Gambling Administration (Limitation on Advertising) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is the third of the bills that I have referred to that I will be moving in relation to gambling. This one deals specifically with gambling advertisements. It seeks to restrict gambling advertisements on radio and television during times when children are most likely to be watching, between 6am and 8.30am and again from 4pm to 7.30pm.

The current parameters are found in the gambling code of practice rather than in legislation, and gambling advertising in this jurisdiction is not permitted to be broadcast on radio between 6am and 8.30am and for radio and TV between 4pm and 7.30pm on any day of the week. It is a small but vital step in protecting our kids from being bombarded by gambling ads and lured into lifelong bad habits.

I will say that I acknowledge that gambling is legal. Like many things, some people can do it responsibly, but when it becomes as ever-present a temptation, especially for young people, as it has become today, the risks are simply too great for us to continue to ignore.

The reality is that gambling ads are everywhere. We all know that—on our screens, on social media, on apps. They come with dangerous promises of easy money, mate bets and winning streaks. I do not buy into the claims that have been made recently, and historically, by television networks that gambling advertising is a necessary lifeline, and I will touch on that a little later. I do reflect on the fact that just recently Bill Shorten again remarked on ABC's Q&A that commercial television networks might be in diabolical trouble without ad revenue from gambling operators.

In the last financial year alone, betting companies spent a staggering $238 million on advertising across TV, radio and online, $162 million of that just on television. That is a significant spend, but we have to ask ourselves who is really paying the price for this. It is certainly not the networks. They seem to be doing very well off the back of those advertisements. It is the people who are losing their savings, their homes and in the worst cases, of course, their lives.

When we prioritise advertising revenues over the wellbeing of our children, we are choosing the wrong side. The complaints from the TV stations about losing ads absolutely pale in comparison to the human cost of problem gambling. As the saying goes, 'You win some, you lose more.' It is the next generation of punters that we should be worried about the most.

This bill is one way to start taking real action to prevent gambling from becoming a lifelong addiction for young South Australians. Make no mistake, every product our children access online now in one way or another is geared towards normalising gambling behaviour. It is built into the games they play, the apps they use and the videos they see, and it is all designed to normalise gambling behaviour. None of that happens by coincidence or chance. It is designed to have that impact on them.

Some might say this is an overreaction, but let's not make this more dramatic than it is. The Melbourne Cup will still be televised every November. The Front Bar can air after 8.30 and spruik Mick's Multi. Dedicated racing channels like racing.com and Sky Racing can continue to operate via the existing exemptions. This is about finding a balance and ensuring that children are not bombarded with gambling messages during their formative years.

Finally, it is encouraging to see this conversation once again happening at a federal level, but at the same time it is very disappointing. The 'You win some, you lose more' report has recommended a phased approach to a total ban on gambling advertising, and this has become the topic now of much discussion around the nation, particularly federally. I will get into that in a moment, but I want to remind members that we do not need to sit back and wait for what the other jurisdictions or the federal government do, because we have already gone, and we can again go, above and beyond what other jurisdictions have been doing in the absence of a nationally consistent approach.

The bill, as I said, is also in line with the most recent findings and recommendations of the Grattan Institute's report, 'A better bet: how Australia should prevent gambling harm', which cites our nation's lax approach to regulatory gambling in effectively letting the gambling industry run wild. That report also recommended a blanket ban on gambling advertising within three years, because we know that despite the backtracking—and that is precisely what we have now—of the Albanese government at the behest of the gambling lobby and media companies partial bans are not effective.

Any discussion around partial bans now is a huge disappointment, and that is reflected by the fact that so many voices have joined the chorus of opponents to what is currently being played out at the national level. There is clear evidence. You only need to look at the success of the tobacco advertising ban to appreciate how effective a complete ban can be.

There is clear evidence that shows that bans on tobacco advertising were responsible for decreases in smoking rates, especially amongst young people, when they were implemented wholly. If you want to make a dent you cannot have bans that are subject to this and subject to that. You cannot have partial bans if you are genuine about the outcome that you want.

We also need to get real about the influence the gambling lobby has in this country. How is it that 80 per cent of Australians do support gambling ads being banned, and yet we refuse to budge? How much do those same media companies, who are again lobbying against the bans, reap from gambling operators in advertisement fees? I have already pointed to those figures.

It is really important to note that this is not a new issue by any stretch. The debate taking place today at the federal level, which is connected to this bill here, is a repeat of what occurred when the coalition government and the Labor opposition killed off Nick Xenophon's bill in the Senate in 2017, following a previous parliamentary inquiry. The arguments being levelled by the federal government, by the gambling proponents are exactly the same today as they were in 2017.

They say we cannot ban ads altogether because free-to-air TV—and Bill Shorten is on the record as saying this—is in such financial crisis that their existence relies on some level of gambling ads. That argument has not changed in those years between 2017 and now. You have to ask: what have we done to address the problem in the meantime? The reality is that we have done nothing; we have done absolutely nothing to address the issue, but the issue has become so much worse.

We are, as a nation, so addicted to the political influence—and make no mistake we are talking about the single biggest donor in terms of political donations in the nation and the most influential lobby that we have in this country—and as my predecessor said for years on end when he was in politics, what we have in Australia when it comes to the gambling lobby is absolutely akin to the gun lobby in America. This is the sort of political influence that lobby has over our politics. It is not just the gambling lobby, media companies are equally concerned because they stand to profit from gambling ads in the millions, and their competition at the moment has never been more stiff with the explosion of online platforms that they have to compete with.

The financial crisis woes are absolute rubbish, with respect. That is the line the parties have hidden behind now for years, and that is the line they are trying to hide behind now. If I can speak from some firsthand experience, if you need convincing of the sort of influence these lobbies can have over our politics then you need only look at the last election in 2018, when the former head of the AHA in answer to the question, 'Why do you donate?' said, 'They ask for it. If they stop asking we will stop giving.'

The first thing the Liberals did when they won that election, as I have said previously, was to reward the AHA with poker machine reforms that removed note acceptors in this state. A bill was introduced at the time that the former AHA president claimed as his own. If you imagine that sort of political influence now magnified at a federal level, where our gambling addiction is costing Australians over $25 billion a year, you cannot buy this argument that free-to-air or regional media organisations are not going to be able to afford to sustain themselves because they rely on that sort of advertising or, indeed, that the gambling lobby is going to be disadvantaged.

Last year, with the former gambling commissioner in South Australia asking for a review of our codes of practice around gambling ads, we saw the exact recommendations and findings being made by him as I am seeking in this bill. That is the good news. In South Australia our restrictions, in terms of gambling advertisements, go beyond any other jurisdiction because our codes allow us to do that and we had the foresight to do that during those viewing hours that most impact kids.

What this bill I am seeking to introduce today does is simply extend that further by having the same sorts of bans in the morning and the same sorts of bans in the afternoon, during the time when children are most likely to be viewing. We can do that whilst the feds keep killing each other over what they are going to do around gambling ads.

When the former commissioner—and this is important for members to know—looked at this issue in 2023, in effect what happened was there was backlash from the media organisations and the gambling lobby that this would put South Australia at a competitive disadvantage to other states and would adversely impact revenue for government, media and gambling operators. The revenue was the main reason why the commissioner did not press ahead with the proposal to implement those extra two timeslots.

If the government puts aside its concerns about revenue impacts for government for just a moment, then we have the opportunity in this bill to go back to what Mr Soulio, the former commissioner, asked for and recommended at the time and implement further blackouts here in South Australia. Ultimately, the reason he did not press ahead with it was those concerns. But in the face of what is happening nationally in terms of that nationally consistent approach and the resistance to a complete ban now, what I am saying to members is: let's go it alone. Let's introduce those two extra timeslots. Let's lead the nation and let the others catch up. We do not have to wait for the others. We have already gone above and beyond what every other jurisdiction does.

There is a growing call nationally. The AMA is the most recent peak body to join in the group of peak bodies and stakeholders and, indeed, federal members of parliament who are urging the national government to do the right thing, but we do not need to wait for that. This is very much an issue that ought to be addressed nationally, I agree, but we have done it before and we can do it again. We are already ahead of every other jurisdiction and can absolutely lead the way even further. This bill will enable us to do just that without interfering with that national agenda.

I cannot stress that or emphasise that enough. Revenue might be enticing, competition might be stiff, but, like I asked with my previous bill, the question has to be asked: at what cost to the community? There has to be a better reason. When 80 per cent of Australians are telling me they do not want this sort of advertising, that speaks volumes about what we all think about it, and I think it speaks volumes about the resistance from the feds. We need to rise above that. We have the ability to rise above that, and this bill would ensure that we do indeed rise above that and lead the nation when it comes to gambling advertising bans.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.