MOTIONS

Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (12:10): Yes. I second the motion moved by the member for Kooyong. I sat on that committee, and I heard from people whose lives had been torn apart by an industry that's addictive by design, marketed aggressively and disproportionately harms young people and vulnerable communities.

Our report made 31 recommendations, and its central finding was unambiguous. We need a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising phased in over time. It took the government nearly three years to respond, and that response has been so disappointing.

It addresses just a few of those 31 recommendations. This is not a phase-out of ads for online gambling. It's more Swiss cheese.

Partial bans simply don't work. The evidence is clear on that. We will have three gambling ads per hour on TV and unlimited gambling ads after the magic time of 8.30, when anyone under 18 apparently trots off to bed.

In the 45-minute consultation, which I'll get to, when asked about the evidence to back up unlimited ads after 8.30 pm, stakeholders were told that it was a political decision. Our kids will still be able to name all the betting companies. They'll still know what a multi is before they hit high school, and they will still think that if you know a lot about sport, then gambling is for you.

The so-called triple lock for online ads actually means unlimited online ads if you're watching through an adult account as long as, hidden somewhere on each digital platform, there's technically an opt-out function there. The only evidence we have about whether an opt-out function works is from SBS, which has had an opt-out function for gambling ads for some years now.

Zero point one per cent of subscribers have taken up that option despite numerous surveys showing three-quarters of Australians want to see a phase out of gambling ads. So gambling companies are laughing all the way to the bank. Why does the gambling lobby fight so hard to keep gambling ads in front of our children?

Because it works. We saw the tobacco industry try all the same tactics as the gambling industry, but then we were willing to put the public interest ahead of the money. The government knows its response is disappointing, which is why it was announced on Easter Thursday, and details of the reform package were released during the budget lock up, when all the political journalists are literally locked in a room with lots of shiny stories—probably the few hours in the whole year when media attention is least likely.

I can only imagine what they'll save up for budget lock up next year. The government's presenting this reform as 'a balance'. But just to be clear, the PM means a balance between the public interest and vested interests.

It just happens to contain exactly what the chief gambling industry lobbyist proposed six months ago—three ads per hour. This is not a balance. It's spineless.

It's weak caving to the money and the power, and it deserves scrutiny. The government has decided that, even if people don't like gambling ads, the issue probably won't change the way voters vote. That says so much about what's wrong with politics today.

Policy decisions are driven by elections and vested interests, not by what's right for the country. With such a huge gap between what the committee recommended and what the government's proposing, surely Australians have the right to know why. But the government wants as little attention on this as possible so they can tick the box on delivering gambling reform and move on.

It's simply not acceptable. After taking nearly three years to respond, the government gave half a dozen people representing the three million Australians negatively affected by this industry a 45-minute Zoom call and a couple of days to make some submissions on the exposure draft. That's what's euphemistically called a targeted consultation.

This was a charade. Given the scale of harm and the number of people whose lives have been torn apart by gambling and its incessant promotion, this bill deserves a public consultation process. Where's the evidence to back up any of its half-measures?

Without a public consultation process, how can the government claim to be acting in the public interest? Good process really matters. This bill deserves a public consultation so all Australians can have an opportunity to tell the government what they think about the reform that it's putting forward.

We need that public consultation process, which will inevitably surface the many, many ways in which this bill could be improved. They are some of the reasons that this needs to be referred to a proper inquiry with a proper public consultation process, and I commend the motion to the House.