senate inquiry, doesn’t go nearly far enough.
Since entering parliament in 2010, independent MP Andrew Wilkie, from Tasmania, has been a tireless advocate for more controls around gambling, especially its advertising, to minimise harm. Recently he put his arguments to former prime minister John Howard and reportedly received a good hearing.
He joins podcast today.
On the government’s planned reforms, and its response to the report done by a committee under the late Labor MP Peta Murphy, Wilkie is scathing:
It needs to be recognised that the Murphy parliamentary inquiry, named after Peta Murphy, the late chair, was the best parliamentary inquiry into gambling harm this parliament has ever seen. And it’s important that its 31 recommendations, [made up a] consensus report.
I would go so far as to say it is the best blueprint that has ever been produced in Australia for addressing gambling harm and that makes the fact that the government sat on it for more than three years all the more damning. That makes the fact that the government is only going to three of the recommendations and then only in part, I think that’s all the more damning. It’s clearly well short of what the community were hoping for.
On gambling itself, Wilkie says he’s for people being able to gamble but harm needs to be minimised and the problem remains overwhelming with online gambling and gambling ads:
I’m quite happy for people to go out and gamble. […] We are not anti-gambling. We just want to make it safe. We want to have effective harm minimisation measures in place.
We know that the uptake in sports and online gambling, it’s a very steep line. And with that, the number of people who either have an addiction or are at serious risk of developing addiction, that number is growing steeply. […] The Australian Gambling Research Centre also found that the 18 to 24 age group are nearly twice as likely to be at a high risk of gambling harm compared with other age groups.
On why the government might be so hesitant, Wilkie refers to the personal relationships some in the government – including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese himself – have with affected industries:
I think there are some in the government who are fellow travellers with one or all of those industries and I’d single out the prime minister personally and his relationship with the leadership of NRL. I mean that’s not a case of the prime minister being scared of anyone in the NRL, he’s just favourably disposed to the leadership of the NRL.
I don’t know how any member of the House or Senator can sit down and have the sort of meetings that I have regularly with people who are battling addiction or recovering from addiction, families who have a loved one who has an addiction, perhaps may have even suicided. I don’t know how anyone with humanity can have those conversations and not walk away absolutely determined to do something about it.
On the current legislation and the eight-week Senate inquiry, Wilike says support is growing within parliament for greater changes and he’s hopeful the Greens and the Coalition might team up to demand more:
I think up until recently, the leadership of the federal opposition haven’t really understood this issue, haven’t understood the politics of it.
I would add, haven’t understood that, here is an issue where they could differentiate themselves from the government, which would be immensely popular. […] But I think that is changing.
So I’m hopeful that by the end of this eight-week Senate inquiry into the bill that we will see the opposition side with the Greens and demand at least some significant changes to the bill. Maybe that’s why the government have gone in so soft at the start, so they’ve got a bit of room to move with amendments.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
