Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

It is 15 months since I presented an earlier version of this bill to the House—14 months since the social policy and legal affairs committee, headed by the late Peta Murphy, produced its landmark report You win some,you lose more with its 31 unanimous recommendations.

I present it again today because nothing has changed and everything has changed.

We are at a once-in-a-generation moment—a moment the government seems determined to force this parliament to fail.

If the media are correct, the government looks likely to pay only lip service to the Murphy recommendations.

Banning gambling logos on players' jerseys and at venues would be shoved off to yet another inquiry.

What about a national regulator or limits on influencers?

No definitive answer.

Contrary to the Murphy report's call for a total ban on gambling ads, the government is apparently set to announce partial bans—and, in the case of broadcasting, not for another two years.

I say: do not fail our communities with half measures.

Do not waste this opportunity to do the brave thing—to restore faith in government by doing what communities clearly want.

I was out doorknocking on the weekend; gambling ads came up repeatedly, from those who support me and from those who don't, Independent voters, Labor voters and Liberal voters who said: 'I support your stance on this. Keep going.' So I am.

This bill would impose an outright ban on gambling advertisements on our screens, including broadcast television, pay TV and their respective streaming services, and on radio.

Unanimity is not a state that often happens in this place.

And, given the power and the influence of the gambling giants and their handmaidens, the broadcasters and the major sporting codes, it is quite remarkable that on this issue the Labor, coalition and crossbench representatives, including my colleague the member for Curtin, could come together to agree on a course of action reflected in the Murphy report.

It would see gambling retain a place in our society but see it effectively regulated and taxed—and importantly reduce the avalanche of advertising that has seen young people targeted and groomed into believing that sport and gambling are inexorably intertwined.

Analysis of AEC returns by FARE Australia shows that companies with gambling interests donated $1.58 million to the major parties in the financial year leading up to the 2022 federal election.

But also, whenever the minister or the Prime Minister is questioned about implementation of the Murphy recommendations, they acknowledge that the status quo cannot stand, and they emphasise their commitment to harm minimisation.

Fair enough, but it's noteworthy that they never talk about harm prevention.

And that is what banning gambling advertisements is all about.

It is about stopping exposure to the young, especially teenagers and young men, the cohorts most at risk, before it is too late.

And that is why this bill is so urgent.

Gambling is a public health issue, provoking family and relationship breakdown, family and domestic violence, and emotional and psychological issues—distress, depression, suicide—not forgetting financial stress and bankruptcy.

In Victoria alone, the cost was calculated at $7 billion in 2017, the latest figures available.

I'm a member of a sport-mad family. Both my teenage kids play footy, and my dad played for the Bombers. They're having a terrible season, by the way.

I have absolutely no objection to the odd flutter. In fact, for a time, back in a previous life, I even rode trackwork.

But the Australia of today is a long way from the office sweep on the Melbourne Cup.

It may have been less insidious before Sportsbet became the first private company to obtain a licence to take bets on sports other than horseracing in 1993.

Since then, gambling advertising and the proliferation of handheld digital devices have activated a change in the way that we bet.

Officials involved with junior football teams have told me that runners tell the teenage players during the game how their 'multis' are going on the AFL game that's being played at the same time.

One study from La Trobe University found that 78 percent of the 50,000 respondents felt they should be able to watch sport on TV with no gambling ads; 87 percent said that teenagers are exposed to too much gambling advertising.

Polling released on the weekend had more than half of those polled wanting ads banned.

When the Fraser government acted to ban tobacco advertising, the broadcasters and the sporting codes were up in arms, declaring that banishing cigarette ads would wreck their commercial viability and prevent them supporting kids' and community sports.

It was not true then and there is no reason to believe it will be true now when it comes to gambling ads.

American football thrives without gambling advertising; European soccer has restricted gambling advertising in some countries or is under pressure to do so.

And it's unlikely to be as problematic for the broadcasters as their dire predictions suggest.

Andrew Hughes, who lectures in marketing at the ANU, has crunched the numbers.

Channel Seven, he points out, brought in $1.5 billion in revenue in 2023 and claims a 38.5 percent share of TV advertising revenue.

Hughes estimates the gambling industry's entire ad spend in Australia at $275 million, with Channel Seven's revenue at most, as an example, at about $106 million—around seven per cent of its total annual revenue.

Broadcast television is in decline for other reasons.

If there are steps to be taken to relieve the financial pressure on the broadcasters—for example, easing the 'spectrum' tax—then that's worth considering—not, though, as a trade-off for a ban on gambling advertising but as a measure to be considered on its own merits.

John Howard stood up to powerful, sectional interests to improve gun control back in the 1990s.

We are a better nation for it—as we would be if this government were to have the courage to ban gambling advertising.

Listen to what the people want, not what big business demands.

I commend the bill to the House, and I urge the government to allow this bill to be debated. I cede the rest of my time to the member for Curtin.

See this speech in context