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

I will do my very best, Mr Acting Deputy President. So the very issues that Senator Di Natale raises in his motion are in fact being addressed by the Australian sports betting industry. And so it should, because this industry depends upon a measure of goodwill by the Australian community, by the punters who participate in these services, and I believe they want to play in a way which gives people a sense that they are honourable and decent players in a marketplace. I would submit that it is in their interests that they provide for that kind of self-regulation where appropriate, and I believe that is what they are attempting to do.

I note that the draft code of practice, which I referred to a moment ago, is presently out for public comment. The opportunity for public comment closes on 21 May—next week. Once a code of practice through that process is determined then it has to be registered by ACMA. So, again, it is an initiative of the industry but it has the backing of Australia's media regulator—and that is an appropriate arrangement.

Senator Di Natale made reference in his speech to the corrosive effect of sports betting and advertising of sports betting odds to children. I would agree with him that we need to take special care to ensure that children are not adversely impacted by such advertising. But, again, I think we need to be careful not to exaggerate the effect of that kind of phenomenon. Information presented to the recent inquiry into gambling reform by Free TV suggested that children aged between five and 17 made up less than 12 per cent of the total viewing audience of any of the top-10 sporting events in 2012, excluding the Olympic broadcasts. Of those children who were watching, the majority were co-viewing with an adult—around eight in 10 in the five-to-12 age group—so there is an opportunity there for parental guidance of children who might see that kind of advertising.

ASTRA, representing the pay-TV industry, in its own submission to that inquiry said that, on the basis of evidence they were able to produce, children under 18 comprised a very small proportion of the audience for live sporting events on subscription TV. They said that, of the 50 most-watched live sports broadcasts shown on STV in 2012, children under 18 comprised just 11.3 per cent of the total combined audience for those broadcasts, with less than one-third of those—or 2.3 per cent of the total audience—being children under 18 watching without an adult present.

Now, I accept that that still represents a large number of children who may be exposed to this kind of harm but, as is always the case, it is important to make sure that we do not deal with the problem in a disproportionate way. The restriction on the freedom to impart information to people able to maturely and carefully accept and use that information is a right that people have—one we should be very careful to withdraw merely because we have identified that some people may suffer some harm from that fact.

The coalition, as I have said, has demonstrated a concern about this by putting together a discussion paper from its working party. The working group on coalition reform has that information available online, and I suggest that those people who are looking for some innovative approaches look at that report. We welcome recent moves by the commercial television and radio industries, and the subscription television industry, to address community concerns regarding live odds in sports through a revised code of practice which prohibits the promotion of live odds while a sporting event is in play. The code deserves to be considered by the public, and for comment to be made and considered, before a final version of the code is promulgated.

We take concerns about the promotion of live sports odds very seriously. We are concerned about making sure that children are protected, but we also believe it is important not to rush to conclusions. With the greatest of respect, the motion that Senator Di Natale has put forward today does rush to a conclusion before all the evidence is available. The coalition would not support the motion which is before the Senate tonight.