Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) | Hansard source

Bonus bets, deposit matches, betting credits, VIP programs, special offers pushed directly to customers—these aren't simply advertisements saying, 'Here is our product if you would like to use it.' They are designed to get somebody to put another bet on. The Murphy inquiry heard that inducements can make gambling appear less risky while actually encouraging riskier bets and greater expenditure. VIP programs deserve particular scrutiny because they target people who are gambling and often losing very large amounts.

Some of the evidence presented to the current Senate inquiry into this legislation has been deeply disturbing. The inquiry heard allegations of extraordinarily large bonus bets and VIP treatment involving travel, accommodation and tickets and much more serious allegations involving drugs and sex workers in the cultivation of high-value gamblers. The betting companies concerned have strongly denied knowledge of some of those allegations and call for evidence of illegal conduct to be provided to police. That is important to put on the record, but the evidence should still make every parliamentarian ask, 'How did we get to a point where competition for someone's gambling dollar can involve inducements of this scale?'

I believe strongly in personal responsibility, but we also need to understand what addiction does. Addiction can impair the parts of our brain that help control impulses, weigh consequences and make rational decisions. When a betting company sends an inducement to somebody it knows is gambling heavily, we cannot simply wash our hands of it and say, 'Oh well, it's personal responsibility.' The company knows who it is targeting. It has the data, and the inducement is designed to produce another bet. That is partly why we're here today.

I didn't want to rely only on lobbyists, industry groups or commentators to tell me what people think. I went directly to my community—814 people responded to my gambling advertising reform survey. More than 90 per cent supported stronger restrictions, and 71 per cent supported the Murphy review's recommendation for a complete phased ban on gambling advertising and sponsorship, while another 20 per cent supported significant restrictions without a complete ban. When I asked what our highest priority should be, 43 per cent said reducing gambling addiction and harm, and another 38 per cent said protecting children and young people. More than four in five put reducing harm or protecting our kids first, and 245 respondents—almost one in three—said they or somebody in their family have been negatively affected by gambling. Behind all the arguments about advertising models, broadcast revenue and sponsorship are real people, real families and real consequences.

I want to put some of their voices on the parliamentary record. One constituent wrote:

The constant bombardment of gambling ads during family shows and sports is ridiculous and needs to stop. I have an 18-year-old son with multiple friends the same age, who already have gambling addictions. It is really bad.

Another constituent said that—this is really heartbreaking—when their 10-year-old grandchild suggested gambling as a means to make money, they knew that 'gambling advertising is something we need to ban'. Countless respondents revealed personal stories, recounting the physical loss, hardship and grief caused by gambling addiction. They shared stories of financial loss and hardship, of criminal prosecution for fraud committed to support addiction, of the breakdown of relationships, of the breakdown of their family unit and of suicide. For many constituents, the problem and the answer is clear. Kerrie said:

The constant promotion of betting during sporting events, entertainment programs, and across digital platforms normalises gambling as a routine part of everyday life. This repeated exposure can influence children and young people before they are old enough to understand the risks, while also making it more difficult for people experiencing gambling harm to reduce or stop gambling.

Not everybody agreed. Lesley from my electorate told me his mother gambled so much after his father died that she could not afford food or gas for hot water, yet his view remains that people have a choice to gamble and are entitled to live their lives as they wish. I respect that view. Personal responsibility is an important part of my position, but personal responsibility does not mean corporate behaviour should be without limits.

Another message came through repeatedly in my survey: people are sick of the sheer volume of betting advertising during sport. I understand exactly what they mean. You sit down to watch the footy, and it can feel relentless—before the game, during coverage, on the phone, on social media. It's odds, promotions, gambling branding. My particular concern is what that does to children. I don't want Australian kids growing up thinking they need money riding on a game for it to be interesting. I don't want them knowing the odds on a football match before they properly understand what those odds mean. Sport should first and foremost be about playing and enjoying the game.

As often as I can, I watch some young kids I know play rugby league for the Taree City Panthers and the Port Sharks Blues—and a shout-out to Lennox, Buddy and Huxley and to all the players across all of our electorates in hockey, soccer, netball and footy, which are coming to the end of the season. Good luck to you all. I've known these kids all their life. They love their footy. There's good sportsmanship, and some are very good players who I reckon might one day play in the NRL. There's no talk of betting, no gambling ads; it's just good hard-fought junior rugby league. That's what sport should be about. But, when they go home and sit around the television with their siblings, parents, cousins, grandparents and sometimes me, watching the game, giving the opposition some curry and calling out the ref for bad calls, they're getting betting ad after betting ad. The contradiction is stark. Our kids shouldn't have the game they play and love contradicted by the game they watch on the TV.

This bill contains measures that move us forward, but it does not get us all the way there. The government proposes new restrictions on wagering advertising, sporting branding and online advertising, but I remain concerned about whether these measures sufficiently reduce what children actually see. I'm also concerned about an online model that relies heavily on people opting out of gambling advertising. Why should the default be that somebody receives gambling advertising until they tell a platform to stop? Why shouldn't people choose to opt in? And we need to go further on inducements. We cannot focus on the advertisement someone sees during the football while ignoring the personalised offer arriving on the phone of somebody already losing thousands of dollars. That may be where some of the greatest harm is occurring. At the same time, reform has to be practical. Regional broadcasters need revenue. Sporting organisations and community clubs rely on sponsorship, and poorly designed regulation could push gamblers towards illegal offshore operators where consumer protections are even weaker. Those consequences matter.

I also support the different treatment in this legislation for horseracing, harness racing and greyhound racing. That distinction is important. Racing isn't a football or cricket match onto which gambling has been bolted as another product. Wagering has always been intrinsic to racing. People deliberately tuning into racing coverage know what they're watching, and information about fields, form and odds is part of it. Racing is also enormously important to regional Australia. Country racing clubs are part of the fabric of our towns. They bring communities together, attract visitors and support trainers, jockeys, drivers, breeders, stablehands, hospitality workers, volunteers and local businesses. So I support the racing carve-out; there is a real difference between deliberately watching a racing broadcast and a child sitting down with mum and dad to watch the footy or the cricket and being confronted with gambling advertisements.

But the carve-out should not become a back door around sensible protections. Inducements in the targeting of vulnerable gamblers still need strong safeguards. The principle is straightforward: recognise the legitimate place of racing and its importance to regional communities while regulating gambling advertising according to the risk, audience and context. Not every form of gambling, sporting event or audience is the same.

There is nothing inconsistent about supporting personal responsibility while also expecting corporate responsibility. Adults can choose to gamble. Adults can choose not to gamble. But billion-dollar businesses should not have an unlimited right to engineer advertising and inducements designed to make people gamble more. There is a balance to be struck, and the 814 people who responded to my survey have told me very clearly that they don't believe we've struck it yet. I will listen to them, and I'll listen to the evidence. That is why I want meaningful reform. But this bill doesn't get the balance right.

The coalition has a strong record here. In government, we introduced major restrictions on gambling advertising during live sport in 2018, legislated BetStop and prohibited betting companies from offering sign-up inducements. Labor's claim that this bill introduces a ban on gambling advertising during live sport is simply not true. Those restrictions were introduced by the coalition eight years ago. Worse, there are serious deficiencies in this bill. It does not adequately deal with inducements. Indeed, it leaves predatory inducements including VIP contact, gifts, reactivation offers and loss-linked incentives untouched. Furthermore, on its face it could allow up to three gambling advertisements an hour during television watched by children, and its treatment of streamed live sport actually weakens protections that already exist. It removes the online blackout period during live sport and allows unlimited gambling advertising online, including during breaks and live sport—something that has been prohibited to date. You cannot weaken existing protections and call it stronger reform.

The government has had more than three years since the Murphy report to get this right. It hasn't. That is why the coalition cannot support the bill in its current form. But we are negotiating in good faith with the government to fix these deficiencies, and I hope we can. I hope we can achieve, across this parliament, a position we can all support. We don't need to ban gambling. We don't need to tell Australians they cannot have a punt. But we can protect our kids from the relentless saturation of gambling advertising. We can crack down on predatory inducements and put proper guardrails around VIP marketing. We can recognise the different place racing has in Australian life, particularly in regional Australia, and we can strengthen—not weaken—the protections around live sport so that enjoying Australian sport does not come with the expectation that you should also have money riding on the result.

The coalition wants practical, workable reforms that protect vulnerable Australians while respecting the choices of responsible adults. This bill isn't there yet. That is why we cannot support it in its current form and why we will keep working in good faith to fix it.

See this speech in context