Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 2:31:43 to 2:37:30
The committee examines the socio-economic modeling used to compare partial and full bans on gambling advertising, questioning the department's assumptions and the strength of the passed legislation.
Topics: Government spending, Law reform
Speakers: Senator David Pocock, Ms Sarah Vandenbroek, Speaker 18
Okay. I'll come back for um for the ACMA. Um I wanted to turn to the costing for the gambling reform uh package. It was titled the wagering advertising reform impact analysis. And um says that the department commissioned the Australian Gambling Research Centre to estimate the benefits and the costs of the wagering ad reforms. I'm assuming this is the document that um informed the minister in their consideration of what they would advance. Um the impact analysis contained three options. Number one, maintain the status quo, number two, a partial ban, uh which as we know that the major parties passed together, and number three, a full ban as recommended by the Murphy uh report. Um but option two, the one that was passed, wasn't actually modeled by the AGRC. However, the impact analysis says that the socio-economic benefits associated with this option would be between 117.6 million and 182.2 million. And having looked at the AGRC report. I don't understand how you've come to that conclusion. So I was really keen to understand.
So there were a number of um amendments to what was modelled in the AGRC report. Um they went in both directions. So on balance, while the number of ads per hour changed, we also added in things that strengthened the protections, which were no ads on jerseys, no ads in stadiums, no promotion of odds, and no use of notable people. So on balance, it was agreed that that um it could still be costed within the range for option two, and that was an assessment that was accepted by the Office of Impact Assessment.
But both of those figures, the 117.6 and the 182.2, come from options that were clearly stronger than option two, even when you add in those little those little tidbits.
Sorry, could you repeat the question, Senator?
The those those figures come from options that were clearly stronger than what was ultimately passed, and that you you're you're saying that what was passed is somewhere in there. So I'm just on I'm just trying to understand the sort of mathematiculation or sums that were done to try and get those numbers to apply to an option that was clearly much weaker than the option that the AGRC said was attached to those figures. So I mean take take the lower one, 117.6 million dollars. That figure assumed a complete ban on ads online, a ban during live sport and 60 minutes either side, a limit of two ads per hour on TV. There's no complete ban on the 60 minutes either side online is some sort of opt-out system. So how are using those numbers?
Uh as I said, there were there were a lot of movements. Um Mr. Adams might be able to add more.
Can you provide that the updated report then?
Sorry, the updated report. From AGRC on we didn't have the um final model costed by AGRC, there wasn't time through the development of the bill.
Okay. So how did you do it then?
Senator, good morning. Uh Ross Adams, I'm the director of the gambling reforms task, of course. As uh as Ms. Vandenbroek said, there was a a number of elements both ways. Uh you've pointed out some of the uh the elements that were stronger in the AGRC model than what ended up final. Uh but as Ms. Vanderbrooke points out, there was a number of uh elements that were uh strengthened, including the ban on uh on venues, uh the ban on the use of notable people, uh, and the ban on the promotion of odds uh amongst other things. Uh together with the the triple lock system, which is effectively a ban unless someone has a triple lock system in place, uh and also the uh the 15 minutes uh before the life sport commences and five minutes either side uh on on balance there was an assessment uh from the department that uh that the estimate for the socio-economic benefit would have fallen in between those figures as outlined in the IA?
So we have we have numbers from the experts, and then the department just makes some assumptions. Yeah, the the 182.2 million assumes something even even stronger, a complete ban on ads online, no triple lock, a 50% reduction of ads on TV and a 23% reduction of ads on radio. And you're trying to tell us that somehow the watered down approach is equivalent or somewhere in the middle of of those two numbers? And when I asked you about this on notice, you stood by it. How can you in good faith say that that option two is stronger than uh a full ban on online ads? Two ads per hour on TV, where in option two contains three ads per hour on on TV and a patchy opt-out system for online ads?
Senator, that was the assessment that was made at the time based on the mind. Uh the team who were working on it at the time.
Can you provide that analysis, please? We'll take that on that modeling.