Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The only reason we have any restrictions on gambling ads during live sport is that Labor acted when we were last in government, and we called for further restrictions while we were in opposition. If the opposition believe that this is such a great policy, it begs the question: where were they on this during their almost 10 years in government? To me, this seems less like a serious policy proposal and more like a bit of a headline-grabbing move from an opposition that is directionless and struggling for relevance. If those opposite are going to get serious about gambling advertising and the harm it's causing, then it's high time they reflected on their own record in government.

The current gambling advertising rules and the commercial broadcasting tax were both part of a broader deal struck with media companies, and it had very little to do with harm minimisation. In fact, figures from the Australian Communications and Media Authority showed there was a 50 per cent increase in the total volume of gambling spots on television and radio following the introduction of the last set of gambling ad restrictions in 2018. After seeing these figures, what did those opposite do to rectify this situation? Not a thing—absolutely nothing. Four years after the National Consumer Protection Framework was established, the pace they have acted at could best be described as glacial. Only six of the 10 measures had actually been implemented, and they took far too long to implement the framework, but we've moved quickly where they failed to do so. They have also failed to respond to the 2020 Stevens review, which recommended addressing the regulation of gambling in computer games, and the 2019 parliamentary joint committee inquiry which recommended banning credit cards for online gambling. We've acted on both measures, where those opposite failed.

We've acted quickly on a range of initiatives in our first year of government to address gambling harm, and we have committed to strengthening the classification of gambling-like features in video games, to protect children from exposure to harms. There are a variety of different kinds of gambling-like features in video games. Some are simulated casino-style games, such as poker machines, but these features also include intermittent and chance based rewards that players spend real money on, such as loot boxes, which are not explicitly presented as gambling but still bear the essential features of gambling activities. We have also committed to legislate to ban credit cards for online gambling. The ban on credit cards brings online gambling into line with land based gambling, where credit cards cannot be used, and, importantly, it ensures that people cannot bet with money they do not have.

For the first time since 2017, we've brought together state and territory ministers to discuss actions we can take together to address gambling harms. We're also acting on the final elements of the National Consumer Protection Framework, having delivered, in March this year, on consistent gambling messaging and wagering staff training. To deliver the final element of the framework, we will launch BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register. When implemented, BetStop will allow consumers to exclude themselves from all Australian licensed wagering services. In addition to all these actions, we've established a House of Representatives inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harms, which is being very ably chaired by the member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy. Our decision to establish this inquiry demonstrates the strength and seriousness of our commitment to addressing gambling harm.

While we oppose this bill—and I'll get to the reasons why soon—we share the strong concerns Australians have about the extent of gambling advertising and its impact. This is why we've already taken the actions I outlined earlier and established the House of Representatives inquiry. It's also why we are committed to strengthening the legislative framework and consumer protections that govern online gambling and the promotion of online gambling. As we saw in a recent ABC Four Corners program, and as we have seen from submissions to the House of Representatives inquiry, online gambling has become far too pervasive. The Four Corners program, entitled 'Game, bet, match: gambling with Australian sport', revealed that peak national sport bodies were receiving a cut of gambling revenues. It also revealed that live betting odds were being offered for amateur community sports, and that this was leading to an increase in match fixing. While Australia accounts for around 0.3 per cent of the world's population, we account for an incredible five per cent of the global online gambling market. Australians have the largest per capita gambling losses in the world, and around double the losses of other Western countries. Gambling is growing at an alarming rate. Gambling revenue in Australia was $5.4 billion in 2019, $6.9 billion in 2020 and $7.9 billion in 2022.

To illustrate the harm this is causing, Financial Counselling Australia indicated in their submission to the inquiry I mentioned that 80 per cent of specialist gambling financial counsellors reported that they had clients presenting who were talking about suicide and that 48 per cent had clients who had attempted to take their own lives. According to 2020 figures from the Australian Institute of Family Studies, online betting accounted for 78 per cent of betting, up from 62 per cent prior to the start of the COVID pandemic.

The dangers and harms associated with online gambling are potentially greater than those related to other forms of gambling. This was noted in the Salvation Army's submission to the inquiry, which pointed out that research has consistently identified high rates of gambling harm and at-risk gambling among online gamblers compared with on-site gamblers. Ease of access, relative anonymity, the frictionless nature of financial transfers—that is, e-cash—text based promotional messaging and the use of player analytical data are all features of online gambling products that make it harder for regulations to keep pace with the speed at which gambling products are introduced into the online community.

As a longstanding advocate for the protection of children and co-chair of the Australian Parliamentarians for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect group, the exposure of children to gambling advertising is of particular concern to me. A submission to the inquiry by the Alliance for Gambling Reform refers to studies about children's exposure to gambling ads. One study found that 91 per cent of children between the ages of eight and 16 could recall seeing a promotion for sports gambling. Concerningly, around 40 per cent of young people over the age of 16 had engaged in formal or informal gambling. If there is at least one thing we should all be agreed on in this place, surely it's the need to minimise to the extent possible the exposure of children to gambling advertising and the harms it causes to children?

And when it comes to the harms experienced by children, it isn't just children taking up gambling themselves but also the secondary harms to children caused by gambling addiction in adults. A study released just last month found that parental gambling was related to significant levels of harm in children, including financial harm, abuse and neglect, as well as relational and psychological problems. It also found there was a pattern of intergenerational transmission of problem gambling in children of regular or heavy gamblers.

In response to these issues, what we do not intend to do, like those opposite, is to rush in half cocked. We will be taking a comprehensive and considered approach to our policy, informed by the inquiry and not scribbling our policy on the back of a napkin, as the opposition seems to have done. The Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, who will have carriage of the government's bill, has been working assiduously with her department to prepare for and respond to the inquiry report. Any legislation to address this issue needs to consider the multiple channels over which advertising is delivered. These include television, radio, live streaming, social media and outdoor advertising and branding.

Legislation also needs to be evidence based, which this bill is not. The Independent member for Goldstein, Zoe Daniel, has co-authored a private members bill on this issue, together with the members for Mayo and Clarke. In her second reading speech on the co-authored bill, she had this to say about the opposition's move on this issue:

Aware of the latest crossbench push on this, the opposition has recently suggested banning gambling ads during sporting events and one hour either side. The evidence shows that this will not fix the problem. In fact, recent policy interventions to restrict the timing and proximity of gambling ads around broadcast sport has only pushed gambling into other programming—including programming that appeals to children like comedy shows and Marvel movies.

This is why I stress that anything we do needs to be considered, comprehensive and evidence-based and needs to avoid any unintended consequences.

I do accept the urgency of tackling gambling harm. I absolutely do. We on this side all do. But it is also important that with anything we do in the area we take advice from experts and get it right. That's the approach we have taken with our actions so far, whether it be the ban on credit cards for online gambling, the strengthened classification of computer games with gambling-like features or the implementation of the national consumer protection framework. We on this side have ensured that any action we have taken to address gambling harm has been based on expertise and evidence.

There is currently an inquiry, as I said, before the House of Representatives. This will report soon. This inquiry has already held 13 public hearings and received over 161 submissions. It will gather all the evidence from experts and stakeholders, consider it carefully and deliver well reasoned recommendations. This stands in stark contrast to the half-baked proposal that Senator Henderson has tabled in this chamber. Senator Henderson's suggestion in her second reading speech on this bill that the government has been wrongfooted by this proposal gives herself and her party far too much credit. I'm not sure what's more embarrassing: the bill itself or the fact that Senator Henderson regards it as some political masterstroke. In any case, we can see from the opposition's actions that they were never serious about addressing gambling harm during almost a decade in government.