The Hon Michelle Rowland MP
Interview on Sky News Sunday Agenda
ANDREW CLENNELL, HOST: Joining me live in the studio is Communications Minister Michelle Rowland. Thanks so much for your time. Let me start on gambling advertising. As the report at the top of the program, my understanding is your proposal would begin about 2025, involves a ban on gambling advertising one hour either side of live sporting events and outside of this period a cap of two ads an hour, at least that’s what you’ve put out for consultation. Is that what you’re looking at?
MICHELLE ROWLAND, MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS: Well, we’re consulting on a range of matters at the moment and I’ve seen speculation from different sources on that, but I should be clear, Andrew, that the key issue here is three-fold. We want to ensure that we protect children, we want to break the nexus between wagering and sport, and we want to deal with the saturation of ads, particularly as that impacts on young men aged around 18 to 35. We’re looking at a range of issues with no decisions having been made yet.
I should be very clear and I know that many of your viewers will be thinking the same as they get excited about the finals season. We want people to be excited the game, not about the odds, and for some people this is a matter that should have been dealt with a decade ago and in that time we’ve seen an over-reliance on online wagering advertising develop. Whilst around three quarters of overall gambling losses in Australia actually come from land-based gaming - so that’s poker machines, lotteries and casinos, we know that that online sports wagering section is growing and we need to deal with it.
CLENNELL: Well, it’s interesting you mention that because Peter V’landys’ the NRL and horse racing- Racing NSW Chief, was out in the papers on that yesterday, pointing out 70 per cent of people ringing a gambling helpline play the pokies, 15 per cent lotteries and not a lot involving sports betting basically. So why just target this?
ROWLAND: We have seen that cohort increasing and the losses in that area by a proportion as well. So it is something that needs to be dealt with. We want to be comprehensive as a Government in our response and we want to be forward-facing as well because, Andrew, the last time that these rules were tinkered with it actually resulted in an increase in advertising and particularly in some regional areas it was a significant increase. We want to ensure that we don’t have those unintended consequences and that it is comprehensive.
I should also point out for your viewers - the report put out by our late colleague Peta Murphy went to a variety issues, advertising was one of them. There are a wide variety of issues that involve the States and Territories which is necessary to have negotiations with them as you can appreciate. They have for example a number of assets that have advertising and obviously relationships with some of the stadiums as well. So in some of these areas, not to mention some of the programs that deal with harm reduction, they are areas that require consultation. That’s what we’re doing right now, but we understand that this is an area of concern for many people. If I can lastly put out a public service announcement - as we get towards the final season, betstop.gov.au has been in operation now for a year, that’s the self-exclusion register. There’s been nearly 30 thousand people who have chosen to self-exclude themselves. If anyone who is watching or knows someone that may be vulnerable, please visit that and consider registering.
CLENNEL: Sports operators want the cap to be lifted to three ads an hour, they think it’s sufficient to have a ban from half an hour before a game until the end of a game rather than an hour after a game. Are you looking at that?
ROWLAND: We’re consulting widely and I appreciate the fact that we’ve had stakeholders from a wide variety of sectors but also harm reduction advocates and experts in these areas. So this has been a process that we’ve been conducting in an orderly way. We’ll continue to do that and our response here will be one that is comprehensive and is forward-looking as well.
CLENNEL: When?
ROWLAND: We’re doing this as expeditiously as possible. As I said, I understand many would’ve wanted this done a decade ago, but the fact that we are consulting on a model here I think indicates –
CLENNELL: By the end of the year?
ROWLAND: I think the fact that we’re consulting on a model here indicates that we’re at a point where we are speaking to stakeholders about the model, the fact that we understand that this is an area of concern, and it’s one in which sports wagering continues to increase as a proportion of losses.
CLENNELL: And as I understand it, racing is carved out of this - the sport of racing, from the cap on ads. That’s so racing telecasts can survive, essentially?
ROWLAND: Well I’ve said publicly that the Government views racing as a separate category. Horses and dogs in that context exist for betting. So we understand that and we should also recognise that particularly in some regional areas this is an industry that supports thousands and thousands of jobs. It exists for a specific purpose so we are being very mindful to be proportionate in this response.
CLENNELL: Can you confirm the Prime Minister’s involved in negotiations on this?
ROWLAND: I can confirm that the Prime Minister is very alive to these issues, that this is something that he understands is an area of great concern and I do consult him regularly on this as well because this is an area where the Government knows that the community wants action.
CLENNELL: Would the Government be doing this if Peter Dutton hadn’t pushed this?
ROWLAND: The Government’s been very clear in setting up this inquiry under Peta Murphy, for a start. We actually instigated this. Peter Dutton had 10 years in government to do something about this. I haven’t seen anything on the record indicating from him his concern about these matters and I haven’t seen anything from him proposing anything to do in this area outside of a very limited gambit here, certainly not comprehensive and certainly not one in which he himself is committing.
CLENNELL: Alright. Do you have concerns about the future of free-to-air television in Australia and particularly, I’m talking about the future of channels like Channel 7 and Channel 10?
ROWLAND: Well as Communications Minister, part of my remit is to ensure the sustainability of broadcasting. That includes free-to-air but also subscription broadcasting where we are appearing at the moment, and I think it is incumbent on Governments to understand the impact of government decisions until someone invents a stable, free, ubiquitous platform that can either compete with or replace free-to-air broadcasting and I think we need to appreciate that this has a special place. It has a special place particularly in regional areas and especially for people who may be on lower socioeconomic circumstances. So broadcasting remains important.
I can tell you, Andrew, I have had people say to me why is the Government concerned about a sector that in their words is dying? I refuse to accept that. Broadcasting is important. The ecosystem in which this subscription broadcaster operates is important and as a Government we need to be methodical and we need to be evidence-based when it comes to responding to this challenge that we have but we also have to effective and that is exactly the balance we are aiming to achieve.
CLENNELL: Let’s talk about the social media age ban. You’ve committed to it. Can you confirm what sites you’re looking at the ban applying to? Facebook, Insta, Twitter, TikTok, anything else I’m missing? Is it Discord and other messaging apps?
ROWLAND: There is a whole range that we’re looking at, at the moment and there’s different categories depending on the definitions that are used. So the Online Safety Act, for example, and how the Safety Commissioner defines certain categories can actually be very broad or it can be slightly narrow. So we’re looking at that as part of our formulation of the legislation which we said we will introduce this year but again I would make the point similar to the ones I just made, that we do want to be comprehensive here, we understand that young people partake in a range of social media activities and we want to make sure that this is relevant and appropriate to how they’re accessing it.
CLENNELL: Which do you prefer as an age for the ban, 14 or 16?
ROWLAND: We’re looking at a range at the moment. This is a lot of conversations that’s happening. The South Australia Premier is favouring 14, Premier Minns 16. There is a wide range of views and there certainly is, I think given Justice French’s very good work, one that needs to be tested and one has a national approach. One thing we have found so far in the age assurance trial is that there is a marked difference between age assurance as it applies to younger ages as opposed to higher ages and it can also vary depending on ethnicity and also gender. So we’re very mindful of ensuring that as part of the age assurance –
CLENNELL: You mean whether the technology works in terms of accessing social media sites, is that what you mean?
ROWLAND: That’s right. In terms of if you’ve got an age assurance technology, whether it’s recognition, facial recognition or some other forms of assurance, it can actually vary. Andrew, there’s no off the shelf solution for this which is why we’ve been very deliberate in making sure that we are looking at a range of ages and one- reaching one that is appropriate for the circumstances.
CLENNELL: Briefly, why is the ban necessary?
ROWLAND: Well, I think two-fold. Firstly, parents around Australia are looking for a normative value here and I know as a mother of a 12-year-old girl, there is something very potent about being told everyone else is doing it, there’s no clear guidance, why am I being singled out? So parents have told me directly that there is a real normative value in having that there. And the second point really goes to the overall reason for this and that is we understand that there are harms. Whilst social media has many benefits, and enables a lot of young people to connect where they otherwise might have been isolated, it comes with those harms and the evidence is in on the range of those harms. The evidence is in about the need to ensure that young people have a balance and so the Government intends to pursue this, and this is despite the fact that Meta has made this announcement. That doesn’t obviate the need for us to take action in this space.
CLENNELL: Let me play you what your Shadow, David Coleman, said about your misinformation legislation last week.
[Excerpt begins]
DAVID COLEMAN: This Bill, Andrew, if you’re an academic, something you can’t- you say, basically can’t be misinformation, but if you’re an ordinary Australian who disagrees with and academic it can be misinformation. One of the things in the Bill are the kinds of harm that is not allowed is something that might cause imminent harm to the economy or the stock market.
CLENNELL: Yeah, I saw that.
COLEMAN: And I mean, that’s basically every economic policy that the Greens have ever announced. So are we- are we basically saying- are we basically saying under the Misinformation Bill that the Greens- effectively all Greens economic statements are misinformation?
[End of excerpt]
CLENNELL: Alright, his criticism is your definition is just far too broad.
ROWLAND: Well, let’s be very clear, the Coalition can’t have it both ways. They’ve got on their public website at the moment a commitment to introduce legislation to tackle harmful mis- and disinformation, and at the same time they’re going out there, saying basically that they don’t support this. I suggest that the Member of Parliament there reads the actual Bill. I suggest that he understands precisely what the scope here is when it comes to mis- and disinformation. It needs to be something that is verifiably false and cause- and capable of causing harm.
CLENNELL: Yes.
ROWLAND: And this is a high threshold for the amount- a high threshold.
CLENELL: That seems broad.
ROWLAND: But secondly, the harms are actually- the actual categories here are defined. So these are for example harms to personal health or safety, they are harms to critical infrastructure for example. In terms of his comments about academics, again, I suggest that he read the Bill.
CLENNELL: Alright.
ROWLAND: Because as this has been developed, this has been done in a way that corresponds with our international obligations, recognises the fact that harmful mis- and disinformation is actually having an impact on not only Australian democracy but on the safety of Australians. It’s a position that is supported by our top spy and our defence heads
CLENNELL: [Talks over] What- just very briefly- I’m out of- I’m out of time. The penalties we’ve been told could be up to five per cent of the global revenue of a big tech company. What might be the penalty for an individual?
ROWLAND: Individuals aren’t being fined.
CLENNELL: Okay. There you go.
ROWLAND: This is- this is a matter that goes to the conduct of the platforms and their systems and processes.
CLENNELL: Yeah. Just finally, the ABC and this botching of the Heston Russell story, how can this just be pinned on an editing error? Is it time the ABC did more to own its mistakes? Are you concerned they didn’t see this for two years? Do you have any confidence in the ABC’s so-called independent review?
ROWLAND: Well, it is concerning and whilst I know you’ll appreciate that the ABC has operational and editorial independence, it is not beyond scrutiny and it does need to be transparent. It is concerning that this has taken some time to emerge. As you’re aware, I have asked for a briefing when this investigation is done. My understanding is the investigation is not yet complete, and while this is being done independently, which is a positive thing, the ABC still needs to answer to the Australian public. It is not beyond scrutiny and it is an area where I have expressed on the record a concern for what has happened here. The ABC, whilst it is independent and it is our public broadcaster, it does not always get it right and it needs to own it.
CLENNELL: Communications Minister Michelle Rowland. Thanks so much for your time.
ROWLAND: Pleasure.