Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Hansard source

I want to make a brief contribution to this debate, in the light of the fact that other senators wish to also speak. I want to make the point that the coalition shares some of the concerns that Senator Di Natale has placed on the table about the pervasiveness and effect of gambling, particularly sports betting, on Australian society. We acknowledge that there is a proportion of the community which will be susceptible to messages about gambling which will lead them to make decisions unhealthy for themselves and their families. As a community, we need to be cognisant of that harm, we need to be able to develop a response to that harm and we need to constructively change the environment in which that harm occurs so as to minimise the likelihood that people are placed in that position.

Having said that, like Senator Stephens, who has spoken in this debate already, we share a sense of concern at the response exhibited in this motion by the Greens to simply regulate this area in order to be able to solve this problem. It seems to be the case with the Australian Greens that there is no social problem too big or too small that is not capable of being remedied or cured with a healthy dose of regulation.

We acknowledge that sometimes some regulation is necessary, but we take the view that the case needs to be made, based on evidence, for that to occur. With great respect, Senator Di Natale in this debate has not demonstrated that case. He has pointed to a number of attempts that have been made in the Australian community to rectify these problems, but he is happy to dismiss those as being ineffective, even though—for example, in the case of the gambling industry's own attempts at self-regulation, only recently beefed up—the evidence is not yet available as to whether that is an effective means of dealing with these problems.

The Greens, I think it is fair to say, from the very outset of this debate have supported and promoted regulation as almost the first line of defence or the first line of attack in this area, and they are prepared to ensure that that agenda is prosecuted, notwithstanding the lack of evidence that it may be the solution to these problems. I say this as a representative of a party which has a proud record of action in the area of regulating, if necessary, to prevent social harm. Indeed, it was the Howard government which first regulated the effect of the operation of online gambling on Australian society. Indeed, when it made those decisions to regulate online gambling, it was the first government in the world to regulate online gambling—to the extent that that is possible. I believe it is appropriate for us to consider steps like that, based on evidence—not based on an impulse to want to impose rules on communities that otherwise may be able to find solutions to problems that afflict them and their customers.

Only a little over a year ago the coalition released a discussion paper on gambling reform, which made a number of important suggestions about ways of improving the response to harm in the Australian community relating to gambling. One of those suggestions was to do with restricting access to live betting odds—action which has, of course, since been taken up by the industry through self-regulation. Senator Di Natale, in his remarks, I think somewhat underplayed the extent to which the industry itself has been prepared to pick up these issues and address them through a self-regulatory approach, backed by ACMA, the communications agency, to make sure that there is an effective means of protecting the Australian community.

In the course of his remarks, Senator Di Natale made the point that a licensed person can come on air, during a live-broadcast game, and announce odds. Senator Di Natale would perhaps not be aware that the recent draft code of practice that has been developed by the industry—by the industry, not by government—has made it very clear that that cannot occur. The code allows for licensed people to make announcements about betting odds before a game, or during scheduled breaks, but not while a game is in play. That, again, is an initiative of the industry itself.

Senator Di Natale's motion makes reference to the need to ensure that we ban 'the paid promotion of sports betting services by sporting commentators and their guests during sports broadcasts'. He may also not be aware that the code makes it clear that the commentators cannot make such comments.