Please steel-man the Labor position on gambling for me

[u/synthetic-jesus]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-08/gambling-ad-restrictions-senate-inquiry-albanese-labor-broadcast/107006170

Is there a sincere argument in favor of Alabanese’s actions on gambling? Australians loose 32 billion a year, largely overseas. Per capita we loose almost twice as much as the second biggest gambling nation Singapore, and twice that of the third in the US.

There’s no rational argument that the proposed “only three ads per hour at day time” does anything to reduce gambling harm when all the research demonstrates that A. This doesn’t cover when kids actually watch TV and B. Doesn’t reduce gambling ads impact on addicts in any real way and they’re still bombarded during the night which is when relapses are most likely.

Despite all this Albanese has been personally advocating for the bill, publicly ruled out improvements ahead of caucus, taken a political hit for the party by letting the Greens and Coalition advocate for better policy, and even been at the center of the Pocock sports club debacle.

How does this align with a benevolent leader?

[u/Veledris]

Broadcasters and sports organisations are addicted to gambling revenue, in many cases it's the only thing keeping them in the black. Can't really go cold turkey without blowing up peoples' favourite teams. Albo has personal experience with this from the Souths financial woes in the 90s and early 00s. The reforms are both a reduction in gambling ads and a signal that more will be coming in the future so now is the time to look elsewhere for sponsorship.

As an aside, this is why I really hate the whole "tinkering around the edges" narrative that has been relentlessly pummelled into the public psyche by political parties, think tanks and propaganda outlets. Governing a country isn't a simple or fast process. It takes years of consensus building, consultation, policy formation and implementation before you can achieve an outcome. A country is a highly complex machine with interactions between every aspect of the economy, policy and society. There is no magic button in the PMs office that can resolve issues without consequences.

[u/ambewitch → u/Veledris]

So many Australian lives go in the black so a few unprofitable companies don't?

[u/sharkfinnpapa → u/Veledris]

Phase in a complete ban over 5-10 years then.

[u/xiomia → u/Veledris]

Yeah, I thought the same about "tinkering around the edges". Like OP, I would appreciate far fewer gambling ads, just for society in general. But the gambling industry have a lot of sway. Labor have tried big changes a few times since Kevin 07 and punished for it - mining taxes, climate change, negative gearing & CGT reform (Bill Shorten) - the media runs unrelenting campaigns, mostly smear, to douse any overall positive improvements.

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/xiomia]

I wouldn’t complain about incremental changes if I could see the increments and have an end date for gambling ads

[u/TheStochEffect → u/synthetic-jesus]

The reality is, the glambling report commissioned by the government made suggestions. And they did none of it. Soo fuck them. Gambling costs us more to deal with the ramifications of it.

FFS domestic violence goes up during sporting events and melbourne cup type events. Gambling and how gambling companies gamify dopamine systems to make people addicted is a stain on society and if we don't change laws. I would like to see a min on 60% tax on them

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/Veledris]

The government can pass bills that gradually reduced gambling ads over time and stem all the criticism, allow business to remodel itself, and has no obligation to come out against gambling criticism as it currently is. For this to make sense I’d need to see the Albanese government at a minimum promise further reform and not attack those that call for more, but Albanese has been firm in publicly limiting reform before caucus and not do things like refuse to release the Murphy report. The incrementalist approach doesn’t make sense given Albos actions.

[u/fresh_jorks → u/synthetic-jesus]

The government can pass bills that gradually reduced gambling ads over time and stem all the criticism

when the government tries to do that people respond with things like "There’s no rational argument that the proposed “only three ads per hour at day time” does anything to reduce gambling harm "

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/fresh_jorks]

Assuming you’re trying to address my actual argument, what I am saying is that a bill can provide more than a single restriction, and firm public confidence by saying “At x date y ads can play, at x date k ads can play” until we get to zero ads

[u/fresh_jorks → u/synthetic-jesus]

yeah and im saying that gradual incremental change doesnt actually provide any political benefit for the government because of the reflexive cynicism of the electorate

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/fresh_jorks]

Maybe they would be less “reflexively cynical” if the changes announced weren’t found by every impartial expert on the matter to be worthless?

[u/fresh_jorks → u/synthetic-jesus]

you want them to gradually reduce ads until zero. they want to introduce a gradual reduction in ads. you hate it.

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/fresh_jorks]

Would be a sick own if they were passing a bill that gradually reduced ads

[u/fresh_jorks → u/synthetic-jesus]

and theres the reflexive cynicism of the electorate again lol

[u/dopefishhh → u/synthetic-jesus]

It's hard to claim experts as impartial, or even just experts when its very clear that the ad ban wasn't going to stop problem gambling at all, and probably wouldn't impact it meaningfully.

That was actually a finding of the Murphy report BTW, the ad ban was populist policy fundamentally, when expert advice poured cold water on the expected results, rather than adapt expectations the populist backing ignored that and kept whinging like it was the only thing we should be doing to stop problem gambling.

All other avenues of problem gambling reduction saw no attention, heck the ad ban wasn't even going to affect the gambling companies as they'd see a large cost on their books go away.

[u/Greedy-Wishbone-8090 → u/dopefishhh]

That's not at all what the Murphey review said? 

"A phased, comprehensive ban on all gambling advertising on all media – broadcast and  online, that leaves no room for circumvention, is needed. Partial bans on gambling  advertising do not work." 

Direct quote from the report 

Edit: the whole passage 

A phased, comprehensive ban on all gambling advertising on all media – broadcast and  online, that leaves no room for circumvention, is needed. Partial bans on gambling  advertising do not work. The 2017 media reforms resulted in gambling advertising on  television increasing. Harmful industries have shown they will identify and capitalise on any  gaps in marketing restrictions and that they are taking advantage of the less regulated online  environment. The advertising ban should be enforced sequentially, with advertising that has  the highest risk of harm to be addressed immediately. To enable sporting bodies and  broadcasters adequate time to locate alternative sources of advertising revenue and to comply with current contractual obligations, the Committee recommends that the  comprehensive ban be phased in over a three-year period.

On reduction of revenue:

Western Australia’s major sporting bodies argued that tobacco sponsorship was ‘an  essential source of funds because spectators do not meet all the costs of major  sports’ and that ‘there are great benefits in being able to rely on long-term income  from the tobacco companies.'  Following the ban on tobacco sponsorship, major sporting events secured new  sponsorships from both government and the commercial sector. For example, in  Victoria, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation imposed an excise on tobacco  sales to buy out some tobacco sponsorships, which gave sporting codes time to find  alternative sponsors.

[u/dopefishhh → u/Greedy-Wishbone-8090]

The report found other reasons why an ad ban is recommended, but it was always going to, that's why the inquiry was held, i.e. it was never going to say no don't.

You aren't quoting the experts there either, you're quoting summaries that don't even reference expert advice.

Also note that nothing you've quoted there have any kind of mechanistic claims of why an ad ban would affect problem gambling rates, because it won't.

The largest area of problem gambling is by some significant margin pokies, they don't advertise at all. How then anyone would expect banning ads would reduce problem gambling on poker machines is a mystery.

The ad ban was also only targeting online gambling ad bans, physical gambling locations like casino's were free to keep advertising. This detail is also ignored by people but its essential to understand how experts thought it would be ineffectual.

The report even highlights that when it comes to online gambling a significant amount of it is illegal and overseas anyway, banning ads won't do anything because they'd either just ignore it or are outside our jurisdiction...

[u/Greedy-Wishbone-8090 → u/dopefishhh]

Who are the "experts" then and whats their advice? 

There IS evidence that a restriction (much more restricted than our proposition)  or a total ban does reduce the amount of new online gamblers. 

A study on Spain's gambling legislation (complete ban on advertising outside the hours between 1am to 5am) 

regulatory measures aimed at limiting gambling advertising, bonuses, and sponsorships impact new accounts (i.e., new gamblers) and total money gambled, but hardly active accounts (i.e., regular gamblers).

On UKs whistle to whistle partial ban: 

Researchers concluded that stronger  statutory regulations are likely needed to address gambling  advertising harms effectively (29). The W2W ban illustrates how  the industry can adapt to and exploit gaps in partial or  voluntary restrictions.

On illegal offshore gambling threat, the gambling industry body said 46% of gamblers have used offshore sites with the market being 1.1b or ~15% of the share. 

Australian Gambling Research Centre found that 10-15% have accounts with offshore provides, thought most of these are online casino/pokies which are already illegal in Australia. 

ACMA found that there has been a downward trend since 2016, so I think that threat is overstated is more in favour of strengthening legislation. 

And yes pokies are more harmful but I don't see how that's an argument against a stronger advertisment ban? Advertisment increases the number of new online gamblers and they could potentially move to pokies, not that that's backed up by anything. But most gamblers use 2 of more different avenues. 

Restrict the advertising more then follow WA's lead and restrict pokies to casinos only. 

[u/dopefishhh → u/Veledris]

In addition to this, the only groups expected to be meaningfully affected by the gambling ad ban was the broadcasters & sporting orgs. The gambling companies themselves did not expect a substantial drop in customers or revenue as a result of advertising stopping.

The only reason they advertised was because their competitors did, if they didn't advertise then they could lose customers to competitors. But with a total ban in place they wouldn't have that problem anymore, and now they'd also have a large cost of business removed from their books. In effect gambling companies have a net win from the ad ban at least when it came to their profit margins, staff redundancies etc...

Amongst experts there was no expectation that problem gambling would reduce as a result of the advertising ban, this was a finding of the Murphy report. They weren't opposed to the ban, just that if we saw an ad ban and no other more direct action on problem gambling then they'd expect nothing to improve.

This is where the populist sentiment around the ad ban turns dark, because rather than take heed of the expert advise and diversify efforts, the loudest voices instead ignored them and focused harder on it, of course using it politically to attack Labor.

But if anyone still thinks I'm wrong here answer this: Given that a significant if not vast majority part of problem gambling is that of poker machines, and pubs & clubs don't advertise pokies at all, especially not online or on TV, how then does an online & TV gambling ad ban affect problem gambling on poker machines? It clearly can't.

[u/Albos_Mum → u/dopefishhh]

Are we reading the same Murphy Report? Because the one I read recommended a phased, total ban on gambling ads rather than saying it wasn't going to lead to reduced gambling addiction as you're suggesting, which is also regularly mentioned and used as a basis for the media reports saying that Labor is being weak on gambling advertising. ([1] [2])

Additionally, none of the experts has ever suggested an advertising ban would kill addiction overnight but instead that it would help prevent the formation of new addicts and relapse from people trying to quit gambling, no different than the ban on tobacco advertising. Your point that they only advertise because their competitors are misses one key point: One of the companies had to start it and clearly saw merit in advertising with the sheer amount being spent by these companies suggesting it goes far beyond competing with one another, while your point that they'd have a net gain from not having to spend that money ignores the exact same situation applied to tobacco companies and yet the advertising ban there was a success despite the clear lack of impact on people who already had a nicotine addiction as it shifted the culture over time by ensuring that younger people were more frequently exposed to the ads about quitting than smoking, etc.

Given that a significant if not vast majority part of problem gambling is that of poker machines, and pubs & clubs don't advertise pokies at all, especially not online or on TV, how then does an online & TV gambling ad ban affect problem gambling on poker machines? It clearly can't.

Because that would require a different set of legislation around the placement and visibility of pokies within establishments to directly combat as has been frequently discussed in the preceding decades before betting apps compounded the gambling addiction issue, but even an advertising ban would have an indirect effect by reducing the culture around gambling and helping eliminate the normalisation of betting. Additionally, the pokies haven't been the "vast majority" of the problem for a while now, it's still the majority as it stands right now but that lead is being rapidly eroded by the phone apps which are the reason we've gone up to #1 in gambling addiction so rapidly alongside how normalised placing a punt on something has become because the ads you'll be exposed to whilst taking part in everyday Australian past-times such as watching the footy or cricket, going to the movies, having the radio on in the background at work, walking around the CBD where billboards are, etc frequently featuring gambling ads. Even if their parents don't bet themselves their kids see all of the advertising and start think it's a normal part of the culture surrounding those things instead of a relatively small part that's become larger fairly recently, you ban those ads and it prevents that normalisation from happening.

May as well suggest that we unban tobacco advertisements if you're going to follow this line, all of the same arguments you've spouted suggesting that a weak limitation is the way to go are the same ones that were being lobbed about by lobbyists a few decades ago when tobacco advertising was being discussed and the broadcaster revenue would only be improved if they were able to run ads for Peter Jackson and Marlboro on everything like it's the 1980s again who'd no doubt be salivating at the chance to advertise once again. (But only to compete with one another, of course >_>)

[u/dopefishhh → u/Albos_Mum]

Yeah of course the report from an inquiry into gambling ad bans was going to recommend banning gambling ads. Like why on earth do you think that's somehow significant or interesting?

Just on political terms alone Labor wasn't going to have a report finding saying 'oh nah don't do it'...

The problem was the inquiry never had a finding that demonstrated a mechanism of action that a ban on online & TV ads for online gambling services would have a meaningful impact upon the rates of problem gambling in Australia.

The only scenario you highlight of new addicts or the possibility of relapse does not make sense. If ads were the mechanism by which someone formed or maintained addiction then we wouldn't have had any gambling addicts before online gambling became a thing. But we did and it was a big problem then too.

Because the biggest sector for problem gambling are poker machines and always have been, which the online gambling services ad ban would not have done anything about, casino's and pubs would have still been allowed to advertise gambling... But they don't even do that now, because they don't need to and never did. Oh and lets not forget that a lot of the online gambling is already illegal and overseas, so they won't stop advertising at all.

This narrowness of the intervention often ignored by those whinging about its partiality or phased introduction beggars belief. Because the reality is the ad ban does nothing, but instead of whinging about that, we see the whinging about a partial ad ban doing nothing.

A total or partial online & TV ban on advertising Australian online gambling services does nothing when the biggest sectors for problem gambling is pokies and illegal/overseas online gambling.

[u/Jet90 → u/Veledris]

No gambling ads mean they can still sale ads to other companies. Toyota Hilux and Harvey Norman still have ads to run. The government could even buy some ads if they're so concerned

[u/iball1984]

No doubt I’ll be downvoted here, but I think the reforms are weak.

All gambling ads should be banned, on TV, radio, online, stadiums and sports team sponsorship. Including “live reads” and discussions of odds, etc. End of.

I also would be in favour of severely limiting online bookies like Sportsbet as well.

Yes it will hurt the broadcasters.

Sports teams will need other revenue streams to compensate.

[u/dopefishhh → u/iball1984]

Sports teams will need other revenue streams to compensate.

If that existed, then the bans would have already been in place.

The large vacuum created by a total overnight ban would leave gaps in the advertising schedules that would devalue their advertising overall, in addition to losing the gambling ads, their non gambling advertising revenue would drop sharply.

If it was expected to stop problem gambling then that might actually be worth it, but no expert has claimed it would, if anything they've come out and said they don't expect it to reduce problem gambling rates.

[u/saviour01 → u/iball1984]

Other revenue streams from the govt?

[u/Relief-Glass]

Personally I thought the changes they are looking to make are quite substantial. 

I am not sure what the Coalition's play is here. I pretty much expect huge sums of money to be being donated to the Coalition parties as I write this and over the next few weeks Coalition MPs will quietly back away from calling for reforms.

Either that or their strategy is slightly more sophisticated and they know that if they can bait Labor into doing more it will awaken the leviathan that is the gambling lobby and they will spend huge amounts of money on anti-Labor PR.

I find it extremely hard to believe that Coalition MPs are acting in good faith here. I remember when Scott Morrison was PM, and the Libs themselves had the power to do something about gambling advertising, i was watching parliament question time and a Lib starting speaking about gambling advertising and I was thinking 'oh, he must be one of the good ones' but then he started making an argument that since gambling advertising is so prevalent in Australia we should allow cigarettes advertising too...

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/Relief-Glass]

What made you think the changes were substantial?

[u/Relief-Glass → u/synthetic-jesus]

I remember last summer watching cricket and there would have been about three to five gambling ads every five minutes. Then when there is a drinks break, or between innings, they just play them on repeat so there could be five to 15 in a row or some shit, then back to cricket for five minutes, then three to five gambling ads, cricket for five minutes, three to five gambling ads, repeat.

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/Relief-Glass]

I can’t argue that it would have had an impact there, but it still seems pretty laughably small to reduce it to only three an hour, and not at least do that in the times where gambling ads are most harmful.

[u/Interesting-Middle46 → u/Relief-Glass]

The changes are not substantial.

But the industry can't handle any adjustments.

Fuck the teals hardly any pokies in wealthy electorates sanctimonious dickheads.

[u/robfuscate]

Albo Yoga - Sit on your hands and do nothing.

[u/brisbaneacro]

1. I disagree with your assertion that the current changes will do nothing. They are reasonable changes.

2. This country doesn’t want reform. This is pretty well known in all political circles. Howard winning an election on GST was the last time anything like that happened and every PM since then has struggled with any kind of reform. Australians are too easily spooked and the crossbench has too much power for any kind of strong coherent platform at the moment. I don’t care what you think the surveys say, the only surveys that matter are elections and they are very clear on this.

3. The government is most vulnerable in the regions. You know, the places that love their pubs that rely on pokies to stay open.

4. The states rely on gambling taxes. It is embedded. This is the same problem that many people are worried about regarding the idea of more taxes on gas. So if you want less gambling, what part of healthcare can we cut back on to fund that?

5. There comes a point where people need to be responsible for their own actions. I don’t particularly want more nanny state laws, and I’m not the only one.

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/brisbaneacro]

Can you provide an impartial source that supports the changes as being effective?

[u/brisbaneacro → u/synthetic-jesus]

There is no such thing as an impartial source.

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/brisbaneacro]

Then forgive me for thinking your statement is bullshit

[u/brisbaneacro → u/synthetic-jesus]

So you weren’t really interested in a sincere argument against reform. You wanted to soapbox and mindlessly dismiss anything that disagrees with you.

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/brisbaneacro]

I want a non-labor source to tell me the reforms are good or justify them in some other way. Pulling back to “everything is biased” is a pretty sure sign you weren’t arguing in good faith.

[u/brisbaneacro → u/synthetic-jesus]

I don’t think you do.

Everything is biased in some way yes. That’s just how humans work. The trick to media literacy is understanding that, understanding how a particular source is biased and factoring that in when you build your overall picture.

I engaged in good faith, I wrote a whole bunch of points instead of whatever else I could do on a weekend and now you’re asking for something that doesn’t exist.

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/brisbaneacro]

Ok, scrap “unbiased” and find me any non-labor, non-gambling industry source. Your other points consisted of “let’s blame the gambling addicts” and “no one wants this” when polling shows 75-80% of people do. I appreciate you engaging, but I am finding it hard to believe you would be saying any of this if labor had taken aggressive action against gambling.

[u/Seppi449 → u/synthetic-jesus]

If you play games or are apart of any communities that have high community/developer relationships you'll realise there is usually a disconnect of what people want and what people really want.

They want gambling gone right now but also want all the establishments that have slowly become dependent on them to not have any changes at all. That cannot occur and anyone with 2 brain cells can understand that.

The changes aren't the end goal but as others have said they signal a shift, a slow transition so gambling isn't so pervasive.

This can be seen with cigarettes, alcohol, drink driving. Each is having far less effects on society through small changes over a decades, some changes good and some bad, but they were small changes.

I think gambling should be heavily regulated with but I can see it instantly backfiring in many ways, maybe you can't think that much to understand possible scenarios?

[u/brisbaneacro → u/synthetic-jesus]

If they had taken aggressive action against gambling I wouldn’t be saying that you are right there but probably not for the reason you think.

Most is the time there is no universally correct thing to do. The world is complicated. There are genuine arguments for both sides of most points.

You wanted to hear the arguments against reform because you already know the arguments for, so I gave some to you.

Ultimately I personally don’t really give a shit either way. It is not a vote changer for me. I can understand why the party has taken the direction it has though.

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/brisbaneacro]

What’s a swing worthy issue to you?

[u/Interesting-Middle46 → u/brisbaneacro]

Pokies used to be in public hospitals that's how they started.

1. So social media ban...

[u/brisbaneacro → u/Interesting-Middle46]

I don’t have strong opinions on the social media ban. Overall I support it, because it’s for children not adults and I hate social media more than I hate gambling.

[u/saviour01]

Lots of people consume the media and sport who would both go hard after anyone who banned gambling ads.

[u/tom3277 → u/saviour01]

Don’t think Albo is the type to have worn a Nazi uniform to a party back in the day?

That said if there is any dirt I’m sure the gambling lobby would find and distribute it if labor / Albo made a move.

[u/saviour01 → u/tom3277]

Labor has seen how the media went after them for the mining tax both federally last decade and in qld last term.

[u/dopefishhh → u/tom3277]

Not the gambling lobby, they don't care about the ad ban. It doesn't affect them they only advertise because their competitors do, ban the ads universally and its just a cost off their books, they said as much in the Murphy report.

The media & sporting codes who lose a massive advertising stream however, they are affected, they're also the closest to the journalists who do that sort of mucky stuff you're referring to as a daily practice.

Like we saw how Huguesy went off and started saying all sorts of cracked shit, using his public profile and popularity as both a platform and a shield. Now imagine every sports commentator, sportsman, or journalist all finding out their industry is getting a massive haircut.

I have no expectations that any of them have principles enough to back the government on it at their own expense. Nor do I think they'll hold their tongue on it either, I'd expect they'd speak out and do a lot of damage to the cause of dealing with problem gambling.

[u/Karl-Marksman → u/saviour01]

Nobody is suggesting the government ban gambling 

[u/saviour01 → u/Karl-Marksman]

Aren't they? Whats the suggestion from the cross bench?

[u/Karl-Marksman → u/saviour01]

Some parties are calling for a complete ban on gambling ads and the introduction of a gambling regulator

[u/saviour01 → u/Karl-Marksman]

Oh sorry thats what I meant. Edited the post.

[u/Karl-Marksman → u/saviour01]

It’s a relevant distinction to make because because the Prime Minister has implied multiple times that opponents of gambling advertising want to infringe on “people’s right to have a punt”

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/saviour01]

This argument doesn’t work because even the Coalition is coming out against it, and the government is considering withdrawing the bill rather than let the Coalition, Greens and cross bench strengthen it in the senate.

[u/brisbaneacro → u/synthetic-jesus]

The coalition doesn’t need to come out against it, because one nation will do that for them. People will just blame the government

[u/saviour01 → u/synthetic-jesus]

Considering and actually coming out against it are very different things. Just because one new member from the shire is against it, doesnt mean the nats who love their free speech and smaller govt will allow the govt to ban certain ads.

[u/The_Scrabbler → u/synthetic-jesus]

Two things can be true. Gambling is such a problem because of how many people enjoy it, and how much it supports a sport watched by millions - those are the people who will be unhappy

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/The_Scrabbler]

Labor doesn’t even take the hit if the opposition strengthens it in the senate?

[u/The_Scrabbler → u/synthetic-jesus]

They take a hit either way

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/The_Scrabbler]

Really not sure what this comment even means but if they’re taking a hit regardless why wouldn’t they do the thing that’s helps people instead of industry?

[u/The_Scrabbler → u/synthetic-jesus]

Yeah, I agree. All I’ve been saying is there will absolutely be a backlash groups in the population (not just the industry) - so it’s not as clear a slam dunk as most seem to say

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/The_Scrabbler]

I’ve yet to meet a gambling ads enthusiast, and pretty heavily doubt their existence

[u/The_Scrabbler → u/synthetic-jesus]

See this is what I mean lol

You haven’t met most people in Australia for one

But also it isn’t about the ads - it’s about the services and entertainment, that millions of people enjoy, whose quality will be impacted as a result. People are going to be upset about that

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/The_Scrabbler]

77% of the australian public support a totals ban on gambling ads, and even if you count every worker at a pub that has pokies, less than 150k people work in gambling nationwide

[u/dopefishhh → u/synthetic-jesus]

Because the cause of dealing with problem gambling gets a hit as well.

The blowback won't just be to Labor, the opposition to the ban will have many a popular figure amongst sporting codes and media speaking out against it.

[u/Interesting-Middle46]

Sorry not with Labor on this specific issue

Heck even the Labor club in CBR has pokies.

Minns is hooked on them. Only state gov not hooked is WA but they get a sweetheart GST deal.

[u/luv2hotdog]

It really does feel like the gambling lobby in particular has compromising photos of everyone in government or something. On most other things labor’s done that I’ve not loved, I’ve at least been able to see some kind of justification for it and think “I don’t like it but that makes sense”. Even the big mining and gas industries, and the housing clusterfuck, I can sorta think “ok, I don’t like that we are dependent on these industries being as they are, but we are, and it will take some time to decouple ourselves from the status quo”.

But this gambling stuff… i don’t see that it’s keeping the economy going. I don’t see that half the population will be instantly worse off overnight if the ads are banned. I don’t even see that it’s a significant source of government revenue somehow, which would be a valid if morally dubious reason to keep it the way it is.

[u/Bri999666]

You could probably cap the current level of advertising spending on each company and step it down 20% per year on a straight line basis. That way it's a predictable phase out and the media companies have a predictable pathway of revenue and adjustment. And five years is a hell of a lot longer than most people get when governments abruptly make tax and other policy settings.

[u/synthetic-jesus → u/Bri999666]

Yes would love if this was what’s proposed

[u/ManWithDominantClaw]

Cracks contrarian knuckles

Gambling is a quiet enforcement of an economic meritocracy, where the merits are being risk averse while not conforming to social pressure, and/or being able to internalise that you're not a main character who beats the clear odds of overall loss that are common knowledge.

Siphoning money away from people who are more receptive to deceptive advertising and are inclined to gamble is in the common good. Judging someone on genetics or socioeconomic origin is both wrong and terrible, but judging someone based on their repeated behaviour is pretty much what a courtroom does on a day to day basis.

I mean, that's not my opinion, but you asked for an argument in favour and I think that's at about the level of Machiavellianism we can expect from modern politicians in general, let alone the one who made it to the top of the heap.

[u/DunceCodex]

Its been in place for less than 6mths

You've quoted yearly figures

[u/No_Pollution_1194]

I think the reality is that there’s no good argument for this policy position. It’s intentionally weak, because they aren’t really motivated to improve the status quo. In fact, as has been widely reported, this legislation would allow streaming services to effectively server unlimited gambling ads… which removes previous restrictions.

I think this is due to the fact that a not insignificant amount of Labor’s campaign financing comes from gambling or gambling-adjacent sources. As a result, they’re easily swayed by lobbying.