Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was making a point to people in the gallery yesterday when I began my speech on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023, but they've left! It was that this is a proposed incremental change which, I believe, will improve the regulatory environment with respect to advertising and gambling. We can have a debate in terms of who did what and when, and what people should do in the future et cetera—maybe the coalition should have done that and maybe Labor should do this. But the point is that this is a positive, incremental change moving in the right direction, and it could be done now. It's a very simple bill; it could be passed now and introduced now. I'm hopeful that the comments I make during this speech may well convince my good friend Senator Bilyk, who is speaking after me, that there's merit in the argument that there should be some incremental change and that change could occur now.

We do accept that people like to gamble. People like to bet, that is the fact of the matter. We also accept that there needs to be regulation of those activities. I think that many of us across the chamber are concerned. Hopefully, this is something I say that Senator Bilyk would agree with: it causes me unease when I drive past hotels and pubs during the week and see pokies are open until 4 am. We have to ask ourselves how that can be in the best interest of anyone—gambling at four in the morning? And we can gamble on the internet now, 24/27.

The particular concern that this bill seeks to address is the conflation of gambling with major sporting events. When I was growing up I watched State of Origin as a young boy with my family—and yesterday was State of Origin day, with another absolutely fantastic win by the maroons! I stayed up way past my bedtime at 8.30, because that's how late the game went, but there were none of these gambling advertisements and there wasn't this conflation of a major sporting event with gambling—or 'gaming', which is the synonym now used. So there was a demarcation between gambling and major sporting events such as State of Origin, the Ashes and so many other major sporting events. Horseracing was always in a different category.

But, in terms of the football, cricket, tennis and Aussie Rules, there was a demarcation between the sporting event and gambling, and that demarcation has broken down. The concern is that the 10-year-olds who were watching State of Origin last night will see gambling as being part of enjoying a sporting event. Not only do you watch the sporting event but you can have a punt at the same time. And you can bet on so many different things—first try scorer, highest point scorer, the ultimate victor and the margin et cetera. You can see how people who have a proclivity towards being susceptible to the addictive nature of gambling can fall into that trap, especially as young people. That's the primary concern that we have. I'm sure that that primary concern is shared by everyone across the chamber.

This is an incremental change which, from our perspective, could improve things. The specific proposal is that gambling advertising be banned from one hour before the start of a live sporting event until one hour after. So that's a reasonably modest proposal. That means footy is family time—family time is footy. So we all gather around the TV and watch the match, and there are no gambling advertisements in the course of that match. The ban would apply to TV and radio broadcasts. Existing exemptions for gambling advertising during horse, harness and greyhound racing would be retained. Exemptions for advertisements for lotto, Keno and similar government run lotteries are also retained, where the evidence is that they are less likely to contribute to that gambling addiction.

The ban would be achieved through minor amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The changes to the act would require industry codes of practice to be updated to incorporate the ban, and the bill allows for a transition period for the change. So these are small, incremental improvements, and I genuinely ask those opposite: why would you stand in the way of these incremental improvements? No doubt, when the government finishes its review or the parliamentary reviews are completed, there could be larger reform moving through the system, but I can't see any reason why such a positive, incremental improvement—taking it at face value and accepting that it's proposed in good faith—wouldn't be accepted. What's the harm of accepting it in good faith and sending a message that everyone across this chamber cares about this issue?

I say to those opposite: I understand the arguments which are being put, but I think we can rise above those arguments and simply focus on the issue before us. This is a very positive, incremental change, and I think those on the other side of the chamber should in good faith accept it at face value, and, if there are proposed amendments, put the proposed amendments forward. But I can't see why such a positive, incremental change such as this would not be accepted. On that basis, I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

I too rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023. As Senator Scarr said, this bill places a ban on gambling advertisements during television and radio broadcasting and live streaming of sporting events, and, as Senator Scarr also said, the ban would commence one hour before the scheduled start of the match and end one hour after its conclusion. But the government will not be supporting this bill.

Our position on this bill should not be misconstrued as a lack of will to seriously address the harms of online gambling. In fact, between us and the opposition, we are the only party that is serious about addressing these harms, and the bill we are debating today is further evidence of this. It's nothing more than a thought bubble, and, if I were Senator Henderson, I might be a bit embarrassed to table it. Of course, if the opposition were truly serious about reducing gambling harm, they wouldn't have had this sudden interest. Let's not forget that those opposite, who were in government for almost a decade, were the architects of the current arrangements. But now, all of a sudden, the Leader of the Opposition and the coalition he leads have taken an interest in the harms presented by gambling advertising and are seeking to change these arrangements. So forgive me for being cynical if I don't take this sudden interest seriously, after years of inaction by those opposite.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rise above it!

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

Deputy President, could you please call that side to order?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are being a little bit rowdy. Please restrain yourselves.

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

Thank you, Deputy President. I sat very quietly through all of Senator Scarr's speech.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please proceed.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are.

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

They did nothing for almost a decade and they're not really serious now. I urge the Senate to reject this bill because those of us who are genuine about protecting Australians from gambling harm will have the opportunity to support a serious, evidence based and comprehensive government bill.

Perhaps if you hadn't been so busy chitchatting through my speech you would have heard what I said about children. If you are so interested in your bill, it might pay you to listen and learn what the concerns are.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk, please refrain from those types of comments.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. To reflect on a senator—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have dealt with the point of order, Senator Henderson.

The Deputy:

Senator Henderson, I have dealt with the point of order. It's not a debate. We have a long day ahead. Let's just calm the farm. Make me happy.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this private senator's bill, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023, as the Australian Greens spokesperson for sport. Sport is the fabric of our nation. It's the adrenaline from watching live sport in particular that Australians across this country love. There are 30-plus different types of live sport that you can watch at the tap of your phone. You can get live scores. You can watch the action. It's available to you all at the press of a button.

Gambling has become such an integral part of sport now. In fact, you can't even watch a game, participate in tipping competitions or even speak to people about a match or a race without them talking about the odds or 'multi' and the language that the industry uses now coming up in the conversation. It's horrendous because they have their own type of language that they use. Every ad break there is a gambling ad, unfortunately, in sport. Sports teams at every level are sponsored by gambling companies. At sporting venues, logos for gambling companies are plastered absolutely everywhere. They have just taken over the atmosphere. It was once quite pleasant to go and watch a live match. It's becoming more and more difficult to watch sport without being immersed in those ads, which come thick and fast at you. I agree that this bill goes some way to addressing that, but in fact it doesn't go far enough.

The Greens want an outright ban of gambling ads—at all times and on all platforms. This bill tinkers around the edges and it fails to take the action that's actually needed. The Greens support what the coalition are trying to do, the concept behind this bill and gambling reform, but we know that more reform is needed. It needs to be much broader than what's contained in this bill. Concerns have been raised—across the chamber by both sides and by Senator Hanson-Young, who has previously spoken—that simply banning gambling ads on broadcasts will push those ads onto radio, apps, websites and other avenues. In fact, we saw this the last time gambling ad reform happened, and this has already been highlighted.

People who mostly profit from this gambling advertising say that restricting the involvement of gambling companies will kill local sport, as gambling companies have so many partnerships with local sporting clubs and that gambling advertising revenue helps broadcasters air their local sports. It's ridiculous to say that, if we cut out gambling ads, the broadcasters can't do their job and broadcast local sports. I don't know how they're making that connection. The same was said when similar bans were put in train for tobacco. I'm happy to say that I'm a little bit young to have seen the whole spectrum of that, but it seemed ridiculous at the time that people were saying that tobacco companies aren't even allowed to sponsor or be involved in sport in the first place, and then we saw an amazing amount of reform happen.

The horrible and horrific thing that is ever present in the minds of parents—and this has been researched—is that children can now identify some of these betting companies based on their colours and their logos. The marketing strategy of these gambling companies is amazing. We didn't think it was acceptable when tobacco companies were doing this, so why do we think it's okay for gambling companies to do this?

I will give an example. A couple of years ago, in 2022, the live Brownlow Medal count was in Perth. I was in the room that night, but a whole lot of ads from Sportsbet were thrown up and there were odds for who was going to win the Brownlow that night. People were horrified and they reported it to the media. This is the one night in the AFL when all eyes are on the TV. People were watching the live medal count. In particular children were watching live their AFL star in the medal count. They were admiring them and hoping that they would win the Brownlow, which is such a prestigious award. What they saw, in fact, was Sportsbet ads being churned out at every opportunity and they were bombarded with the harmful messaging that they brought around gambling.

Senator Bilyk just mentioned that there's an inquiry report on this issue coming soon and that the government have flagged wider reform as a result of that report. I also want to be clear that this is in fact a huge opportunity. The community want to see us create change in this place and they want change. A recent survey of 3,000 AFL fans found that gambling ads was the most common concern. That was the most common thread across the survey results.

A majority of them supported an outright ban, and this again supports what the Australian Greens are calling for. We are calling for a complete ban, so I hope, when this report from the inquiry comes back—and the government have signalled that there will be wider reform—they start listening to the fans of the sports as well, and don't just think they know what they are all thinking. Governments at the state and territory level also want change. We know that the ACT Attorney-General has stated he would support a near complete ban on gambling ads. The South Australian government also called for a ban, while the New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmanian governments believe the current rules are in fact too weak. They have signalled that there needs to be change and there needs to be reform not just to their communities but also to us here in the federal parliament.

Several of my colleagues, in particular Senator Rice, who chairs the community services committee, have talked at length about the harm gambling causes—the real harm—and how addictive it is. This is a vicious industry that preys off the vulnerability of people in our communities. People have gone into debt, used their super and drained their savings because of gambling. Gambling has ruined relationships and some people have lost their homes because of their addiction to gambling. We also have the self-exclusion registers that operate across the country, and people place themselves on those as a measure of trying to end their addiction. But they have reported being targeted with matched bet offers to try and get them back into gambling, which is just horrendous. In fact, it is shameful that this is happening to Australians, where they are targeted after doing all of the work and putting themselves onto a self-exclusion register.

These gambling companies, sporting codes and broadcasters are all concerned about maintaining their profits, which is no surprise, right? They are facilitating and operating within this framework, and they actually believe the current rules are fine. It's like a 'nothing to see here, move on' type of process. We see a similar type of modus operandi from fossil fuel companies, for which I have the pleasure of being the spokesperson for the Australian Greens. It has been revealed that Australian soccer's governing body is taking cuts from bets being placed at competitions at all levels in the country, from international to local and suburban. We know there are similar deals between gambling companies and the NRL, the AFL and Cricket Australia, and some of these bodies are earning commissions of up to 17.5 per cent, totalling millions of dollars of revenue for these bodies. This means that of course they don't want reform. They don't want anything to change because they are profiting from it. It just shows how out of touch some people who directly benefit from gambling are.

The Racing NSW chief executive and ARL Commission chair has said that gambling is about entertainment, right? He said:

Just like you go to a restaurant and you buy a meal—that's entertainment. As long as you're responsible with what you're spending with that entertainment, it's no different to anything else.

I mean, seriously, how out of touch is this guy? Frankly, that statement is very offensive, and it fails to acknowledge the real harm that gambling poses to people. You don't hear about people who are addicted to gambling going to restaurants at all. They don't have any money to do that. It is an entirely different thing to compare going to a restaurant, having a meal and being responsible with someone who has an addiction to gambling. It is a real thing. The gambling industry has intentionally embedded itself deeply into sport, and it has made it difficult for people to escape and break the cycle of addiction. As I said, for someone to suggest that it's like buying a meal is disgraceful. It's absolutely disgraceful, and it's downright cruel, as far as I'm concerned, that you would prey on the vulnerability of people who have an addiction to gambling. Professor Samantha Thomas, who's a gambling and public health expert said:

Sporting organisations have such an important role to play in promoting the health and social wellbeing of our community, but they continue to have a complete blind spot when it comes to gambling, which is linked to some of our most pressing health and social problems.

I think of First Nations communities in my home state of Western Australia, and in the Northern Territory, Queensland and other places. We talk a lot about closing the gap in this place and we talk a lot about what that means in our communities. But when we think about the intergenerational trauma and vulnerability in those communities, I can tell you now that people also have those Sportsbet live-gambling apps on their phones. So it's time for this blind spot to actually be addressed and it's time for sporting codes, broadcasters and gambling companies to stop making such huge profits off the vulnerabilities of people who are just trying to enjoy sport. They're just trying to participate in it—they're trying to watch it. They're trying to engage in a social way and we're allowing that harm to creep in there.

It's time for a complete ban, in fact, on all gambling advertising. I did say that although I agree with the premise of what's in this bill, I don't think it goes far enough. We absolutely cannot afford to continue to tinker around the edges with this. We are in this place as elected members to look at these issues, to create change and to create reform. We have an opportunity to do that. We, as federal leaders, need to take that responsibility. We've already heard that the states and territories are on board. They actually want more reform; they're seeing the harm, and they're responsible for some of that harm, in their own states. But we need to do the work at this level first.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I totally support this Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 today. Gambling is a scourge on this country. It always has been and it always will be. I don't necessarily disagree with Senator Cox that it doesn't go far enough, but it is a start and for that reason we should at least support it. I have to say that I was completely shocked at Senator Bilyk's comments, where she wanted to take longer to look at this bill because there might be unintended consequences from passing this bill. I'm not quite sure what the unintended consequences would be.

We have a very good case study in this country called Western Australia. They don't have poker machines. I know we're not talking about poker machines in this specific bill, but they don't have gambling at all and they seem to survive without the poker machines. Do you have online gambling?

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They do.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess you do—online advertising. Still, the point is that we don't need gambling at all. Let's face it, to me this is about the whole point of gambling. I've just hated the creep of online gambling. It's not just the fact that it influences our children from a very young age—it brings gambling into their lives when they should just be watching sport and being motivated to go outside with a cricket bat and a ball, or with a footy and kick the footy around. Obviously, that influence is extremely bad, but there are also tax consequences to this.

Probably one of the easiest examples I can talk about is in regard to withholding tax. A lot of the online gambling companies aren't even based in Australia. When you park your $1,000 deposit into the account for future gambling, that money could go into an offshore account and it becomes very difficult to actually trace how much income is derived here in Australia. So it becomes another form of tax evasion that should be dealt with.

I'm not sure really how I'm going to fill up the full time to talk about this, because it's such a no-brainer. I can't see why we just can't support it. If Labor and the Greens want to add more to it later on then so be it—do it. But don't stop this from going ahead just because you don't think it goes far enough; it is a step in the right direction and every step counts. I'll leave it at that, other than to say that I'd probably support some of these motions that the Greens and Labor think should happen.

I do take umbrage at the idea that the states and territories are on board when it comes to cracking down on gambling, because they have been ripping off low-income and vulnerable people for years. I've seen that in my own state of Queensland. I grew up in Queensland quite happily and innocently in the seventies and eighties when we didn't have poker machines at all. We had our first casino, Jupiters Casino, in 1982. But most of Australia, or at least Queensland, survived for the best part of 150 years without having poker machines or any sort of formal online gambling. It pretty much stayed on the track. By all means, if you want to have a bit of punt, go down to the track on a Saturday afternoon, pull out your form guide and have a couple of brewskis, but not this idea of sitting in a pub 24 hours a day with access to a gambling machine. And it's only worse with online gambling. You don't even need to go to the pub to access that; you can access that on your iPhone at home.

It's interesting to talk about online entertainment. I think these iPhones are a bit of a scourge. There was a time, for example, 50 years ago, you might have had a radio and one TV channel that might have started at three o'clock in the afternoon. So you'd get pretty bored pretty quickly if you hung around the home. Today it's all too easy to get tied up with social media, online gambling, Netflix and whatever else. It's not doing society a lot of favours by allowing people to stay in their little ruts, in their little online worlds, and not get out to talk to people face to face.

I totally support this bill; I think it's a great bill. There should be more of it. I'm happy to say to Labor and the Greens, in good faith: if you want to go further with this bill, by all means, do so. I would happily look at supporting that. This is a step in the right direction. I don't see why you wouldn't support it in good faith.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill. I think it's fair to say that everyone in this place wants to see some level of reform, Senator Rennick. The contribution that you just made reminds me of a family member of mine, who is no longer with me now, but who certainly did listen a lot to a particular radio station that had the trots and racing and who ultimately did have an issue with gambling. He wasn't of the generation that had these things. You can only imagine the impact that gambling has on family and friends and many people in our community.

It is fair to say that everyone in this place genuinely wants to see serious reform. It is a process whereby we need to look at every piece of legislation as it comes into parliament for consideration. That's not to say that this government isn't doing anything about gambling generally. As you and others would know, through you, Chair, the government has set up an inquiry in the other place, in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. I would say the hope is that reforms will come out of that inquiry. I'm not sure exactly when that report is due. My understanding is that, at some stage this year, there will be some serious reforms that come out of that process.

It is important that, as a government and as a parliament, we respect the processes of our committees in this place. If we are to jump the gun, so to speak, what is the point of our committee structures? We should allow the members of parliament to do the work they're doing now, to go through the reports, the analysis and the evidence that's currently before them, and then sit down and actually work together about how we can best put forward reforms that tackle a scourge that is on our society, Senator Rennick. It's important that we listen to every member of this place. It's also important that we respect the processes. I would hope that everyone in the Senate would at least wait for the report that comes out of the House of Representatives before making their final position.

I wanted to add that the general feeling in the community is that we do need to do more and we do need to act in this policy area. Research from the Institute of Family Studies suggests that when people are exposed to wagering in advertising 21 per cent are prompted to start betting for the first time, 28 per cent tried a new form of betting, 29 per cent said that they placed bets on impulse, and a third of people increased their betting. This research also found that three in four Australians gambled at least once during the past 12 months and, of those, almost half were classified as being at some risk of harm from wagering.

These are some pretty confronting statistics and they suggest that most recent government action, in this space, implemented by the coalition government in 2018 had failed. It is also worth noting that this sudden interest in gambling harm reduction, on the other side, has also developed almost half a decade of inaction and inadequate policies. Now those opposite are attempting to reform this important and very complex area with a piecemeal private senator's bill today here in the Senate. Ultimately, the bill reforms some areas but ignores the totality of advertising.

I think the contribution from Senator Cox summed it up quite well too. We need to look at the whole package when it comes to advertising. In contrast to the coalition, the government is committed to getting this reform right, which is why there is a significant body of work being done to engage with stakeholders and community groups and develop a well-considered serious bill.

Part of this work is the inquiry, as I mentioned earlier, being conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. We are waiting on the report and its recommendations to come back to the parliament. As senators we should have a particular appreciation for respecting the work of a committee rather than jumping ahead and proposing a reform without regard for the recommendations that will come through the committee processes.

For those listening today in the gallery, it is important to note the work of this inquiry. The inquiry has particular regard to a number of areas:

As you can see, that's quite a comprehensive terms of reference currently before the other place, in terms of the impacts of online gambling on social media. These are all significant areas of interest and concern, and as a senator I'd like to see the outcomes and recommendations of this inquiry before we vote on reform in this place.

That's why the bill that is currently before us is somewhat premature. I would urge the coalition to come back to this place when we get the final report from that inquiry. Senator Henderson, I think it would be in your interest and the interest of the whole parliament that we consider the report of that House of Representatives committee stage before we make final consideration. As a former member of the other place I'm sure you would appreciate their committee processes as much as we appreciate ours. I think there needs to be that level of respect, on the committee processes, in the parliament. But I must say that it's obvious to me, from my reading, that the bill before us is somewhat half-baked and incomplete, Senator Henderson. As Senator Cox and others have mentioned, it is only focused on certain parts of the media spectrum—radio, TV and live streaming. We really need to look at the whole package, the whole suite, that is impacting a number of people, particularly those who are impacted by problem gambling. I think the contribution of those things should be looked at with some level of detail. A harm-minimisation approach needs to consider multichannels and situations.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don't you start with this, Senator Ciccone? It's a very good start!

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know if that's something you've considered, Senator Henderson. But it would help also if the coalition actually spoke to the industry, spoke to community groups and spoke to the range of organisations that have written to the House of Representatives inquiry, asking to give their input—

We're actually sitting this week, Senator Ruston. It would be important to look at the evidence that's being put by the industry, who actually do want to work with the government of the day in terms of making serious reforms. There are also a number of community groups who want to work with the government. I'm not sure if the coalition did consult those groups or not. I don't think that they did. Any reform in this area should be evidence based and, as parliamentarians, we should make use of the committee process to inform the development of the bills. The broad range of issues that need to be considered when reforming gambling advertising are being looked at by the committee. That's why the government will await the House of Representatives inquiry's final report and the full suite of evidence before proposing any changes.

I acknowledge the work being done by that committee and, particularly, the chair. It is a difficult policy, with many stakeholders seeking many different outcomes. I look forward to reviewing the report when it's complete.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We don't want review, we want action! You can support this!

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the process that we have to go through, Senator Henderson, as you did when you were last in government. I'm quite shocked to see that you are completely disregarding the processes of the parliament, particularly with those members in the other place who are doing a very good job in looking at this issue.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, get on with it and support this bill. Show you're serious!

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's fair to say there's a lot of common ground here, but we really want to get to a point, once the evidence and the reporting are actually finalised—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very passionate about this issue—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Henderson! You—

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your protection, Acting Deputy President Smith. Not that I need it, but thank you again—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You shouldn't reflect on the President.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I won't be reflecting on the President, don't worry.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senators! Senator Ciccone, please continue your remarks. Senate Henderson, please refrain from interjections.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The chair of that committee, and the committee, have undertaken that inquiry in a comprehensive way. Everyone in this place knows that reform is needed, but it's also difficult. If we do get it wrong there will be consequences—as the coalition did back in 2018. There were some reforms passed through this parliament but, to be honest, they didn't really have the impact and the effect that I guess you'd hoped for when you were last in government. That's probably why you're coming back to this place now with this piece of legislation, to try and get it through the parliament very quickly without any proper review or proper scrutiny.

Just because we're waiting on the recommendations from this committee doesn't mean that this government has also been sitting still. There have been a number of reforms that make sense; they've already had broad support and the government has committed to them. This includes banning credit cards for online gambling. This is very much a commonsense policy which means people aren't gambling with money that they don't have. I think most Australians would agree that if you're gambling with a credit card then you probably shouldn't be gambling at all. As I said earlier—

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a bit judgemental!

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You weren't here earlier, Senator Ruston, but, having seen a family member go through that, I think it's a good, sensible reform. It's not the only reform that this government will probably undertake, but some reform is better. It's good to see that at least when we consult with industry and consult with community groups we do get better outcomes.

We're also strengthening the classification of gambling-like features in video games to help protect children from exposure to harmful gambling practices and then developing concerning gambling habits. The government will also launch a self-exclusion register known as BetStop. BetStop will allow Australians to actively exclude themselves from online wagering and betting services in a single step for a minimum of three months and up to a lifetime. This is a significant reform which will allow Australians who recognise that they have a problem with online gambling to take positive and tangible steps to protect themselves from further gambling harm.

If this chamber is going to politicise this issue instead of waiting for the recommendations—that's all we're saying: be patient and wait for the recommendations from the inquiry in the House of Representatives, as would be appropriate—then let's take a look at the history of policy in this space. The only reason we have restrictions on gambling ads during live sport is that Labor acted on this when we were last in government. That's right. After a decade of coalition government, what did you actually do? It was a Labor government that implemented those reforms and called for further restrictions while in opposition. The fact is that the Liberals and Nationals are the architects of the current arrangements, which they now claim they want to change, and the architects of restrictions that have now proven to be inadequate.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can't revise history just because you're flapping your lips!

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston!

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Research by the regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, found that 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. Despite the fact that these figures from ACMA were released in 2019 and showed a 50 per cent increase in the volume of gambling spots on TV and radio, the coalition made no attempt to rectify the situation. They brought in the current gambling advertising rules and the commercial broadcasting tax, both of which were part of a broader deal struck with some media companies, which had little to do with harm minimisation. They took far too long to implement the National Consumer Protection Framework, and, four years after the framework was established, only six out of 10 important measures had actually been implemented.

In summary, I think it's fair to say that we should be waiting for the inquiry from the other place. I look forward to the coalition supporting the government's reforms, which, unlike this bill before us today, will be well considered and informed by a committee process.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Ruston that the question be put be agreed to.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As my colleague Senator Hanson-Young has said previously, the gambling industry feeds of addiction and profits from wrecking families' lives and sport. We have heard the government's contribution on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023, and it is hard to know quite how to characterise the government's contribution other than maybe they are riffing off Saint Augustine.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Senator Shoebridge. Senators, if you can please leave the chamber if you want to talk or sit down and be quiet, so we can listen to Senator Shoebridge.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's contribution on this bill and on gambling reform generally seems to be a kind of riff on Saint Augustine—you know, their position on the bill is, 'Oh Lord, give me gambling reform, but don't give it to me yet.' That is their basic position, but I think they have read more into Saint Augustine's writings because, if you look, you can also see another core part of Labor policy on gambling. It's another quote from Sanit Augustine: 'Faith is to believe in what you do not see.' Those are the two things that summarise Labor's position on gambling reforms. Faith is to believe in what we do not yet see from Labor.

There is a reason for that. It is because they are in part purchased by the gambling industry. They keep making donations to the Labor Party, and they are getting the kind of snail-paced pretend reform, faux reform, that they're paying for. It's a pretty simple analysis: you give a political party a bunch of money to prevent effective reform and then you see it play out here. You see it play out in an endless, slow-moving parliamentary committee. We all know this is urgent. We all know there is a pressing need, particularly to stop these gambling ads saturating the feeds of young people and working people. We know it is an urgent matter for reform, but where is the urgency from the government?

The response from the government is the kind of response the gambling industry has paid for. They are getting a really solid return on their donations to the Labor Party, and that is pretty, bloody clear. It is really depressing to see the way in which the gambling industry is degrading sports in this country—in fact, degrading sports across the planet because sport has always represented human excellence. Through teamwork, mental and physical skill and endurance, sports bring out the best in us, which is why, at no matter what age, Australians love our sport. From childhood to adulthood, Australians have always found sports to be an integral part of our social and cultural life. We wear the jersey with pride, whether playing for our club or cheering on our favourite team. It is part of who we are, and it taps into our core emotions from excitement, to anxiety, to elation, and, as we saw last night as New South Wales supporters, heartbreak. Sports always have and always will be a beautiful representation of human excellence—except at Suncorp Stadium and Lang Park!

It is something we enjoy with our friends and our family and something that actually brings us all together, but over the last several decades sports, like so much else under this dollar-driven market capitalist economy that dominates our social, our economic, our personal lives, sports have become severely commodified in the form of sports betting. In this country you can't escape sports betting advertising. When we catch public transport, we see it up there on buses, trains and trams. When we're online, we see it in the videos rolling in, suggesting the videos we watch, link after link to bet on the latest game or the upcoming match. And when we watch television or listen to radio, listen to podcasts, we are literally being bombarded with ads for sports betting. It has become almost inescapable in this country. The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation's recent report found that children and young adults now intrinsically associate betting with sports as a result of being bombarded with sports betting ads. That is so deeply wrong, but that is the link that the gambling industry are willing to pay millions and millions for. They're willing to pay for the ads to saturate our social media feeds, to bombard us when we're on the train, to grab our attention in the middle of the match and before the match. They're paying to make that addictive link. They pay millions to make billions. That's what the gambling industry does with advertising. They pay millions for advertising to make billions in profits off some of the most vulnerable in this country.

In my home state of New South Wales, gambling is a massive problem. In many ways New South Wales is a society which has one of the worst gambling problems on the planet. It is estimated that gambling losses in the last several years have exceeded $9.5 billion a year. That's just losses. That's not the total amount that's gambled; that's just the amount that's been lost by ordinary people all across my home state of New South Wales—$9.5 billion a year, and probably more than that. While pokies are still the biggest problem in New South Wales, with losses of more than $7 billion per year just on poker machines, or $21½ million a day every day in my home state—

Debate interrupted.