Cross-benchers, anti-gambling groups and an alliance of prominent Australians are enraged that the federal government is reportedly set to pull its punches in banning online gambling advertising.
Speculation is running hot that they will opt for a partial ban including caps on television advertising, which would fall short of banning online gambling ads entirely – the recommendation of a parliamentary committee report.
That, in turn, has fired up the gambling industry’s defences.
Would a cap or partial ban work?
The government is set to ban ads online, in children’s shows, during live broadcasts and an hour either side. Two an hour would be allowed in general programming, and on-field signs and jersey logos would be allowed. The 2023 parliamentary committee, chaired by late Labor MP Peta Murphy, recommended a total ban.
Associate professor Charles Livingstone, from Monash University’s school of public health and preventive medicine, says history shows that partial bans do not work, pointing to the tobacco companies that advertised at sports grounds and on players’ uniforms after broadcast advertising was phased out.
Government minister Bill Shorten said on Wednesday that gambling was “not the same as tobacco”, but experts have relentlessly pointed out gambling’s health effects and likened the industry’s tactics to those of the tobacco industry.
Associate prof Alex Russell, from CQUniversity’s Experimental Gambling Research Laboratory, agreed a partial ban was unlikely to be effective.
“[There’s] the public advertising, then there’s online and targeted advertising – email, text messages. TV ads are a big and visible part of the mix but minimising them won’t do all that much. It’s better than nothing but it’s not much.”
Does gambling money really support grassroot sport and will children’s sport survive without it?
Peak bodies have argued that the revenue from advertising flows through to grassroots teams and sport development. But experts told the inquiry that tobacco companies made similar claims before governments and commercial entities stepped up with sponsorships.
Russell points out that much of the gambling revenue comes from the big gamblers (and therefore the big losers), so the money “largely comes from people experiencing harm”. Some of those gamblers, data shows, have children of their own.
“Gambling advertising that supports free-to-air television, and money to grassroots … is all pretty much coming from people experiencing harm and the ones who can least afford to pay,” he says.
Will free to air TV go bankrupt without gambling money?
On Monday, Shorten argued against a total ban on advertising, saying the broadcasters need the money “in order just to stay afloat”.
Livingstone points to a range of countries – including Spain – that have banned advertising, none of which suffered the collapse of sporting codes or broadcasters.
“The gambling industry and the TV and advertising sectors lobbied against the reforms. None of the dire predictions have occurred,” the Spanish regulator said.
Andrew Hughes, from the Australian National University’s school of management, agrees. He has collated the numbers and concluded that in the example of Channel Seven, losing the stream “would hurt, but wouldn’t mortally threaten the business”. Particularly considering the plan is to phase in the ban over three years, he adds.
“The argument that we need to protect sports gambling ads to protect the big media brands has little to no basis,” he wrote.
“It’s a worn out argument we’ve seen time and time again – big tobacco, I’m looking at you.”
Does advertising ‘normalise’ gambling for children?
Samantha Thomas, a Deakin University public health professor, says exposing children to gambling marketing contributes to “the normalisation of gambling for young people, promoting brand recognition and recall and shaping positive perceptions of gambling”.
Young people recognise betting companies and have said they “would bet with a particular brand because of familiarity, they liked the advertisements, or that they had seen a company promote deals or offers”, she wrote in The Conversation.
Responsible Wagering Australia chief executive officer, Kai Cantwell, said this week he did not think it had been normalised, and that the industry and government could do more to protect children and vulnerable adults.
RWA is the peak body for the betting organisations.
Would a ban lead to people gambling online on offshore sites instead?
Cantwell argued that a total ban on advertising would drive consumers towards illegal offshore gambling, claiming that had happened in countries including Norway, Sweden, Spain and New Zealand.
Anthony Albanese echoed that on Wednesday, saying the internet “means that people can gamble offshore”, making it harder to put restrictions on companies.
But the Spanish gambling regulator said: “The threat of gamblers migrating to illegal operators had not occurred”.
Financial Counsellors Australia told the inquiry it benefited the existing industry to “keep regulatory attention focused externally and to keep competition out”.
“But it benefits Australian consumers to have regulators focus on Australian licensed operators – the ones who advertise heavily, who service the greatest number of gambling customers and who earn the most revenue,” it said.