Speech – House of Representatives – Suspension of Standing Orders: Online Wagering Reform

Ms ROWLAND (Greenway—Minister for Communications) (09:29): This motion is not about the substance of the issue of gambling harm—and that is an issue, of course, that this government cares very deeply about. This motion is regarding a suspension of standing orders, and that is what we are debating here. I thank the member for Clark and the member for Mayo for their comments on this suspension motion.

I would very respectfully say to the member for Mayo that I rebut the idea that this government has done nothing when it comes to addressing gambling harms. It is something of substance to go through the many issues that we have examined here and the many initiatives that we have undertaken and completed. On that point I again would very respectfully say to the member and to all members here that the issue that I will discuss, the National Self-Exclusion Register, is not, as the member for Mayo says, a small thing. The member for Clark well knows that he has long been an advocate of self-exclusion mechanisms. We have BetStop as a self-exclusion mechanism, and it is enabling tens of thousands of Australians right now, in a short space of time, to exclude themselves from all forms of online wagering literally with one touch. That is not a small thing, as I will detail shortly.

I also respectfully say to the member for Mayo, who said that the National Self-Exclusion Register was an initiative of the former government, that the reality is that, although the enabling legislation was given royal assent in December 2019, it wasn't until this government was elected that it was actually launched, and it was made effective to operate in August last year.

I would urge all members of this House to promote BetStop in their local communities. It is, as I said, a mechanism that the member for Clark has long advocated, and it is one that is having real results. I also note that the work of the late member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy, has had a big impact on this parliament and on the community, and this government and I have made it very clear that the status quo in relation to wagering advertising is untenable.

Recently the Alliance for Gambling Reform released new data, with extensive research. That evidence is concerning. Those insights show, through 16,000 interviews, that the number of people betting on sports has actually doubled in the last five years; more than a quarter of all men aged 18 to 24 and a third of men aged 25 to 34 now bet on sport; and 10 per cent of sports betters are classified as experiencing harm caused by gambling. As confronting as that data is, it is certainly appreciated that the Alliance for Gambling Reform highlight it and also are engaged with the government on reforms.

We know there's an established link between gambling harms and other harms, we know that the impacts are greater in regional Australia and we know that children are being actively groomed into gambling being a central aspect of enjoying sport. That is why this government is taking on the challenge to reduce those harms. We have been acting since forming government, including—again, as I respectfully point out to the member for Mayo—preverification and the credit card ban. They are two recommendations that actually were initiated by this government and are having real results. We want to get these reforms right, to deliver both harm reduction and cultural change. It's not a straightforward exercise, and we're determined to ensure that our response is capable of implementation and makes a real difference when it comes to harm reduction.

For context for honourable members, when the last set of gambling ad restrictions were introduced in 2018 by those opposite, the results showed a 50 per cent increase in the total volume of gambling spots on TV and radio, and that included an 86 per cent increase on regional TV. This was at a time when the online wagering industry was experiencing massive growth, with more and more Australians, particularly young men, signing up to bet. But the important issue here is that we have fully implemented the remaining elements of the National Consumer Protection Framework. We have acted on reports like the Stevens review in 2020, which the former government sat on but we actually released and made sure that we were able to give effect to those provisions around simulated gambling. We've updated the ineffective 'gamble responsibly' messaging on wagering advertising with new evidence based taglines. And, as I said, we have implemented the mandatory customer ID pre-verification.

Of significance, the government launched BetStop for people experiencing gambling harms. It's a free service allowing customers to exclude themselves for three months or for up to a lifetime from all Australian licensed interactive online and telephone wagering services with a single step. It prohibits Australian licensed interactive wagering service providers from letting a self-excluded individual open an account or place a bet, sending marketing material to self-excluding individuals and disclosing information about those persons.

Nearly 26,000 Australians have registered with BetStop. Eighty per cent are under the age of 40; most of them are younger than 30, demonstrating how much online gambling is impacting young people in our community; and 40 per cent of people who've registered have opted for a lifetime ban. It is in fact the most targeted harm reduction initiative to date in terms of directly reaching Australians experiencing harms and enabling them to put an end to their betting activity. And as I said, I encourage all members of parliament to promote this service in their communities. It is one of those initiatives that can actually change lives with one step.

But there is still more to do, and we know that this is an area that is complex. It is an area in which we are playing catch-up compared to the reforms that actually showed an increase in gambling advertising under the former government, but we continue to identify and pursue harm reduction initiatives.

In response to the report, we as a government have been undertaking broad consultation with harm reduction advocates, broadcasters, digital platforms, sporting codes, and wagering and racing industries as well as public health experts and academics. And I, and also on behalf of the Minister for Social Services, am sure these stakeholders who have shared their perspectives and expertise in this area, particularly the shame and stigma felt by people who are experiencing gambling harm, is one that is very potent and is guiding our principles here when it comes to harm minimisation in this area.

We are committed to developing meaningful solutions that support families and protect vulnerable Australians from the harms of gambling. We will respond to the parliamentary inquiry report recommendations, as has been our undertaking and as we have demonstrated we are carrying out already. We are committed to reform and to reducing gambling harms in the community, and to build on the reforms that we have already implemented.

The last point that I will make is about the need to ensure that there is buy-in by the states when it comes to harm reduction. We know that the National Consumer Protection Framework went over time. We brought it to a conclusion with the last pieces, but there are a lot of areas where state and Commonwealth cooperation is needed as well. Our friend Peta Murphy highlighted this in her report. The inquiry was very detailed about the need for a national approach to this issue, and that is one in particular that the Minister for Social Services has been pursuing and it's one that we, as a government, will continue to pursue as we go through this reform process.

So again, I will highlight that this has been a government that has delivered more when it comes to harm reduction from gambling than has been done in the last decade. And while this is obviously a highly complex area where there is a multitude of stakeholders, we are working through this diligently. We're ensuring that this is a framework that is actually capable of implementation. It is one thing to legislate a ban, it is another thing to make it effective. And we see that not only in the evidence I just cited about changes in advertising bans on broadcast actually resulting in an increase in advertising, but we know about the proliferation in other areas as well.

I thank the members for their interest. As always, my door is open to provide a briefing on what my department is doing in this area and I look forward to hearing from members.