Malcolm Baalman
A government ‘Impact Analysis’ document quietly released by the ‘Office of Impact Analysis’ (OIA) a few days ago provides some explanation of the origin of Prime Minister Albanese’s new minimalist approach to gambling reform.
The policy statement by the PM last week failed to meet any of the 31 recommendations of the highly-regarded multi-partisan parliamentary committee report You Win Some, You Lose More, released over 1,000 days ago in 2023.
The parliamentary report – widely known as the ‘Murphy Report’ after its chairperson, the late Peta Murphy MP – made two recommendations relating to gambling advertising, essentially proposing a complete ban on advertising of gambling.
As is normal process, the department responsible for Communications began in 2023 to prepare options for the Albanese government to respond to the Parliamentary report.
The Wagering Advertising Reform Impact Analysis – released by the OIA but authored by the Communications Department – analysed for the government three options: maintaining the status quo (‘Option 1”), a partial response package (‘Option 2’), and a full advertising ban (‘Option 3’).
It is clear from the details announced last week that the PM’s new package largely represents “Option 2” as proposed in the Impact Analysis document.
The Analysis says it was based on material prepared for the Department by the Australian Gambling Research Centre (ARGC), but the ARCG work has not been publicly released.
The work seems to have been ready for the government nearly two years ago. The document reveals that the research from ARCG was provided by July 2024. Consultation with the gambling industry – including “confidential consultation” – continued until September 2024.
The report discussed the massive social, health and financial harms to people and families from gambling, advising that:
“the total cost of wagering in Australia for 2023 to be $26.8 billion. This includes $4.9 billion in psychological harm, $8.2 billion in health harms, and $5.6 billion in relationship harms.”
Australia has the world’s worst per capital gambling loss problem:
“In 2023-24, Australians lost approximately $32.2 billion on legal forms of gambling, representing the highest losses per capita in the world of around $1,521. Total losses have increased by around 26% since 2018-19.”
“It is clear the potential for harm has increased with the proliferation of online wagering services, which have fundamentally changed the way that people bet.”
“Evidence indicates that repeated gambling can cause fundamental changes to areas of the brain related to learning, stress management and rewards processing, similar to those observed in substance addictions, and can be linked with severe physiological and mental health impacts, including increased rates of suicidality.
“The impact of someone’s gambling does not stop at just them – it also affects their family, friends and communities. An individual’s gambling typically impacts up to 6 affected others for problem gamblers, up to 3 others for moderate risk gamblers, and one other person for low risk gamblers. A report by the ANU found that 5.9% reported being personally affected by another person’s gambling.
“The consequences of the prevalence of gambling related harm has a significant impact on Australia’s health system.”
The analysis makes the frank prediction that ‘Option 1’ – meaning no change to current national policies – will see Australia’s already disastrous problem continue to worsen. This is what the Government has allowed to unfold for the past three years.
In the years since the Government could have acted, countless thousands of Australians have been impacted by gambling harm, up to and including prolonged domestic violence and suicides.
The financial analysis of Option 3 – a ban on advertising, as called for by the parliamentary inquiry – would ‘cost’ the gambling industry around $139 million in financial impact, but yield $332 million in socio-economic benefit for the public.
Option 2 – the package of partial measures developed for the analysis report – would be less than half the benefit to the community of option 3 – but cost less for the industry (and, curiously, cost more for the government to administer).
The Prime Minister has clearly selected a version of Option 2 from this impact analysis as the basis of his policy response.
The OIA document is clear and thorough, and reads very much like the ‘Cabinet submissions’ that governments normally rely on to make decisions. The document is very frank about the public health harms of gambling, but also strives to defend the financial interests of the gambling industry.
The report also leans into claims that ‘public interest journalism’ (code for broadcast media interests) and ‘grassroots sport’ financially rely on the pass-through of some of the $32 billion of annual gambling losses. But they cost these at relatively low amounts of real money:
“Australia’s professional sporting competitions collectively receive around $52 million in direct sponsorship from wagering companies each year.”
Issues of industry influence over the PM have dogged the Government’s slow and reluctant response to the issue. It’s well-known that the Prime Minister is a life-long supporter of NRL football, and in particular the South Sydney team, and the impact report reveals that the NRL is the code with the highest reliance on gambling industry sponsorship.
Major sports codes also receive a share of betting revenue:
“reportedly worth around $40 million for the AFL and $50 million for the NRL each year.”
These quite modest amounts, particularly in context of the profits of the gambling industry, support the case that a small-% levy on gambling revenue could be used to simply ‘buy out’ the pleas of the broadcast media sector and ‘grassroots’ sporting needs. Just as tobacco industry revenue was totally removed from these sectors in the 1980s and 90s. The PHAA has repeatedly argued for such a gambling levy.
The Prime Minister has indicated that he will take his package of measures to Parliament when it next meets in early May.
We welcome the recognition of this being a real problem, and some very modest steps to dialling down to preposterous levels of gambling marketing in Australia, However, there will be voices in Parliament, and many public health stakeholders, including PHAA, who demand a much better effort.
Malcolm Baalman is Manager of Policy and Advocacy at the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA). The organisation’s Gambling and Health policy position statement is available here. PHAA is also a member of the Alliance for Gambling Reform.
Leave a Reply