David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I want to thank Senator Hanson-Young for bringing forward this bill, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024. I also want to acknowledge members in the other place—Zoe Daniel, Kate Chaney, Andrew Wilkie, Rebekha Sharkie and others—for their work on this over many years.

I think it's important that we remember exactly what we're debating here. We are talking about a public health issue, and we should have a response that is up to the challenge of meeting that. This is about protecting young people. We live in a country where there is so much gambling advertising that three out of four—75 per cent—of young people now think that gambling is just a normal part of watching sport, a normal part of being an Australian. This is about protecting the young people who come in here and watch us debate—though 'debate' is probably generous at times. That's what this is about.

It seems like this debate is a pretty good ad for the crossbench when the best the major parties can do is to talk about who has the best bandaid solution—who's going to put a bigger bandaid on this massive wound. We can surely do better than that as a country.

I'm standing today to acknowledge the work of the late Peta Murphy MP. She did something that the rest of us seldom do—something that few of us may even achieve in our time in the Senate—and that is to achieve multipartisan support for a contested set of recommendations. It's a landmark report. It is historic. And when she released the report she said:

Gambling advertising … is grooming children and young people to gamble …

That's why a phasing-out of and ban on gambling advertising was her flagship recommendation. It's a recommendation the Labor government seem keen to sweep under the rug. And the Liberals seem keen to come in with their partial ban, though all the experts gave evidence that a partial ban doesn't work.

Here's just a bit of background for the people listening who may not be familiar with the Murphy inquiry. It has been nearly 18 months since Peta Murphy's report was released. The inquiry had 161 submissions and 13 days of public hearings—13 days of hearings! The report had 31 recommendations, from developing a national strategy on harm reduction to ensuring that 12-year-olds don't have to sit through sports-bet ads. This inquiry was exhaustive. It was thorough. It was in depth. And again, it had the backing of the entire parliament.

Again, let's come back to what we're actually talking about here. We're talking about being the biggest losers in the world when it comes to gambling. There are people out there who are so inundated that they say that, if you're a problem gambler and you're trying to get help, it's incredibly hard because there's nowhere to hide. You turn on the telly—a gambling ad. You listen to a podcast on Spotify—there's a gambling ad.

I want to read out some direct quotes from people who have been bravely speaking up, urging the parliament to act, and so far, 18 months later, their requests have fallen on deaf ears. This is from someone who has gone publicly by the name of Kate, who lost her brother to suicide: 'My brother was so well loved, empathetic, kind-hearted and a genuine person. My brother self-excluded, and he was targeted more. I remember walking into the kitchen one day and he said, "I've just got a text from Sportsbet." It sounds like not a big deal if you don't have a problem, but, if you know the gravity of that text, it is. It's always such a personalised message. They're only sent to people who are losing. I really believe those inducements made him feel the only way out was to end his life.'

This is from Mark Kempster, a man recovering from gambling addiction: 'Not one person could read the submissions on how people had lost loved ones to gambling addictions and not see the need for change. However, here I am 18 months later, still having to avoid watching the sports I once loved, out of the fear of what it could do to me and my family. I have lost all faith in our current government to do the right thing. From what they are currently saying, they have chosen their self-interest and winning the next election over protecting the most vulnerable in our society.'

This is from John, who presented and gave evidence to the Murphy inquiry: 'I love my footy, and I can remember that, at the time, sports gambling ads were being played in every ad break whilst I watched a game of footy on a Friday night. They even advertised during the news. Before long, and for reasons I can't explain, I opened an online sports betting account late one night with a well-known betting company. Within weeks I had managed to gamble away my full redundancy payment. I had made over $226,000 worth of deposits through my betting account. I lost $80,000 in one morning, between 12.30 am and 3 am, betting on races on the other side of the world. In one single 24-hour period I placed 92 separate bets. At no stage did anybody from the betting company try to contact me to determine how I was funding this excessive and erratic gambling or to suggest that a deposit limit might be a good idea.'

The Prime Minister, at every turn, has taken up the lines of the gambling industry and the NRL. Contrary to what Senator Grogan has just said, it seems some views are given precedence over others. I want to quote the Prime Minister:

We know, when we look at where the harmful gambling comes from, that almost 70 per cent of that harmful gambling is actually poker machines. More than or around 15 per cent, off the top of my head … comes from lotteries and lotto and those tickets as well.

Peter V'landys was quoted in the SMH saying that independent statistics showed that, out of 100 people who sought help from a problem gambling hotline, 70 were due to poker machines, 15 were due to lotteries, eight were due to racing and four were due to sport. I've tried to find these independent studies and reports. I've asked at estimates. No-one in PMO knows anything about it. No-one in the Minister for Sport's office or department knows anything about it. No experts have ever heard of it. Yet the two people that seem to have this data that supports continuing the status quo are the Prime Minister of Australia and Peter V'landys.

The CEO of Responsible Wagering Australia said the risk of blanket bans on advertising in the wagering space is that we run the risk of driving Australian consumers into the illegal offshore providers. The Prime Minister said: 'The internet means that people can gamble offshore. That means it is much more difficult to put restrictions on.' Who is writing the PM's talking points? There are so many smart people in there. Why are we hearing almost direct quotes from Peter V'landys and the CEO of 'Responsible Wagering Australia'?

There was a fascinating interview—I'm pretty sure it was on RN—with Stewart Kenny, the co-founder of gambling giant Paddy Power. I am going to directly quote him here. The argument from the Prime Minister and Responsible Wagering Australia that if you do anything here people will just go offshore was put to him. His response: 'I used that argument all the time when I was lobbying. I was the main lobbyist in Ireland. I knew all the politicians. That was the first line I always used. As an industry, we've been using that argument for 20, 30, 40 years. But look at Spain. They put in a blanket ban and there was virtually no pick-up in the illegal offshore market. This is a load of baloney. I used it all the time.'

I want to just end with the words of the courageous late Peta Murphy: 'What are you in politics for if it's not to make a difference and make a difference to other people's lives?' The Senate has the opportunity to do that.