Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am on the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform. I actually attended the public hearings and read the submissions, and I cannot recall, during the public hearings that I was at, one question being asked by a coalition member in relation to recommendation 16. That is the recommendation that we do not have online sport betting companies' logos on sporting uniforms and merchandise. I do not want sports betting logos displayed on the Rugby League uniforms of 10-year-old kids running around the Gold Coast. I do not recall one such question.

The member opposite, the member for Moncrieff, talks about the additional comments of the coalition. Can I just say this: I do not think he has read the coalition committee members' additional comments. He says that he has some objection to recommendation 16. When you read these additional comments, there is no reference whatsoever to recommendation 16, no objection whatsoever to what he had to say.

Mr Ciobo interjecting—

None whatsoever. And yet here he is in here saying this. If the coalition was so opposed to it, why did they not ask questions in relation to it? Why did they not, in fact, take any steps to do a dissenting report? Because the coalition members on the committee supported recommendation 16. Those opposite do not even understand this.

I do not want Rugby League teams for 10-year-olds on the Gold Coast to have uniforms with 'SportsBet.com' on them.

Mr Ciobo interjecting—

And the member opposite mocks. He has mocked today the nearly 100,000 problem gamblers in this country. He has mocked today the approximately 500,000 Australians who are at risk of becoming, or who are, problem gamblers. He has mocked today the $4.7 billion social and economic cost to this country of problem gambling. That is the reality.

The reality is that those opposite in the committee supported what we are recommending. There was no dissenting report. The member for Moncrieff was not there, and clearly has not read the submissions made by organisations, researchers and stakeholders in relation to this. There were some very interesting reports and submissions. Very interesting evidence was given by Dr Sally Gainsbury and Professor Alex Blaszczynski. They gave very cogent evidence of the impact of online gaming on not just adults but on young people. They said that the problem was the normalisation of behaviour. They gave evidence that very young people engage in online gaming and that males as young as 10 are now seeing this as an everyday part of sporting events. They go online and bet because they watch the AFL and the NRL and they see the odds being shown. They think it is all part of it. They get together with their mates and engage in this. This is not something to be mocked or ridiculed or made a joke of. This has a serious impact on children. I suggest the member for Moncrieff should actually have a look at the submissions and read the transcripts. If he had, he would not come in and make a mockery of serious recommendations that are trying to limit the harm for young people, particularly children. There are a number of recommendations here suggesting that we prohibit gambling advertising during times when children are likely to watch.

The impact of problem gambling is a real problem. The submissions said that the characteristics of internet gamblers are different to those of the average person. For example, it is much easier to spend money on internet gambling. The member for Moncrieff should listen and stop talking to his mate over there.

See this speech in context