Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

URPHY () (): As speakers before me have noted, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Industry Self-Classification and Other Measures) Bill 2023 is the first of the government's responses to the Stevens review and, of course, it's a very important response. The 2020 Stevens review was released by this government in March of this year. I was really pleased to see the minister make a number of commitments on behalf of the Australian government—expanding options for industry to self-classify content, providing exemption from classification for foreign-language films distributed by public libraries and routine exhibitions hosted by cultural institutions, and removing the need to reclassify content that has already been classified for television We see that commitment come to fruition in this bill. The government also committed to consulting with industry and other key stakeholders on broader classification reforms, and that consultation is something that the minister and the minister's office have been very diligent about doing.

The third announcement, which is something I wanted to briefly speak about, is to seek agreement of state and territory attorneys-general as co-partners in the scheme to introduce a mandatory minimum classification of R 18+ for games which contain simulated gambling, and M for computer games containing paid loot boxes. I'm the chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. We recently finished quite a long inquiry into the regulatory regime and harm reduction for online gambling, and it included looking at loot boxes and simulated gambling.

As we concluded in the report that we recently handed down, the evidence was clear that young Australians—children—are increasingly exposed to gambling-like activities. They're widely available and marketed to them on all digital platforms. There is a problem with the regulation and age gating. One only has to speak to parents to know that that is the case. My friends talk about their nine-, 10- and 11-year-old children using loot boxes and simulated gambling in online gaming; they didn't realise they were using it until they really stopped and interrogated the game. Mind you, one of my friend's children was smart enough to know how to use her credit card to pay. And you don't need anecdotes like that. The research presented to the committee suggests that simulated gambling in interactive games normalises gambling for children and young people and carries risks for lifelong addictive behaviours and the range of harms that online gambling causes.

There is still some debate within the evidence about whether there is a causal link or simply a correlation between the harms of loot box features and young people gambling with real money and experiencing harm from gambling in adulthood. But it's the committee's view and my view that we shouldn't be waiting. We shouldn't be waiting for another generation to be exposed to something that we know is, at the very least, associated with—and some of the evidence suggests it's causal—significant harms when we know the significant harms that online gambling is already causing adults in our community. That is why the committee was very pleased with the government's commitment to dealing with this, in part, through changes to the classification scheme.

The world has changed so significantly since most of us were children that sometimes it's hard to understand the changes. I had no idea what a loot box was before I started this inquiry, which we recently finished. It's yet another way that technology has improved lives but also has the potential and the reality to cause harm. It raises again that it is incumbent on governments to be alert to this, regulate, and work with industry, and not just always be playing catch up. That is why the government has committed to implementing important reforms in this bill.

We've reached a point where most people understand that it's not viable just to sit back and say, 'Let's see how this piece of technology evolves' or 'Let's see what happens with this and then we can work out what to do with it.' At times, that has been an appropriate way to regulate and to legislate. But things are changing so fast that the harms can sometimes not be predicted. We need to review where we're at and what sort of framework we can put in place that has the capacity to deal with the known and the unknown changes that are coming. It may well have to be tweaked and changed as we go, but at least we'll have a framework to deal with these things. The classification system's framework hasn't been updated for so long that it hasn't been able to do that.

I want to return briefly to loot boxes and simulated gaming. There is no doubt that the government's commitment is a good first step in ensuring that consumers can make more informed purchasing decisions and is consistent with the evidence we received in the inquiry about the harm of these types of games. Some games contain loot boxes more closely resembling gambling than others and, therefore, have a greater risk of harm. As the government is conducting its consultation, it's worth considering a granular approach to determining the classification of games with loot boxes through the National Classification Scheme. Games containing loot boxes that can be purchased and closely resemble gambling should be given a higher classification.

There is also an issue with online app stores. They vary in their age-rating systems—for example, Steam, a popular computer game storefront, doesn't require game developers to classify games at all. There is some work to be done there as well so that ratings are uniform across all platforms and consumers can have clear and consistent information to help them make safer choices.

The social policy and legal affairs committee also received submissions about a number of consumer protections that the government could consider to complement changes to the National Classification Scheme when we're talking about loot boxes and simulated gambling. They include things like public information campaigns to educate consumers, parents, caregivers, teachers and young people on elements of simulated gambling, and the need to make sure that warning labels that come with online gambling tools are effective and that people, particularly parents, understand that such warnings mean there's a risk element in the game. We need to consider incorporating effective simulated-gambling warning labels into the National Classification Scheme, and we need to look at what minimum consumer protections for interactive games should be and whether any of them need legislative mechanisms—for example, spending controls, transparent odds and drop rates for items, and algorithmic loot box figures disabled as a default setting, allowing players to opt in.

A number of international jurisdictions have looked at banning loot boxes and simulated gambling. The committee didn't feel that we had enough evidence to say whether that's an effective way to address the issue or whether, in fact, it would have more positive than negative consequences. There are examples out there that the government can also monitor to see the outcome of different approaches in different jurisdictions. I'm confident that the minister will look at all of these issues in her consultations. I know that this government is committed to making the classification scheme fit for purpose for the modern time, but it's also committed to putting harm reduction at the heart of how we look at issues like gambling and simulated gambling, which, as I started off, is often a gateway—if I can put it like that—to actual gambling.

I'm very pleased that we have a government that's acting on the Stevens review and will be taking classification seriously and working with industry to make sure it works. I commend this piece of legislation and congratulate the government and the minister for their commitment to continuing with this process.

See this speech in context