The federal government is currently facing intense pressure as it works to finalize proposed regulations aimed at restricting gambling advertising. The proposed regulation includes a partial ban, which has sparked criticism from gambling harm researchers, community organizations, and some members of parliament. This partial ban is at odds with the recommendations of a recent parliamentary inquiry, which called for a total ban on gambling advertising.
The issue of gambling in Australia is a significant problem, with Australians being the world’s biggest per capita gamblers, losing approximately $25 billion annually. Nearly half of all gamblers are at risk of or already experiencing harms from gambling, including financial difficulties, relationship breakdowns, domestic violence, poor work productivity, criminal behavior, insomnia, depression, and even suicide.
Despite the clear evidence of the harmful effects of gambling, the government’s reluctance to implement a total ban on gambling advertising raises questions. One reason for this reluctance lies in the strategic marketing tactics employed by the gambling industry, both publicly and behind closed doors. These tactics are reminiscent of those used by other industries linked to health and social harms, such as alcohol and tobacco.
The gambling industry utilizes clever marketing strategies, weak regulation, and technological advancements like sports betting apps and online casinos to increase opportunities for gambling. Stories of harm from gamblers paint a troubling picture of the social costs associated with gambling, estimated to be over $10.7 billion annually. Even banks are taking steps to address gambling harm among their customers.
Responsible Wagering Australia, the peak body representing the gambling industry, denies that advertising normalizes gambling to children and warns that any bans could drive people to illegal offshore operators. However, there is evidence to the contrary. The industry’s tactics, including lobbying, media relations, and stakeholder marketing, are similar to those used by the alcohol and tobacco industries to influence government decisions and delay regulations.
The gambling industry’s playbook includes political donations, hiring lobby firms, and funding research to distort or challenge findings linking their marketing to harm. Similar to alcohol and tobacco, the gambling industry aligns its interests with media companies to protect revenue. This strategic marketing gives the industry power and influence over policymakers, potentially explaining the government’s resistance to a total ban on gambling advertising.
To effectively reduce gambling harm in Australia, robust regulations may be necessary, similar to those implemented for tobacco and proposed for alcohol. These regulations could include limits on political donations, bans on gifts to politicians, tighter lobbying rules, and transparency about industry interactions with government. An holistic approach to regulation is needed to address the gambling industry’s strategic marketing tactics and protect the public from harm.
In conclusion, addressing the issue of gambling harm in Australia requires comprehensive regulations that target the industry’s marketing strategies. By implementing measures to restrict advertising, sponsorship, and product availability, alongside transparency and accountability measures, the government can better protect the public and prevent gambling harm. It is essential to learn from the successes of tobacco control efforts and apply similar frameworks to the gambling industry to improve public health outcomes.