Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am certainly pleased to rise to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform's second report into interactive and online gambling and gambling advertising as well as a bill, Interactive Gambling and Broadcasting Amendment (Online Transactions and Other Measures) Bill 2011.

I speak to this report from the position where I had the good fortune, some might say, of being the coalition's delegate to the United Nations General Assembly. That impacted upon my opportunity to participate in this inquiry. I had the good fortune of being able to be part of the initial hearings that took place and the preliminary work that was undertaken in the lead up to this inquiry, but I was unable to participate in the public hearings that took place in the latter part of this inquiry. That notwithstanding, this remains an area of particular interest to me. It is an area that deals with regulation on the Commonwealth level as well as a review, to some extent, of state and territory based legislation that deals with interactive gambling and, more broadly, the issue of sports betting and the other forms of gambling.

We know from the inquiry—and I certainly do share common ground with both the committee chair and with Labor members of the committee—that there is a rapidly growing segment of the market that is dealing with online gambling and with sports betting. There is no doubt that this is an area that is growing rapidly. And the work that the committee has undertaken with regard to interactive gambling and online gambling builds upon the work that the committee has undertaken in respect of electronic gaming machines. Indeed, there are references in the chair's draft comments that deal with this particular issue.

There can be no doubt that there is community angst about the level of problem gambling in Australian society. That is understandable and justifiable. There can be no doubt that problem gambling has a very negative and profound impact on the lives of many Australians. To want to deal with the negative externalities that flow from a pathological addiction to gambling is, of course, natural, and something that I completely support and endorse.

The question always, though, is how: how we, as a government—and I use the term in the broadest sense, obviously, as a member of the opposition—deal with people who have a problem controlling their urges when it comes to gambling. It just so happens that the focus of this inquiry dealt with those urges in relation to sports betting and in relation to interactive gambling. Concurrently with the inquiry process that was undertaken by the gambling reform committee, there was of course a separate coalition gambling reform committee which is still looking at this as a policy alternative and an area of policy development for the coalition.

In this respect, the supplementary comments that were made by the coalition committee members highlighted that in many respects we were withholding our judgment until the coalition gambling reform committee completed its work and analysis on problem gambling insofar as it related to this inquiry on online interactive gambling and sports betting. As a personal member of the House, I would highlight some of the concerns that I have in respect of some of the recommendations that were made by the committee in the majority sense, that being Andrew Wilkie, the member for Denison, the Independent Senator Nick Xenophon and, of course, the Labor members of this inquiry. To put some context around this, the Interactive Gambling Act was actually an initiative of the Howard government. This act was put in place in 2001 at the behest of the then coalition government as an attempt to deal with the issues of online gambling and interactive gambling, and it was the precursor to this inquiry in many respects, although it was more than a decade ago. What has changed in that period of time? I have read through the recommendations and in the broader sense there are many aspects of the recommendations that seem reasonable and well-intentioned with regard to trying to reduce the incidence of problem gambling and trying to reduce the inducements that may lead to problem gambling.

However, there are some recommendations in this report that I personally—I am not speaking on behalf of the coalition but as a member of parliament—find bizarre to say the least. Take, for example, recommendation 16. I will not read all of the recommendation because it is a fairly lengthy one, but in summary it says that the committee recommends that the COAG Select Council of Gambling Reform, in consultation with others, look at developing:

… a mandatory national code of conduct for advertising by wagering providers covering:

and it is this fourth one that I find, frankly, bizarre—

I highlight in particular this recommendation because I think this underscores the way in which this debate is perhaps being a little railroaded.

There is, some would argue—and I suggest the chair and obviously Labor members opposite support this point of view—a precedent for the banning of company logos on sporting players' uniforms as well as restrictions on the giveaways of free merchandise which depict betting companies' logos. The precedent that they would use is of course the prohibition on tobacco company logos at sporting events. That was something that was put forward some time ago and most, if not all, Australians are comfortable with that. But it strikes me as strange that Labor members and zealots like the member for Denison and Senator Xenophon would in some way parallel gambling with cigarette smoking. There is a big and fundamental difference, and it is this: there is not a single cigarette that you can smoke which does not do you harm. If you have a cigarette, it has a negative impact on your health. Plus, nicotine is known to be addictive; it is a statement of medical fact.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sounds like you're saying gambling is not addictive!

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member opposite interjecting and asking, 'Well, is gambling not addictive?' That is right; gambling is not addictive, and I find it incredible that Labor members are so ignorant of this fact. The reality is that—

Ms Rishworth interjecting—

The member opposite now goes and makes a huge jump to make the statement, 'Oh, so no-one gets addicted to gambling!' No. Some people do get addicted to gambling; absolutely. I would not dispute that for one moment.

This is the crazy, twisted logic of the Australian Labor Party. Some people get addicted to gambling—in the same way that some people get addicted to alcohol, some people get addicted to exercise, some people get addicted to dopamine and some people get addicted to eating poppy seeds—but we do not run around and ban all of those things. I have news for Labor members opposite: some people get addicted to poppy seeds, but we do not ban them on fruit toast, on buns or as a product in stores. The simple reality is that Labor members opposite and the member for Denison and the Independent Senator Nick Xenophon do not understand that because some people unfortunately have a problem controlling impulses it does not mean that we therefore go and regulate an entire industry out of existence. The reality is that the vast majority of people do not struggle with problem gambling. The vast majority of people find gambling a recreational tool. They enjoy it. They go and have a flutter. They go and enjoy themselves, whether it be on the gee-gees, the dogs, or online or in a poker tournament, or on a hand of blackjack or a poker machine. They do it in a responsible way because they are adults. They do not need Labor members of parliament telling them how to live their lives.

To highlight the absolutely crazy way that the Labor Party gets all breathless about being big government is to witness the debate that has just taken place here in the Federation Chamber. We as coalition members understand that in the main Australians are mature enough to make decisions about what they want to do with their money. The notion that in some way you can parallel having a sports betting company logo on a player's uniform as being the equivalent in a moral sense to a cigarette company logo, is farcical—completely and utterly farcical.

There are millions of people that place bets. What next? Should we ban the Melbourne Cup? Should the Australian Labor Party go out there tut-tutting and getting on their moral high horse, saying, 'Gee, do you know what? There are a lot of Australians who place a bet and'—according to the member opposite—'betting is addictive, so therefore the Melbourne Cup should be off limits. Let us ban the Melbourne Cup.' It all started with Phar Lap and those drug pushers that were running Phar Lap around the ring! It is this kind of completely twisted logic that underscores why the Australian Labor Party would support a recommendation like this. They want to ban having a gambling company's logo on sporting players' uniforms.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your side supported as well!

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor member does not even understand what is going on. The Labor member is now claiming that as a member of this committee I am supporting this recommendation. I take this opportunity to highlight this page here: 'Coalition committee members additional comments', for the benefit of members opposite. They are clearly quite confused about the reality of what is taking place, which is why I am in Federation Chamber making clear areas of difference between the Labor Party's Big Brother heavy-handed approach and the coalition's approach.

Let us be clear on one particular aspect though. There are Australians who struggle with a pathological addiction to gambling. There are Australians that struggle with problem gambling in the same way that there are Australians who struggle with their eating, with alcohol abuse and with poppy seed abuse. We need to make sure that we equip those people that have the problem with the skills, access to counselling and the ability to control those urges, that they currently do not have.

That is why there are some recommendations that make sense. For example, we do not want to expose children to live odds and to sports betting during peak viewing times for children. But we do want to ensure that we do not take a completely over-the-top, knee-jerk reaction to these kinds of things by implementing some of the restrictions that have been outlined. That is precisely the reason why coalition members made additional comments, to highlight that when it came to each of these reforms we would be looking at it through a coalition process and forming our view subsequent to the coalition policy committee.

In the short time remaining, I would like to touch upon one other aspect. As I said, this was originally a coalition act, the Interactive Gambling Act. I find it passing strange that anybody who has spent longer than 30 seconds on the internet would know that you simply go to Google.com, for example, punch in 'poker' and hit return, and you will be offered and array of websites. You do not know where they are hosted, by and large, but you will be offered, if not thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of websites where you can gamble. We somehow think, because we in Australia have passed a particular piece of legislation—which has now been in existence for a decade—that Australians are going to go, 'Oh, no; I'm not going to go and gamble on Poker.com because I'm not allowed to under the Interactive Gambling Act.' The notion that we can in some way control the internet, that we can somehow pull the curtains down or lift up the drawbridges, so that Australians do not have access to internet gambling sites is utterly farcical. These sites exist now although they are prohibited, and they will continue to exist although they are prohibited under the IGA. They exist because we do not have extra jurisdictional reach. What is the point of having a completely useless bill in place?

What we would be much better off doing is working with industry in a constructive way to provide alternatives that are well-regulated and transparent to Australians. We would be better off working constructively with those that seek to address the concerns of problem gamblers by providing, for example, access to counselling services. With that, I conclude my comments.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his entertaining contribution.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am on the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform. I actually attended the public hearings and read the submissions, and I cannot recall, during the public hearings that I was at, one question being asked by a coalition member in relation to recommendation 16. That is the recommendation that we do not have online sport betting companies' logos on sporting uniforms and merchandise. I do not want sports betting logos displayed on the Rugby League uniforms of 10-year-old kids running around the Gold Coast. I do not recall one such question.

The member opposite, the member for Moncrieff, talks about the additional comments of the coalition. Can I just say this: I do not think he has read the coalition committee members' additional comments. He says that he has some objection to recommendation 16. When you read these additional comments, there is no reference whatsoever to recommendation 16, no objection whatsoever to what he had to say.

Mr Ciobo interjecting—

None whatsoever. And yet here he is in here saying this. If the coalition was so opposed to it, why did they not ask questions in relation to it? Why did they not, in fact, take any steps to do a dissenting report? Because the coalition members on the committee supported recommendation 16. Those opposite do not even understand this.

I do not want Rugby League teams for 10-year-olds on the Gold Coast to have uniforms with 'SportsBet.com' on them.

Mr Ciobo interjecting—

And the member opposite mocks. He has mocked today the nearly 100,000 problem gamblers in this country. He has mocked today the approximately 500,000 Australians who are at risk of becoming, or who are, problem gamblers. He has mocked today the $4.7 billion social and economic cost to this country of problem gambling. That is the reality.

The reality is that those opposite in the committee supported what we are recommending. There was no dissenting report. The member for Moncrieff was not there, and clearly has not read the submissions made by organisations, researchers and stakeholders in relation to this. There were some very interesting reports and submissions. Very interesting evidence was given by Dr Sally Gainsbury and Professor Alex Blaszczynski. They gave very cogent evidence of the impact of online gaming on not just adults but on young people. They said that the problem was the normalisation of behaviour. They gave evidence that very young people engage in online gaming and that males as young as 10 are now seeing this as an everyday part of sporting events. They go online and bet because they watch the AFL and the NRL and they see the odds being shown. They think it is all part of it. They get together with their mates and engage in this. This is not something to be mocked or ridiculed or made a joke of. This has a serious impact on children. I suggest the member for Moncrieff should actually have a look at the submissions and read the transcripts. If he had, he would not come in and make a mockery of serious recommendations that are trying to limit the harm for young people, particularly children. There are a number of recommendations here suggesting that we prohibit gambling advertising during times when children are likely to watch.

The impact of problem gambling is a real problem. The submissions said that the characteristics of internet gamblers are different to those of the average person. For example, it is much easier to spend money on internet gambling. The member for Moncrieff should listen and stop talking to his mate over there.

Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Say something worth while and I'll listen.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Blair does not get to tell members in the chamber what to do.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Gainsbury and Professor Blaszczynskis said this on the characteristics of internet gamblers in Australia:

… 28% of the preliminary sample of Internet gamblers reported that Internet gambling was too convenient, 25% report that it was easier to spend more money and 13% reported that it was more addictive …

Mr Ciobo interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moncrieff has had his opportunity.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what the research says. That is what the experts say. I am not aware that the member for Moncrieff has any expertise in the area. As on climate change, we are prepared to listen to the experts and those opposite listen to the sceptics. They are not prepared to listen to the experts with respect to problem gamblers either.

We believe we need to take steps in relation to his matter. That is why the government is acting. We are addressing these concerns. We are banning the promotion of live odds during sporting coverage. When I watch my beloved Brisbane Broncos play and hopefully win the NRL this year, I do not want to see those odds come up every Friday night. You see it at the beginning of almost every game. Even before the game has started you can see it. You watch it during the game and you see the odds change. It is the same thing with the AFL in the southern states. It is just wrong. Children watch this. For example, I have got three little nephews who are mad keen Broncos supporters—they are very sad that Darren Lockyer has retired—and they watch it. Those three little boys sit there on the couch and watch the football. Go to any rugby league contest, go to Lang Park, and see how many kids are there. You can see the normalisation of these problems if you go to any major sporting event.

We are going to ban the promotion of live odds during sporting coverage. We are going to extend precommitment to online betting services. We are going to crack down on online sports betting companies that offer credit and introduce stricter limits on betting inducements. I think that is important as well. We are going to increase the powers of the Australian Communications and Media Authority to enforce these new rules. This is not about big brother; this is about protecting children who are vulnerable and at risk. They do not have the emotional or psychological capacity to understand what is happening to them.

Australians like to have a flutter and a punt and that is fine—Melbourne Cup, lotto, scratchies and raffles. No-one is saying they cannot do that, but we do take steps to protect children. We do take steps to minimise harm for them because we are not all John Stuart Mill on that stuff. We believe the harm is impacting on children and on families. When it comes to this particular issue we regulate activities which are not illegal, for example, alcohol. Do not say we do not regulate the industry; we do. It is the same thing in relation to gambling. We are not saying that someone cannot have a drink, but we do not believe that we should set an example for children that it is okay to drink to excess or that it is normal to drink to excess. It is the same thing with gambling.

The government will engage with the states and territories and we have decided that the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy will undertake a review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. I am comforted that the minister has said that review will take into consideration the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, which were released in December last year. The government will release the review in 2012. We have made it plain that, following this, we will introduce legislation to amend the Interactive Gambling Act to get rid of the inconsistencies and ambiguities mentioned in our recommendations and to enable our current commitments and any further reforms that we believe are necessary. We are doing this because we think it is best practice but also because we want to protect people from harm.

I go back to recommendation 16, which the member for Moncrieff mentioned. I want to make it plain that that recommendation refers to children's replica sports shirts. He was in this place making a mockery of a recommendation supported by his side, this side and the Independents that we should restrict certain forms of sports-betting advertising, that it should not go on the shirts of 10-year-old kids who play rugby league on the Gold Coast. That is what we were saying, and he comes into this place and does that.

We have also recommended that there be restrictions on the giving away of free merchandising because, if free merchandising depicts betting company logos, kids run around with those and they think it is all part of it. They think the name of the Brisbane Broncos, or the name of some sporting team they are devoted to or follow, is identified with a sports-betting company. A 10-year-old kid thinks it is great. But look at what the experts are telling us: that 10-year-old kid is just the sort of kid, who, with his mates, will go on the computer, go on the internet and start engaging in online betting. That is what the submissions said and that is what the experts said. I say to the member for Moncrieff and anyone who might be listening: that is why that recommendation is in this report and that is why it was unanimous. We followed the expert advice.

There are many other recommendations that I think will help. We are talking about education campaigns, because it is important to educate people. It is important to educate young people and to highlight the risk of harm. We think it is also important that there be better research. There is not enough research in this area to indicate the impact on families and individuals. We also want to make sure that there are consistent consumer protections and standards for tighter controls on the practice of credit betting, which we think is important. Some evidence that we got was really quite startling, and I will never forget it. It was in relation to how these organisations are quite nefarious and insidious in the way that they suck people in, even experienced businessman, to get involved in websites that look like they are from Australia but really could be from Gibraltar or anywhere. I remember distinctly Senator Xenophon talking of someone who consulted him, a very experienced businessman who got sucked in entirely and lost about $90,000.

So we are going to work with other governments. We are going to consult with industry and we are going to take steps to address this problem. I do think there is a need for a review of the 90-day time limit to verify identity when opening a betting account—the 90-day period is time to pause, consider and reflect—with a view to reducing it to 72 hours if we need to in order to minimise the risk of minors using the current time frame to gamble illegally. All through this inquiry I asked question after question about the impact on families, individuals and children. All through the inquiry we got the same message from every expert who gave evidence about the impact on individuals.

There are five million Australians who are either problem gamblers or at risk of being problem gamblers. With only about 15 per cent of problem gamblers seeking help, this is not a problem to be mocked, because it impacts on families and communities around the country. It impacts on families and their friends, on employers of problem gamblers and on children and it brings forward generational problem after generational problem.

We think that the unanimous, bipartisan recommendations of this committee are worth consideration, and the government has committed to considering those. Coalition members of the committee played a constructive role. I would suggest that the member for Moncrieff go and chat to them and that he also read the submissions and the transcripts and see the evidence, see what the experts say and know. The recommendations put by this committee are based on evidence, on best practice and on what should happen. It is in the best interests of our country, of communities like his and mine in South-East Queensland, and it is in the best interests of individuals and families throughout the country. It is a shame that the member opposite comes in here and makes fun of such a difficult problem.

Debate adjourned.

Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:51 .