House of Representatives

Monday, 3 June 2013 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 7
in the sponsorship of these events. In recent times, the
involvement of gambling companies in sports
sponsorship has increased. It is now virtually
impossible to watch major sports without being
subjected to multiple exhortations to bet on the
outcome, either during the advertising breaks or,
increasingly, by commentators during the event itself.
The statistics reinforce the size and scope of the
problem. Online betting, of which sports betting is a
major component, has risen from $2.4 billion in 2007
to almost $10 billion in 2012. It is estimated that
billions more are wagered by Australians on
unregulated, offshore websites.
Having a bet is also part of Australian culture and
betting on sport is an enjoyable activity for many
people. For some, who become problem gamblers, it
can be incredibly destructive. Because of this potential
for harm, there are serious questions to be answered
about just how much Australians want gambling to be
part of sport. Somewhere, the line must to be drawn
between a benign, family-friendly activity and one that
is inextricably linked to gambling, such as horse
racing.
In recent years this line has been crossed more and
more frequently. It has become increasingly difficult, if
not impossible, to avoid repeated exposure to betting
advertisements and gambling odds when watching any
major sporting event. The number of sports betting ads
on free-to-air TV quadrupled in the last two years. In
2012 there were 528 individual ads, collectively
broadcast more than 20,000 times. There has also been
a blurring of the line between commentary and
advertising when it comes to gambling. The recent
inclusion of a prominent bookmaker as part of the
rugby league coverage has caused concern for many.
This growing nexus between sports and gambling
companies has not gone unnoticed by the Australian
public. The saturation advertising has come to irritate
many people who love sport and worry about the
corrosive impact it might have on the game. In
particular, they are concerned about the impact on
children.
A recent inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on
Gambling Reform has heard disturbing evidence into
the problem. Academic researchers have recounted
how children are now able to name an average of two
or three sports betting firms simply by virtue of
watching sport. Anecdotally, young children are
discussing the odds of their favourite teams winning a
match. Given the strictly adult nature of the product,
many people are concerned about this overexposure of
children and the way in which it may be normalising
the connection between gambling and sport for them.
The potential for harm is obvious, and problem
gambling already costs individuals and the community
dearly. Where there are obvious harms, there is a need
CHAMBER
to regulate. How best to do so can be a difficult
question when the activity involved is legal and, for
many, both safe and enjoyable. However, an
unregulated market is not appropriate where the
product has such a high potential for harm. It is true
that this is a problem the industry could solve itself
without government intervention. In fact, the
government in 2011 gave the industry an ultimatum
with regard to the promotion of live odds, threatening
regulation if the industry did not do something to curb
the practice. The response by television and radio
broadcasters has been change to their codes of conduct
that places some limitations on the promotion of odds.
These codes still allow promotion during scheduled
breaks, and under this code the current situation where
a bookmaker appears during editorial segments
discussing gambling would not be prohibited.
There has been a recent reiteration of the threat from
the Prime Minister, but even if action were taken—and
we have not yet seen anything from the gambling
industry to suggest that any legally binding rules will
be in place before this parliament rises—it would still
be possible during the quarter-time or half-time breaks
when you are watching football with your kids on a
Saturday or Sunday afternoon for gambling ads to pop
up.
The problem has escalated to the point where there
is real potential for harm to children, setting them up as
a new generation of problem gamblers. Industry selfregulation
has failed to properly limit this harm. Under
these circumstances, and given the level of disquiet in
the community, it is appropriate and timely for
parliament to step in and regulate this area.
This bill takes some modest steps to limit the harms
of gambling advertising. That children should be
protected from overexposure to gambling
advertisements is incontestable. The bill puts
restrictions on commercial radio and television
broadcast licensees that limit their ability to broadcast
advertisements for gambling services in a way likely to
be consumed by children.
Firstly, the bill prevents the advertising or
discussion of live odds at any time. Children and adults
will no longer be exposed to a constant barrage of
changing numbers as the game progresses, or the most
intrusive inducements to bet in the lead-up to the game.
Secondly, the bill prevents any advertisements for
gambling services before 9 pm at night. Although the
broadcasters comply with a code that prevents the
advertising of these services during children's viewing
hours, they have left a loophole for sports broadcasts.
But sports programs are among the most popular
shows viewed by children. We would not tolerate the
advertising of harmful products like gambling during
Saturday morning cartoons. Yet for a sporting event
being broadcast at the same time, with as many child