Gambling Administration (Limitation on Advertising) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2024.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:37): I rise to speak very briefly on this third bill. The Gambling Administration (Limitation on Advertising) Amendment Bill 2024 seeks to restrict gambling advertising on free-to-air and streaming services, both radio and TV, between 5am and 8.30am and again between 4pm and 8.30pm. It is our understanding that much of what it seeks to do already exists under current commonwealth broadcasting codes and disclaimers. Therefore, it will impose another layer of restriction on an industry already complying with national standards while doing little to address the real problem, which is the flood of unregulated online advertising and gambling promotion that reaches individuals, but in particular children, on digital platforms 24 hours a day. With that, I indicate that we will not be supporting this legislation.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:38): I speak on behalf of the government in support of this bill in principle. The bill targets gambling advertising on television, radio and streaming platforms. The honourable member has argued that current restrictions sit in codes rather than legislation and that exposure, especially to children, has increased through social media. The proposed bill bans gambling advertising from 5am to 8.30am and from 4pm to 8.30pm daily.

The existing restrictions we have in place for advertising times are set out in various codes, and include the following:

gaming machine licensees—6am to 8.30am and 4pm to 7.30pm;

SkyCity Adelaide—6am to 8.30am and 4pm to 7pm;

authorised betting operators—6am to 8.30am for radio and 4pm to 7pm for TV;

the Lotteries Commission—maintains the same weekday limits as the bill proposes; and

fundraising and trade promotion lotteries—have no restrictions on advertising on television or radio.

Penalties are currently $10,000 or $315 expiation. This bill proposes $20,000 or $1,200. With that, we will be supporting this bill with some amendments.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:40): I rise briefly to indicate that I will be supporting this bill, which seeks to restrict gambling advertisements on free-to-air and streaming radio and television during the times when children are most likely to be watching. While it was described as another layer of restriction, and that online gambling was pointed to as the real scourge by the opposition, I remind the opposition yet again that when they previously did the deal with the government, as Labor and Liberal were in lockstep on the last lot of pokies reform, they promised an inquiry into online gambling that has never eventuated.

I remind them of this, and look forward to there being some sort of inquiry into that in the very near future, supported by both Labor and Liberal, as they promised. This is again yet another small step to preventing gambling harm. It should not be targeted at children; in fact, to be honest, it should not be able to be advertised at all in the way it currently is to anyone.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:41): I rise briefly to indicate that I support the bill and welcome the news that the government is going to support the legislation, albeit with some amendments. That is a good outcome and a positive advancement. I did have some trepidation when I saw the Hon. Tung Ngo take to his feet. I thought it was not going to be moving in the right direction, but this is a positive outcome.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:42): I rise to conclude debate on this, and have absolutely no faith in anything. I am not going to sit here and take on board the comments of the leader opposite, who I do not even know checked to see whether there was a position from the government in terms of these amendments, in relation to these amendments, what the codes say now and what this bill would do.

We know we can make changes to the codes around advertising on TV and radio today, outside any measure being undertaken at the federal level. We also know that the Prime Minister's response to gambling advertising at a federal level has been nothing short of pathetic in the face of I do not know how many reports, recommendations and findings that something needs to be done. Go out on the street and ask any person, and they will tell you that they want more restrictions on this.

What we probably do not realise is that at a state level we have an ability to do something—and in fact we do something now. All this bill does is extend what we do now to a little bit earlier and a little bit later to ensure that we fully capture those times when kids, in particular, are most likely to be sitting in front of a TV so that they are not being subjected to gambling ads. They are the most vulnerable cohort in these discussions. They are the ones where every single device and platform they turn onto is geared towards driving them to gambling. That is what we are selling our kids.

This bill is a sensible measure, and I am pleased that the government has come on board, because just telling me that there is a code there and that they can do this does not mean they will do this in the absence of a piece of legislation that requires them to do this. That is the purpose of this bill. If those opposite think, 'No worries, we're happy with gambling ads,' during the time when their kids are more likely to turn on their screens and watch TV, well good luck to them.

I do thank the government for coming on board with this proposal. I thank the Hon. Tung Ngo for outlining the government's position on this bill. I will be doing my level best, and that is all we can do in this place—our level best—to ensure that what days are left between now and when parliament rises, this bill does make its way through the lower house. If it does not, at least the record will reflect what the government's position is today. If they do not implement it, Leader of the Opposition, then they can explain that in the next parliament, whether or not I am here. They can explain that to somebody else, if they do not explain it to me.

But their position today is clear and it is on the record, as is the opposition's. If we think that we do not need to tackle gambling advertising on radios and TVs in the times that our children in particular are most likely to be watching and lured towards gambling—the one single issue the opposition consistently says is the one thing that we should be dealing with: online gambling—then there is something wrong, there is just something wrong.

It is, in the scheme of things, the least objectionable piece of legislation around gambling reform that has been introduced in this place, but is also the most commonsense piece of legislation that has been proposed in this place. It shows a willingness and perhaps encouragement for the federal government to actually pull its finger out and do something when it comes to gambling advertising on radios and TVs.

A series of amendments will be filed. The point of these amendments is purely to bring this bill into line and entirely consistent with the code that I remind everyone in this place already exists. If anyone needs further clarification about the amendments—I am sure those who have read them understand what they do.

We know that, for instance, the code has exemptions for sports betting channels. We know also that there are exemptions that apply for things like the Adelaide Cup and Melbourne Cup, and they will continue to apply by virtue of the fact that these amendments have been drafted to make this bill consistent with a code that already exists and to actually legislate, rather than hope, that through a code we will extend those hours. I thank the honourable minister who has carriage of this legislation for her willingness to consider this bill favourably and I look forward to its passage through this parliament.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, do you want to work your way through your amendments, please?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I have outlined what they do as a package. If they can be moved en bloc, I will. I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 2, line 13 [clause 3, inserted section 18A(1)]—Delete 'permit or cause to permit' and substitute 'cause or permit'

Amendment No 2 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 2, line 15 [clause 3, inserted section 18A(1)]—After 'streaming services' insert 'but not including a dedicated sporting channel'

Amendment No 3 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 2, after line 18 [clause 3, inserted section 18A]—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) The Commissioner may, on application by a gambling provider, exempt the gambling provider from subsection (1) in respect of particular gambling advertising or a class of gambling advertising.

(1b) An exemption under subsection (1a)—

(a) must be given by the Commissioner by written notice to the gambling provider; and

(b) may be subject to such conditions as the Commissioner thinks fit and specifies in the notice of exemption; and

(c) may be varied or revoked by the Commissioner (on the Commissioner's own initiative or on application by the gambling provider) by further written notice to the gambling provider.

Amendment No 4 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 2, after line 19 [clause 3, inserted section 18A(2)]—Before the definition of gambling advertising insert:

dedicated sporting channel means a radio or television broadcasting service whose content wholly or principally consists of the coverage of sporting events or matters relating to sports or sporting events;

Amendment No 5 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 2, after line 23 [clause 3, inserted section 18A(2)]—After the definition of gambling advertising insert:

gambling provider includes the Lotteries Commission of South Australia.

Amendment No 6 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 2, after line 23 [clause 3, inserted section 18A]—After inserted subsection (2) insert:

(3) For the purposes of this section, a reference to a gambling provider does not include the holder of a licence or a person conducting a lottery under the Lotteries Act 2019.

As I said during the concluding comments to the debate, the amendments are intended to in fact ensure consistency between this bill and the code that already exists. There are some exemptions that exist under the code, and it is critical to ensure that if we are going to pass this piece of legislation then the code and the bill are actually consistent.

It canvasses the issue of exemptions, as I said, for sporting channels, for events where the commissioner can grant an exemption and also for gambling advertising that is not of a gambling form, like home lotteries and the Lotteries Commission of South Australia as gambling providers which are not covered within the scope of the bill and are able to advertise their products.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 9

Noes 6

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.