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

My question is to the Prime Minister. This week a mum in my electorate emailed me: 'I am the daughter of a gambler,' she said, 'I grew up walking on eggshells. One minute, home was full of love and joy, the next uncertainty and despair.' Her father gambled away the family's life savings and then took his own life. Now with a 12-year-old son, she says of gambling ads on TV: 'It terrifies me.' Prime Minister, how would you justify only a partial gambling ad ban to this mother, who fears for her child?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Goldstein for her question and for sharing the very personal story of one of her constituents. That personal story indicates the fact that this is not something new. If someone with a 12-year-old son is speaking about her life experience when she was a child, then one would assume that that was decades ago. Indeed, that goes towards the fact that gambling has been an issue in our society, I suspect, since man and woman walked and had a bet on who could ride a horse the fastest or who could run from rock to rock—probably before there were buildings. So this has been around for a long period of time.

In the last two years, we have done more to tackle gambling harm than in the entire period before then, from when this woman was a young child watching her father waste away the assets in that family. More in two years. We have delivered the most significant online wagering harm reduction initiatives of the last decade, including mandatory customer ID verification, banning the use of credit cards for online wagering, forcing online wagering companies to send their customers monthly activity statements—

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

It's going to be very difficult for the member to take a point of order on relevance when the Prime Minister is delivering his answer regarding the argument in the question, regarding what he is doing on this topic. It's going to be difficult for the member to take a point of order on relevance. I have explained to the House what the Prime Minister is doing with this question. But, out of respect for the member for Goldstein, she has the call.

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

It is on relevance. The question went to the reasoning behind a partial ban, and I'm sure this mother would appreciate a direct answer. Thank you.

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

The Prime Minister is being directly relevant.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am being relevant, not based upon hypotheticals but based upon what we have actually done, most of which I assume was supported by the member for Goldstein and supported by most members of this chamber. We have said that the status quo regarding the saturation of gambling advertising is untenable, and those are issues that we are working through. We have done all of this. We have launched BetStop, which has meant that 27,000 Australians have now registered as of 31 July. That is 27,000 Australian families who will benefit directly now, today, not some decades ago, which I acknowledge has been an issue. People used to gamble at the SP bookies around the corner from where I grew up. Gambling has changed in its nature, but it is still around.

The new minimum classifications that were done for videogames have made a difference. There are different taglines—very different from the ones that we inherited, which just said, 'Gamble responsibly.' What does that mean? Now they clearly indicate, 'If you gamble, you will lose,' and they point towards the opportunity cost of spending money on gambling rather than on other things. (Time expired)