You win some, you lose more

In the spirit of ANU's motto, first to know the nature of things, we acknowledge the traditional custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea, and waterways, which were never ceded. We pay our respects to their elders past and present and extend our respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples listening today. >> Oh, can I tell you? Democracy sausages are my favorite [music] meal. >> They are delulu with no solulu. >> Forget about what you've been told by the hate media. >> I'm optimistic they have [music] the right idea. >> Google it, mate. >> Oh, such a sycophant you've ever seen. >> This is Democracy Manifest. >> Welcome to Democracy [music] Sausage. I'm Mark Kenny, director of the Australian Studies Institute at ANU. >> And I'm Dr. Maria Tetflager from the School of Politics and International Relations. >> Now, gambling is central to Australian life and language. It's a fair bet you will have used terms like that originate from gambling, just like I did then. They're sprinkled through the Australian idiom. Currently, the federal parliament is grappling with a package of reforms and a deal seems to be imminent, a political deal anyway. It would restrict gambling advertising and ban inducements, perhaps. That's That's the way it seemed, but these changes fell well short of what seemed to [snorts] be widespread community expectations. And the question is, why? I mean, why would a government be on the wrong side of this? Joining us this week to discuss this is Dr. Or Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, head of the Gambling and Social Determinants Unit at Monash University. Welcome to you, Charles. >> Thank you. Welcome to you, too. Nice to see you. >> You've been in this in this sphere of of policy for a long time. I wonder if we could start by having you clarify something pretty basic, really, about the Murphy report because the Murphy report is is 3 years old now, I think. Um It was done by Peter Murphy, a Labor MP. She was the the chair of the parliamentary inquiry. She's no longer with us, sadly, but it was seen to be a groundbreaking report and it addressed itself to particular things. So, I wonder if we could just get you to sort of frame up our discussion in terms of the Murphy report. >> So, the Murphy report was tasked with looking at the implications of the growth of online wagering in Australia, at the regulation of online wagering operators, and originally looking at the consequences in terms of problem gambling and the impacts that it had on so-called problem gamblers. After they had had a few submissions and some hearings, they changed their language and started using the term people affected by gambling, adversely affected by gambling, rather than the concept of problem gambling, because they had learned and adopted the view that calling people problem gamblers was a very stigmatizing term, one which had been seized upon by the gambling industry and used to stigmatize people and to, I guess, put them in their place so that they didn't become political advocates or advocates for their own cause. And it was very successful for a very long time. It's part of the whole responsible gambling paradigm, which has shaped Australian policy and regulation, even now, even though it is starting to fall into disrepair because people are starting to see through it. But, so, they they had a bit of a a a Damascene conversion on the on the road to their inquiry, but they were essentially tasked with looking at online wagering. Now, I mean, the Prime Minister is right in one respect when he says that the biggest problems in Australia with gambling are attributable to poker machines. They are, as you know, ubiquitous in almost every state and territory but WA. Uh, they are responsible for well over half the revenue that is lost on gambling every year in Australia. Uh, and they're certainly responsible for well over half of the problems that arise from gambling. >> And how much money is that? >> How much money? Well, they the total that's been in Australia at the moment is in the range of 34 billion per year lost. And about half of that uh, somewhere around 17 billion is attributable to pokies. Another six or seven billion, it's hard to know because there's a bit of lag in the in the data, but it's about seven billion a year going into online wagering at the moment. And the rest is sort of between casinos and other forms of gambling. >> So, it's really important this this distinction about online wagering and particularly how it relates to advertising cuz this is the sort of exploding part of the gambling market, isn't it? And anyone who watches sport knows this whether they're interested in gambling or not because you are absolutely peppered with in many cases these sort of blokey kind of pseudo funny ads that run and and of course there are, you know, again sort of pseudo information spots where people are almost posing as sports broadcasters, but they're telling what they're actually telling you is, you know, the odds for this and that relating to the event you're about to watch. >> Yeah. >> So, it's it's that's what the parliamentary inquiry was particularly concerned with this whole technologically enabled as I say kind of explosion of wagering and the and the vast cultural reach that that technological enabling brings about. >> Yeah, and because it's sort of And this is a global phenomenon, by the way. It's always gambling, particularly wagering, attaches itself to uh sport wherever it's, you know, stuck its head up. And that includes from, you know, the deepest um most remote parts of sub-Saharan Africa all the way through to Europe, the United States now in particular, and of course Australia. So, whatever the dominant sport is in [clears throat] a particular area, gambling will have latched onto it, will be pouring money into it, and will be promoting itself on the back of it. >> Uh it hasn't exactly always been a benign partnership, has it? I mean, for a start, it's it's uh I mean, the gambling companies will say that they uh provide a line of funding to a lot of sports, but it's also been associated with quite a lot of corruption over the years. Uh it's it's it's, you know, basically um besmirched and debauched a lot of uh sporting competition. And indeed, I would argue corrupted strongly the the the sort of almost like the kind of threshold experience of sport as is happening with with kids nowadays who, as as as as has been widely noted, are as likely to tell you the odds relating to a particular match coming up as as as to discuss you know, positions on the on the field or who's in and who's out. >> Yeah, but I mean, it probably even goes deeper than that. I mean, it's it's sort of like a cultural like taking over all the activity. It's like certainly true what you say. Kids are much more likely to tell you the odds of a particular game or the odds of who's going to kick the first goal or whatever. >> The same game multi or some such thing. >> Yes, they'll also talk about that. And but but, you know, more importantly, they see it through that lens now. So, instead of seeing it as a um an activity which is, you know, at its best um athletic enjoyable for its own sake fun, you know, basis for an outing with the family or at least with your dad or your mom or whoever follows it. And now it's it's it's I think it's been reduced to a simple calculus, which is about, you know, the odds of this and the punters are saying this and Kane Cornes on the AFL promo site is is arguing that the best bet this weekend is this one. And if it comes quite a different way of understanding the world when it's viewed through this lens. And I would argue that it's expanding, that view is rapidly expanding into everything else. Um particularly with the advent of new forms of gambling which enable you to take a position on almost everything. >> That is so depressing that the intrinsic joy of a game is being stripped away by a profit moting from rapacious interests that really don't care about the sport or the communities that they affect. I think one of the things I'd really like to kind of um understand before we kind of go on to talk about the downstream effects is um the the Murphy um report, um you know, in terms of what it was asking for. Like how how ambitious uh was it compared to um what we might see around the world? So so our listeners can kind of understand like what the government's response to it then is, like how that fits in a pecking order. >> Okay, so I mean, I think the best way to describe the Murphy recommendations is that they were reasonably modest, but well thought through and would have made a significant difference had they all been implemented or were they all to be implemented. Now, I mean, some of them are pretty basic. One of them, for example, was to institute a national regulator for online wagering. Now, most countries already have a national regulator for their online wagering. They couldn't conceive of doing it in any other way. The United States, of course, is different, but uh you know, apart from that, I think if you look at any other country where online wagering or online gambling at all has taken off, there is a single national regulator who's would staffed, well resourced, uh and is capable of administering the activity with reasonable diligence. That's never been the case in Australia. The on- The online wagering operators are generally regulated by the Northern Territory. >> Yeah, yeah, explain that cuz I mean there's that's a pretty I've heard this before, but it's a pretty odd sort of statement, isn't it? There There's not so many areas where you would of policy where you would say it's run from the Northern Territory. >> might be some favorable settings there. >> Sounds like there might be some favorable settings there. What are those? >> Well, it's a low tax jurisdiction. They I think the maximum tax anyone pays in the Northern Territory for an online wagering company is in the tens of millions. This by turning over thousands of millions every year. Uh and they've always set it up like that. And many people, including me, would argue that it's a very uh very low regulation environment. They don't uh they don't operate uh like a detective or a a hawk pursuing its prey. They are very laid-back. And I think Four Corners um a few months ago did a very good piece on it, Steve Cannane, about the um the way in which it's it's an outfit which is run by amateurs. There are, you know, part-time commissioners who work once a month. They don't have any full-time staff. And they're running a business which turns over, you know, 70 billion a year or more. Uh and what And what we've got is we've got a bunch of part-time people operating something which in my view they don't understand. Uh and they have no resources, no capacity to actually properly regulate it. Now, the reason this has come about, of course, is because of the Commonwealth has generally sat back and let the states regulate gambling, although there is no doubt the Commonwealth, were they to have wished, certainly regulate online gambling because it has the uh the constitutional jurisdiction to do so with the telephony powers and so on. Um but even more bizarre is the fact that the framework of regulation for online wagering is within a federal act, the Interactive Gambling Act of 2001. But for some reason the Commonwealth has abrogated its responsibility to regulate this to the >> This presumably is is is partly the the a function of of the fact that gambling used to be largely restricted to horse racing or at least, you know, and dog racing, I guess. Um and and and so the you know, the state jockey clubs or whatever it was basically controlled those industries. It's always been We're always being told about how many people are employed in those industries as a sort of a defense of of all of that a defense of any criticism of, you know, the culture of that, whether it be in relation to you know, dogs being injured and and so forth or or just the gambling harms. But so that that was the mindset with which the Commonwealth kind of just allowed this to grow and be in the in the purview of the states, in this case a territory, which I you know, it just seems completely bizarre. >> And of course, as as you alluded to, the Northern Territory, you know, taxes at a very low rate, provides minimal interference in terms of regulatory requirements. Uh and just lets it go. Let's it rip. Uh so, you know, why would you bother regulating? Why would you bother registering or or licensing yourself in another state when they'll do it for a pittance? >> Yeah. So so where where where where does it get Where's Where's the um gold standard then you know, around the world? >> Uh probably in the Nordic countries now where I mean, they're moving away from their monopolies, their state-run monopolies, although there are still some in some countries, including Norway, but they they have, you know, well empowered regulators with you know, hundreds of staff who constantly oversee the business of these entities. they require them to present regular reports, they require them to present data from their transactions with customers. In some countries, those are um made available to researchers through what's called a data vault. They've been de- de-identified and people who want to do the research can look at the pattern of transactions and so on. Things like inducements have been banned, things like promotions by notable personalities have been prohibited. A very large number of countries have prohibited any advertising uh including internet-based advertising. Uh and they mostly have pre-commitment systems. That is a maximum amount that you can lose. In Germany, the maximum amount you can deposit into an online wagering account or an online gambling account is 1,000 euros a month. Now, you know, Germany Germany is I mean it it it it it it is a well-regulated economy, I guess you could say, but it's one where people are very proud of their ability to do pretty much what they like. But the for the Germans, 1,000 euros a month is as much as anyone should should should lose in a transaction. I mean, in Switzerland, you know, the home of um anonymous bank accounts, if you turn up at the casino too often, they have they are required by law to approach you and ask you for a uh a report from your accountant or your bank as to your about your ability to meet uh these sorts of debts and that it is not going to impoverish your bank. That's Switzerland. So, I mean, people understand that gambling is not just another commodity. It is something that has the capacity to destroy people and that needs to be properly properly surveilled and regulated. And that in Australia appears to be anathema to government. >> And do these countries use like do they provide consumer protections uh for uh for for people's interactions with these companies? >> Well, they are certainly required to uh be open and fair and honest about what they're doing, where your money's going, how much you can withdraw at any one time, what their requirements are for turning over amounts, how quickly you can withdraw it if you wish, how quickly you can terminate your account, and usually that's pretty quickly. So, if you, you know, get in touch and say I want to cancel my account and you can do that with a button in many countries, then that's it. They have to give back and stop taking money off you and stop getting in touch with you and promoting their products. >> What's the relationship between these companies and I suppose the sporting codes in in these places? Is that nexus still there? Because that's the the argument that we're hearing now, well, we can't touch the gambling companies because, you know, children's sport will fall over or Channel 9 will collapse or whatever. >> Yeah, well, I mean, can I just approach that from a slightly different angle, which is that whatever the problems of broadcast media, they were well emerging before the growth of gambling, particularly online gambling, and if the government really wanted to deal with that, they could. Um, but I mean, it's it's, you know, it's been overtaken by technological advances. It's struggling to find a market beyond people my age or older and it struggles to produce content that is at all appealing to many people. So, you know, what have they got? They got the sporting broadcast. So, they say, "Well, if we lose that, we lose the revenue from Nestle and we're all going to go to put." Uh, that seems at the best disingenuous and for the Prime Minister and the government to say that's the reason they don't want to introduce restrictions on advertising is the biggest cop-out I've ever seen. Um, as to the distribution of resources to children's sport, I think no one would suggest that um, sporting efforts in WA are any less than in the other states. In fact, you know, the survey of of recreational activities and its club memberships by the ABS regularly reports that there's more participation in junior sport in WA where there's no basically no gambling money going into it. And I include in that, of course, the money that comes from poker machines, which is a large part of the subsidies to local sporting activities. So, I mean, the AFL has always been able to find money to support its feeder organizations, its local clubs, and so on. Uh the NRL similarly, um cricket similarly, uh and the same argument was made when tobacco sponsorship was ended that you know, the universe was going to end and that would all collapse in a gigantic black hole of sporting abyss. So, I think it's it's a nonsense, to put it mildly. Both of those arguments about TV and sport collapsing are complete nonsense. >> [laughter] >> Do they sponsor sport in Europe? Yes, they do. >> Yeah, life goes on, it turns out. >> [laughter] >> And the same the same criticisms are made and the same comments are made about when they can't advertise anymore and how terrible the results are going to be. But, they've done it and as far as one can I mean, Spain. The Spanish had exactly this argument not long ago. They forbade uh the advertising of online wagering and participation in sport grew. >> Oh, it's like people might be enjoying the intrinsic value and joy of the game. >> Yeah, it's like like the sport itself might have something to it. It might be interesting and and enlivening and you might actually feel good participating in it and watching it. >> It might be it might be fun just to get off the couch and go and play or just go and watch a live game. >> Yeah. >> So, I mean, you know, there's there's there's no evidence of that at all. And I think the other argument that the the the bookies always come up with is if you regulate it too much, then people will just go to these illegal um offshore sites where there's no consumer protections at all and all the rest of it. And once again, there is no evidence of that occurring anywhere where such restrictions have been put in place. >> And and also, it's a red herring in the sense that um, the real key to this, which the Murphy inquiry understood, uh, and which is at the center of this whole public debate that's happening at the moment, much as the government would like to make it about some other things, is advertising, right? >> Yeah. >> And advertising is the way in which the industry thrives and grows. It needs a constant, you know, flow of new marks, new people to to impoverish, as it were, or to or to or to, you know, take profits from. Murphy report was called you win some, you lose more, um, which was, you know, a hint to, uh, the the the the proposition that it was examining. It seemed like Labor wanted to go there. I mean, certainly it seemed like there was a majority support within the Labor caucus for, you know, for proceeding with the Murphy inquiry's recommendations, the the sort of most central of which I guess was the, um, was the three-year phased-in ban on online advertising, uh, or advertising for online gambling, I should say. Um, and yet the government stopped short of that, and we saw last week Luke Bateman, a former NRL player, uh, talking about some of the inducements that he was, um, given, uh, some of which were, if if it was true, were plainly criminal acts. >> Yeah. >> And and so now it seems like the political machine, you know, the the the the government and the opposition are kind of they they they've sort of seized on this and decided they can focus on clamping down on inducements. The line between inducements and promotions is is a is a is a blurry one, I guess it's fair to say, but pretty clear that, you know, offering problem gamblers um you know, a couple of bags of cocaine is uh outside the law, uh but you know, they've been these companies have been flying people, flying big gamblers to to sporting events, providing them with catering. Another allegation suggests providing with escorts. Um and and all of that it just gives you a sense of how much money they must be making out of these people if it's if they're still a a profit in it after you've paid for their flights and given them all of that, there's still a profit to be made from gouging them. Drugs are expensive. >> Yeah, >> [laughter] >> I'm sure that's right. Um but uh yeah, I'm just wondering are we seeing sort of a a bit of a kind of a you know, a pea and thimble trick here with, you know, going to inducements without really going any further on gambling advertising. I mean, you know, they've got they've got some changes, but they're not very much. >> Yeah, I mean, the advertising changes are unlikely to have a huge impact on how many ads there are on TV and how rarely children will have access to them, but particularly online, I I would argue. Um but I mean, Murphy was pretty clear the Murphy committee was very clear about wanting to get rid of all inducements immediately. They didn't phase them out, they wanted them to be gone with as quickly as possible because they heard lots and lots of evidence, more mundane perhaps than Mr. Bateman's evidence and Tim Costello's statement last week, but you know, what it boiled down to is that for most people an inducement might be something like you haven't had a bet for a while, I just put 100 bucks in your account, you put 100 bucks in and away you go for the weekend, you'll have a great time. Now, for people struggling with their habit who don't want to gamble much, who haven't canceled their account, who haven't pushed the bet stop button, uh but who want to cut back, that is, you know, it is a red rag to a bull, so to speak. It is going to of course it's going to make make want to go. So, it's a it's a it's a hook. It gets them on the hook. And it keeps them there for as long as possible. And as you say, the industry needs to attract new punters because the ones that it's had for a while have run out of money. They have spent everything. They've lost their house. They've lost their family. They've lost their partner. Um they've lost their health and well-being. Some of them um kill themselves because >> Some of them have have have have done that. Some of them have and before doing that have embezzled their employer or their clients or whatever. I mean, we've seen stories of this. People whose whose kind of lives have effectively collapsed uh as a result of their addiction to gambling. Um look, let's take a quick break and come back. So, I want to talk to you about that addiction question uh and then and then some other aspects of of this of this policy challenge. Welcome back. I'm talking We're talking with Professor uh Charles Livingstone, head of the Gambling and Social Determinants Unit at Monash University, talking about all aspects of uh this sort of gambling policy challenge that is before uh the Parliament at the moment. We were just talking before the break, Charles, about addiction. >> [snorts] >> Um have you done any work or read anything in relation to attitudes about gambling addiction? Because I I I I wonder whether there is the level of public understanding of gambling gambling addiction that there is about other forms of addiction to, you know, substances, for example. Do Do people take gambling addiction as seriously or do some people take the view that, "Oh, well, it's your it's your choice and you got into it and you want to keep punting and that's your right and you know, why should we give you any sympathy?" >> Well, I think you know, that's the unfortunately the answer is a bit complex. I think I think you're right to a certain people take a more sympathetic view of someone who's addicted to a substance, alcohol, illicit drugs, whatever, than they would to someone who is addicted to gambling. But I don't think people understand the mechanism of addiction particularly well at the best of times, and certainly when it's a non-material addiction, when it's something that doesn't come with a a needle or a glass um to dispense it for you. Um and of course, the reason for this is partly because the industry has been enormously big on individual responsibility. I mean, you know, lots of industries in our community take the view that, you know, that it's not the fast food that's causing you obese become obese, it's the fact that your parents encourage you to eat it when you're a kid, or that you can't stop now. And it's the same logic which carries over to poker machine gambling, for example. People who use poker machines, and I've spoken to most more of them than I have online wagering, but poker machine users are constantly telling me that their friends and relatives, until I get a sense of just how deep the addiction is. I'm constantly telling them, "Well, can't you just stop? Can't you just not go to the club?" etc. Um and what the addiction does is it basically hijacks your brain's reward system. So, you end up becoming addicted to the neurochemicals that flow when you're in the midst of gambling. And you're not gambling to make money, you know you're not going to make any money, you're gambling to get into that state. Uh it's a means to an end, it's not an end in itself, and people just don't understand that. But I think the whole responsible gambling mantra has been incredibly persuasive in terms of the broader community in terms of making it the responsibility of those individuals who've been caught up in it. Uh that have you know, that have that have blamed the victim for the problems that they encounter. So, people who are addicted to it struggle enormously with it, and they also feel like they can't get any help or a sympathetic hearing from the authorities. They don't You know, I mean, only far fewer than 10% of the people who have a serious gambling addiction ever reach out for help from the gamblers help services, for example, which are free and which the government touts as being its solution to this problem. The governments are not big on prevention because I know that would interfere with the flow of funds and they don't want to interfere with that for some reason. >> Yeah, and what you're describing is um a really kind of pernicious sort of uh cycle, right? Um you know, the the idea of um self-control and individual agency is is very strong in our Anglo-Celtic um culture and um you know, I can can see how uh you know, the average person who doesn't really understand exactly how, you know, brain chemistry is operating is is looking at someone and just sort of saying, "Well, you haven't [snorts] taken a substance that is like interfering with your mental processes." But actually, what this addiction is in many ways is really even more pernicious cuz it's your own, you know, it's your own brain chemistry. And and and so the addiction is is really banal. And so I found it kind of interesting and there's no criminal elements, like there's no, you know, there's no drug dealer selling you stuff, right? Or or or whatever. And so what it's really kind of interesting is that we we we are talking about a profound addiction, um you know, that we've just discussed like how terrible it is. Um and uh we're talking about the interests arrayed, which are all legal and heavily embedded into our systems of power and our and our and our cultural elites and in terms of, you know, sporting and so on and so forth. Um and so I think this I think we should actually talk more about the idea that the the government and the opposition are talking about predatory inducements. That like that the idea that an inducement to someone who has an addiction isn't predatory. Like an an inducement to this kind of person is a problem, no matter no matter what it is. And and you were describing before the the you know the you know sending a hundred bucks to someone who's trying to stop. Like that that's that's predatory. It doesn't have to be a bag of cocaine to be predatory. It's just that that is sort of um >> No, they find this works. And obviously the admission is right there, isn't it? In the in the act that they're going to make more out of it than you are. >> Yeah, exactly. >> They're not giving you a hundred bucks. >> Right. >> you a hundred bucks so they can scalp a hundred fifty or two hundred or five hundred. >> Exactly. But for from a political perspective, um and then I'll let you talk, Charles. Like this this is our guns debate. You know, like this is a problem that is obvious. >> Mhm. >> pernicious There is really no good coming out of this. Like the the point about like you know, we've we've covered the evidence around the sort of so-called social benefits from this. It's a thirty-four billion dollar industry. I think you said seven billion dollars is coming out of online wagering, seventeen billion out of pokies. You know, like I don't really understand how some community programs make up for the thirty-four billion dollars missing from the average Australian families like, you know, life choices about how they choose to live their life, look after their children, look after their retirement, blah blah blah. You know, and but the fact that we we can't talk about this >> cultural blind spot, yeah. >> Yes, it's a cultural blind spot. And I think we we need to kind of reckon with this. And it's not predatory inducement. It's pervasive and banal. And that's the problem. >> Yeah, I mean the banal end of this picture is where it really matters. And you know, I I I know a guy from the UK who had a very big gambling habit. He he had a company which was doing well, and he managed to destroy that with his gambling. And during the course of his gambling, one of the operators with whom he was betting flew him out to the Melbourne Cup for a week. Um so he could bet more while he was here. And of course that was at the one end, the end of that you know, we've heard about from the inquiry last week. But, you know, the real thing is that somebody who bets 100 bucks a week, who's an ordinary worker, can be induced to keep doing that regularly and increase it and increase it and increase it until it becomes an intolerable burden for for them and their family, more importantly in many ways, and the broader community. And, that's what they're doing. Yes, I agree with you. Any inducement in this circumstance is predatory. And, that's what the Murphy inquiry found. They wanted to get rid of all of them. Because all the people They didn't hear, you know, they didn't hear about the high rollers getting, you know, five-star rooms at the casino or something. What they heard about was people who were getting, you know, little kicks in every now and then to keep them on the hook, basically, until they'd exhausted everything they could. And, as soon as that happened, they were gone. They just kicked them on and got the next one. And, that's what the advertising and the promotion is all about. They have to have a steady flow of new punters to replace the ones that have burnt out, that have lost everything, that haven't got any more to plunder. >> It seems completely puzzling to me that the kind of the moral dimension of this, which is front and center in so many other policy spheres that governments deal with, is is kind of side-stepped all the time. >> Yeah. >> So, even this focus we see now that this we we we I mean, by the time some people are listening to this, this may have been kind of you know, come out into the open. But, as we're recording this, the story is that the Prime Minister's come back from a period of of leave. Parliament's back sitting. He's had a meeting direct one-on-one with Angus Taylor. It's discussed a number of things, but this gambling thing is is is front and center of it. And, out of that discussion, there is going to be this crackdown on so-called predatory inducements and perhaps some tightening of the advertising ban that they had proposed already, which was a limited advertising ban, nowhere near what the Murphy report had had proposed. Uh and it it it's uh it it's it's kind of I mean Angus Taylor was lent on famously the reports show by John Howard no less, who was saying he wanted to see an end to this gambling advertising. He wanted to see an opt-in rather than opt-out. So you had to opt-in to actually be subject to this advertising onslaught, uh which seems to me to be a perfectly good idea. That was ignored. So I guess my question is what what on earth is going on here? Is this a function of the relationship, the powerful relationship that exists between the gambling peak bodies and those companies and our senior politicians? Because it wouldn't take much political courage it seems to me given public support for greater restrictions here for uh for the government for the parliament to take the moral course which was advocated by Peter Murphy and his committee. >> Yeah, maybe but I think you know, we call it the ecosystem these days. So the gambling industry has an ecosystem. If it was just the bookies trying to get these things protected it would probably be less effective. But what we've got is they've pulled in everybody and their donkey to make up a pack of vested interests all howling for their right to make a lot of money off people who bet, who wager, and who've been trapped into it you might argue. Who've become addicted. So it's obviously the broadcasters who claim that if this is an existential in substantial threat to them that you know, if the gambling ads stop they're going to fall over and they won't be able to fund newsrooms anymore. Not that they've been funding them to a great extent lately anyway, but and the sporting codes are saying, you know, we need this money otherwise the kiddies won't have footy's anymore or footy jumpers. Uh and all the other members of the ecosystem right the way down to um the people who are you know, running a junior footy club and who once a year get a, you know, a box of jerseys from the AFL or whoever. So, mobilizing that group or those groups of people is really quite straightforward because they all have a share of the action. And it's a brave politician who takes on Any politician could take on the gambling industry without too much fear. I don't doubt that. But taking on the commercial broadcasters, the major sporting codes, local community organizations, and all the rest of them is probably a step too far for someone like Mr. Albanese. And the second point I is that he was there when Julia Gillard tried to regulate the poker machine industry back in 2010. When Wilkie became the balance of power person, he said, "We want a pre-commitment system on poker machines." And Gillard said, "Yeah, sure. Okay." Now, I was on a committee that the government set up to debate this and work out how it could be done. Of course, the industry was there in its full glory making sure that nothing would ever happen and they did that very effectively. And they did it effectively by using that ecosystem power to join together uh to demonstrate to the government of the day that they would do whatever they had to do to bring them undone. And in the case of the poker machine businesses, particularly in New South Wales with Clubs New South Wales, they ran uh marginal seat campaigns. They had all the infrastructure in place, all the money they ever wanted. They said they could have up access to at least $20 if they wanted. In the end, they only spent about three to run seat campaign seat by seat, particularly on um politicians sitting in marginal seats. Uh and you know, Peter Garrett has recounted what that meant to him. You know, he turns up at meetings and the whole place was flooded with people chanting uh that he should be thrown out of office because he was destroying their local community club. Now, you know, of course it wouldn't have had any other effect at all, but what it demonstrated, and I think Albanese took quite great note of this, was the power of these entities, when combined, in pursuit of the maintenance of their vested interest. And that's exactly what's happened here. Now, it so happens also that he's a big fan of rugby league, and Mr. V'landys has no doubt had a few quiet words to him in the chairman's box at the football from time to time about how this would be a destructive um attack on, you know, grassroots Australian sport, etc., etc. And he's quite happy to take that advice, it would seem. Um but the thing that really annoys most of us who have been trying to see reform put in place is that we know, from experience here and overseas, that introduction of reasonable regulation, yes, it would mean the money wasn't quite so prolific, but it's not going to stop. People are still going to bet. I mean, if you can't advertise, well, you know, everybody in Australia knows how to put on a bet. I don't doubt that you'd be able to find one if you wanted to. >> Yeah, and this is this sophistry where, you know, as I said before, the PM and and others say, you know, people should be allowed to put on a bet on the weekend. There's no one There's not even on the table for debate. That's that's that that right is not being infringed in any way in in the in the Murphy report or anywhere else. >> Well, that's him fighting that campaign. >> Yeah, precisely. >> From the past. >> So, what we've got is we've we've I mean, he he remembers that very well, I have no doubt. >> Yeah. >> And he he, you know, he saw the caucus went nuts because, you know, they rolled Gillard on it in the end. I mean, if the problem if the problem was so bad that Peter slipper was the answer for it, which it was in the end, it must have been pretty diabolical in that caucus room. >> Pretty crazy question if Peter Slipper [laughter] was the answer. >> That's right. Exactly. Exactly. >> But and how cheap, $3 million in an industry of this size? >> It's a surrounding error. It's a pittance. And you know, they could they could mobilize as much money at any time that they wanted. The gambling industry could throw hundreds of millions of dollars at this and barely notice it. >> Yeah. >> And that's what he's terrified of. You know, I know what it takes, you know how elections are running these days. I mean, all it takes is a few percentage points off your off your margin and you're gone. And no member of parliament wants to be in that position. So >> Well, well, I wonder whether whether the there's an element here also of them thinking, I mean, this I'm not constructing any of this, I'm building on it. An element of of of the new politics happening here as well. One of the things that I've seen referenced a few times in reports and I've had said to me, um and I understand the PM used this terminology in his talk to caucus yesterday as we record this, was this idea that they were worried about being described as being part of the nanny state >> Yeah. >> by One Nation. Now, is One Nation even if has our politics sunk to such a low level that even if there was an agreement between you know, a broad consensus across the labor and coalition parties that they are worried about that campaign being run through the vehicle of One Nation? >> Well, if that's the case then, you know, it's a bit like Peter Slipper dilemma. You've got you know, if he's in such a dilemma as that you worry about One Nation accusing you of being a nanny state, then maybe you should have a look at where your politics is sitting. It's just It's ludicrous. It is a ludicrous proposition and I don't think you know, the 70% 80% according to an ANU a couple of years ago, 80% of the population of Australia would like to see ads banned. >> Yes. >> So it's gambling ads. They want them banned. I mean, that's a pretty high rate of approval. And it's hard to see how you could lose any political skin by taking ads off the sporting broadcasts or off the internet. I can't see any parent voting against that. So I mean >> Yeah. I mean, the political cover is there just in the last 24 hours from John Howard coming in. Why Why Why doesn't the PM just stand up and say, "Well, I'm standing with John Howard. We're going to be toughening these restrictions, and we're going to be moving towards a phased ban on gambling advertising on television?" >> Well, that that's probably an answer more in your sphere, Mark, than mine. I mean, you know, >> Yeah. Well, I think we can all do the math on it, really. I I [laughter] I you've just been um explaining it extremely well. What What's going to be Let's assume that we are going for uh in the greatest Australian tradition, a lot of noise and fury resulting in huge mediocrity in our policy response. Yeah. Um what's going to be the campaign going forward? This issue won't go away, will it? >> No, it's not going to go away. And I mean, no one who's cared about it so far is going to stop caring about it because of these reforms. I mean, meeting meeting watch um the Murphy committee proposed would have made a lot of people much happier. I don't doubt that for a second. Certainly, not having advertising being constantly bombarded on our young people would have made a difference. Not having inducements permitted would have made a difference. Having a national regulator take a role of properly regulating this pernicious industry, as you so well described it, would also be a major step forward, and so on. But none of that's happened. So, I mean, you know, what Murphy proposed was probably the bare minimum that most people engaged in this issue would regard as reasonable. The bare minimum. And um you know, it's been treated by the government as if it was a bunch of unreasonable requests from a you know, a bunch of naive political outsiders. >> Yeah, or or sort of fundamentalist Puritans or whatever. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Exactly. >> Yes. >> And and you know, in comparison to areas where the government's very quick to act, it's quite remarkable. I spent, you know, 3 and 1/2 years or something before they even made their pitiful announcement about the moderation of gambling advertising. And in the meantime, people like me, I mean, I might be an annoyance and um inconsequential to the scheme of things as far as the government's concerned, but people like me who have been working in this area, and even Tim Costello, who've been working in this area for decades, were simply not able to see the minister. Even as they were meeting regularly with representatives of the gambling industry, the NRL, the AFL, etc., etc., etc., chewing out how they were going to resolve these issues from a political perspective, but people who were arguing for reform were shut out of the whole process. I mean, the the consultation was farcical. >> And in that time, um Charles, do we know how many people may have gone bankrupt in the last 3 and 1/2 years? >> Because of gambling deaths. Yeah, I can't tell you those data because we don't collect them properly. Nor do we properly collect the number of suicides attributable to gambling. A colleague from the University of Melbourne did a study with the Coroner's Court in Victoria, and it was published a couple of years ago, and that demonstrated that at least 4.2% of completed suicides in Victoria were closely associated with gambling. And that was a very conservative estimate. If you talk to them quietly, they would say it's at least twice that. So, we're we're looking at something like 8 or 9% maybe 10% of completed suicides in our jurisdiction, Victoria, could be attributable to gambling. And more in New South Wales because it's a bigger gambling place and ditto with Queensland. So, you know, this is a hefty chunk of the burden of of mortality associated with um you know, that that extreme response to a gambling problem. And for every one of those, there would be many, many more who have experienced huge problems. I mean, at any one time, there are seriously at least a million people in Australia who are in serious trouble either because of their gambling or because of the gambling of a loved one. >> Yeah, it's a staggering figure. >> At least. >> Uh Charles Livingstone, thanks so much for your time. It's been terrific. We listen to you. We've been listening to you and learning a great deal from you. It's been a a really interesting discussion about a a pretty depressing area of of policy failure, I think it's fair to say, uh ongoing uh and uh we at Democracy Sausage very much appreciate you being on board to to discuss it and uh keep up the good fight. >> Well, thank you very much for that and um uh I I can assure you that whatever the package is, it's not going to be the end of the matter. >> No, I think I think that's that's sadly true or it is not sadly true in that regard. I mean, that's good that it's not going to be the end of the matter because this does definitely need to be continued a continued focus of researchers and of people who are looking to drive much needed change. But um uh yes, it's certainly in in political terms, they're they're looking to close this issue down and move on. Such is the nature of the the beast. Um thank you, Charles. Uh we had also hoped to have Samantha Thomas on, Professor of Public Health at Deakin University, um who's also done some fantastic uh work in this space and testified to the um to the Murphy much much uh referred to Murphy inquiry. Uh but unfortunately, due to some technical challenges, we we ended up not being able to talk to her, but we hopefully will do so again at some point, and we thank her for for being available. Uh that's that's it for Democracy Sausage this week, Myriam. >> Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Charles. >> Indeed. Thanks, all. Talk to you again next week. Bye for now. >> [music]