Australia’s debate over gambling reform shows how political structures and vested interests can shape policies that determine health and well-being
More than two years ago, a joint committee of the Australian parliament recommended the introduction of a federal human rights act. The committee went so far as to produce a draft bill. My independent colleague Andrew Wilkie introduced this bill into the House of Representatives earlier this year, where it has languished.
Although the Australian government assures the public it is “carefully considering” the recommendations of the joint committee report, we have seen very little evidence of action. And action is sorely needed.
Whether it is codifying the right to housing, the right to education or the right to health, or rights protecting the freedom of expression and peaceful protest – we need these enshrined in domestic law. Too often, across too many policy areas, vested interests are put ahead of community interest, whether it is the failure to build sovereign wealth by taxing our exports as one of the world’s biggest gas exporters or the failure to protect our people from the harms of gambling advertising, as the country with the biggest per capita gambling losses in the world.
Gambling as a public health issue
Recently Australia’s parliament had a heated debate about gambling reform. Experts, advocates and those with lived experience pushed hard for a total gambling advertising ban. This was based on research, evidence and the recommendations of an extensive parliamentary inquiry. We were told that we needed to look at gambling harm through a public health lens, in the same way as we have considered tobacco. We need to appreciate the breadth of the harm: how gambling can act as an accelerant to family and domestic violence – something here in Australia we know we need to do more to stop, notwithstanding record investments from the federal government. We need to look at the shocking rates of suicide, especially among men and young people, and the role gambling harm plays in exacerbating that. As another of my independent colleagues Dai Le emphasised in this debate, some of the most vulnerable people in our community are most heavily affected by gambling harm. This is a predatory industry where often those who are losing the most are the ones who can least afford to do so and have the poorest access to support. This exacerbates and entrenches existing inequalities.
Gambling also corrupts sport, something that is otherwise a force for social good and improved public and mental health outcomes. Advertising has normalised gambling on sport for a generation of young people. The reforms proposed by the Australian government fall far short of breaking this nexus. A welcome ban on gambling company logos on jerseys is subject to such generous grandfathering arrangements that they will still be in place at the time the legislation is reviewed in three years. Despite all the evidence showing a partial ban will not work, that is what the government has gone with – simply restricting the number of ads that can be shown each hour.
Disappointingly, we saw the government portray tweaks as major reform. Australian law already prohibits gambling advertising in live sport between 5 am and 8.30 pm – the bill simply preserved the status quo. Australian law already prohibits playing gambling advertising during G-rated programmes – again more of the same rather than strengthened protections. The rule that inducements cannot be sent to ‘people struggling’ already exists but has never been enforced, because the Northern Territory regulator is functionally useless – seemingly just a few people around a table, with no full-time staff. That is exactly why the Murphy Review called for a national regulator.
The Murphy Review handed Australia’s government a unique opportunity – a roadmap for reform supported not only by the majority of the parliament, but by the majority of Australians. Instead we are left with a piecemeal patchwork of legislation designed to appease powerful gambling and media interests. In a strong democratic country, it is deeply concerning to see vested interests hold such a powerful sway over elected representatives. Almost 17,000 Australians have emailed their member of parliament or senator calling for a full gambling ad ban. Their calls for action were ignored.
The structural problem
For me, this again raises the question about the role of lobbying, in the context of Australia’s lax rules, undercutting good public policy. Structural weaknesses in our system, such as the way ‘in-house’ lobbyists (people who work in government relations for companies and industry associations) are treated completely differently from third-party lobbyists (employed by lobbying firms). Another example is the revolving door between political representatives, their staff and industry, without appropriate cooling-off periods in many cases. The cash-for-access system our governing parties use to fundraise is a third example. We need robust systemic reform to ensure decisions about our future are being made based on evidence, not who has the deepest pockets or the lobbyists with the most access to decision-makers.
