Daniel James

The fact that it's taken so long, Darnie, and it's so watered down from what the Murphy Review recommended, does that show how influential the gambling lobby is in Australia?

I mean, just how hard has the campaigning against these reforms been?

Broadcasters are hooked on this revenue now, aren't they?

You mentioned that there's been some voluntary action from some of the betting agencies because during that long delay in the response to these proposed reforms, these recommendations, have the gambling companies built ways to potentially get around these bans and reach customers?

Because it seems like, as you said, already most of the sports gambling companies have their own podcasts, their own content channels with subscribers and followers.

Would those things be defined as advertisements?

in relation to these reforms?

Coming up, how gambling has become part of Australian sport.

Darnie, these reforms are still yet to get through Parliament.

The Greens and independents like David Pocock are unhappy with what's been announced.

Is there any real chance that these reforms get strengthened from here?

The other thing I wanted to speak to you about, Darnie, while we've got you, is Nick Foote, the AFL umpire.

His employment with Sportsbet has recently come under the spotlight.

And of course, there's no suggestion that Foote has done anything wrong.

But it does feel like an example of how deeply ingrained gambling has become in sport.

I nearly fell out of my chair when I heard that we had an umpire employed by a gambling agency.

So finally, Darnie, is this now bigger than a simple advertising debate?

Is it really a question about whether Australian sport has become too culturally and commercially entangled with betting?

And does it seem to you like Labor is trying to make gambling ads less visible without really addressing the harms that online gambling has on Australians?

Danny, thank you so much for your time.