Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am certainly pleased to rise to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform's second report into interactive and online gambling and gambling advertising as well as a bill, Interactive Gambling and Broadcasting Amendment (Online Transactions and Other Measures) Bill 2011.

I speak to this report from the position where I had the good fortune, some might say, of being the coalition's delegate to the United Nations General Assembly. That impacted upon my opportunity to participate in this inquiry. I had the good fortune of being able to be part of the initial hearings that took place and the preliminary work that was undertaken in the lead up to this inquiry, but I was unable to participate in the public hearings that took place in the latter part of this inquiry. That notwithstanding, this remains an area of particular interest to me. It is an area that deals with regulation on the Commonwealth level as well as a review, to some extent, of state and territory based legislation that deals with interactive gambling and, more broadly, the issue of sports betting and the other forms of gambling.

We know from the inquiry—and I certainly do share common ground with both the committee chair and with Labor members of the committee—that there is a rapidly growing segment of the market that is dealing with online gambling and with sports betting. There is no doubt that this is an area that is growing rapidly. And the work that the committee has undertaken with regard to interactive gambling and online gambling builds upon the work that the committee has undertaken in respect of electronic gaming machines. Indeed, there are references in the chair's draft comments that deal with this particular issue.

There can be no doubt that there is community angst about the level of problem gambling in Australian society. That is understandable and justifiable. There can be no doubt that problem gambling has a very negative and profound impact on the lives of many Australians. To want to deal with the negative externalities that flow from a pathological addiction to gambling is, of course, natural, and something that I completely support and endorse.

The question always, though, is how: how we, as a government—and I use the term in the broadest sense, obviously, as a member of the opposition—deal with people who have a problem controlling their urges when it comes to gambling. It just so happens that the focus of this inquiry dealt with those urges in relation to sports betting and in relation to interactive gambling. Concurrently with the inquiry process that was undertaken by the gambling reform committee, there was of course a separate coalition gambling reform committee which is still looking at this as a policy alternative and an area of policy development for the coalition.

In this respect, the supplementary comments that were made by the coalition committee members highlighted that in many respects we were withholding our judgment until the coalition gambling reform committee completed its work and analysis on problem gambling insofar as it related to this inquiry on online interactive gambling and sports betting. As a personal member of the House, I would highlight some of the concerns that I have in respect of some of the recommendations that were made by the committee in the majority sense, that being Andrew Wilkie, the member for Denison, the Independent Senator Nick Xenophon and, of course, the Labor members of this inquiry. To put some context around this, the Interactive Gambling Act was actually an initiative of the Howard government. This act was put in place in 2001 at the behest of the then coalition government as an attempt to deal with the issues of online gambling and interactive gambling, and it was the precursor to this inquiry in many respects, although it was more than a decade ago. What has changed in that period of time? I have read through the recommendations and in the broader sense there are many aspects of the recommendations that seem reasonable and well-intentioned with regard to trying to reduce the incidence of problem gambling and trying to reduce the inducements that may lead to problem gambling.

However, there are some recommendations in this report that I personally—I am not speaking on behalf of the coalition but as a member of parliament—find bizarre to say the least. Take, for example, recommendation 16. I will not read all of the recommendation because it is a fairly lengthy one, but in summary it says that the committee recommends that the COAG Select Council of Gambling Reform, in consultation with others, look at developing:

… a mandatory national code of conduct for advertising by wagering providers covering:

and it is this fourth one that I find, frankly, bizarre—

I highlight in particular this recommendation because I think this underscores the way in which this debate is perhaps being a little railroaded.

There is, some would argue—and I suggest the chair and obviously Labor members opposite support this point of view—a precedent for the banning of company logos on sporting players' uniforms as well as restrictions on the giveaways of free merchandise which depict betting companies' logos. The precedent that they would use is of course the prohibition on tobacco company logos at sporting events. That was something that was put forward some time ago and most, if not all, Australians are comfortable with that. But it strikes me as strange that Labor members and zealots like the member for Denison and Senator Xenophon would in some way parallel gambling with cigarette smoking. There is a big and fundamental difference, and it is this: there is not a single cigarette that you can smoke which does not do you harm. If you have a cigarette, it has a negative impact on your health. Plus, nicotine is known to be addictive; it is a statement of medical fact.

See this speech in context