Andrew Wilkie

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that the Government is refusing to even debate the need for a gambling advertising ban; and

(2) condemns the Government for its complete disregard of the community's desire to ban gambling advertising and for the terrible harm such advertising facilitates.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Clark from moving the following motion—That the House:

(1) notes that the Government is refusing to even debate the need for a gambling advertising ban; and

(2) condemns the Government for its complete disregard of the community's desire to ban gambling advertising and for the terrible harm such advertising facilitates.

I have not seen a more egregious and shocking abandonment of the public interest than this government's refusal to implement a ban on gambling advertising. I can only deduce that this government remains absolutely scared stiff of the gambling companies, absolutely scared stiff of the TV and media companies and absolutely scared stiff of the major sporting codes who receive a payment from the gambling companies every time a bet is laid on a game.

This government simply does not care about the community interest. This government does not care that incessant gambling advertising has the effect of grooming children for a lifetime of gambling and, for many of those children, many years of gambling addiction. This government does not care two hoots about the way the incessant and continual gambling advertising is ruining our enjoyment of watching the telly, going on a device and, particularly, watching a game of sport. They simply don't care about the human toll of gambling addiction, and that's ultimately what this is about—it's the human toll of gambling addiction. Gambling addiction ruins lives, ruins families, ruins businesses and takes lives.

I think of a constituent of mine I met just recently. This constituent is a recovering gambling addict. He cannot watch TV. He cannot watch a streaming service. He can't even surf the net, because every gambling ad is a trigger for his addiction. Why don't we care about such hurt in the community? Why is the government so beholden to the gambling companies, so beholden to the media companies and so beholden to the major sporting codes? I'll tell you why: because they're gutless. They're completely and utterly gutless, and the arguments that are put up to defend their position are just undiluted filth. They do not withstand the slightest scrutiny.

It's not too complex an issue to address. We have a blueprint. The Peta Murphy inquiry gave us the blueprint. It did the work. It heard from the witnesses. It teased out the issue. It gave us the solution. We treat that committee's work, all the witnesses who fronted that committee and the committee's chair with contempt when we throw that report in the bin and say, 'Nuh, we'll worry about it later.'

There are arguments that it will be the death of commercial TV. Well, I say to the commercial TV companies—the companies, by the way, who are refusing to report the debate about banning gambling advertising—that if your business model relies on facilitating gambling addiction then your business model is broken. You don't deserve to be in business if your business model relies on stoking gambling addiction and grooming children for a lifetime of gambling in the full knowledge that some of those children will grow up to be gambling addicts and some of them, sadly, will even take their lives as a direct result of it. The arguments that are put to us are reminiscent of the arguments in the debate around the ban on tobacco advertising in the 1970s and 1980s. Remember that? We were told that, if we banned cigarette advertising, it would be the end of cricket. Good God! What an absurdity! That argument back then in the seventies and eighties was no more ridiculous than the arguments that are being put forward by the government now.

Heavens! We heard the Prime Minister in Perth a couple of months ago say the problem is poker machines. Okay, then do something about poker machines! Just, for heaven's sake, do something! Use the tax powers. Use the Corporations Act. Use all the levers at your disposal, instead of just kicking the can down the road and not giving two hoots about the hundreds of thousands of Australians who are either gambling addicts or recovering gambling addicts.

While I'm at it, let me make a comment about the relevant minister. The relevant minister is refusing to drive gambling advertising reform. The relevant minister failed at the attempt to introduce a misinformation and disinformation act. The same minister is driving this ludicrous proposal to ban social media for people under the age of 16, despite the good that social media does as well as the harm. I reckon the minister should go. That the government is keeping that minister on the frontbench down there just beggars belief and is part of the problem. I will leave it at that. Hopefully in the remaining time there might be contributions from other honourable members.

Scott Buchholz

Is the motion seconded?

Andrew Wallace

I'm very pleased to second the motion. I want to acknowledge the member for Clark and the great work he's done since he's been in this place about antigambling. A lot of people ask me why I am so anti gambling. I think it stems from when I was young apprentice. I remember as a young kid—I was probably 18 or 19 years old—and we were reroofing a TAB. Here I am, on the roof, reroofing this TAB, and I saw countless young men coming in over the course of two or three days—in and out, in and out. I thought, 'I wonder how much they are actually losing?' It turns out we are losing somewhere between $25 billion and $32 billion a year. That's 12 University of the Sunshine Coast hospitals that could be built.

What really saddens me—and this goes directly to the issue—is this government's failure and its cowardice to deal with sports-betting advertising. When's the last time you had a conversation with your son, daughter or grandson about sport without them talking about the odds? When I was a kid—it was a while ago now—we used to swap footy cards. We'd know who the first person was who'd kicked a goal and who won man of the match and all those sorts of details. But, now, because of the way that the gambling companies have infiltrated sport, it's all about the odds. Young kids do not seem to be able to differentiate between gambling and sport, and that breaks my heart. I think that is really, really sad.

Australia is a sporting nation. We love sport. We play sport. We watch sport. But we do it to win the game, not to gamble. But these particularly insidious international gambling companies flood our televisions with this incessant advertising. I can't tell you how many times I have received emails from mums and dads—but usually mums, it has to be said—who plead with me as a federal member of parliament to do something to stop this connection between gambling ads and sport. I think it was the Leader of the Opposition's budget in reply speech about two years ago when he stood up and said that, if he was elected Prime Minister at the next election, he would do something about this. The coalition, once again, like for social media and for so many other things, have been dragging this government around kicking and screaming about policy. And yet, today still, the Minister for Communications is nowhere to be seen.

Does everybody remember how when Peta Murphy died—God rest her soul—the government held Peta in such high regard and said this report was so important? Where are those comments now? I worked with Peta Murphy on a previous committee—the social policy and legal affairs committee. She worked with me; I worked with her on similar reforms. But where is the government today in honouring her legacy and leadership on gambling reform? They're nowhere to be seen. Why? It's because this government is utterly weak. It is weak on every level and every policy. It is absolutely caught by the big gambling companies. It stands condemned. It needs to stand up, grow a backbone and get these laws passed. (Time expired)

Ged Kearney

I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Milton Dick

The question is that the debate be adjourned.

Summary

Date and time: 10:26 AM on 2024-11-28
Allegra Spender's vote: Abstained
Total number of "aye" votes: 71
Total number of "no" votes: 30
Total number of abstentions: 50

Adapted from information made available by theyvoteforyou.org.au