David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Hansard source

On inducements—I found this one of the saddest parts of the government's decision around this bill. I commend Senator Henderson for at least doing something on inducements. This was something that wasn't even a loss of revenue for the NRL, AFL and free to air—who the gambling companies leant heavily on to ensure that you didn't implement the Murphy report.

You could have banned inducements, and you probably would have avoided a lot of pain for Australians. You probably would have prevented suicides. I just want to read you an email that I received from a person in Victoria recently.

It starts off: 'My partner of 40 years took his life in 2024 by jumping out of our rented fourth-floor apartment. He gambled his money away on the phone using apps. Sportsbet, from where he was banned—and I believe he was also able to set up another account with BlueBet. I've not contacted the betting agencies; however, I do know that they would have offered him inducements. I have access to his account, as he left a suicide note. They recently contacted him to inform him of an account charge, as he hadn't used the betting account for a period of time. I was unaware that he was continuing to gamble online. He took his life in shame, shattering mine, his family's and our friends' lives forever. I understand the government is debating gambling reforms in the current sitting of parliament and that the government wants the parliament's assistance in passing these laws. I do not believe they go far enough to save lives. I'm speaking from a very raw experience. I don't believe it because of the trauma that a lot of people speak about. I also lost a nephew to suicide due to gambling 10 years ago now.'

Minister, I have so many of these stories. I assume anyone who's listening does. You had a blueprint for reform. Peta Murphy stood up in the other place and said that the most urgent thing that the parliament can and should do is ban inducements. In some ways, you can actually make a fairly strong case around gambling ad revenue for free to air. I have sympathy for free to air. I think we, as a parliament, could have found a mechanism to actually plug that gap and provide them with the transition. But on inducements, it's indefensible. What your government has decided to do is totally indefensible.

Let's go straight to the Murphy report. An industry that encourages losses from people who cannot afford to lose while banning people who win deserves to be called out. While online wagering service providers use inducements, inducement advertising and VIP programs to attract customers and develop market share, they can also do this by offering fair value and showing that they care for their customers—imagine that! Imagine just having a good product and good customer service.

The committee notes that the inducements and VIP programs are also used to entice individuals to return to betting after a timeout or to continue to bet and lose. There is no doubt that banning inducements and inducement advertising is a key measure for reducing online gambling harm and ensuring that one of the significant incubators of gambling harm—VIP programs—has no place in Australia.

Minister, in your amendments with the coalition you have a ban on online gambling companies offering someone an inducement in the first two weeks after they sign up to an account, and there will also be a ban on offering inducements for 90 days after someone comes off BetStop. The Murphy report said: 'Ban these damn inducements.' You're admitting that they are harmful, and you're saying: 'Well, for the first two weeks you can't induce someone.' For 90 days after someone comes off BetStop, you can't provide an inducement.' If they're so harmful that we can't allow a person with an addiction to receive them when they get off BetStop, why not ban them all together?