Cameron Caldwell (Fadden, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is typical of the Australian character that we all like to have a laugh, have some fun and enjoy the occasional punt to try our luck. There's nothing wrong with that, and we should endeavour to refrain from infringing on it and the Australian way of life wherever possible. But today I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit And Other Measures) Bill 2023, largely in relation to the undue influence which our largest betting companies are increasingly holding over the Australian way of life. Advances in betting, both in terms of technology and the adjacent relationship to financial products, particularly interest-bearing credit products, are cause for concern.

I want to reflect briefly on the budget reply speech that the Leader of the Opposition gave, where he rightly proposed:

If the internet influences our children, so does content on our television screens. In our country, footy time is family time, but the bombardment of betting ads takes the joy out of televised sports. Worse, they're changing the culture of our country in a bad way and normalising gambling at a young age. Many Australian families have had enough. That's why tonight I announce that a coalition government will move to ban sports betting advertising during the broadcasting of games. Ads would be banned for an hour each side of a sporting game. I encourage the Prime Minister to work with us on this initiative to get it implemented now.

I echo the sentiment of the Leader of the Opposition as the incessant promotion of gambling material can only serve to reinforce existing habits and perpetuate those behaviours in vulnerable or at-risk individuals. The reduction of harm for individuals, their families, careers and other relationships should be a bipartisan issue. This is why it's a pity that the Labor Party did not take the opportunity that was extended by the coalition earlier this year to rein in gambling ads during live sport and voted against that proposal. Nonetheless, we remain steadfast in our determination to promote balanced policy, reflective of the times in which we live. I was heartened by the comments from the member for Dunkley earlier in this chamber, where she, quite properly, identified the real issues around this TV advertising.

Indeed, according to the Second national study of interactive gambling Australia(2019-2020), prepared by Gambling Research Australia, the prevalence of online gambling more than doubled from 8.1 per cent of gamblers in 2010 to 17.5 per cent of gamblers in 2019. In that same period, the study recorded a statistically significant increase in problem gambling amongst the community, with the estimated prevalence of problem gambling doubling from 0.6 per cent to 1.23 per cent. It is not hard to find a correlation between the two. When you overlay the previous stats with the uptick in credit card usage for the purposes of gambling, the correlation is striking. According to the most comprehensive gambling stats available, resulting from the 2019 national online survey, we understand credit cards only narrowly trail debit cards as the second most used form of payment for betting. In circumstances where almost as many people are defaulting on their credit cards as those who use surplus cash from their debit cards, we know an increasingly large segment of people are playing with fire. At a time when Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis under this Labor government, now more than ever people can't afford to be losing money to gambling, especially money that is not theirs in the first place.

Whilst we cannot, and should not, altogether overregulate or rub out gambling and the gambling industry, how, other than the Leader of the Opposition's proposal to the Prime Minister regarding advertising, might we move to strike a better balance to protect individual liberties whilst ensuring responsible gambling?

This bill, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023, seeks to reduce gambling harm, particularly for those using interest-bearing debt instruments to fund their gambling activities. The proposed ban would also bring online gambling into line with the existing ban on the use credit cards for land based outlets, including TABs, casinos and poker machines. From an economic perspective, it makes sense to level the playing field between the local TAB or racetrack and the online bookmakers. As a standalone issue, there is no rationale for why online bookmakers should have exclusive jurisdiction to garner business from gamblers intending to use a credit card. If we don't favour the prospects of one company over another in the sectors of the economy, there is no reason to permit it in these circumstances. The bill has broad-ranging support from some of the key stakeholders within the gambling community. I understand Responsible Wagering Australia supports the reform, as does Sportsbet and the Alliance for Gambling Reform.

The proposal isn't entirely new. The majority of the reform measures stem from the Wallace inquiry, prepared by the former government's chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, Andrew Wallace MP. The thorough undertaking, via a comprehensive review, yielded a few insights which have informed the draft amendment. Firstly, it is quicker and easier to lose large sums of money when gambling online, in comparison to other forms of gambling. Secondly, the scale of the financial hardship can be magnified when credit cards are used. In modern times, when Australia's annual gambling losses are estimated at $25 billion, the addition of credit products to the mix only exacerbates problem gambling and its associated financial and social harms.

While the opposition supports the bill in principle, it must be noted that there remains the capacity for more severe unintended consequences to arise. For example, we on this side of the chamber understand that policy considerations and legislative amendments do not happen in a vacuum. Contrary to those who might be idealists, we are realists, and to that end we strongly support the review mechanism two years from commencement of the bill. It's incumbent on the government to ensure the review is as wide-reaching as possible, noting that the effects of problem gambling are multifaceted and not confined to just the one person. It has been suggested by the Gambling Treatment and Research Clinic that the most at-risk individuals may be inclined to seek out even riskier means of finance, including services from payday lenders and pawnbrokers. The government must be prepared to act swiftly on the outcomes and recommendations of the review and will rightly be held accountable for any acts or omissions which are not in the best interests of the community.

This bill is really about closing an issue that's arisen through the adjacency of technology. It's all too easy to pick up your telephone and access a gambling app online and to simultaneously use your Apple Wallet, with a credit card, to pay for it. It's the adjacency of technology which means that legislation and change of legislation must continue to evolve in this space. Noting the delicate balance between protecting individual freedoms and the net benefit to the community of minimising problem gambling, I do intend to support this bill.

See this speech in context