Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

The amendments were unavailable at the time of publishing.

The amendments I'm moving today have six objectives, but the overarching purpose is to draw attention to the fact that the bill has real room for improvement. It could do so much more to address the concerns of the community. I do not object to the changes being made by the bill and will happily support it, because we need to stop credit cards being used for gambling, but the bill could have and should have gone much further and delivered more of the changes the community wants to see from this government on gambling.

My amendments will deliver some of those changes. The first is a comprehensive ban on advertising by online gambling businesses. In our daily lives we are inundated with gambling advertising, from branding on sports jerseys and signage across stadiums to constant reminders about odds during sports and news broadcasts. It's absolutely everywhere.

A comprehensive ban was one of most important recommendations of the recent House inquiry into online gambling and one that I personally believe we need to see swiftly implemented. The government and opposition have both said the status quo needs to change, but we have yet to see real action on legislative reform. There is no time to waste when real lives are being impacted.

The first step should be a total ban on online gambling and then a move to prohibiting inducements, preventing odds being reported during sports broadcasts and phasing out team sponsorships by gambling companies. Secondly, we must ban political donations by online gambling businesses. In an ideal world, businesses that engage in harmful practices would not be able to exert influence over our political process through donations or favours. We are a long way off this world, but we can take a step in that direction by prohibiting donations from gambling businesses.

The third step is to have Treasury look at how GST distribution is affected by state gambling policies and, at the very least, ensure states are not penalised for stricter gambling regulation. It is an incredibly narrow, technical issue which nonetheless shapes the incentives of state and territory governments when it comes to gambling regulation. Those governments are more reluctant to take action if the loss of gambling tax revenue is compounded by the loss of GST revenue as well. We should reform current distribution arrangements so that it's no longer a problem, and we should consider providing incentives for those governments to take sensible steps to limit harm and problem gambling within their jurisdictions.

The fourth step is to establish a federal gambling regulator. As a House inquiry has shown, online gambling is regulated at the state and territory level, but, as the activity is online, the businesses can be based wherever they please. This creates a regulatory race to the bottom, where states can offer weaker regulatory frameworks and lower tax rates to attract businesses and gambling tax revenue to their jurisdictions. We should establish a national regulator to: ensure that all businesses are subject to a robust regulatory framework that emphasises the importance of consumer protection; support those at risk of problem gambling; impose minimum standards across all operators; and ensure that gambling businesses pay an appropriate amount of tax.

The fifth step is to require the government to make a formal response to the House inquiry into online gambling. This inquiry was a substantial piece of work. It received 160 submissions from across the community, held 13 public hearings and made 31 recommendations. The final report was tabled back in June, but we are yet to receive a formal response from the minister.

The last of my amendments would prohibit gambling businesses from employing politicians or senior public servants after they leave office. There is a huge potential conflict of interest for anyone who is responsible for overseeing and regulating these businesses. These decisions can have a massive influence on the profitability of gambling businesses, and those decisions could be influenced by the prospect of a high-paying appointment. We should act today to introduce rules that prevent this behaviour and protect the integrity of our political and regulatory frameworks. My amendment would prohibit any parliamentarian or senior public servant from taking up employment with a gambling business for two years after they leave office or five years if they have had direct responsibility for gambling policy or regulation.

These are six things the government could do that would go a long way towards improving integrity and delivering on community expectations about how gambling activity should be regulated and controlled. I strongly encourage the government not to underrate the depth of feeling in the community about these matters. A huge number of people genuinely feel that the prevalence of gambling promotion is ruining their enjoyment of sport and is ruining people's lives. This is felt particularly strongly by parents, who want to watch football or cricket with their kids without the constant references to gambling odds.

I suspect the government will not be supporting these amendments, so I invite the minister to address each of these issues I have raised. I would particularly encourage her to commit to responding to the online gambling inquiry before parliament rises for the summer.

See this speech in context