Daniel James

7am.

Senator David Pocock has been one of the fiercest advocates of the You Win Some, You Lose More report, known as the Murphree Review, and its recommendations to reduce the harms of online gambling.

It took the Albanese government 1,049 days to formally respond to the landmark inquiry that called for urgent action to reduce gambling harm, including the phased ban of gambling advertising.

When the government did finally release its response this week, it was hidden on Budget Day and stopped well short of that central recommendation, prompting anger from advocates and crossbenchers who say the government has failed to meet the scale of the problem.

Today, Senator David Pocock on the government's handling of the Murphy Review, the power of the gambling lobby and why he says the response shows a failure of clinical leadership.

It's Friday, May 15.

Senator Pocock, in the middle of all the budget coverage this week, the Albanese government finally released its formal response to the Murphy Review into the harms of gambling.

What did you make of the timing?

Hi, Daniel.

Why do you think they didn't want anyone to see it?

You've mentioned some of the things that they've touched upon, but

What is the government's formal response to the review?

What have they said broadly about it?

If we just look at advertising, one of the areas where it seems to be confusing is streaming and online.

If someone is watching sport through a streaming app or an online platform, are gambling ads actually banned?

How concerned are you that gambling advertising will just move from TV into social media, podcasts and other digital spaces?

Coming up, how the gambling lobby flexes its muscle.

Senator Pocock, you mentioned the absence of a national online gambling regulator as a key criticism.

Why does that role matter so much?

The government is already saying that this is still progress nonetheless, and that a partial package is better than no package.