Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in order to preserve the integrity of the sporting experience and protect Australian children, the Senate notes the need for law reform, including measures such as:

(a) banning the broadcast advertising of live gambling odds for sports betting;

(b) banning the advertising of sports betting services on television and radio during children’s viewing hours, before 9 pm; and

(c) banning the paid promotion of sports betting services by sporting commentators and their guests during sports broadcasts.

It is fair to say that Australians love sport—it is at the centre of our culture and we are indeed a sporting country. We love to play sport, we love to watch sport. From playing backyard cricket at Mum's to packing the stands of the MCG for the AFL grand final, sport is part of the fabric of our lives. It has played an important role in my own life. I vividly remember as a 10-year-old swimming for the Preston swimming club diving into the ice-cold water of the 50-metre outdoor swimming pool on St Georges Road in Preston each Sunday morning, looking at the stopwatch and trying to beat my personal best time. I remember growing up in Reservoir, in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, and the fierce rivalry of the Dredge St versus Tormey St cricket matches. I remember Dad being confused about the strange game of AFL and wanting his boy to play soccer, and cheering from the sidelines during my stint at the North Reservoir soccer club. I remember coming to love that strange game from the moment, downstairs on a fuzzy black-and-white television, I watched my beloved team, the mighty Tigers, thrash Collingwood in the 1980 grand final. It was a journey that led me to play VFA footy, firstly with Coburg—incidentally under the tutelage of Phil Cleary, a former member of this parliament—and later with the Oakleigh football club.

My football days are over and in my middle age I have discovered other pursuits—the joy of surfing, along with my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson; I cycle when I can; I play a bit of golf; I enjoy the odd game of cricket. When I do roll the arm over it is with the Deans Marsh Swamp Rats who, like many country sporting teams right around regional Australia, are an integral part of the local community. My experience is no different from that of many Australians. It is why we make sport a priority in public policy. The Commonwealth spends over $170 million each year on elite sports through the Australian Institute of Sport, and Australia is famous around the world as a sporting nation. Despite being a small country we are consistently near the top of the Olympic medal tally. Over the years we have been world champions at cricket, we have led the tennis world and we now have an Australian golfing champion in Adam Scott. We have come mighty close to beating the world's best in the game of soccer.

I understand that some people worry that we are a nation that is too obsessed with sport and that this obsession overshadows more important, more noble pursuits such as the arts and sciences.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sport is noble.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, sport is noble and participation in sport brings many good things, such as the tremendous health benefits of physical activity and learning to work in a team environment and to respect rules and the umpire's final decision. Sport is a great leveller. It does not matter who you are or where you come from, sport brings people together to share in the sheer joy of it. That is not to say that we cannot do better to resource and recognise the great achievements of our artists or our scientists. We can and should do both. After all, it was the Greeks who gave us the marathon and the Olympics along with Aristotle, medicine and the foundations of our modern democracy.

Because Australians love sport so passionately, it is big business. Our major sporting codes such as Australian rules football and rugby league have billion-dollar television deals. The Collingwood Football Club alone recorded a profit of almost $8 million last year. The huge profits and increasing professionalism of our major sporting codes have their downsides. Personally, I could do without the hype associated with going to a game of football—overseas imports such as home and away jumpers that change each year just to bring in more revenue and breaks in play being filled with a blast of music over loudspeakers. I find it more than a trifle irritating, and sports like AFL are such great tests of strength, athleticism and endurance that they do not need those sorts of embellishments to survive.

There has been another much more important, more insidious and more corrosive change to our major sporting codes in recent years. It is now virtually impossible to watch any major sporting contest in this country without being urged to bet on the outcome either during the advertising breaks or by commentators during the event. Statistics reinforce the size and scope of the problem. Online betting, of which sports betting is a major component, has risen from $2.4 billion in 2007 to almost $10 billion in 2012. It is estimated that billions more are wagered by Australians on unregulated, offshore gambling sites.

Until recently gambling was over there; it was the domain of bookies and horse racing; it was done in pokie venues and casinos. But now it is over here; it is everywhere; it is playing an increasing role in our major codes. Because of the potential for harm, there are serious questions to be answered about just how much we want gambling to be part of sport.

I accept that having a bet is part of Australian culture and betting on sport is an enjoyable activity for many people, but for those who become problem gamblers it can be incredibly destructive. It has become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to avoid repeated exposure to betting advertisements and gambling odds when watching sport. The number of sports betting ads on free-to-air TV quadrupled in the last two years. In 2012, there were 528 different ads collectively broadcast more than 20,000 times.

There has also been a blurring of the line between commentary and advertising when it comes to gambling. The recent inclusion of a certain ubiquitous bookmaker, who is now appearing on the ground during rugby league coverage, has caused outrage amongst sports fans. Fans of all sports have noticed a growing link between sports and gambling companies. At best, they find it irritating; at worst, they worry about the impact it will have on their kids. This barrage of ads is making parents worried about whether a day at the footy or turning on the rugby is still an appropriate family activity.

A recent inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform looked into the issue. We heard some disturbing evidence. For instance, researchers who interviewed children found that advertising is working on them. Kids can name two or three sports betting companies, those companies whose advertisements they have seen hundreds of times. I have personally heard from parents who have had children write odds onto their own artwork depicting the footy or quote odds before a match. Let us remember this is a product aimed strictly at adults. But the fact that it is worming its way into the consciousness of children has many people worried, including me. I want my kids to be collecting footy cards, not recounting the odds of their favourite player winning the Brownlow Medal.

Gambling is not a harmless product. It is fun for some, but problem gambling costs the community dearly. It destroys lives. It leaves kids unfed, it breaks marriages and homes are lost. For a product with this potential for harm there is a very clear role for government to regulate. I do not propose a ban. I think it is perfectly appropriate that an activity that is so popular remains legal. Banning it would just drive it to unregulated markets overseas or to black markets onshore, leaving those sports open to corruption.

On the other hand, not regulating it could lead us down a dangerous road. If we do not act now, gambling will become so enmeshed in sport that we will never again separate the two. That can only have one consequence: more problem gamblers. We have tried self-regulation. Nearly two years ago the government gave an ultimatum to the industry regarding the repetition of live odds during sports: 'Either sort yourselves out and curb the practice or the government will act.' A year later, they reached an agreement and broadcasters have since publicised updates to their codes of conduct. These new codes are comical when compared to the extent of the problem. Promotion can continue as before during scheduled breaks; there will still be live betting odds; and, worse still, there is nothing stopping bookmakers and betting company representatives appearing during commentary sections of the broadcast.

These codes do not fix the problem. They allow the nexus between televised sport and gambling to continue its current trajectory—more exposure, more linking, more problem gambling, betting becoming an integral part of the game. The scope of the problem and the path we are on raise real potential for harm to children. We are still gathering evidence but it seems obvious that kids for whom gambling has become a normalised part of life are more likely to gamble later in life. That has been the experience of other harmful products such as tobacco. They will gamble and gamble heavily. Problem gambling behaviour is the inevitable result. That is why the time has come for this parliament to step in, to do something to curb this harm.

The motion before the chamber lists several important reforms that will help mitigate this potential harm. They are simple steps. They will not place an undue burden on industry but will start to disentangle gambling from sport. We must stop the brainwashing of children. Children are not the ostensible targets of gambling ads. The industry claims that they are not trying to recruit new customers from among their ranks. So it is right that children be the first priority of new reforms.

One obvious reform to prevent the over-exposure of children to these ads is to limit the times at which they may be broadcast. The loophole that allows gambling ads to be broadcast at any time of the day, so long as they are part of a sports broadcast, must be closed. How would we feel if gambling ads popped up during morning cartoons—next to the ads for Barbie dolls and Coco Pops? We would not accept it. But this is the situation we have now when it comes to the broadcast of live sport. The proposal to ban gambling ads before 9 pm is therefore a sensible one. Adults will still see the ads—the industry can continue to advertise—but the number of children exposed to these ads will be significantly reduced.

The broadcast of live odds is one of the most intrusive ways for sports betting companies to promote their service. It is an inducement to gamble right then and there. As I said before, these numbers are noticed by children, many of whom now think that it is just part of the way the game works. There is no reason we should allow this barrage of numbers to continue. Sports betting companies can tell us to have a punt, but they do not need to be listing the odds to do it. So we should stop this practice completely.

The other important and necessary reform is to end so-called 'cash for comment'. The development that has generated the most outrage with sports fans is the inclusion of bookies as part of the editorial team. It must be a lucrative business, because the reaction of fans to the appearance of Tom Waterhouse on the rugby league broadcast was astonishing, It unleashed a torrent of fury. The goodwill this has cost the broadcasters and the sporting code is enormous. Many people have expressed their outrage to me personally and the social media light up any time this happens.

The broadcasters have contended that, by changing the logo on Tom Waterhouse's microphone, the distinction between commentator and sponsor is now crystal clear. But, for a young kid watching a game of footy, Tom Waterhouse the bookmaker is no different from Tom Waterhouse the commentator. When I saw a photograph of Mr Waterhouse signing kids' jerseys after a match, I have to say that was the last straw. The intent of the code is to separate commentary from betting—to separate the commentators from the bookmakers. But children are not equipped to make that distinction. How could they if that sort of sporting broadcast is all they have ever known? It comes on top of the constant repetition of sports betting brand names at every opportune moment in the commentary. We have to stop this practice and we have to start talking about the sport instead of the betting.

The time has come for this parliament to take action. We can very easily legislate to stop this bombardment of betting odds. We can very easily legislate to close the loophole that lets ads run when kids are most likely to be watching. We need to turn sport back over to the experts, to the sports tragics and to the fans and not give it over to the bookmakers and the spruikers.

We are at a crossroad when it comes to sport. If we do not act now, a trip to the footy ground will soon be like a trip to the racetrack. We have the opportunity to take action. These are simple reforms, they are necessary reforms and they are popular reforms. With the stroke of a pen, we can let the sport do the talking and not the bookmakers. By passing legislation to implement these reforms, the parliament would be setting us back on the path to preserving the sports we love.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate and thank Senator Di Natale for bringing this issue before the Senate. I share his concern about the extent to which the broadcast of live odds for sports betting is becoming an insidious practice. It drives me demented during sports broadcasts, especially during free-to-air television programs on a Sunday afternoon when I am trying to watch my footy team. I totally agree that it is a practice which intrudes on the fun that comes from sitting down with your family and supporting your local team. It certainly takes the notion of betting on two flies on a wall to a whole new level. That is what wagering used to be about, but now it has become a multibillion-dollar global industry that many people cannot resist. It is irritating in the extreme to be constantly bombarded by ads which actively encourage people to bet online or to use their smartphones. As such, it is a practice that I absolutely discourage.

It also worries me that the broadcast of live odds for sports betting is a honey pot for those who want to exploit athletes or animals or encourage match fixing. Seriously, what does it mean when someone can get live odds on whether the third conversion attempt will be unsuccessful? It is a big temptation for criminals and creates a risk that sporting codes have to get their heads around. Some codes have been dealing with these things for years—fighters taking a dive in the third round, soccer players feigning injury or horses being drenched, as we saw last week in Tamworth. We all recognise how easy it is to exploit such things through dodgy real-time gambling options.

Senator's Di Natale's motion seeks to ban the broadcast of all live odds for sports betting, ban gambling advertising before 9 pm and ban promotion of gambling by commentators during sports broadcasts. But, unfortunately, Senator Di Natale's motion is trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted, if you will pardon my pun. Parliament and all levels of government have expressed concern to the broadcasting industry, which has finally acknowledged the level of community concern about the promotion of live odds during sporting broadcasts and has agreed to amend their codes of practice.

I think the broadcasting industry has been shamed into action to claw back the leeway it has given to sports betting agencies and to adopt what we have seen in America and some European countries for years. The industry now wants to demonstrate that it can respond through voluntary codes of practice and has agreed that there will be no promotion of live odds by commentators at any time during sports broadcasts

There will be no advertising of live odds during play, with clearly identified ads restricted to scheduled breaks in play such as half-time. Let us see if this is enough to curb the blatant behaviour of sports-betting promoters.

While the broadcasting industry has agreed to this action, I think that the role of government is to acknowledge how gambling is pervasive in our society and to try to address the issue of problem gambling in a more holistic way. In the Monthly magazine, back in 2011, Jonathan Horn wrote:

Neil Evans is the public face of Centrebet. His organisation will accept a bet on pretty much anything. Their federal-election markets garner such coverage that Evans is occasionally referred to as a ‘political analyst’. Centrebet has released markets on the national unemployment rate, the colour of Queen Elizabeth’s hat at her grandson’s wedding, and the World Sauna Championships held in Finland. On the flip side, their plan to offer betting on the permutations of the Australian stock exchange was recently rejected by ASIC.

Thank heavens for that, I would suggest. The article continues:

In March 2008, with James Packer’s Crown Limited bankrolling it, Betfair won a unanimous High Court decision which deemed it unconstitutional to prohibit bookmakers from advertising in one state and operating in another. Suddenly there were no state boundaries, the shackles were off and the land grab was on. “It was the most important thing to happen in 150 years of bookmaking in Australia,” says Betstar’s Alan Eskander. “It kick-started the life-cycle of our industry.”

…   …   …

Their market was voracious, if untapped. Australians are the most fearless gamblers in the world. A recent report in the Economist indicated that, on average, every adult Australian loses just under $1300 per year. As a nation, we drop $22 billion per year on the punt, nearly five times what we spend on foreign aid. “Australians love it,” Eskander says. “It’s how we’ve been brought up, it’s part of our culture, part of our folklore.”

In many respects, of course, Mr Eskander is right. We love two-up. Generations of Australians bet on the Melbourne Cup. We take lottery tickets. But what has happened since 2011 has taken betting to a whole new level.

So what are our responsibilities as legislators? Do we seek to legislate for good behaviour? Do we seek to regulate the industry? Do we seek to ban gambling, driving it underground and back to the good old days of SP bookmakers? Technology will beat us every time if that is the approach we take. We are not a nanny state. We expect people to be responsible for their actions and we acknowledge too that, for people who develop a gambling addiction, we need to take action and provide support. But the sporting bodies, the broadcasters and the gambling industry have an important role to play to ensure our sports do not become swamped with gambling messages, to the point where sport and gambling are seen as one and the same. Just like Senator Di Natale, I have had many, many people contact me about that blurred boundary. No-one wants the conflation of gambling and sport—not the sports, not the Australian government and certainly not the community, which is making it clear that enough is enough. The government is acting to ensure that something is done about it, working with the broadcasters on amendments to the broadcasting industry coregulatory codes of practice, which are enforced by ACMA.

On 22 June last year, Minister Conroy announced that the government and the commercial and subscription broadcasters had reached an agreement on reducing and controlling the promotion of live betting odds during sports broadcasts, and state and territory governments had committed to looking at the steps they can take to limit promotion of live odds at sporting grounds, such as on scoreboards or by ground announcers. The amendments to the code which have been developed between industry and the government will prohibit commentators from promoting any live odds at all during a broadcast and 30 minutes before or after the match begins and ends. They will restrict the promotion of odds to scheduled breaks in play such as half-time during the rugby or quarter-time in the AFL or at the end of a set of tennis. That means there will be no promotion of live odds when the match is actually in play. The amendments will also provide that the promotion of odds during a scheduled break in the play must be by a clearly distinguishable gambling representative. The proposed amendments to the code were released for public consultation on Monday, 22 April, for a four-week period, so I encourage anyone who has concerns about this to visit the websites of Free TV and ASTRA to have their voices heard, loud and clear.

Since the agreement between the government and the broadcasters last year establishing these principles, broadcasters have largely abided by them, even though the amended codes are not yet in place. That was until, as Senator Di Natale rightly tells us, the Tom Waterhouse advertisements and activities hit our screens with a vengeance this year. When Mr Waterhouse appeared in the first round of the NRL on Nine, I was dumbfounded. This was a step too far, in my view and, from the reaction everywhere else, in the view of most Australians. In his first-round NRL appearance, Waterhouse appeared to be a part of the commentary team and sat on the panel with the other commentators, providing comments on the game itself as well as promoting live odds, and he did not have any visible signs that he was representing Tomwaterhouse.com.

In March the NRL admitted to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform that 'the lines were a little blurred' in that incident. A little blurred indeed! The NRL's General Manager of Strategic Projects, Mr Mattiske, conceded that it was hard to tell whether or not Mr Waterhouse was part of the commentary team, and he said changes had now been made. He said:

… it is plain that, in the first round of the competition, the lines were a little blurred.

But:

… now… there is a very clear distinction between the commentary team and the promotion of sports betting.

Another witness to the inquiry said that Mr Waterhouse:

… now appears alone. There is a Tom Waterhouse microphone and big logo on the screen saying that he's an online bookmaker. … There is a significant change in the format of that.

I wonder if that is going to be enough. The broadcasting industry and the sports industry are very keen to try to take further action to amend the code and to try to use a mandatory process to do that. The government, I think, are taking this view: to give credit where it is due, where the industry has said it is going to take action we will wait and see how these codes work before we consider to rush to legislate. There could be a role, too, for state and territory governments to place similar restrictions on other forms of advertising within their jurisdictions—as I said before, such as the promotion of live odds at the sporting grounds or during sporting events.

But it should be even easier for the public to find information about that code of conduct. For example, it could be advertised on TV channels during the sports broadcasts and, while it is important that the public has an adequate opportunity to comment on the code, it is also important to make sure that those comments, and any expressions of concern, are not simply recorded but are actually addressed—that action is taken or change is made to the code to address community concern.

I go back to Senator Di Natale's question: can a 12-year-old distinguish between a sports commentator and Tom Waterhouse talking about the game? I do not think that many young kids can, and I would like to see that—as Mr Mattiske said, in answer to a question asked of him by Senator Xenophon about whether there was a conflict of interest in brokering a deal with Mr Waterhouse while at the same time trying to regulate sports gambling—'The integrity of the competition is our utmost priority. We would not allow any arrangements to threaten that.'

In fact, what we do know is that that activity by Mr Waterhouse would have been a breach of two of the restrictions in the code once it was implemented: the restriction on commentators and their guests promoting live odds; and the requirement for live odds to be promoted, when permitted, by a clearly distinguishable representative of a gambling organisation. As Minister Conroy said to the industry in 2011: lift your game; we are going to take action on this. And the broadcasters and the sports, to their credit, have responded to that. So what we want to see—and these are the changes to the codes that have been proposed and are being consulted on right now—is that commentators spruiking live odds, or gambling advertisements displaying the odds on television of who will kick the next goal after the last one was scored, cannot creep back into sports broadcasts.

It is an insidious change to the way in which we all think about community sports in Australia. It is an insidious and insulting change. It is one that I think threatens the way in which Australians react to their community sports and it is something that the government is very keen to ensure is eliminated. But we do not support the notion of actually legislating this ban.

Senator Di Natale's proposal, which goes to the issue of banning the advertising of sports betting services on television and radio during children's viewing hours before 9 pm, does actually go to prime-time television sports broadcasts, and therefore is something that we cannot support. We will watch and wait and ensure that the voluntary codes that are being proposed and entered into by the broadcasting industry are actually activated and that they are effective.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to 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.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They can! Have you watched the Footy Show?

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

You will have your chance to wrap up this debate later on.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Humphries, don't engage across the chamber; just ignore the interjections.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to 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.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak only for a short period of time tonight because I respect that there is a large list of speakers who are very passionate about this issue and would like to talk on it tonight. It is interesting—Senator Stephens talked about Australian culture, and there is no doubt that having a punt and having a bet is synonymous with Australian culture. Probably the best book I have ever read on Australian culture, and possibly one of the best books ever written in this country, is Cloudstreet,by Tim Winton. Just about everyone in this chamber has probably read it. I certainly hope they have. It is a fascinating book. It is a juxtaposition of two families—the Lambs family and the Pickles family. Sam Pickles, a man who loses his hand, is a really interesting character to follow in the book. Essentially his life is a constant struggle against a gambling addiction. It is fascinating to read about his gambling addiction. It is an addiction which so many Australians suffer from, and it is quite easy to understand why.

It suggests that a person will only get control over their gambling when they have started to make progress in working on the big worries in their lives, such as boredom, failure et cetera. It also suggests that a lot of Australians have strong values of not giving up easily and not quitting when the going gets tough and also have very strong competitive drives. These factors tend to work against problem gamblers, leading them to keep going until all their money is gone. The interesting thing about Cloudstreet is that what Sam Pickles used to look forward to was when the races occurred. That stimulus was what he required in his life. We know it is the same with the pokies. The stimulus that drives the problem of addiction to pokies is the noise, the flashing lights and so on.

The stimulus is obvious when you think about online gambling, but the next phase is to see gambling on television, in an area of content that Australians love and are totally attached to, including children, which is sports games. Why are we so fascinated with sport? It is a big part of our culture. Most of us grow up playing sport. If you have an addiction then it is quite obvious that while you are watching sports games it is going to be very hard to get away from that addiction and that stimulus is going to be in front of you the whole time.

I have discovered a couple of interesting things about sports gambling which suggest that it is possibly going to be an even more pervasive problem than other types of gambling, such as casino gambling. There was a really good article recently in LiveScience by Professor Ghose. He talks about a large study done by Tel Aviv University in Israel, and quotes from a statement by a study co-author:

"Sports gamblers seem to believe themselves the cleverest of all gamblers. They think that with experience and knowledge—such as player's statistics, manager's habits, weather conditions and stadium capacity—they can predict the outcomes of a game better than the average person,"

He goes on to explain a very large study that he did in the UK around soccer. In the end he came to some startling conclusions:

"Casino gamblers are more appropriately characterised as obsessives, because they have less belief in themselves, and know that they will lose sooner or later. But they gamble anyway because they feel they need to," Dannon said.

By contrast, sports gamblers may need tailored cognitive therapy that rids them of the belief that they have more control over the outcome than they really do.

I was interested in that conclusion, so I went looking for real-life examples of severe problem addiction with sports gambling.

Probably the best story that I read was an article from the Roar, 'How sports gambling cost me love'. It was by Hayley Byrnes, who was married to a rugby league player. She talks about the culture within sport of sports players being addicted to sports gambling. She said:

I personally have spent the darkest of hours with a sports gambling addict. Without delving into too much personal detail out of respect to this person, I can however say that for over four years I battled weekly with a live in boyfriend’s gambling addiction.In the end we both lost.

… … …

It wasn't until one night in bed after a few weeks of living together with my partner that I started to have any indication there could be trouble in paradise. As we lay in bed, he sat up next to me, eyes fixed on the laptop.

"What are you doing on that so late?" I mumbled.

"Oh just watching a tennis bet," he replied. 3am rolled around and he was still up, eyes glued to that screen watching live tennis scores like a heroin addict waiting for his next delivery.

The article goes on to say that eventually this couple did seek therapy. In that therapy, after not talking for the first two therapy sessions, her partner talked about the very first time that he gambled:

… as a 16-year-old kid he was led into the TAB by fellow teammates, unbeknownst to him at the time that one bet would cost him his football career, friendships and his first love.

It was a very compelling story about real lives.

I think Senator Humphries said gambling causes 'some' harm. I think even single individuals and single lives being ruined by gambling addiction is a lot of harm. There is plenty of evidence to show that there is more than some harm in our community. The risks are very real that we might see gambling addiction normalised, especially if we see it in sports advertising, which kids can watch. I want to use the word 'stimulus' again, because that is what we know drives, or certainly helps facilitate, gambling addiction. On television at quarter time, at half-time, after the game and of course before the game, there is the temptation, the stimulus, to get people interested in laying a bet, in gambling. I do not have the compulsion myself, and I know lots of people who have healthy habits in terms of laying bets. But addiction, whether it is gambling, alcohol or heroin, is all the same. It is a physiological problem that is very difficult for people to combat and it takes a lot of effort to overcome.

We talk about the need for regulation. It is my understanding that the voluntary code on odds has been in place now for a couple of months and—let's make this very clear—it has been complied with. We recognise that, but the problem is still there. Nothing has changed. The advertising is still there and the odds are still there. Online betting has risen from $2.4 billion spent in 2007 to almost $10 billion in 2012. In 2012, 528 individual ads were put forward which were collectively broadcast more than 20,000 times. This is big money. The TV rights for AFL is big money—it is huge money. Why do TV companies pay big money? It is obvious: they want eyeballs on the screen. What comes with eyeballs? Ratings. What comes with ratings? Advertising spend. This is all about how TV broadcasters can get advertising spend. It is obvious that, when there is a new, developing market out there—online gambling and sports gambling especially—tied directly to individual sports programs, it is going to be a big market and there is going to be lots of money in it.

My experience with large profits being available to both broadcasters and betting companies is that it spells trouble in terms of regulation, particularly self-regulation. Even the Liberal Party, who understand free-market economics, must recognise that there is a role for government to play when markets fail. One way we classically talk about market failure is when there are costs associated with a particular business activity. The costs associated with gambling are severe in lots of different areas when it comes to its impact on our community. We have looked at it right across the board. Where we see these costs associated with a productive activity, in this case a service, the government has a role to make sure those costs are minimised or those companies pay for those costs.

That is certainly not the Greens' understanding of the system at present, and that is why this motion has been moved by Senator Di Natale—to take very strong action and to not rely on a voluntary code that we do not believe has worked. It is time for regulation. We believe banning all live sporting odds is very important. We also believe that advertising should occur after 9 pm, when we know most children will not be watching advertising. We want to avoid this problem being normalised. We certainly want to see a ban on cash for comment, which, once again, to use Senator Stephens's comment, blurs the lines between what is sport and what is gambling. That is something we certainly cannot afford to introduce into our culture in this country.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening also to speak on this notice of motion on sports betting reform. In his introduction, Senator Di Natale hit the nail on the head when he said that Australians love sport. That is pretty well right—we love our sport. What goes with sport in Australia? Australians love a flutter. They love a bet. You know, Mr Acting Deputy President, that in the next couple of weeks the greatest game of all, the State of Origin, will be played between New South Wales and that great state of Queensland.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And we'll win again, won't we, Mark!

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will win again—I will take that interjection! Every year I have a bit of a flutter. I have a flutter with some of my friends in the chamber here—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have friends?

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do have some friends—as well as some of the people who work around this place and some of my staff, because it is in the nature of Australians to have a harmless flutter. But what has been raised tonight is correct: the addictions need to be recognised, when people take their gambling habits way too far. Both the Greens senators and Senator Stephens, I think, earlier indicated the problem with gambling in this country. Problem gamblers lose on average $21,000 a year. You would wonder how they can survive in their households or their communities with those sorts of losses in a year. That is why this government is acting decisively on this issue.

The government is taking action to reduce the promotion of live odds during sports coverage. Working with the broadcasting industry, we have proposed amendments to their codes of practice. Under those principles agreed between industry and the government, there will not be promotion of live odds by commentators at any time during a sports broadcast. That is what is being proposed, will be implemented and, I am convinced, will be successful in addressing this issue with live odds during sports coverage. There will also be no advertising of live odds during play, with clearly identified ads restricted to scheduled breaks in play, such as half-time. The government preference generally is for action to be taken through the co-regulatory framework to broadcasting regulation. For now, the government will evaluate the effectiveness of measures proposed by the broadcasting industry before considering any further action such as legislation in this space. For this reason, we do not support the Greens' motion at this time.

The government recognises that problem gambling and the relationship between sport and gambling is a serious issue. We have acted and we continue to act across a range of portfolios to address this issue. We understand the concerns in the community that Senator Di Natale proposes to address and has raised here this evening. Sporting bodies, broadcasters and the gambling industry all have an important role to play to ensure our sports do not become swamped with gambling messages to the point where sport and gambling are seen as one and the same. No-one wants that—not the community, not the sports and not the Australian government. So, once again, under the principles agreed between industry and the government, there will be no promotion of live odds by commentators at any time during a sports broadcast.

More broadly, this government has legislated to reform poker machine regulation. As we know, the legislation requires precommitment technology to be available on every one of Australia's 200,000 poker machines, introduces a voluntary precommitment system to help players set limits and keep track of their spending, and introduces a maximum daily withdrawal limit of $250 on ATMs in gaming venues. The government's minister, Senator Conroy, in March of 2013 responded to the review of the act that governs online gambling: the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. He has committed to the development of a national standard for harm minimisation and consumer protection for online gambling. He is working with the states and territories on a harmonised approach to regulating in this space.

Government has acted to stamp out match-fixing in sport. In 2011, the Gillard government reached an agreement with states and territories to introduce a national policy on match-fixing in sports. The government recognises that problem gambling is a serious issue, which is why we support responsible advertising by broadcasters and industry. That is why we have taken action to ensure that the promotion of live odds in sports broadcasts is reduced and controlled. The promotion of live odds during sporting events is unacceptable. The Commonwealth government has taken action to reduce and control the promotion of live betting odds during sport coverage.

The federal government has worked with the broadcasters on amendments to the broadcasting industry co-regulatory codes of practice, which are enforced by the ACMA. On 29 June 2012, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy announced that the Australian government had secured an agreement with commercial and subscription broadcasters to reduce and control the promotion of live betting odds during sports broadcasts. State and territory governments have also committed to look at the steps. They could take on a limited promotion of live odds on sporting grounds, such as on scoreboards or by ground announcers. People do not want odds shoved in their face when watching sport, and that is where these new restrictions address this issue.

This agreement, which was struck last year, forms the basis upon which the broadcasters have promised amendments to their codes of practice. Looking at how the proposed amendments restrict the promotion of live odds, the amendments to the code will prohibit commentators from promoting any live odds at all during the broadcast and 30 minutes before and after the match begins and ends. It will restrict the promotion of odds to scheduled breaks that are played during a sporting event, such as: half-time at the rugby, quarter-time at the AFL or at the end of a set in tennis. This means there will be no promotion of live odds when the match is actually in play. That is the last thing I want to see during a State of Origin match. It will also provide the promotion of odds during a scheduled break in play, where it will be clearly distinguished by gaming representatives.

Since the agreement between the government and the broadcasters in June last year that established these principles, broadcasters have largely abided by them—although the amended codes are not yet in place, with the exception of the Tom Waterhouse incidents. The amendments to the codes have been proposed by the broadcasters and were released for public consultation on Monday, 28 April for a period of four weeks. We encourage interested members of the public to go to the websites of the peak bodies for broadcasting Free TV, ASTRA and pay TV to find out more. If people choose, they can make a written submission to express their views on the proposed amendments. The amendments will then be submitted to the ACMA and, if approved, will be registered and enforced by the regulator.

The radio industry, through Commercial Radio Australia, publicly released its proposed amendments for comment in December last year. The consultation window for CRA's amendments has now closed. So the government's preference, in general, is for action to be taken through a co-regulatory framework for broadcasting regulation.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grateful to Senator Back for giving me this opportunity to speak. I promise to keep it down to eight minutes; I will do my very best to keep it within eight minutes. I support Senator Di Natale's motion and congratulate him for bringing it on. This proposal, in the bill that he has introduced recently, mirrors many of the proposals that I put in a bill that I introduced in this chamber in June 2011—the more, the merrier. To me, it will be a great day when we have a bill from either the coalition or the government, or both, mirroring what Senator Di Natale is trying to do and what I have been trying to do. It is because enough is enough: we have gone too far in relation to this.

This is a very serious issue. I refer members to the evidence given by Associate Professor Samantha Thomas, from the University of Wollongong. She is an expert researcher, who has researched the impact of this sort of pernicious, insidious gambling advertising on children. Her studies and surveys are extensive. In a snapshot: parents are concerned that kids are talking about the odds and not the games. There is an increase of embedded memories, if you like, of advertising, where kids remember it. That is very disturbing. That kids are able to recall the brand name of gambling companies—children who are six, eight, 10 or 12 years old—is very disturbing.

We also have a situation with young men, where odds talk is being embedded into conversations as part of the culture. Young men feel pressured into gambling because of this pernicious advertising. Gambling is now part of the peer group: if they do not participate in it, they are not part of that group. That is sickening. Let us clear this up once and for all—and perhaps Senator Di Natale will have an opportunity to sum up the debate: the new whiz-bang proposed code, which is being proposed now, still allows for advertising before the game, of odds being spruiked before the game and at quarter-time, half-time, three-quarter time and after the game. It just stops those live odds. It is better than nothing—it is better than a kick in the head—but it does not deal with the issue, which is that we are being bombarded with gambling advertising. You will still be able to see the ads for the various gambling companies—Sportsbet, Sportingbet, Tom Waterhouse or whomever—during a game. Kids can see that as well.

That is very, very important. We must tackle this. What I proposed back in 2011, and what Senator Di Natale is proposing now, is not extra regulation, as Senator Humphries has characterised it. It is about closing a loophole. Currently, under the Commercial Television Code of Practice, the situation is that you cannot have gambling advertising during G-rated periods, but there is an exemption for news, current affairs and sporting programs. It is for sporting programs where the greatest impact is felt. This is about closing a loophole. You should not have the odds being broadcast and you should not have gambling advertising during G-rated periods. This is the fundamental issue.

There is an inquiry about this. It is public knowledge that there is an attempt to get Tom Waterhouse to appear before the inquiry. I cannot comment to say anything other than that, but I would welcome him appearing. I would like to take a moment or two to quote what former Wallabies great, author and commentator Peter FitzSimons said in his column on 24 April in the Sydney Morning Herald. It is headed 'Waterhouse's submission is a joke that's not funny'. I will just quote a few paragraphs from that. It starts off with Mr FitzSimons saying:

Bring it in tight, Tom Waterhouse. Yes, yes, yes, it is me again, and no, I don't have particularly hard feelings because you're suing me for defamation at the moment. Nothing personal, what?

Nevertheless, because of that legal action, I have of course tried to temper my remarks when it comes to your statement to the joint select committee on gambling reform on Tuesday, where you robustly defended your ubiquitous presence on sports broadcasts across Australia, asserting your right to flog your sports betting operation as you please.

So let me, as delicately as I can muster, as carefully as possible, choose my words delicately ... with malice towards none ... with charity to all:

If you wrote the statement to the select committee, give yourself an uppercut. If someone wrote it for you, pretend you're Mark Bouris on Celebrity Apprentice and say loudly: "You're fired."

In that statement, you say you have, "No intention of targeting children through our advertising ..."

What are the kids then? Collateral damage? Whether or not the kids are specifically "targeted" by your company is hardly the point? The point is that they ARE hit, regardless. The point is that while the government has the brains to have a ban on gambling advertising on programs children are likely to be watching, there remains the ludicrous exception of sport, which millions of Australian kids watch for hours on end!

The point is that because of this exposure gambling chat in the playground is now endemic, and many young Australians think that gambling is glamorous instead of the brain-dead loser pursuit it actually is. So you didn't specifically target them? So what?The outcome is equally devastating—a time-bomb that will go off when they have more than their lunch money to lose.

I congratulate Peter FitzSimons for those comments which reflect the overwhelming opinion out there in the community.

I spoke to Peter FitzSimons about his columns. He gets overwhelmed by the number of comments and people writing in to him or tweeting him. There is a strong, visceral community reaction to this. There is a revulsion about the way the odds are being rammed down our throats. When six-, eight- and 10-year-olds are talking to their parents in their homes about the odds and not about the game then you know we have gone too far. That is why we need to ban gambling advertising during G-rated periods.

I note what has been said about overregulation. But in May of last year I did a joint press conference with the opposition leader, Tony Abbott. I was very happy to do that joint press conference with him on the issue of online gambling. Statements that the opposition leader made about how we have gone too far were a very pleasing development. I disagree with the opposition leader on his stance on poker machine reform, but we have a lot of common ground in terms of online gambling. I do not think that what this motion is about, what my bill in 2011 was about or what Senator Di Natale's recently introduced bill was about is that far away from the comments of the opposition leader. The opposition leader's comments are very much in line with overwhelming community opinion.

We have had enough. Leave kids alone, for goodness' sakes. We have a ban on G-rated programs having gambling advertising, but there is an exemption for sporting programs. Let us close that exemption down. If the opposition and the government will not come on board, that is fine because I will make sure right up until 14 September, election day, that this is an issue. I will thank you both for giving me an issue to fight the election on. But I would rather it not be an issue. I would rather there be some unanimity in this chamber to reflect the overwhelming community opinion that we need to do something about what has become an insidious activity that is damaging our kids. Give us a break. Let's support a ban on gambling advertising and on the odds being pushed down our throats so that we can protect our kids.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the motion put by Senator Di Natale. I have listened very carefully to the comments around the chamber. There is absolutely no difficulty. There is a unanimous view from everybody that we do not want to see a circumstance in which children are placed at risk.

However, recognition has not been given, in my view, by Senator Di Natale or Senator Xenophon to the voluntary action by those who actually produce and present this type of material. I speak, of course, of the draft code of practice regarding the promotion of live odds in sports coverage. We have a circumstance in which that document is out for public comment at this very moment. I do not know how many comments there have been, but I understand that it closes for comment on 21 May, which is only the beginning of next week. So we should have information very, very quickly as to what the reaction of the public is to the voluntary code that has been put into place by those, both from Free TV and subscription television, who actually present sports broadcasting to the Australian community.

I would just like to reflect for a moment on what the size of the audience is—the size of the audience of children under the age of 18. This was advice presented to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform this year by those two groups—Free TV and ASTRA. The Free TV figures are that around 12 per cent of the audience at home watching TV are between the ages of five and 17, with the balance being adults. Interestingly enough, between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of those children under the age of 17 are in the company of adults. The figures presented by the other organisation, ASTRA, were very similar.

Gambling is something which I am not associated with. I was involved in the horseracing industry for many, many years as a veterinary surgeon. Senator Mason would be interested to know that very early in my career an old fellow said to me, 'Chris, the only way you will make money following horses is with a broom and shovel.' I took that on board and I believed it, and I am very happy to say that neither my wife and I nor any member of our family is afflicted.

Senator Mason interjecting—

I went into politics, but it took me some years, Senator Mason, before I did. The point I want to make very, very strongly is that there is a responsibility of parents and of carers toward the attitudes, the actions and the behaviours of children. I disagree with Senator Di Natale, because we are not going to wipe out this risk to children by totally banning—certainly until nine o'clock at night—the advertising of sports betting services on television and radio. In my view there is a responsibility of carers, of adults, of parents, of grandparents and of those responsible for children's behaviours and attitudes to influence them in relation to the wider community. We are assaulted these days, as you know, with vast media. We have smart phones, and people can gamble in any location using their smart phones. The other point that I want to make in relation to that comment is that there is not only online gambling in Australia but also operations overseas, which the Australian government has limited capacity to regulate.

Having been a member of the gambling reform committee from the time it was established, when Mr Wilkie originally sought the agreement of the Prime Minister to put it in place—and Senator Xenophon has always been active and involved in that—I have had it brought home to me, and my experience tells me, that if you deny people one form of gambling, if they want to gamble, they will find another way. The last thing we want is for people to be participating in uncontrolled, internet accessed gambling overseas where we have no control at all. We have no knowledge of where these participants are and we have no capacity as an Australian community to protect them. Of course nobody wants to see problem gambling in adults and we certainly do not want to see it in children.

I spent a good deal of my early life in the goldfields area of WA where two-up was a tradition—

Senator Mason interjecting—

not necessarily to the extent that it is now, Senator Mason—and there has not been an epidemic of gambling as a result of children growing up in families where their parents may have tossed pennies.

When I look at this voluntary code there does seem to be some confusion. This voluntary code says in the appendix:

(2) During a Live Sports Broadcast, a Licensee must ensure there is no Promotion of Live Odds:

(a) by a Commentator at any time; or

(b) during Play.

I support that 100 per cent as I am sure others do. I have heard Senator Di Natale and Senator Xenophon question it and say that it is irrelevant because there is quarter time and half time in the case of Australian Rules and three-quarter time and half time in the other code north of the border. The simple fact of the matter is that, as we all know, during those periods of time in the household, or wherever else sport might be watched, it is the case that people move around, go out to get a drink, go to the toilet, or converse, and that may well be the time in which they discuss what the progress of the game is. For us to stand up here and support a total ban does not make common sense to me.

Of course, it is not just the voluntary code that will come into operation. Once it is in its final form it will be the subject of review and will then be the subject of registration by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA. It may be into the future—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to Senator Di Natale—that over time this is not seen to have achieved its goal or been strong enough in its objectives. Let us not rush into this. This is the best situation at the moment, in which industry has voluntarily, at short notice, determined to put this code of practice into place.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has done nothing.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not doing nothing. I, for one, want to see the code come into existence in its final form. The coalition, of course, have a proud record when it comes to being the first to legislate to control online gambling in this country. As my colleague Senator Humphries said, we were the first in the world to so do. We are not blind to where the responsibility lies or where the opportunities lie. I say in conclusion—to allow colleagues the opportunity to comment—that I do not support the motion but certainly, as Senator Xenophon quite rightly said in reflecting his comments with our leader Mr Abbott, 'It is an issue which definitely requires control. Children have to be protected, but we have not yet got to the nanny state.'

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution in this debate. I listened carefully to the outline of the issue from Senator Di Natale in relation to the outrage amongst sports fans. I cannot entirely agree with that. In my own household at least one non-sports fan does not like it, but, whenever I am enjoying a barbecue and watching the football, most of the other people are quite interested—but they are adults.

The argument is that there is a barrage of ads, disturbing evidence that kids can identify sports betting agencies and that the consciousness of children is being altered or informed. Well, that is just a very successful advertising campaign. That happens with breakfast cereals and with Coca-Cola, and it happens with everything. So I do not think you can say that sports betting is the cause of their altered consciousness; it is advertising that does it. The reality is that we will have a whole generation growing up in front of very large, interactive smart TVs with smart phones. Prohibition is not the way forward. We are a nation that stops for Melbourne Cup Day. There are sweeps in every school, in every workplace and in almost every household.

As Senator Stephens said, we are a nation of voracious gamblers. We do have a significant number of problem gamblers and we do not want to increase that number of problem gamblers. We certainly do not want to encourage children to commence betting below the legal age or to have an appetite for betting. But, if you have ever taken your son to the Rugby League or the football, you would know that tickets have always been sold on the first try-scorer. You bought your ticket—in those days it might have cost 20c—and if you had the right number you won a prize: a meat tray or whatever. This type of betting on sports has been around. What we are experiencing now is the insidious nature of technology. We have smart phones and smart apps—download a smart app, get Tom Waterhouse on your iPhone or your other type of smart phone.

I understand the sincerity that, in particular, Senator Xenophon brings to the debate. He is absolutely right: he will campaign until there is no breath left in his body on these issues, because that is in his nature and that has certainly been his demonstrated track history. The reality is that we need to look at what the government is actually doing. The government is indeed taking action to reduce the promotion of live odds during sports coverage. We are working with the broadcasting industry who have proposed amendments. They have responded to community concerns. They have a very big and growing business. In their view, they have to get their act together, otherwise legislation could be introduced that will restrict their opportunity, but I do not believe they are out there trying to get kids to bet. I certainly do not believe that.

Under principles agreed between the industry and the government, there will be no promotion of live odds by commentators at any time during a sports broadcast. There will be no advertising of live odds during play, with clearly identified ads restricted to scheduled breaks in play, such as at half-time. The government's preference in general is for action to be taken through the co-regulatory framework of broadcasting regulation. For now, the government will evaluate the effectiveness of the measures proposed by the broadcasting industry before considering any further action, such as this type of legislation. In this space and for this reason we do not support, and I do not support, the Greens bill at this time.

The government recognises that problem gambling and the relationship between sport and gambling are very serious issues. We have acted and continue to act across a range of portfolios to address these issues. The concern that has been expressed here today, targeted towards one particular betting agency because he is the most highly visible agency and has made a real success of his business in a very short space of time, is probably flawed. We need to address the fundamentals.

I do not mind if my grandchildren learn about betting, because if you learn about betting you basically learn about losing. You do not get odds of 10 to one because it is a sure thing. You get odds of 10 to one because there is a nine times chance of losing. I do not think you can hide people, children or otherwise, away from the real world and then at the age of 18 turn them out for someone else to cultivate into a gambler. I do not mind having exposure at the right times. I do not think it is appropriate before the PG sort of rating period. I do not think we should be advertising gambling, as someone has already said in the debate, in the cartoon hours, but there is no doubt that kids will be watching football and nine o'clock is not going to stop them from watching football. If a game is scheduled to go a bit later, there are plenty of households in which children below the age of 18 or below the age of 10 do not go to bed until midnight. There are plenty of households which are fanatical about the round-ball game. A lot of that is played in the middle of the night. I do not think an arbitrary curfew is the answer to this. I think education is the answer. I am not all that convinced that this exposure is 100 per cent detrimental. It may be detrimental to a certain number of very vulnerable people, but they will probably have that vulnerability with or without this type of activity by betting agencies.

Sporting bodies, broadcasters and the gambling industry all have an important role to play to ensure that our sports do not become swamped with gambling messages. At the end of the day, you want to see your team win. If you happen to bet on the way through and you are of a legal age, I do not have a problem with that. I do not think any government will ever change that ability. If you are of a legal age, your team is in the running and you want to have a punt, it will be available to you. What has attempted to be the subject of this debate is whether we have a younger and more vulnerable group of consumers who have been groomed and turned into problem gamblers. I do not think there is any evidence to say that is the case.

I heard Senator Back's story about growing up in Kalgoorlie. I grew up in the Northern Territory. Someone else mentioned that two flies could be bet on. I am certain that there have been occasions when I have been tempted to bet on one of those flies. It has not made me a problem gambler, it has not made my children problem gamblers and I do not have any friends or family who have turned into problem gamblers, and we have had exposure to gambling—of a legal nature and perhaps of a more dubious nature—throughout all our growing up years.

What is really intriguing is whether having a smart TV or an iPhone—the ability to download a betting app to an iPhone and link it to a credit card or a betting account and to bet at any time—is essentially more addictive than what has always been the case, where you can walk to a TAB or an outlet like that to place a bet. I have a TAB very close to where I live and on occasion I have gone there and made a bet. I have noticed younger punters coming in and trying to pick a whole range of options regarding betting on the AFL, soccer, golf or whatever, but if they have sat down, worked out what they can afford to lose, filled out the correct ticket and are over 18, I am not sure that there is a problem. How they got to that stage seems to be what this debate is about. As people get to the legal age of being able to drink, vote, represent the country in the Army or go to the TAB, or bet in whichever way they want, I am not sure that regulations are ever going to change any of that. I am not sure that we can put up legislation or amendments in this place to have the effect that some people in this place want.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 20:00