Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Labor knows there is a deep community concern about the level of gambling promotion during live sport. We have a strong record on this side of the House of seeking to address these concerns. Indeed, more than a year ago, Labor called for stronger restrictions on gambling promotion during coverage of live sport. The government did make a policy announcement a little after we went public—I think at around the time of last year's budget—but it took them till December to bring a bill before the parliament. And a number of question marks do remain about the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017, but, as the shadow minister has said, it is at least a step in the right direction.

On this side of the House, we remain concerned that, despite the restrictions, the gambling lobby will still be able to broadcast gambling ads during live sport events when many children will still be watching. Australians—adults and children—should be able to watch live sport without the intrusion of gambling ads. Australian parents deserve the confidence of knowing that their children can watch sports without being subjected to a barrage of betting odds. This legislation goes some way to providing that with the so-called safe zone, but, as we all know, kids do stay up a bit later than we otherwise might like. Children should not be rattling off the odds of their team and how much money can be made by beating their opponents. That should not be the talk of the playground. Kids' brains are sponges. If anybody thinks gambling ads and betting odds are not worming their way into children's brains and affecting the way they think about gambling then they need to think again. Australians do not want gambling ads aired during live sport—full stop. And if we want a lesson on how seriously Australians take their sport, we only have to reflect on the past few days of the test in South Africa, and that's about all that needs to be said on that subject!

Labor will not stand in the way of this bill progressing through the parliament. It's not as good as it should be, but it's as good as the government will give. A ban on ads between 5 am and 8.30 pm is at least a start. The Australian Communications and Media Authority commissioned research that showed 61 per cent of Australians do not want gambling advertised during live sports broadcasts, regardless of the time of day. The restrictions that the government has placed on broadcasting during the live events do not go far enough and, indeed, even the government's own explanatory memorandum to the bill states:

… many sports events commence between 7pm and 8pm or take place on weekend afternoons when there are significant child audiences. Children are thus exposed to significant levels of gambling advertising on television which risks increasing adolescents' desire to experiment with gambling. Increased exposure to gambling advertisements has also been associated with more positive youth gambling attitudes and intentions towards gambling.

It also states:

Further, the Department has received and continues to receive a significant amount of correspondence from the community, expressing concern about the impact of gambling advertising on child audiences. In a recent campaign the Department received over 1150 emails calling for gambling advertising in association with live sport to be banned.

As the explanatory memorandum says, many events start at 7 or 8 pm. So this bill will restrict advertising for the first quarter or first half of a match, but I don't know many sports fans who will be switching off before the end of the game, and I don't know many parents who would risk telling their young ones that it's bedtime, when their team is still on telly. From 8.30 pm those banners and those flashy ads will appear, telling viewers the odds and encouraging them to place a bet.

Having a punt is part of Australian culture. Whether it's goldminers and Anzacs chucking coins into the air, the nation stopping work at 3 pm on the first Tuesday in November or millions of us in the draw for the Lotto each week, we enjoy risking a few bucks in the hope that we'll rake in a lot more. Gambling, like drinking, has a legitimate place as a pleasurable pursuit, in moderation. But like drinking it can also be a curse for individuals caught in the grip of addiction and a scourge on the community having to deal with the impacts.

The people who own the casinos and the pokies make a lot of money from the rest of us, and good luck to them. They know that for every dollar they pay out on a jackpot they are collecting $10 or $100 more from folk who lose a lot more than they win. The thing about people who make easy money is that they want to keep making it and not be told by governments that the community interest is best served by limiting their ability to continue to make such big profits. Earlier this month there was a state election in Tasmania. On the Labor side, we have never seen its like before and I hope for the good of public discourse that we never see it again.

Labor announced months before that election that a Labor government would remove poker machines from pubs and clubs by 2023 and restrict them to the state's two casinos. The five-year gap would allow pubs and clubs with pokies to transition their businesses. Some could apply for transition-assistance funding. We know that pubs don't need pokies to survive or even thrive. There are plenty in Tasmania without them and, of course, over in WA the pub scene, which is entirely pokie-free, is thriving. So getting pokies out of pubs and clubs in Tasmania was the right decision for the community, and it was evidence based, but it was a politically-courageous decision because Labor knew that it would unleash the gambling lobby.

I'm sorry to say that the re-elected state government did the gutless thing and backed in the gambling lobby, despite all the evidence so clearly stating that to do so was not in the best interest of the community. I don't think that anybody foresaw the ferocity, the desperation and the naked power and wealth of the gambling lobby, but it was unleashed and we have never seen anything like it before in Tasmania. Pubs with pokies brandished giant 'Vote Liberal' signs and staff at pokies pubs and clubs were directed—not all of them, but some were absolutely directed—to wear 'Vote Liberal' shirts. Full-page ads were published day after day after day after day in the daily newspapers.

I've heard, anecdotally, that the pokies lobby spent $10 million on that campaign and that they had another $10 million in the war chest in reserve, ready to be spent if necessary. And because of Tasmania's weak electoral financial disclosure laws we may never know the true amount. But that's how desperate the pokies lobby was to stop Labor's plan to put community interests ahead of corporate profit. They stopped at nothing. Blatant lies about the number of jobs affected were told and repeated again and again, despite proof—hard proof—being offered that the true figure was less than one-tenth of what had been implied and claimed. It was a startling illustration of the power of wealth in distorting public discourse and it gives us some insight into the stakes at play.

It is our job in parliament, whether it's this chamber or in a state legislature, to act always in the best interests of the community, not in the narrow interests of one section of the community with skin in the game. The fact is that gambling can be a curse for those caught in the grip of addiction, and a curse for their loved ones. Homes can be lost, marriages fail and children become estranged. There can be a spiral into alcohol and other drug addiction. Gambling used to be something we only got exposed to as adults, but now it's potentially in front of our children whenever they're before a screen, whether it's a smartphone, tablet, laptop, PC or TV. We do struggle as parliamentarians to regulate the online universe, with so many websites hosted overseas, often via opaque accountability, but that doesn't mean we should shrug our shoulders and give up. I'm pleased to see that online gambling is being captured by this legislation, albeit with a raft of exemptions.

It does concern me, as a parent, that my children can be exposed to gambling advertising during sporting events. It normalises the gambling experience for young, inquisitive minds. If they are exposed to it enough, they automatically associate betting and gambling with sport. Like popcorn and movies, one becomes unthinkable without the other.

Deakin University did some research which points out a number of very concerning issues in regard to children and gambling advertising on television. It found that more than 90 per cent of children can recall having seen an advertisement for sports betting. The research found that three-quarters of children aged eight to 16 can recall the name of at least one sports betting brand, and approximately 25 per cent can recall four brands or more. This is the sort of recall that any teacher would be proud of after months in the classroom. Also, 75 per cent of children think gambling is a normal or common part of sport. Parents conveyed concerns that gambling advertising is so prevalent that it is changing the way their kids think and talk about sport. I know that's what this legislation seeks to address, and we are supporting it. My concern is that it simply does not go far enough.

It also concerns me, as a representative of some of the most vulnerable people in our community, that gambling is promoted so readily. Access to it is absolutely as simple as owning a smartphone. Long gone are the days when you had to head down to the pub or to the local TAB to put a couple of dollars on an event. Regardless of your opinion about gambling, a visit to the pub or the TAB to place a bet is at least a bit of a social event—you talk to your mates and catch up with people, and it gets you out of the house. But now you don't even have to leave your lounge room to bet on a race, a match, the cricket, the footy or even an election. An ad flashes on the screen for a betting company while you're watching a test match or grand final, you reach for your phone, you press the app and you place a bet. It's that easy. I bet, with the algorithms in those apps, the more you bet the more they flash, so there could be a spiral there too. We're not in the business of telling people what to do with their money, but we're also not in the business of being bag men for the gambling lobby. Let them make their money, but let them work that little bit harder for it.

This bill also permits broad exemptions with regards to online advertising and online content providers. It's a bit of a shame that in seeking to draw online content in that these exemptions are there. What exactly those exemptions or their impact will be, we're not quite sure, because the criteria is still to be developed. It will be considered by ACMA once the legislation is passed. We can only hope and pray.

The government announced this policy in May last year, yet there was no legislation forthcoming until the final sitting week of last year, so we still don't know the full effect and impact this bill will have. But there's no doubt that this government has failed to bring its legislative framework into the 21st century. Instead, it's tinkering with outdated, pre-internet law that is no longer relevant, and adding yet another schedule—bolting it on like Frankenstein's monster—for online services onto the Broadcasting Services Act. It's yet another example of this government failing to plan, failing to look ahead to the future and failing to develop policy and legislation that will be as relevant tomorrow and the day after that as it is today. I will just say three letters: NBN. That speaks for itself about what happens when you don't plan for the future.

It shows a complete disregard for the concern of Australians to continue to allow gambling during live sports events and to not properly address the issue of online content. In fact, online platforms were only included by the government at the urging of the broadcast sector, who saw the need for a level playing field. So at least we've come some way. Broadcast services will be regulated by industry codes of practice while online platforms will be regulated directly by ACMA. It's not the best situation, but that's the best we can hope for. As the shadow minister said, we also have concerns about the impact on the independence of the SBS. I'm sure further speakers will address those points.

See this speech in context