‘You win some, you lose more,’ wrote the late Ms Peta Murphy MP in the foreword to the landmark final report of the House of Representatives standing committee inquiry into online gambling.
In many areas of policy, Australia’s apparatus of Parliamentary committees has been important for the incremental building of consensus and multipartisanship. ‘Committees are one way to break down barriers across the political divide,’ former Australian Greens leader Richard Di Natale said in 2019, ‘because you are working together, often going out, if you are staying somewhere overnight — you might eat together and stay in the same hotel’.
The online gambling committee included five Australian Labor Party (ALP) members, two Liberals, one National and one Independent MP. After examining the harmful impacts of this mode of gambling, the committee (in June 2023) unanimously recommended ‘a comprehensive ban on all forms of advertising for online gambling, to be introduced in four phases over three years, commencing immediately.’
In August 2024, a wide spectrum of Australian political leaders signed an open letter to the prime minister and the opposition leader strongly supporting a complete gambling advertising ban. The extraordinary list of 74 signatories to the Alliance for Gambling Reform letter included John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull, Lucy Turnbull, Steve Bracks, Jeff Kennett, Dominic Perrottet, Robert Tickner, Allegra Spender, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Samantha Ratnam.
On August 12, 2024 former Liberal premier Jeff Kennett told ABC’s Ali Moore a partial ban on gambling advertising won’t cut it. ‘I don’t think you can be half pregnant, Ali…you either approve the concept that young people get access to gaming material by advertising and promotion, or you don’t,’ Kennett said.
Victorian Labor Minister for Gaming Melissa Horne said it would be ‘nothing short of disgraceful’ if the Albanese Government did not implement the ban recommended in the Murphy report. ‘We know, and I know as the gambling minister, that the biggest irritant, particularly for parents, is that normalisation of gambling for young people. Gaming companies are absolutely predatory with this. I really call on the federal government to implement … those recommendations.’
Peter Dutton is trying to steer the ‘half pregnant’ path on gambling advertising. Starting with his Budget Reply speech of May 2023, he has outlined a limited ban. ‘I announce that a Coalition government would move to ban sports betting advertising during the broadcasting of games. Ads would be banned for an hour each side of a sporting game,’ Dutton said.
‘I think it’s an abomination when you sit there with your kids watching footy on Friday night…and the conversation is around someone’s multi or the odds on a particular team,’ Dutton told Tom Elliot on 3AW (August 16, 2024).
Prime Minister Albanese also appears to favour a limited ban instead of wholesale change.
The PM and Communications Minister Michelle Rowland are being bombarded by lobbyists from all sides, and they have even been warned that a gambling ad ban might kill off free-to-air television.
When Independent MP for Goldstein Zoe Daniel recently asked the PM in the House if ‘he would reconsider his reported position and, honour Peta’s legacy by banning all gambling ads?’ Albanese replied by saying ‘The government has made it very clear the status quo regarding the saturation of gambling advertising, particularly where children are exposed to it, is untenable.’ His use of the word ‘saturation’, along with his reference to children’s exposure to ads, are hints that his government continues to favour a partial ban.
Rod Glover was married to the late Peta Murphy MP. He told Nine newspapers on August 12, 2024, that Peta would not have copped the argument that it was too hard to implement a total ban on gambling advertising. Some members of the Albanese cabinet are reportedly supportive of such a ban.
On August 18, 2024, David Speers of the ABC’s Insiders program reported polling showing 53% of people supported a ‘Complete ban’; 27% supported ‘Restrict during sport’; 14% supported the status quo; and 6% didn’t know.
Maintaining the status quo will keep few happy on this fraught issue in the lead-up to the next election.
Right now, therefore, the prime minister is in a bind.
Labor recently lost a senator when, in voting with her conscience, she failed to follow the party rules. To lose another member on conscience grounds would be a blow to the Albanese government. But there is an alternative: give all members a free vote on the issue of gambling advertising.
‘Free votes’ are when a political party allows its members of parliament to vote according to their own judgement rather than following the majority will or position of the party caucus. These are sometimes called ‘conscience votes’ because they have typically been granted on issues of moral or ethical significance, such as euthanasia, same-sex marriage and abortion law reform.
ALP members are formally bound by party rules to support caucus decisions and may be expelled from the party if they fail to comply. The Liberal party does not require such a pledge to support the party position; however, members of the cabinet or shadow cabinet are expected to vote according to the party line. (Peter Dutton’s front bench was denied a free vote on the Voice: they had to agree with the party’s position or quit. Some did indeed quit: Dutton’s opposition Indigenous Affairs spokesperson, Julian Leeser, left his shadow ministry, and former Liberal minister Ken Wyatt left the party over the issue.)
Free votes have been used to resolve some of the most difficult issues in Australian politics.
In 2005, for example, the abortion debate came to a head at a time when the power dynamics at the federal level had shifted. The instigator of the RU486 (‘abortion pill’) ban, Senator Harradine, retired from politics, and five women from across five parties united to undo the RU486 deal that had been made by the powerful men a decade earlier.
Liberal senator Judith Troeth (1993-2011), Democrat senator Lyn Allison (1996-2008), Labor senator Claire Moore (2002-19), Greens senator Kerry Nettle (2002-2008) and Nationals senator Fiona Nash (2005-17) led the charge. ‘Women can unite on what matters to them, and choice matters to us,’ Troeth recalled in 2021.
Then came the backlash from parliament’s ‘pale, stale and male’ faction. RU486 would ‘kill mothers’, said Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce. ‘I hope the private members bill [to remove the ban] is defeated,’ Tony Abbott said. The final decision was made by a free vote in February 2006. The debate over the bipartisan bill to remove the health minister’s veto over RU486 reached fever pitch on the Senate floor. ‘RU486 is designed to knock babies over,’ said Liberal senator Bill Heffernan.
‘If you can come to a view that there can be a just war,’ Senator Amanda Vanstone told the Senate, ‘why can there never be a just abortion?’
‘We must separate politics from medical decision-making,’ Troeth said in 2021.
Led by the five women, the reformers won the historic Senate vote 45 to 28.
Former Liberal minister Julie Bishop told ABC’s Annabel Crabb in 2021:
I think it sent a pretty powerful message that parliament can reflect community attitudes and community views if you drop the party lines. It was the first time that I had seen party lines disappear, and most certainly the first time I have seen women come together to force a change.
In 2012, a free vote was used to move the same-sex marriage debate forward. On 19 September 2012, Labor MP Stephen Jones introduced a private member’s bill to legislate same-sex marriage. The Jones bill was resoundingly defeated 98 to 42; 26 of 73 Labor members voted against it.
Jones and Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese were upbeat about the vote, notwithstanding the result. ‘Just a few years ago,’ Albanese told reporters afterwards, ‘there wouldn’t have been the support of anything like 42 votes on the floor of the national parliament for a marriage equality bill’.
Jones claimed victory in defeat: ‘Clearly we’ve won the debate in the Australian community – more than 62% of Australians believe that we should make laws to allow for marriage equality. In the words of another great Australian, “Maintain your rage”, because I’m quite confident that in about 10 years’ time, some or all of us are going to be attending a same-sex marriage that will be both conducted and recognised here in Australia.’
Despite their impact, free votes have become scarcer in recent times. The increasing refusal of the major parties to allow such votes on major policy issues is a gift for the minor parties and for independents like the Teals. The major parties are tending to allow fewer free votes just as their bases shrink — and the paucity of free votes is arguably further driving away support.
But Australian politics would work better if there were more free votes. If MPs could say what they really thought — and vote accordingly — then finding consensus would be easier, and the deliberations of parliament would better represent the community.
Alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, gambling and social media are the social policy mountains that confront Australia. On all these issues, the major parties need to move with the times and be open to having more free votes — to deliver coherent policy and bring Australians together.
In the case of online gambling ads, the option of a free vote is the way out for the leaders of both major parties. Let the votes fall where they may, and let parliament mitigate the power of the lobbyists and the vested interests they represent.
Free discussions and free votes on thorny matters such as gambling ads will help energise our democracy and move the country forward. Going down the other path — a timid and contorted policy position backed by shouty assertions of party discipline — is a bad bet.
Scott Hamilton and Stuart Kells are co-authors with John Brumby of the forthcoming book, ‘A Better Australia: Politics, public policy and how to achieve lasting reform’.
READ MORE:
Wilkie calls for mandatory betting agency reporting of customers’ stolen-funds use