Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

In 2012, something occurred in this country which significantly changed the way that we think about the issue of gambling and, particularly, the marketing and advertising of gambling. In mid-2012 a brash young bookmaker from a very famous family blasted his way into just about every living room in the country. You couldn't turn on the TV, let alone watch a sports broadcast, without seeing this particular character's smiling face thrusting through the screen of your television. It was marketing saturation like we had never seen before. Of course, it came after the advent of mobile phone applications, which effectively mobilised the way that gambling can be done and, particularly, placing a bet—having a punt—can be done in this country.

In the gambling days of my youth, you would have to go to an oncourse bookmaker or the TAB or one of the other approved bookmakers to place a bet. But with the advent of mobile phone applications you literally could do it anywhere, at any time, on just about any code that a bookmaker was willing to take a bet on. What we had was the ubiquity, or mobilisation, of punting with the absolute saturation of advertising around a particular bookmaking service.

Other bookmakers responded in kind. They couldn't be left behind in what was becoming a very competitive market. It would be very easy for us to just point the finger at the bookmakers and say, 'There is where the fault lies.' It's a legal business. I have a punt occasionally myself. I didn't particularly like the way they were going about their advertising but, you know, you can't really blame that person—that's the way the rules allowed it to occur.

I do have a slightly different view, I have to say, about the codes themselves and the broadcasters, because if they have concerns about the provisions that are in the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017, and the provisions that were in the 2013 measures, they need look no further than themselves and their own behaviour. They were greedy, they saw a new stream of money coming in the door and they thought, 'This is fantastic.' For the codes, it enabled them to pump up the rights or the costs that they were demanding of the broadcasters for their games. For the broadcasters, they saw this as a new stream of revenue to either supplement their income to pay for the increased broadcasting rights or to fill the gap where other sources of advertising income had fallen over.

We saw a combination—you had the bookmaking integrated into absolutely every aspect of a sports broadcast. It was to a point where you could not tell the difference between commentary and spruiking the odds. In fact, there was a deliberate attempt to blur the lines between the commentary and the gambling promotion and advertising. It was the complete gamblification of sporting—particularly elite sport—broadcasts. There was an overwhelming public reaction. I don't care whether you're a member of the Labor caucus, a member of the Liberal or National caucus or an Independent. You would have received a wall of complaints from sports fans around the country. You could not take your kid to the match without having gambling advertising thrust down their throat. It sent a very clear message not only to the adults in the stadium or in the living room but also to the kids who were there with them: if you aren't having a punt on this game, on this fixture, you aren't really a fan. If you're not gambling as a way of watching and engaging in your particular sporting code then you're not really a fan.

The reaction from families and citizens around the country was overwhelming. I was a junior backbencher in this place at the time and I prepared a private member's bill to address the issue. I was active within my caucus. I worked with the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the then communications minister, Steven Conroy, to come up with a solution. Otherwise, I thought, a private member's bill was the answer to the problem that all MPs in this place were confronting: a public backlash. I was very pleased that a solution was brokered, and that solution persists to this day. In part, it is a solution which limited the times and the places in which TV advertising for bookmaking, for the gambling within a sport, could be conducted.

At that time, all generic gambling broadcast advertisements were banned during play, and advertisements of this sort could only be allowed before and after the game or during scheduled breaks in play, such as at quarter-time and half-time. The machinery for implementing this ban was an Australian Communications and Media Authority regulated—or authorised, or approved—code. So there was a co-regulation measure, the same sort of measure that is being used to enliven the provisions anticipated in this bill before the House today. A good example of co-regulation would be getting the broadcasters and the codes in the room, knocking some heads together and saying: 'What you are doing today is out of step with community expectations. Change has to occur. It will either occur with you, it will occur by you or it will occur to you.' That is the choice that has to be made. I think parliament acted very, very responsibly. Across the divide, we were unified on this particular issue.

In July 2013 the Australian Communications and Media Authority registered the new codes. They were satisfied that they contained the appropriate community standards, the expectations that government had put to the industry. It is notable that a media release that accompanied the code registration from the authority stated:

… the codes do not cover the field of community concerns around gambling advertising and general sports programming. For example, ACMA research also indicates just over 60 per cent of the community find unacceptable the presentation of odds and general gambling advertisements during sports-related programs.

So at that the point in time there was a signalling that there would in all likelihood be a second step. So the broadcasters and the codes themselves have seen this coming. This is another step, a good step, in the process of ensuring the regulation and the practices in these sports and in the broadcast of these sports is in step with community expectations.

We have to be very clear with the community. If, like me, you believe that some of our most popular codes should be available on free-to-air broadcasting—they should be available for anybody to watch, whether they have a pay TV subscription or not—then the corollary of that is that there has to be advertising, because you have to pay for broadcasting rights. You have to pay for the right to be a broadcaster and to broadcast. That money has to come from somewhere, and in free-to-air television the business model is that money comes from advertising revenue. So what this measure is saying, and what the previous measures have said, to the industry and to the codes is: 'You've got to get the balance right. We do not think it is within community norms that within the hours of 5 am and 8.30 pm these advertisements are appropriate during sports broadcasts. Outside of those hours, the 2013 code provisions still apply.'

So we think the measure is right. We think we have got a good balance in these measures. It may not be the last word on the matter, because I think this is an issue where the community is clearly saying to the politicians, to the members of parliament and to the government, 'We want to ensure that the regulation matches our expectations'. I support the provisions—Labor supports the provisions—within the bill. They will, as I said, ensure or propose to restrict gambling advertising during live sport between the hours of 5 am and 8.30 pm.

It provides for a corollary set of regulations for online broadcast. This is important. The regulation in this area needs to be platform neutral, because, increasingly, people are watching their sports broadcast on a mobile phone. One of the large telecommunications carriers famously has the ability and provides the package to broadcast certain sporting fixtures over mobile phone devices. People will watch it on the beach on an iPad, so we have to have a platform-neutral way of regulating these provisions. I support the fact that there are provisions within the scheme for regulating online broadcasting as well. It provides for some exemptions. Time will tell whether these exemptions are going to work properly or not. We agree with the government, there may be an argument for some exemptions to occur in relation to some very niche and very small provisions, but we'll want to watch and see how these operate. We clearly foreshadow that there may be an issue for further reform in the future.

The new online provisions are cast very broadly. Schedule 8 covers the internet. It says that any service that delivers or allows users to access content using an internet carriage service to the public and has a geographical link to Australia and if:

… the service is targeted at individuals physically present in Australia or any of the content on the service is likely to appeal to the public, or a section of the public, in Australia.

It is very broadly cast. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that the online content service provider rules will not need to regulate all online content services, and the bill provides for a very broad range of exemptions, as I have already identified. The exemptions may be appropriate because we recognise there is a wide variety of online content services with different business models and different technical characteristics. Exemptions to the online content service provider rules will be considered by the ACMA and an exemption must be in writing for it to be valid; otherwise the general rules will provide.

There has been some discussion within this debate and alternative mechanisms proposed in relation to the SBS, the Special Broadcasting Service. Of course, unlike the ABC, the SBS, under its charter, has a limited provision to attract paid advertising to help its government supplementation. It is not conceivable that we would put in place a scheme such as this and not anticipate that the SBS would also be covered by it. However, the SBS does present itself as a slightly different category of broadcasting entity because of its own charter, and we simply say that our changes are directed at ensuring that the SBS has the same restrictions placed upon it and is able to comply with those restrictions. However, we need to do that through a different mechanism to ensure that the integrity and the independence of the SBS, vis-a-vis the parliament and the government of the day and the ACMA, is respected. The intent is the same. How we get there, and how the Labor opposition proposes we get there, are slightly different.

With those comments in mind, Labor thinks that this is an important piece of legislation and regulation. It has a long history—a history that I have been integrally involved in. We want to see this work. We want to see the commercial model for free-to-air broadcasting of sports fixtures continue. We want to see that available on free-to-air television, but we want community expectations to be respected as well.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context