Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the motion as circulated.

Leave granted.

I thank the government and the minister for granting leave. There is clearly an urgent need to address this motion, because there is an urgent need to give all members of this House a free vote so that they can use their own judgement, informed by their own constituents, on whether or not there should be a three-year phase-out of advertising on gambling, which, as the motion makes clear, was the flagship recommendation of the Murphy report, brought down almost 2½ years ago.

The importance of addressing this urgently cannot be stated enough, because this is a very, very real issue that needs to be tackled quickly. Not only is the community broadly—clearly, the majority—sick to death of the endless gambling advertising; the community is also sick to death of the way that advertising is normalising gambling. The community is sick to death of the way that advertising is effectively grooming children to start gambling as soon as they can.

That's not an exaggeration. When you look at the evidence prepared by the Australia Institute, they found that last year almost one million young people aged between 12 and 19 gambled. That's all the evidence you need to make absolutely clear that all of this advertising is grooming young people to gamble as quickly as it can.

This isn't some esoteric argument.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I need you to move the motion. You asked leave; if you could move the motion, that would be great.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House:

(1) notes that the report of the inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm, 'You win some, you lose more', also known as the Murphy Report, was handed down two years and five months ago;

(2) further notes that the cross-party Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs unanimously endorsed the 31 recommendations contained in the report, including the flagship recommendation to implement a three-year phase out of gambling advertising; and

(3) calls on the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to grant their party members a free vote on the implementation of this flagship recommendation.

Deputy Speaker Young, there's been a little bit of confusion on the clock there on account of that. Am I right to assume that my 10 minutes starts now?

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But, mercifully, I will not speak for 10 minutes, because I would like to leave at least five minutes for the member for Curtin to make a contribution to this debate. As members would be well aware, the member for Curtin has done as much—or more—as anyone in this House when it comes to gambling reform.

I make the point again—and I'm pleased to make the point again—that there is an urgent need for this parliament to decide on whether or not to allow individual members to exercise their personal judgement, informed by their communities, on the matter of whether or not there be a phase-out of gambling advertising in this country. The reason we need to go to a free vote is that this place is currently absolutely paralysed on this issue, which beggars belief because there is clearly a strong majority of members in the House of Representatives who want to see a phased ban on gambling advertising. How we could have a clear majority of members want a ban yet the place paralysed—honestly, it beggars belief.

We have to crack this open. We have to end this impasse. That's what the community wants. That's what the community is calling out for because the community is sick to death of the endless ads. The community is sick to death of the way the endless ads are normalising gambling. The community is sick to death of the way the endless ads are grooming children to become gamblers as soon as they can.

It's no wonder the Australia Institute found that last year almost one million people aged between 12 and 19 gambled. It's not because it's in their DNA or because they just had a bright idea one day—'I'm going to start gambling'. It's because every time they look at their phone, their iPad, their laptop, the TV and, I would add, the newspapers, even if they're not looking at an ad directly—they're looking at, say, the cricket ground during the first Ashes test, the ball is racing towards the boundary, and there are bet365 ads on the rope. You can't escape it. Just going through the day, people in the community encounter literally hundreds of ads for gambling.

And let's not forget that this isn't some esoteric debate we're having in here. This is a very real matter affecting people every day. Remember that, as we encourage gambling, more and more people will become addicted to gambling. With addiction to gambling, we see countless people going broke, losing more money than they can afford. It destroys relationships. It affects mental health. It leads to homelessness. It leads to violence in the home. It leads to an elevated rate of suicide in the community.

I make the point again that this isn't some academic argument we're having here. This is about whether or not we in this place do what the community want, and whether or not the government does what the majority of members want, and implement the very well researched flagship recommendation of the Murphy report to ban gambling advertising—and not straightaway. The Murphy committee recommended three years to phase it out, giving more than enough time to change the landscape and to allow the gambling companies, the media companies and the major sporting codes to transition.

And, yes, that might take a little bit of government financial help, but when you consider the billions of dollars that are at stake here, with money lost and the countless cost to the community of gambling addiction, a little bit of government assistance is more than justified, particularly to wean the media companies and the sporting codes off—I'll say it clearly—this blood money, this money that is harvested from people who are often the most disadvantaged and most vulnerable people in the community. They should be weaned off that blood money, and the government has the means not just to pass the legislation to do so in this place; it has the financial resources to make that transition workable for all of the people involved.

I'll end it there because I am keen for the member for Curtin to have her say. I just say to the government and the opposition: do the right thing by the backbenchers, who are just having to suck this up. They get confronted every day with constituents who say, 'Why won't you ban the advertising?' I feel for the backbenchers. You've been handed a sour lemon to suck on. I don't think it's fair on them.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a privilege to second this motion from the member for Clark. I've stood in this place for nearly a decade and talked about the harms of gambling. I've stood in this place for nearly a decade and talked about the families that have been torn apart and the people who have taken their lives. We are in this last week of parliament. Surely now is the time to do something right by the Australian people, so I urge the government to look at this motion, to follow this motion and to simply just allow a free vote on an issue that your government presented a unanimous report in support of—the ending of gambling advertising.

It's not saying: 'Ban gambling.' We know that's not going to happen in this nation. We know that this is a legal thing to do. It's like what we did with smoking. Decades ago we banned advertising because we recognised that there were inherent harms in smoking. It's a legal product, but there are inherent harms, and gambling is exactly the same.

It has been 29 months since the Murphy report, called You win some, you lose more, was released. Every day, when I walk into this place, I go through the House of Reps gardens. There is a bank of roses, and those roses, which have plaques in front of them, are for members who passed away while they were in this place. And Peta Murphy's name is there on that plaque. I often stop and look at the roses—they're all in bloom at the moment—and I think about Peta Murphy. I think about her courage and I think about how she gave so much of her last months of life to this place and, in particular, to this report. She wanted to make sure that she finished this report to the absolute best that she possibly could, and there are recommendations from that report that the government hasn't even bothered to formally respond to. One of the most important recommendations on there was to ban gambling advertising, because it is pernicious, it is saturated, and it is everywhere. There is not a young person in Australia, I would say, that hasn't seen that advertising. We're banning social media because we recognise that, for under-16s, there is an inherent harm there. But, once you're 18, it's open slather. You can be targeted with advertising from Sportsbet, BetStop, Ladbrokes and the whole list. You can't even watch a game—you can't go to a game—without seeing it everywhere. We have normalised this so much in Australia.

I would say to the Prime Minister—really, I plead with the Prime Minister. You love your Rabbitohs, and you love a sports game. Think of what it was like when you were 20 and you were going and watching your beloved Rabbitohs or think of what it was like when you were watching them on television—you were not bombarded like a 20-year-old is bombarded today. They can't get away from it. This advertising is being targeted particularly at young men. We know that, between now and Christmas, there are going to be people who can't escape the advertising, who are so triggered by the advertising, who feel that there is no hope in their lives and who will not be here at Christmas. How awful is that! We have the power in this place to do something about it, yet, here we are, nearly 900 days later, and the government is really saying: 'This is not an issue for us. This is not a priority for us.'

I've stood here, I've given speeches before, and I've been really cranky; now, I'm heartbroken. I'm heartbroken that we are doing nothing about something that is affecting so many young people in our nation. It's our last sitting week of the year, and we could do so much better. We could do so much more. So, please, Prime Minister, allow a free vote for your backbench. They desperately want this leadership from you.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the debate be adjourned.