Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Prohibition of Gambling Advertisements) Bill 2024. I feel deeply frustrated that it's necessary to put up a private member's bill like this one. It's not the first time the crossbench has introduced legislation on this topic, with the broad support of the community. We are fighting for ordinary Australians who love their sport against the money and power that is tipping the scales in the wrong direction.

By all accounts, this government may well ignore the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry which I sat on in the first year of this parliament. Our report contains unanimous recommendations on a range of gambling reforms, including a strong recommendation to phase out online gambling ads. We heard evidence from brave witnesses who told their stories of the uphill battle to avoid gambling when it's everywhere you look. We heard about the misery created by this predatory industry, relationship breakdowns, mental health issues, financial distress, suicide and family violence. We came together from across the House, including some members on my right now, to formulate unanimous recommendations which the government seems to be preparing to water down.

People of all political persuasions in my community in Curtin tell me every week to keep up the good work on gambling reform. They're parents, sport lovers and people deeply, but often secretly, affected by the stigmatised harm of gambling. On Saturday, at my monthly community catch-up, a young man, Will, was telling me about the gambling harm he sees within his friend group, mates who have confided about their losses but are hounded by the ads everywhere. I meet with constituents who disagree with everything else I stand for but want to see gambling ads banned. This is an absolute no-brainer. People on both sides of the House quietly tell me to keep up the pressure. They want to see a ban, but the major political parties are held ransom to the money and power that stands to lose if we end these ads.

The evidence shows us that partial bans do not work. We already have a partial plan in place during live sports events which is entirely ineffectual. The government says we need a balanced approach. Since when did we balance the profits of harmful industries against the interests of our kids? Are we really saying: 'Okay, we need to accept that gambling will be normalised for a whole generation of kids so that sports codes are profitable or so that TV stations can be propped up'? If we are so worried about the viability of the free-to-air broadcasting industry, would we consider bringing back tobacco ads to keep it viable? This is a choice we are making, and Australians will judge this government for the choice it makes.

It's not too late. The government can still make the right choice, show some backbone and implement a ban on gambling ads, in line with this bill. That's why I commend this bill to the House and second it. I really hope that the government is listening.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.