2. A national strategy on online gambling harm reduction
   1. This chapter considers the adequacy of Australia’s current approach to preventing online gambling harm. The Committee examined this issue holistically, recognising that there are range of individual, socio-cultural, environmental, commercial and political factors that contribute to gambling harm.[1] The limitations of the current approach are considered, and include:

• the absence of a comprehensive national strategy on gambling harm reduction
• complex, fragmented and inconsistent regulation
• a failure to address gambling harm as a serious public health issue through an overreliance on individual responsibility
• concerns the gambling industry has too much influence over how it is regulated
• the need for stronger, evidence-based public health messaging and education to counter the influence of gambling marketing and to encourage help-seeking by Australians experiencing gambling harm
• a lack of independent research and transparent data to inform regulation and policy
• the need for further measures to disrupt illegal online gambling.

Complex, fragmented and inconsistent regulatory framework

2.2Australia does not have a comprehensive national strategy on online gambling harm reduction, despite our world-leading gambling losses. Instead, evidence to this inquiry suggests that Australia has a complex, fragmented and inconsistent regulatory framework[2] with insufficient consumer protections[3] and inadequately resourced harm reduction, treatment and support measures.[4]

2.3There are currently four Australian Government ministers, and at least seven state and territory ministers with some responsibility for online gambling regulation and harm reduction. At the Australian Government level:

• The Minister for Social Services is responsible for a range of gambling harm reduction measures including the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering (NCPF).
• The Minister for Communications is responsible for aspects of online gambling regulation and harm reduction, and gambling advertising, through the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), and for the classification of interactive games, including those containing simulated gambling and gambling like elements.
• The Attorney-General, through the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, is responsible for ensuring that companies, including gambling operators, do not facilitate money laundering or finance terrorism.
• The Minister for Sport, through Sports Integrity Australia, is leading development of the Australian Sports Wagering Scheme.
  4. The Australian Government shares responsibility for online gambling harm reduction with the states and territories through the NCPF. While there is support for the NCPF,[5] it has been criticised for not offering sufficient safeguards and relying too heavily on personal responsibility.[6] Furthermore, there is evidence that opt-in consumer protections are relatively ineffective for individuals experiencing gambling harm[7] and their uptake and use by gamblers has been limited.[8] The Committee also heard concerns about the adequacy of the implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the NCPF.[9]
  5. There is inconsistency in the way the states and territories implement the NCPF and regulate online gambling[10] through a combination of legislation and mandatory[11] or voluntary[12] codes, and the strategies used by different jurisdictions to reduce gambling harm vary.[13] This inconsistency and fragmentation has negatively impacted harm reduction efforts.[14]
  6. For example, Financial Counselling Australia (FCA) said:

Australia has created a huge gambling harm problem. We have licensed online gambling in a haphazard way. We have done this by not opening our market slowly and cautiously. Instead, our federated model has allowed a huge number of operators to find a state or territory licence provider. We have too many operators for regulators to keep on top of, especially as most are licensed in the NT. Competition between jurisdictions has not been good for consumers.[15]

2.7Responsible Wagering Australia (RWA) and the online wagering service providers (WSPs) it represents were generally supportive of the current regulatory framework for their businesses, but objected to inconsistencies and complex regulation.[16] Licenced online WSPs claimed they are more heavily regulated than their land-based and illegal offshore competitors,[17] and warned against introducing further complexity or regulatory measures until the effects of existing measures, such as the NCPF, had been assessed.[18]

2.8By contrast, Tabcorp (which holds licences for both online and land-based wagering in seven jurisdictions) said that foreign-owned online WSPs, like Sportsbet and Ladbrokes, are less regulated and pay less taxes and fees because they are licenced in the Northern Territory.[19] Tabcorp called for there to be nationally consistent regulations and consumer protections for online wagering.[20]

National regulation

2.9There was strong support for the Australian Government to establish national regulation and a national regulator for online gambling with the cooperation of the states and territories.[21] For example, Suicide Prevention Australia (SPA) said, ‘gambling regulation is failing to provide adequate consumer protection and the myriad of state and federal regulators involved in gambling regulation operate in silos.’[22] SPA recommended the ‘establishment of a coherent, Commonwealth-led, adequately funded, national regulatory structure.’[23]

2.10Similarly, the Alliance for Gambling Reform (AGR) said that ‘the different processes, legislation, departments and regulatory systems in each state need to be replaced with a single, independent, sufficiently resourced national regulator with gambling harm minimisation at the core of its purpose.’[24]

2.11Tabcorp recommended the establishment of a ‘single national betting regulator that can effectively enforce consistent regulations and consumer protections across Australia’, noting:

The internet and construct of the Australian Constitution mean that only the Federal Government has the levers and authority to effectively introduce nationally consistent regulations in line with consumer expectations and the betting environment. Effective enforcement is only possible if a single national betting regulator has the power to license and impose conditions on betting operators.[25]

2.12Other online wagering operators and the former New South Wales government were opposed to the idea of a national regulator. RWA noted that the online WSPs it represents are already accountable to 26 different regulatory bodies and ‘in many cases a single event may be overseen by multiple regulators.’[26] RWA said that, because of this, it ‘does not support the creation of an additional and potentially conflicting layer of regulation in a national gambling regulator.’[27] RWA explained:

…to be effective as a national regulator…it would require the vacating of the field by all the other regulators, and that almost never happens. The reality of government in this country is that the imposition of an overarching regulator, in this case, does not result in the rationalisation of the regulatory approach.[28]

2.13RWA favoured an approach where the Australian, state and territory governments adopt a uniform set of regulatory requirements.[29]

2.14The New South Wales Government warned that ‘a single overarching national regulator is unable to harness the “best of both worlds” flexibility that state and territory-based regulators have in being able to choose between a coordinated or unique approach.’[30]

2.15Chapter four examines the effectiveness of the current regulatory framework and existing consumer protections in reducing the harm from online WSPs, with a focus on the intersection of various legislation and codes through NCPF measures, operator-led interventions and the adequacy of enforcement and penalties.

Online gambling revenue and the funding of harm reduction measures

2.16The taxes and licencing fees levied by the states and territories on WSPs vary considerably. Concerns were raised that Australia’s federal system allows for competition between jurisdictions to secure gambling revenue in a ‘race to the bottom’ on online gambling regulation, taxes and licencing fees, in an expanding and diversifying market.[31]

2.17The NTRC licenses and regulates most online WSPs in Australia, which includes 32sports bookmakers and two betting exchanges with a total combined annual turnover of approximately $50 billion.[32] This is because the Northern Territory charges the lowest taxes and fees and has been described as a light touch regulatory regime.[33] The other states and territories impose point of consumption (POC) taxes on online gambling to offset revenue flowing to the Northern Territory from residents of their jurisdictions.[34]

2.18To address this, Associate Professor Charles Livingstone proposed that a standard regulatory scheme be adopted by all states and territories, which includes a standardised POC tax and standardised taxation for the jurisdiction issuing licenses.[35] The other, popular proposal to establish national licensing and regulation and a national regulator for online gambling, would also address the issue of a ‘race to the bottom’.

2.19There are concerns current funding is inadequate to support the services required to assist those experiencing gambling harm.[36] FCA said the current system sees the Northern Territory ‘receive all the benefits, such as licensing revenue, but [it] socialises the losses to the rest of the country.’[37] FCA also noted that POC taxes in New South Wales and Queensland have increased to 20 per cent and expressed concern this money is not being used to fund gambling harm support services.[38] FCAsuggested that help services could be funded either by 10percent of POC taxes, or via a ‘social impact levy’ with an independent body to distribute funding.[39]

2.20At the Australian Government level, the Department of Social Services (DSS) currently has few staff and resources specifically allocated towards gambling harm reduction.[40] In 2022-23, DSS was allocated $5.55 million to support financial counselling for those experiencing gambling harm, and $3.18million for the NationalDebt Helpline.[41]

Reliance on individual responsibility

2.21For many years, Australians have been told to ‘gamble responsibly’ through mandated messages at the end of gambling advertisements. The Australian Government has recently replaced this message with seven new gambling advertising taglines. The ‘gamble responsibly’ slogan was a conflicting and potentially harmful message,[42] but is broadly representative of Australia’s approach to minimising gambling harm, which relies mainly on individual responsibility.[43]

2.22Dr Angela Rintoul said the focus on individual responsibility has ‘often been deployed to the detriment of people who gamble, compounding shame, contributing to stigma associated with gambling problems, and limiting help seeking and regulatory reform activities.’[44]

2.23Similarly, Wesley Mission said that framing the issue around personal responsibility can be harmful for gamblers who are struggling to manage their gambling and absolves the industry and the nature of its products ‘from any responsibility for the creation or exacerbation of harm.’[45]

2.24Australia’s current approach relies on consumers making rational decisions that are in their best interest if they are provided with enough responsible gambling messages, information and tools. Central Queensland (CQ) University said:

This clearly hasn’t worked to reduce gambling harm in Australia, partly because people are prone to irrational and excessive behaviour with respect to gambling in general, and partly because modern gambling products are optimised to promote such behaviour. Online gambling is now faster, easier and more heavily incentivised than ever before, and current safeguards are inadequate in this environment to prevent harm and the escalation of gambling problems.[46]

2.25Mr Gavin Fineff said:

Imagine the dysfunction if road authorities enforced no clear rules, instead telling the public to ‘drive responsibly’, ‘be careful if you’re visually impaired’, ‘go as fast as you wish, it’s your choice’. This is the current regulatory and licensing regime for online gambling in Australia.[47]

2.26While the shift away from the ‘gamble responsibly’ message was welcomed, the Committee heard that it is also important to change the language and definitions used to describe gambling harm. For example, it was recommended that ‘harm reduction’ and ‘gambling harm’ should be used instead of ‘responsible gambling’ and ‘problem gambling’.[48]

2.27AGR said, ‘while the use of language such as “problem gambler” continues, governments and industry can justify not taking action by convincing themselves and others that it is an issue of personal responsibility.’[49]

2.28RWA and its members remain in favour of an emphasis in policy and regulation on individual responsibility, while arguing their members are socially responsible in how they conduct online gambling.[50] Sportsbet said that government policy should target ‘those who are at-risk or experiencing harm, without unduly restricting the enjoyment of the majority who gamble responsibly.’[51]

2.29Tabcorp said that it supports ‘a well-regulated and responsible gambling industry.’[52]

Calls for a public health approach

2.30There was considerable support for Australia adopting stronger, comprehensive policies to prevent gambling harm, as it has done for other products that are addictive and harmful to both individuals and the community, such as tobacco.[53] The Committee heard this is likely to be more effective than solely targeting those engaging in high-risk gambling.[54]

2.31Dr Rintoul said that ‘those at low and moderate risk make up the largest burden of harm at the population level. Therefore, universal interventions are most likely to be effective in reducing the burden of gambling harm.’[55] Dr Rintoul said a national strategy is required to ‘establish a framework for action that informs future program design, monitoring, and evaluation, and a unified approach to prevent and reduce gambling-related harms.’[56]

2.32SPA called for a public health approach where responsibility is shared by individuals, community groups, gambling companies, financial institutions and all levels of government.[57]

2.33Relationships Australia said that ‘harm minimisation and consumer protection efforts will only be truly effective if they take a holistic preventative approach, based on the public health model.’[58] For programs to effectively address online gambling harm, a combination of primary, secondary and tertiary reduction measures must be considered. These measures, respectively, should aim to:

• prevent harm from occurring in the first place
• reduce harm when harm is occurring in its early stages, through early intervention measures
• support individuals experiencing harm with treatment and other services.[59]
  34. Associate Professor Livingstone similarly called for a public health approach that acknowledges the progression of gambling harm to addiction, noting that current approaches mainly attempt to change an individual’s behaviour when gambling is already causing them significant harm.[60]
  35. CQ University recommended a public health approach to ‘address gambling harm across the spectrum of gamblers by implementing more proactive consumer protection measures, and policy and regulation that focus on the provision of less harmful gambling products and gambling environments.’[61]
  36. Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy noted that applying a public health approach to gambling will require a choice by governments whether ‘to prioritise protecting the public from being harmed by gambling, over the economic interests of the gambling industry.’[62] They said that a comprehensive public health approach to gambling harm reduction is one that:

• recognises that gambling harm is caused by a complex interplay of individual, socio-cultural, environmental, commercial, and political determinants; and
• advocates for independent policies and strategies that seek to prioritise health and wellbeing, and protect individuals, their communities, and families from being harmed by the gambling industry, its products, and practices.[63]
  37. Professor Thomas noted that the Department of Health currently doesn’t have a role in gambling harm reduction and said this ‘creates gambling exceptionalism, because it creates this perception that gambling is somehow different from other health issues, and it's not.’[64] Professor Thomas argued that regulation should be dealt with separately, but the Department of Health should take the lead in developing harm reduction campaigns, and commissioning research and public education campaigns because it has ‘the best knowledge and expertise in developing these campaigns, and the best, world-recognised academics and experts who can help them.’[65]

Preventing harm from tobacco

2.38While the Department of Health does not currently have any responsibility for gambling harm minimisation, it does administer several public health strategies that have been developed with state and territory governments, such as the National Tobacco Strategy 2023-2030 (the strategy).[66] The goal of the strategy is to ‘improve the health of all Australians by reducing the prevalence of tobacco use and its associated health, social, environmental and economic costs, and the inequalities it causes.’[67] The strategy has eleven priority areas that include:

• measures to protect policy from industry interference
• mass media campaigns and other communication tools to discourage use and to reshape the social norms around use
• measures to reduce use and harm among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and those at higher risk of harm
• eliminating advertising, promotion and sponsorship
• providing greater access to cessation support services.[68]
  39. Australia has made significant progress in reducing tobacco consumption. Daily smoking among adults reduced from 23.8per cent in 1995 to 13.8per cent in2017-18. Substantial progress has also been made in preventing the uptake of smoking among children and young adults and reducing passive smoking in homes.[69]
  40. Australia is not alone in regulating tobacco with the primary purpose of preventing harm. The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FTC 2003) commits parties to implement measures to reduce tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke, and to protect public policy from vested interests.[70] The Committee heard that there is ‘a clear lack of such available mechanisms to protect gambling research, policy, or practice’ from vested interests.[71]
  41. To date, the WHO’s work on the commercial determinants of health has mainly focussed on tobacco, the marketing of baby formula and noncommunicable diseases. However, the WHO has initiated a new programme of action, the Economic and Commercial Determinants of Health,[72] which is being supported by the Lancet Series on the Commercial Determinants of Health. The Lancet series has developed a conceptual model of the commercial determinants of health, which identifies gambling among ‘unhealthy commodity industries’.[73] The WHO is also progressing work on addictive behaviours, including gaming and gambling.[74]

Risk of regulatory capture

2.42There is concern that the gambling industry in Australia has far too much influence over how online gambling is regulated and the measures that are adopted to prevent online gambling harm.[75] The success of industry strategies to influence policy and regulation is referred to as regulatory capture.

2.43Concerns were raised about perceived regulatory capture by online wagering providers in the Northern Territory. FCA said that the NTRC had become ‘our main regulator’ but had been ‘set up to further the development of the racing and betting industry in the NT’.[76] Similarly, STRSConsultants said the NTRC’s relationship with the online gambling industry is too close and described the NTRC as a ‘business partner’ rather than regulator.[77] Associate Professor Charles Livingstone said that, in the Northern Territory, there was ‘a much too cosy relationship between the regulator and the regulated’.[78] He described the NTRC’s enforcement of regulation as very poor and said there had been a ‘revolving door’ between regulators and gambling operators.[79]

2.44When asked about perceptions of regulatory capture by industry, the NTRC confirmed that a previous NTRC chair is now chair of the Darwin Turf Club and claimed this didn’t present a conflict of interest. The NTRC said:

In terms of commission members, we have a disclosure requirement and people disclose their involvement. As you would imagine, some have an interest in the racing industry and sports, but those interests are declared as part of our regular commission meetings.[80]

2.45The Committee heard that the gambling industry uses similar methods to the tobacco industry to minimise the impact of regulation on its business and maximise its profits.[81] These tactics include lobbying, public relations, political donations and funding and supporting research agendas that further industry interests.[82] Associate Professor Livingstone said these activities ‘provide a platform for harmful industries to maintain control over regulatory systems and ensure that their ability to market their products is as unhindered as possible.’[83]

2.46Several witnesses argued that the current emphasis and reliance on individual responsibility in Australia’s policy response to online gambling is evidence of regulatory capture.[84] For example, Associate Professor Livingstone said the ‘responsible gambling paradigm’ was developed by industry in response to community concerns ‘…as means to short circuit possible regulatory interventions, demonstrate a simulacrum of concern by industry, and effectively download responsibility for gambling harm on to those experiencing the harm.’[85] Associate Professor Livingstone said, ‘these goals have, until recently, been achieved with spectacular success from the industry perspective. As a harm reduction or minimisation strategy, however, “responsible gambling” has been a dismal failure.’[86]

2.47Emeritus Professor Mike Daube said ‘we have known for decades that the commercial gambling industry in Australia and overseas is predatory’ and that the ‘…primary focus of this industry is to make as much money as possible from gamblers, knowing with certainty that the odds are stacked against the gambler, and that gamblers and others will suffer harm as a consequence.’[87] Emeritus Professor Daube said the gambling industry has a long history of claiming to act responsibly while ‘the overwhelming evidence is that this is no more than PR [public relations] spin; and the industries involved continue to oppose measures that might impact significantly on their marketing activities.’[88]

The industry perspective

2.48Licenced wagering operators told the Committee they take their responsibilities for gambling harm reduction seriously[89] and further emphasised their contribution to the Australian economy and role in supporting jobs.

2.49RWA said its members[90] ‘support a safe and responsible wagering industry that balances the enjoyment of its products with the need to protect the community.’[91] RWA claimed its members ‘take gambling harm seriously and support evidence-based measures to promote safe habits and reduce numbers of people experiencing gambling harm.’[92]

2.50RWA said its ‘members contributed $5.8 billion directly and indirectly into the Australian economy in the financial year ending June 2022. During the same period, RWA members sustained over 32,000 jobs.’[93]

2.51Similarly, Tabcorp said it is ‘committed to putting its customers first, delivering experiences safely and responsibly, and supporting a well-regulated and responsible gambling industry. We strive to be the responsible gambling industry leader.’[94]

2.52Tabcorp said it makes an economic contribution in Australia of around $1.8billion each year, directly employs 3,000 Australians and supports 333,000 indirect jobs in the racing industry and pubs and clubs.[95]

2.53Sportsbet provided the Committee with a transcript of a phone call between one of its customers and a Sportsbet employee as an example of how it interacts with people who may be experiencing gambling harm.

Measures to limit industry influence over policy and regulation

2.54There was strong support for measures to limit industry influence over policy and regulation,[96] including by prohibiting political donations from the gambling industry in Australia[97] and pursuing international agreements and instruments that prevent regulatory capture across jurisdictions.[98] Political donations are not covered by this inquiry’s terms of reference. It is noted that the Joint Standing Committee into Electoral Matters is currently reviewing Australia’s political donation system.

2.55Emeritus Professor Daube recommended Australia adopt measures to ensure the gambling industry and those it funds directly or indirectly have no involvement in government policy or program development and said this approach should be based on the WHOFTC.[99]

2.56FCA called for a new Australian Government Minister for Safe Gambling and Gambling Crime Prevention to be appointed. FCA said that the new portfolio should have no concurrent responsibility for the economic interests of the gambling, sporting or racing sectors.[100]

2.57Similarly, Mr Russell Northe called for the Australian, state and territory governments to appoint ministers for gambling safety. He said that ministers with responsibility for looking after the interests of Australians experiencing gambling harm should have no responsibility for the interests of the gambling industry.[101]

2.58Nonetheless, there is a practical need for government to engage in industry consultation about the design and implementation of policy and legislation, given that it is online WSPs in most instances which will have to deliver those reforms.

Inadequate public health messaging and education

2.59The exposure to marketing is central to gambling becoming normalised for children and young people.[102] Marketing creates a perception that gambling is a fun, social and easy way to win money,[103] and that it is a normal social and cultural practice.[104] Gambling marketing in Australia seeks to embed the activity within an Australian culture that values sport and mateship.[105]

2.60The Committee heard Australia needs better public health messaging and programs that accurately describe the risks and harms of gambling and ‘denormalise’ gambling as a social and cultural activity.[106]

2.61Professor Thomas, Dr Pitt and Dr McCarthy said that sporting organisations, broadcasters, the gambling industry, and the government play a role in the creation of social norms around gambling. This includes framing gambling as a legitimate leisure activity that has many socio-cultural and economic benefits for communities, which creates a collective ‘blueprint’ for the normalisation of gambling.[107] They argued that ‘gambling is already normalised for young people, and significant efforts now need to be made to denormalise these harmful products in order to prevent the next generation of harm.’[108]

2.62Professor Thomas said that ‘one of the things that we learned so well from tobacco is that counter-framing messages were an incredibly important part of prevention.’[109] She said ‘we need the hard-hitting messages that we've seen in tobacco around the tactics of industry and the harms that these products can cause people. We don't have those in gambling at the moment.’[110]

2.63DSS noted the success of Australia's 1997 National Tobacco Campaign in countering the narrative of the tobacco industry. The campaign increased quitting intentions among smokers and prevented relapse among former smokers. It was estimated the campaign reduced the number of Australians smoking by 190,000.[111]

2.64Care Incorporated said that gambling ‘is a large, wealthy and powerful industry with capacity to influence government policy and community attitudes’ and said, ‘there are much fewer resources available for education programs aimed at reducing gambling harm, particularly harm from online gambling in our community.’[112]

Public education campaigns

2.65Currently, the Australian Government does not fund any public education campaigns about the risks and harms of online gambling apart from the development of the new gambling advertisement taglines. The states and territories provide a variety of programs and resources.

2.66For example, the New South Wales Government delivers campaigns for the general community as well as ‘targeted campaigns for priority populations, such as culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities, young people, Aboriginal communities, lower socio-economic and other at-risk groups.’[113]

2.67The South Australian Government is progressing several projects including the HereFor The Game initiative, in partnership with Adelaide United Football Club. According to the South Australian Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, HereForTheGame ‘seeks to disrupt the normalisation of betting in sport and provides an alternative narrative to that provided by betting companies.’[114] In the coming year, the South Australian Government stated that it will also deliver ‘a mainstream communications campaign that seeks to educate the community about gambling harm, raise awareness of the support available, and tackle stigma’.[115]

2.68The Tasmanian Government funds community education programs that it says are research-based and regularly evaluated, including:

• the Know Your Odds campaign, which provides information about how commercial gambling works with links to support services
• the Give Change A Chance campaign, which ‘encourages online gamblers, young people and their families to reflect on online gambling and seek information or support through the Gamblers Help suite of services’.[116]
  69. The Queensland Government is developing consistent community education resources for Gambling Help providers and a new preventative education resource that aims ‘to inform parents and young people on the risks of gambling including online gambling and simulated gambling.’[117]
  70. AGR noted that state and territory funding for education campaigns is minimal compared to the advertising budgets of WSPs, and expressed concern that evaluations of current government education campaigns are not made public. AGRsuggested a review of how the public are informed about the harms of online gambling, noting that some existing campaigns are inappropriate.[118]
  71. Dr Sophie Scamps MP called for a long term, federally funded education campaign to shift the culture of gambling in the manner of campaigns to prevent harm from smoking and drink driving. Dr Scamps said:

Gambling should not be normalised or celebrated but it also should not be shamed, it should be an issue that people are aware of and encouraged to talk about and seek help for, without stigmatisation. The campaign and messaging should increase public awareness of gambling and its harms as well as how to manage problem gambling and where to seek support.[119]

2.72The Committee heard that any future public education programs should be large enough to counter industry marketing, be well informed, based on independent research and thoroughly evaluated and should aim to protect the most vulnerable from gambling-related harm.[120] However, simply providing education resources is insufficient and these need to be part of a comprehensive public health approach to reducing harm. Furthermore, education resources will be more effective if they are informed by high-quality independent research.[121]

2.73GTRC reported that the effectiveness of education resources to reduce harmful gambling is limited by ‘individuals’ tendency to believe that they are unlikely to develop a problem.’[122] Furthermore, many individuals experiencing gambling harms have difficulty moderating their behaviour, despite being aware of the harm they are experiencing. GTRC recommended that ‘education programs should encourage healthy behaviours such as safer or sustainable gambling.’[123]

2.74GTRC also suggested that ‘broader resources, such as those [that] assist people to be savvy digital consumers would potentially reduce the impact of predatory gambling and gambling marketing (in addition to other problematic online behaviours).’[124]

Children and young people

2.75The Australian Medical Association (AMA) said that education programs are needed to inform children and young people of the harms of gambling, and said they ‘must be designed in a way that engages young people and uses appropriate language, messaging and digital information platforms.’[125] AMA suggested ‘these should be developed in partnership with education departments and include support resources for parents to talk with their children around their use of digital media.’[126]

2.76Similarly, the Salvation Army recommended developing publicly funded campaigns that are delivered in ways and online spaces that appeal to young people. The Salvation Army suggested a campaign featuring ‘young people in scenarios, possibly in familiar peer settings, reflecting on real-life experiences of online gambling harm.’[127] The benefit of this approach is that it encourages young people to think critically about harmful gambling and the development of unsafe habits.[128]

2.77The Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia (AHISA) recommended that ‘information and resource offerings on the Australian Government’s Student Wellbeing Hub and on the website of the Office of the eSafety Commissioner be expanded to help promote awareness of and responses to gambling as an issue affecting young Australians.’[129]

2.78AHISA noted research that found parents to be the strongest influence on youth gambling and suggested they should be targeted in education and awareness campaigns.[130]

2.79The need for a public information campaign to educate parents, caregivers and teachers on all elements of simulated gambling including loot boxes, skins, gambling with virtual currency, chance based micro-transactions and emergent features is examined in Chapter six.

2.80There was support for education to be provided in schools about the risks and harms of gambling.[131] For example, Mrs Annie Boehm called for online gambling and simulated gambling education programs for children from Kindergarten to Year 12, as well as education programs in universities and sporting clubs.[132]

Reducing stigma and encouraging help-seeking

2.81The Committee heard there is a need for public education campaigns that recognise gambling addiction as a health issue and encourage higher levels of help-seeking behaviour.[133] For example, Turning Point and the Monash Addiction Research Centre suggested that:

Scaling successful anti-stigma initiatives such as the Rethink Addiction campaign for alcohol, other drug, and gambling harms, can tell the real stories of addiction, break down stigma, and challenge negative public attitudes that limit help-seeking.[134]

2.82The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) and Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) suggested ‘basing education programs around the existence of gambling disorder as a medical condition, and subsequent evidence-based clinical treatments, would support the public’s understanding of effective supports.’[135]

2.83AMA suggested that ‘community centred programs have the ability to change attitudes surrounding gambling and help destigmatise it’ which can be implemented ‘in a variety of places, including sports clubs and community hubs.’[136]

Gambling taglines

2.84All gambling advertising currently must include a ‘responsible gambling message’.[137] As previously noted, seven new gambling taglines have been introduced as part of the NCPF to replace the message to ‘gamble responsibly’. These are:

• Chances are you're about to lose.
• Think. Is this a bet you really want to place?
• What's gambling really costing you?
• What are you prepared to lose today? Set a deposit limit.
• Imagine what you could be buying instead.
• You win some. You lose more.
• What are you really gambling with?[138]
  85. While DSS said the taglines were ‘the most effective at engaging consumers, interrupting and encouraging positioning behaviour change, [and] encouraging safer gambling practices’,[139] it is too early to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of the taglines in reducing harm.
  86. RANZCP and RACP said that, as a harm minimisation measure, the taglines may have limited impact in isolation and need to be complemented by robust licensing and regulatory regimes.[140]
  87. Professor Thomas, Dr Pitt and Dr McCarthy, and Professor Daube were concerned about the depth of research that led to the development of the new taglines.[141] Professor Thomas, Dr Pitt and Dr McCarthy said the taglines do not match with findings from their own research, which showed that community members, young people, and gamblers want honest information about industry tactics, gambling risks and potential harms, alongside strategies that individuals themselves can implement to minimise harm.[142] Professor Daube was concerned about a lack of in-depth and robust research that informed the taglines in comparison to the ‘lengthy, meticulous and in-depth research that have become the norm for tobacco warnings’.[143]

Lack of independent research and transparent data

2.88Successful public health strategies, such as Australia’s response to tobacco, are based on rigorous, independent research.[144] The Committee heard there is a need for better coordinated and more independently funded and generated research, particularly into vulnerable groups, and transparent data about online gambling to inform policymaking and harm reduction strategies.[145] There were also calls for better data to be collected about gambling related suicides.[146]

2.89Dr Rintoul said that ‘the dominance of responsible gambling paradigm has led to a significant gap in the evidence base. To date much research in gambling studies has lacked independence.’[147]

2.90RANZCP and RACP said that ‘adequate funding is required to improve this evidence base. Given the very high social and financial cost of gambling in Australia, funding for such initiatives would have very high potential for return on investment.’[148]

2.91CQ University called for prevalence studies that measure the total burden of gambling-related harm in the population, including harm to self, harm to affected others, and harm to children, to enable appropriately informed policy responses.[149]

2.92The National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation noted that online gambling among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is likely to be significantly higher than for non-Indigenous Australians and recommended that comprehensive data be collected and made available to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled health organisations.[150]

2.93Relationships Australia called for further research into online gambling prevalence and the effectiveness of interventions, and a clear definition of when gambling is a ‘problem behaviour’.[151]

2.94There was support for a coordinated approach to collecting and synthesising gambling harm research in a similar manner to Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, which produces and makes evidence accessible to support the reduction of violence against women and their children.[152]

2.95Victorian Arabic Social Services suggested that a coordinated national strategy on gambling harm reduction would enable better cooperation and the development of communities of practice between the various state and territory gambling harm bodies. A centralised hub for communication and discussion could allow for a national database of gambling harm programs and initiatives.[153]

2.96The Australian Institute of Family Studies’ (AIFS) Australian Gambling Research Centre (AGRC) is an important element of Australia’s gambling research landscape. DSS currently contributes $500,000 annually to supporting high quality gambling research on areas of national significance through AGRC.[154] AGRC noted that, while it currently supports the National Gambling Reporting Study and many smaller studies, ‘there needs to be a significant investment in data and evidence, including regular assessments of prevalence.’[155] AGRC said this ‘will enable policymakers and the community to understand what gambling behaviours are occurring in the community in this very rapidly evolving sphere.’[156]

2.97AGRC said it would be well placed to take on the additional role of a national clearinghouse for gambling research and resources, noting that AIFS supports other clearinghouses including Child Family Community Australia.[157]

Using operator data to drive harm reduction

2.98Online WSPs collect vast amounts of data about their customers, which could be harnessed to benefit harm reduction efforts. Several witnesses argued that online WSPs should be required to provide de-identified data for the purposes of harm reduction and research.[158] For example, AGRC said:

To facilitate a strategic and systematic approach to this, operators should be mandated as a licensing requirement to make available de-identified data on gambling participation (e.g. time and money spent wagering online), losses accrued, other related signs of harm, pre-commitment, and self-exclusion to relevant government departments and approved researchers. Analysis of such data will provide insights into the risks associated with online gambling and better inform preventative measures and policy responses.[159]

2.99FCA said that the provision of transparent, real-time gambling data to regulators has several advantages, including:

• identifying and monitoring customer harm risks, and allowing for comparison across operators on their performance in minimising these risks
• informing harm prevention policy measures
• informing regulatory action and enforcement, including both operator and integrity of sport investigations
• identifying anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing risks.[160]
  100. FCA proposed a ‘data vault’ model that has been implemented by at least 15countries including Spain, Denmark, and France.[161] According to FCA, the data vault allows countries to ‘understand their market. They can see what companies are doing. They've got data for policy.’[162]
  101. FCA reported that, in Spain, Denmark, and France, ‘every bet must be logged through the regulator’s data vault portal in real-time. This means that those countries know exactly what each demographic group spends and on what product’.[163] For example, Spain’s gambling policy interventions focus on young men because their data shows that 18 to 25-year-old men experience greater harm. FCA noted that the data vaults must comply with European data privacy rules, which are more stringent than Australia’s rules.[164]
  102. FCA described the key features of a data vault:

• They typically record every betting transaction placed in that country. They generally comprise of a ‘data capture’ and a ‘data storage’ system.
• Operators are responsible for securely storing their data and providing access to the regulator, with appropriate security and privacy measures in place. Generally, once the data is in the ‘vault’ operators cannot change it.
• The regulator’s system pulls data from each operator’s vault (or the operator’s safe server pushes data out to the regulator). The regulator’s database combines the data to have both an individual operator view as well as a whole of market view. The regulator can also access an individual customer view to fulfil its regulatory functions, e.g. if there is a complaint or it is conducting investigations on an operator’s compliance with its responsible gambling obligations.
• Individual customers may be de-identified and assigned an unique reference number (although some regulators choose to see all data).[165]
  103. FCA noted that several multinational gambling companies operating in Australia, such as Entain (Ladbrokes and Neds) and Flutter (Sportsbet), were already operating in jurisdictions with data vaults.[166]
  104. RWA indicated support for a data driven and tailored approach for delivering interventions to people experiencing gambling harm.[167] Similarly, Tabcorp said it would be happy to share de-identified data if customers consented to their data being used, and that privacy and other protections were in place.[168]

Disrupting illegal online gambling

2.105ACMA is empowered under the IGA to take a range of actions to disrupt illegal online gambling, including investigation and enforcement activities, engagement with industry and other regulators, and consumer education.[169]

Scale of issue

2.106ACMA has observed ‘a notable disruption in the supply of illegal gambling services’ since it started enforcing illegal offshore gambling rules in 2017.[170] ACMA said that the majority of services that have been investigated have either withdrawn their services or have had access to their websites blocked by internet service providers at the request of ACMA.[171] It reported that there has been an overall downward trend in illegal offshore gambling expenditure in Australia since 2016, in contrast to total expenditure on online gambling, which increased by 72 per cent from 2019 to 2022.[172]

2.107During this inquiry, the threat of illegal online gambling was repeatedly raised by licenced online WSP representatives,[173] and those who derive revenue from their products such as the Australian Football League (AFL),[174] in response to questions about whether Australia should adopt new measures to prevent gambling harm, including further restrictions on advertising.

2.108For example, RWA warned that ‘Australians are increasingly at risk of illegal offshore operators’ and reported that, in 2019, 47 per cent of Australian online gamblers had used an illegal offshore gambling provider.[175] RWA claimed the illegal offshore wagering market in Australia is now worth more than $1.1 billion, accounting for approximately 15 per cent of the total wagering market. RWA argued that ‘once established, eliminating an offshore wagering market is hard to achieve and it is therefore important to maintain a broad and fair onshore market that favours licensed operators.’[176]

2.109The Committee asked Sportsbet to provide evidence to support its claim that introducing further consumer protections, such as mandatory deposit limits and affordability checks, would encourage illegal offshore gambling.[177] Sportsbet provided three sources: two were funded by the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), the industry association for licenced betting and gaming operators in the UnitedKingdom; and, the third was a survey commissioned by Sportsbet.[178] This evidence suggests that:

• The ‘black market’ accounts for 66 per cent of all gambling in Norway after it introduced a state gambling monopoly as well as bet limits, affordability checks and advertising restrictions.
• There was a 9 per cent increase in illegal gambling in Denmark after it restricted inducements and introduced mandatory deposit limits.
• Of all gamblers surveyed in Sweden who reached the mandatory deposit limit of about AUD $700 per week, approximately one third said they continued to bet online with unlicenced providers.
• Most respondents to the BGC’s survey in the United Kingdom were opposed to the introduction of mandatory limits and affordability checks and said they would consider a different bookmaker if they were asked to provide private financial documents.
• Most respondents to Sportsbet’s customer survey said they would not be willing to provide financial documents and raised privacy and security concerns. About 40per cent said they would consider using an unlicenced provider if they were asked to provide personal financial information.[179]
  110. The idea that the introduction of further regulatory measures in Australia on licenced online WSPs would necessarily result in an increase in illegal online gambling was disputed. For example, AGRC said ‘there really isn’t any evidence yet’ and noted that its research found about 10 to 15 per cent of gamblers have accounts with illegal, offshore providers, and of those, most gambled on online table games or poker machines rather than betting on sports or racing.[180]
  111. Tabcorp said that ‘illegal offshore betting has largely been addressed by the disruptive powers’ given to ACMA.[181]
  112. FCA reported from its casework that illegal offshore gambling is not the main cause of online gambling harm, and the more pressing concern is the harm caused by licensed providers in Australia. FCA said:

It benefits the existing industry to keep regulatory attention focused externally, and to keep competition out. But it benefits Australian consumers to have regulators focus on Australian licensed operators - the ones who advertise heavily, who service the greatest number of gambling customers and who earn the most revenue.[182]

2.113According to FCA, positioning illegal offshore gambling as the main threat to Australian consumers is another strategy used by licenced online gambling providers to protect their own interests.[183]

2.114When asked whether the introduction of gambling advertising restrictions would result in an increase in illegal online gambling, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA) said there was no evidence to suggest this would happen and described it as ‘a pretty long bow to draw’.[184]

Further measures required

2.115Concerns were raised that unregulated gambling poses a threat to sports and racing integrity, such as through match fixing, and the strong links between offshore online gambling operators and organised crime and money-laundering.[185] The Committee heard that the illegal website operators are predatory and manipulative:

The promotions, incentives, 100% match bonuses, free play, free chips are sent via all types of correspondence at an alarming level. Even when you unsubscribe or close your account or even contact the casino’s management, advising them that you are a compulsive gambler and you need your account shut down permanently, they continue to send emails, letters via post, text messages, as well as phone calls.[186]

2.116ACMA acknowledged that about half of the websites it has blocked have tried to circumvent the blocks by launching mirror sites,[187] which use slightly different Uniform Resource Locators (URLs). However, ACMA said it has observed a significant reduction in Australian traffic to the top ten illegal blocked websites, even where operators have launched mirror sites.[188]

2.117There were calls for more effective measures to block illegal online gambling URLs and to raise consumer awareness of the legal restrictions on online gambling.[189] For example, the South Australian Liquor and Gaming Commissioner noted that ‘when one of these sites is blocked, others pop up with minor changes to the URL address. Current ‘blocking’ approaches to these websites are easily overridden by VPNs [virtual private networks] or Geoblockers.’[190]

2.118Clubs Australia called for ACMA’s enforcement powers to be strengthened to establish response timeframes for ACMA to deal with requests to block illegal websites and for ACMA to display information on blocked websites. Clubs Australia also said the IGA should be amended to prevent directors or principals of blocked gambling websites from travelling to Australia.[191]

2.119The Synods of Western Australia and Victoria and Tasmania, Uniting Church in Australia said that Australia’s banks should be required to block transactions to offshore gambling operators identified by ACMA.[192]

2.120Dr Rintoul called on the Australian Government to ‘resource efforts to develop international agreements to regulate gambling across borders.’[193] She said that illegal online gambling operators will continue to target Australian consumers and that regulation will be challenging without ‘international agreements to coordinate efforts to monitor and control illegal online gambling operators.’[194]

Committee comment

2.121Australia’s online gambling industry has grown rapidly. It is expected to expand further with new market entrants and high levels of gambling marketing if regulatory settings remain unchanged. Given the significant harms online gambling is causing, Australia needs to undertake meaningful structural reform of the regulatory framework for online gambling now to prevent further harm in the future. The current approach is not working.

2.122The COVID-19 lockdowns were a perfect storm for many Australians who cannot gamble safely. Australians could not leave their homes and were bombarded with online gambling advertising across all media. Early access to superannuation gave people who gamble access to substantial lump sums that were used to pay off gambling debts and to fund further gambling. Australians should not be accessing their superannuation to gamble.

2.123Like tobacco, online gambling is a public health issue; it can be addictive and causes a range of harms to individuals, families and communities. Australia made a choice to prioritise protecting the public over the profit motives of the tobacco industry and adopted a comprehensive public health approach to preventing harm from smoking. This included limiting the influence of industry on policy, regulation and research, banning tobacco marketing and sponsorship, strong public health messaging about the harms of smoking and plain packaging. These measures have reduced smoking rates in Australia, prevented avoidable death and misery, and reduced health care costs to taxpayers.

2.124Australia needs a comprehensive national strategy on online gambling harm reduction that is informed by public health principles. This means doing away with the reliance on an individual’s responsibility for ‘responsible gambling’ and the limited focus on measures to assist high-risk gamblers only. Australia needs a public health strategy that aims to reduce gambling harm at the population level. This requires a combination of prevention and early intervention measures, and support for those experiencing harm.

2.125The regulatory framework for online gambling is inadequate, overly complex and fragmented. It includes a combination of Australian, state and territory legislation and industry codes of practice, some of which are mandatory and some voluntary. This results in poor outcomes for consumers and creates risk for industry. Responsibility is distributed across multiple Australian Government ministries and the racing and gaming portfolios of state and territory governments. Despite online WSPs operating nationwide, there is inconsistency across jurisdictions in how online gambling is regulated and the fees and levies imposed on online WSPs. Currently, the NTRC is Australia’s de facto online gambling regulator.

2.126The main point of collaboration between governments, the NCPF, may not cover the field of measures to reduce gambling harm, but it does show that Australian, state and territory governments can work together to progress gambling harm reduction measures for all Australians. The states and territories have expressed a willingness to progress further online gambling harm reduction measures. However, securing their agreement and collaboration on a comprehensive national strategy on gambling harm reduction will require the Australian Government to take a strong and well-coordinated lead.

2.127Further measures are required to support vulnerable Australians. Gambling harm disproportionately affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities, and help seeking rates in those communities are low.

2.128The Committee strongly encourages Australian governments to implement fully the National Agreement on Closing the Gap to reduce the underlying barriers that influence Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s rates of gambling harm. Further measures to reduce gambling harm in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities should be developed and implemented in partnership with Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, in accordance with the Closing the Gap priority reforms.

2.129Similarly, further measures to reduce gambling harm in CALD communities should be developed and implemented in partnership with CALD community organisations to ensure they are delivered in culturally safe and linguistically appropriate ways.

2.130The Committee considers it essential there be a new Online Gambling Harm Reduction portfolio in the Australian Government to develop and implement the national strategy. Neither DSS, nor DITRDCA, nor ACMA would appear well suited to leading a public health strategy. Both DSS and DITRDCA have very broad policy remits and DSS has limited resources and staff allocated to gambling harm reduction. The Department of Health has no current role in gambling harm reduction but has expertise in leading successful public health responses to harmful products such as tobacco. The new portfolio should draw on the expertise of the Department of Health, public health and gambling researchers and advocates, and Australians with lived experience of gambling harm in developing the national strategy.

2.131As part of a national strategy, the Australian Government should establish national regulation and a national regulator for online gambling with the cooperation of the states and territories. Under a national regulatory scheme, states and territories would retain the capacity to levy point of consumption taxes. The sole purpose of national regulation should be to reduce online gambling harm. The relevant functions of existing Australian Government departments and agencies, such as DSS, DITRDCA and ACMA, should be incorporated into the new portfolio and regulator. This reform will require legislative and machinery of government changes. Crucially, it will also need state and territory governments to vacate the field of online WSP regulation and licensing, thus ensuring national consistency.

2.132The Committee recommends that responsibility for online gambling harm reduction is held by a single Australian Government Minister.

2.133The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, with the states and territories, develop a comprehensive national strategy on online gambling harm reduction. The strategy should be based on public health principles and include measures that:

• prevent gambling harm from occurring
• intervene early when there is risk of harm
• provide appropriate treatment and support for those experiencing harm
• include measures to protect the most vulnerable that are developed with communities to ensure they are culturally safe and linguistically appropriate.
  134. The national strategy should be in place within twelve months, allowing that implementation would be progressive.
  135. To address the perverse disincentive for the states and territories to impose stricter regulatory requirements on online WSPs, Australia needs consistent national regulation, licencing fees and a revenue stream for harm reduction measures. This revenue stream should consist of licensing fees, financial penalties for breaches of regulatory rules and a levy directed towards harm reduction measures.

2.136The Committee recommends that, as the priority of the national strategy and with the cooperation of the states and territories, the Australian Government:

• establish national regulation and a national online gambling regulator with the sole purpose of reducing harm and with responsibility for all licencing and regulation
• levy online wagering service providers (WSPs) to fund the national strategy harm reduction measures for which the Australian Government has responsibility.
  137. There is too much potential for the gambling industry to be involved in the development of gambling regulation and policy in Australia. Australia’s licenced WSPs have been successful in framing the issue of gambling harm around personal responsibility while diminishing industry and government responsibility. This has been to the detriment of Australians experiencing gambling harm.
  138. While it is true that harmful industries should not be the architects of their own regulation, it is also true that industry will be required to implement many of the government’s desired reforms. The Committee encourages the Australian Government to work with licenced WSPs and those who derive income from their products, to implement its reforms. However, operators and other vested interests should not be allowed to shape, in any way, the intent of the national strategy and national regulation.
  139. Gambling in Australia is normalised through the marketing of WSPs in competition for market share, and the willingness of media organisations and major sports to carry their messages. It is clear the Australian public has had enough, and that a national strategy on online gambling harm reduction must include restrictions on gambling marketing. However, given the prolonged exposure of Australians, particularly young people and children, to the idea that gambling is a normal, fun, low risk and sociable way to enjoy themselves, there is also a need for coordinated and sustained national public education campaigns to combat these messages.
  140. It is important to change how we talk and write about gambling. The current language and definitions used to describe gambling harm increase stigma and discourage help seeking. The terms ‘responsible gambling’ and ‘problem gambling’ should be replaced with ‘harm reduction’ and ‘gambling harm’, respectively, in policy, government communications and research.
  141. The new gambling advertising taglines are a welcome change after years of focus on individuals gambling responsibly. It is too early to tell whether the new taglines are having their intended effect. The taglines should be thoroughly evaluated and replaced with research-informed public health messages if required.

2.142The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develop and fund an ongoing, online gambling public education campaign with national advertising and marketing, particularly online. The campaign should target and be relevant to:

• children and young people
• parents and caregivers, with the aim of helping them to guide children and young people to make safer choices online
• individuals who are at risk of or who are experiencing gambling harm
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
• culturally and linguistically diverse communities.
  143. The campaign should:
• seek to counter the harmful messages of gambling advertising
• be informed by rigorous, independent research
• be developed with input from target individuals and communities to ensure they are relevant, culturally safe and linguistically appropriate
• accurately present the risks and harms of gambling with licenced operators and illegal offshore websites
• aim to reduce stigma and encourage help-seeking, and protect the most vulnerable from gambling harm
• educate Australians about available consumer protection tools for online gambling and encourage healthy behaviours
• provide resources that can be used by schools, universities and community organisations, such as sporting clubs
• be thoroughly evaluated, with the evaluations to be publicly available.
  144. All gambling-related public education resources should be made available on the Australian Government’s Student Wellbeing Hub and by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to help promote awareness of gambling harm to young people and offer strategies to limit exposure.
  145. There is substantial research that is funded by the gambling industry to further its interests, as is the case with tobacco. To counter this, and to inform future regulation and policy, there needs to be more independently generated and funded research, and a clearinghouse for gambling research and best practice interventions, treatments and supports. It is important that the clearinghouse includes diverse research and opinion, including those supported by the gambling industry.

2.146The Committee recommends that the Australian Government:

• resource the Australian Institute of Family Studies’ Australian Gambling Research Centre to take on an additional role as a national clearinghouse for gambling research
• provide ongoing funding for gambling research, in particular:

• research to develop a set of standard indicators of risk and harm that can be applied in regulation and policy
• prevalence studies on online gambling harm across both licenced and illegal gambling platforms and websites
• research into vulnerable groups
• research into best practice interventions, treatments and supports
• research about gambling-related suicides.
  147. The data-driven nature of the online gambling industry should be better used to drive harm reduction efforts. Regulators and researchers need transparent access to operator data to monitor for harm, ensure compliance, and to inform regulation and policy. National regulation should, at a minimum, require online WSPs to providede-identified customer data on gambling participation, risk indicators, interventions and harm to the regulator and approved researchers on a consistent and systematic basis.
  148. Ultimately, the goal should be for regulators to have real-time access to operator data. The Committee notes that Sportsbet offered to make the algorithm they have developed to identify ‘red flags’ available to the Australian Government. This offer should be explored. Further, the Australian Government should investigate the data vault facilities used by jurisdictions overseas for feasibility with a view to implementing a similar scheme in Australia under national regulation.

2.149The Committee recommends that:

• national regulation requires online WSPs to disclose de-identified customer data on gambling participation, risk indicators, interventions and harm to the regulator and approved researchers on a consistent and systematic basis
• the Australian Government conduct a feasibility study of Spain, France and other jurisdiction’s data vault facilities with the aim of implementing a system that provides real-time operator data to the regulator and approved researchers.
  150. Illegal gambling websites are causing significant harm, and their operators display no concern or obligation to the welfare of their customers. Clearly there is more to do to disrupt illegal online gambling. However, there are conflicting positions over the scale of the issue. Licensed online WSPs and those who benefit from their products claim that illegal online gambling is the biggest risk to Australian consumers. Industry, broadcast media and major sports organisations all warned that, if governments took further regulatory action to prevent the harm caused by licenced WSPs, gambling on illegal products would increase. This positioning would appear to be due, in no small part, to self-interest. By contrast, evidence from ACMA, FCA and others suggest that a focus on illegal offshore gambling should not the ‘main game’, relative to licenced online WSPs, in reducing online gambling harm. The Committee’s view is that governments can take strong measures to prevent the harm caused by both licenced WSPs and illegal online gambling operators simultaneously.
  151. The Australian Government should commit more resources and empower regulators and law enforcement to disrupt online gambling in a timely and effective manner. There should be significant penalties for the companies and individuals who are blatantly breaking Australian law and appear to care little for the harms their products are causing.

2.152The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develop and implement:

• technological solutions and resources to quickly and more effectively block offshore gambling websites including skin gambling websites and mirror sites
• a protocol for blocking transactions to known illegal gambling operators, in cooperation with Australian banks and other payment system providers
• stronger sanctions for companies and known individuals who profit from illegal gambling.
  153. The absence of international agreements to reduce gambling harm or to combat illegal online gambling contrasts with multilateral efforts to prevent harm from tobacco. Australia’s and other countries’ efforts to reduce online gambling harm domestically would be strengthened by coordinated action.

2.154The Committee recommends that the Australian Government lead the development, with international organisations and other countries, of multilateral agreements that:

• improve international cooperation to combat illegal online gambling across borders
• aim to reduce gambling harm and protect public policy and research from gambling industry interference.
  155. This inquiry only considered online gambling and it would be outside the Committee’s terms of reference to make recommendations in relation to other forms of gambling. However, the Committee recognises that Australians who gamble harmfully do so across multiple product types, and notes that robust consumer protections across all forms of gambling would reduce the likelihood of highest-risk gamblers choosing products with the lowest friction.

Footnotes

[1]Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 4.

[2]Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 4; SalvationArmy, Submission 43, page 11; Entain, Submission 61, page 11; Sportsbet, Submission 81, page4; Tabcorp, Submission 101, page 1.

[3]Australian Psychological Society, Submission 109, page 3; Wesley Mission, Submission 85, page 4; STRSConsultants, Submission 28, page 1; Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Submission 91, page 2.

[4]Financial Counselling Australia (FCA), Submission 152, page 1; Gambling Treatment and Research Clinic, University of Sydney (GTRC), Submission 65, page 12; Dr Matthew Stevens, CommitteeHansard, 28February 2023, pages 17-18; Suicide Prevention Australia (SPA), Submission 41, page 9.

[5]Queensland Government, Submission 140, page 7; Entain, Submission 61, page 4; ResponsibleWageringAustralia (RWA), Submission 106, page 2;

[6]Australian Psychological Society, Submission 109, page 3; Wesley Mission, Submission 85, page 4; STRSConsultants, Submission 28, page 1; QUT, Submission 91, page 2.

[7]GTRC, Submission 65, page 4.

[8]Central Queensland (CQ) University, Submission 24, page 2.

[9]Dr Aino Suomi, Submission 90, page 3.

[10]RWA, Submission 106, page 14; FCA, Submission 152, pages 5 and 37; Entain, Submission 61, page10; Sportsbet, Submission 81, page 13; Dr Angela Rintoul, Submission 150, page 4.

[11]Shane Rattenbury MLA, Submission 82, page 3; Northern Territory Racing Commission (NTRC), Submission143, page 1.

[12]Queensland Government, Submission 140, page 6.

[13]Shane Rattenbury MLA, Submission 82.1, pages 1-2 and Attachment 1; Queensland Government, Submission 140, page 1.

[14]Salvation Army, Submission 43, page 11; Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and DrSimoneMcCarthy, Submission 126, page 4.

[15]FCA, Submission 152, page 4.

[16]RWA, Submission 106, page 14; Entain, Submission 61, page 11; Sportsbet, Submission 81, page 4.

[17]Mr Nick Minchin, Chairman, RWA, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, pages 50 and 58; Sportsbet, Submission 81, page 2.

[18]PointsBet Australia, Submission 105, page 2; Sportsbet, Submission 81, page 2; Entain, Submission61, page 4.

[19]Tabcorp, Submission 101, pages 1 and 3.

[20]Tabcorp, Submission 101, page 1.

[21]Alliance for Gambling Reform (AGR), Submission 48, page 2; Dr Angela Rintoul, Submission 150, page 4; Tabcorp, Submission 101, page 1; Mr Adam Rytenskild, Chief Executive Officer, Tabcorp, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, pages 8, 11 and 15; FCA, Submission 152, page 6; Carole Flood, Margaret Bourke, Susan Chessell, Mary Constable, Elspeth Humphries, Beth Peedom, Jan Pryor, JaneSmyth, Marie Wood, Submission11, page 3; Anna Bardsley, Submission128, page 2; CQ University, Submission 24.1, page4; SPA, Submission 41, page 3; Australian Medical Association (AMA), Submission 83, page 3.

[22]SPA, Submission 41, page 4.

[23]SPA, Submission 41, page 4.

[24]AGR, Submission 48, page 10.

[25]Tabcorp, Submission 101, page 4.

[26]Mr Nick Minchin, RWA, Committee Hansard, 4April2023, page 50. See also: MsTanyaAbbotto, ChiefCustomer, Sustainability and People Officer, Sportsbet, Committee Hansard, 4April2023, page 42.

[27]Mr Nick Minchin, RWA, Committee Hansard, 4April2023, page 50.

[28]Mr Nick Minchin, RWA, Committee Hansard, 4April2023, page 57.

[29]Mr Nick Minchin, RWA, Committee Hansard, 4April2023, page 57.

[30]New South Wales Government, Submission 114, page 9.

[31]CQ University, Submission24.1, page 4; Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, page 8; FCA, Submission 152, page 4.

[32]NTRC, Submission 143, page 1.

[33]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, page 2.

[34]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, page 2.

[35]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, page 8.

[36]FCA, Submission 152, page 1; GTRC, Submission 65, page 12; Dr Matthew Stevens, Committee Hansard, 28 February 2023, pages 17-18; SPA, Submission41, page 9.

[37]FCA, Submission 152, page 4.

[38]FCA, Submission 152, page 4.

[39]FCA, Submission 152, page 5.

[40]Ms Liz Hefren-Webb, Deputy Secretary, Families and Communities, Department of Social Services (DSS), Committee Hansard, 23November 2022, page 3. DSS said this was around five staff.

[41]DSS, Submission 87, page 12.

[42]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, page 6; APS, Submission 109, page 3; STRSConsultants, Submission 28, page 2; Wesley Mission, Submission 85, page 1.

[43]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, pages 2-3; Dr Angela Rintoul, Submission 150, pages 1 and 4; Wesley Mission, Submission 85, page 1; CQ University, Submission24.1, page 2; ProfessorSamantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 3; ShaneRattenbury MLA, Attorney-General and Minister for Gaming, Australian Capital Territory Government, Committee Hansard, 28February 2023, page 32.

[44]Dr Angela Rintoul, Submission 150, page 1.

[45]Wesley Mission, Submission 85, page 1.

[46]CQ University, Submission 24.1, page 2.

[47]Mr Gavin Fineff, Submission 7, page 5.

[48]AGR, Submission 48.1, pages 1-3; Dr Sophie Scamps MP, Submission 100, page 5.

[49]AGR, Submission 48.1, page 2.

[50]RWA, Submission 106, page 1.

[51]Sportsbet, Submission 81, page 1.

[52]Tabcorp, Submission 101, page 1.

[53]Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 5; Namewithheld, Submission 8, page 1; Carole Flood, Margaret Bourke, Susan Chessell, Mary Constable, Elspeth Humphries, Beth Peedom, JanPryor, Jane Smyth, Marie Wood, Submission 11, page 3; CQ University, Submission 24.1, page 2; Hobson’s Bay City Council, Submission 38, page 4; Australian Health Promotion Association (AHPA), Submission 54, page 4; AGRC, Submission76, pages 10-11; DrAinoSuomi, Submission 90, page 2; Queensland University of Technology, Submission 91, page 2; DrArthurChesterfield-Evans, Submission 99, page 1.

[54]AGRC, Submission 76, page 10.

[55]Dr Angela Rintoul, Submission 150, page 1.

[56]Dr Angela Rintoul, Submission 150, page 9.

[57]SPA, Submission 41, page 4.

[58]Relationships Australia, Submission 93, page 4.

[59]Relationships Australia, Submission 93, pages 4-5.

[60]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, pages 2-3.

[61]CQ University, Submission 24, page 6.

[62]Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 3.

[63]Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 4.

[64]Professor Samantha Thomas, Committee Hansard, 10 February 2023, page 49.

[65]Professor Samantha Thomas, Committee Hansard, 10 February 2023, page 49.

[66]Department of Health, Submission 159, page 3.

[67]Department of Health, Consultation Draft National Tobacco Strategy 2022-2030, February 2022, page 8.

[68]Department of Health, Consultation Draft National Tobacco Strategy 2022-2030, February 2022, page 9.

[69]Department of Health, Consultation Draft National Tobacco Strategy 2022-2030, February 2022, pages 4-5.

[70]Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 4; WorldHealth Organization (WHO), WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, 2003, Geneva, Switzerland.

[71]Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 4.

[72]WHO, ‘Commercial determinants of health, Media release, 21 March 2023.

[73]A Gilmore, A Fabbri, F Baum, et al, ‘Commercial Determinants of Health 1: Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health,’ the Lancet, vol 401, March 2023, page1195.

[74]WHO, Health topics, ‘Addictive behaviours’, www.who.int/health-topics/addictive-behaviour, viewed 8June2023.

[75]AGR, Submission 48.1, page 2; Mr Gavin Fineff, Submission 7, page 2; Associate Professor CharlesLivingstone, Submission 113, pages 2-3; Allegra Spender MP, Submission 115, page 3; PublicHealth Association of Australia, Submission 125, page 2; Professor Samantha Thomas, DrHannahPitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 5; Care Incorporated, Submission 45, page4; ZoePeet, Submission 94, page 7; FCA, Submission 152, page 31; MsLouise Francis, Member, AHPA, Committee Hansard, 10February2023, page 25; DrArthurChesterfield-Evans, Submission 99, page4.

[76]FCA, Submission 152, page 4.

[77]STRS Consultants, Submission 28, page 2.

[78]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Committee Hansard, 28 February 2023, page 24.

[79]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Committee Hansard, 28 February 2023, page 24.

[80]Mr Alastair Shields, Chair, NTRC, Committee Hansard, 28 February 2023, page 42.

[81]Mr Rod Pitcher, Submission 3, page 2; Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, Submission 137, page 3 and Submission 137.1, pages 1-10; Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, page5.

[82]Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, Submission 137, page 2.

[83]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, page 5.

[84]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, pages 2-3; Dr Angela Rintoul, Submission150, page 1; Wesley Mission, Submission 85, page 1; AGR, Submission 48.1, page 2.

[85]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, pages 2-3; See also Dr Angela Rintoul, Submission 150, pages 1 and 4.

[86]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, pages 2-3.

[87]Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, Submission 137, page 2.

[88]Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, Submission 137, page 2.

[89]Tabcorp, Submission 101, page 1; Sportbet, Submission 81, page 1; Entain, Submission 61, pages 1; PointsBet, Submission 105, page 2; Mr Brendon Dorff, Submission 97, page 6.

[90]RWA’s members include bet365, Betfair, Entain (Ladbrokes and Neds), PointsBet, Sportsbet and Unibet.

[91]RWA, Submission 106, page 1.

[92]RWA, Submission 106, page 2.

[93]RWA, Submission 106, page 4.

[94]Tabcorp, Submission 101, page 1.

[95]Tabcorp, Submission 101, page 2.

[96]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Submission 113, page 5.

[97]Allegra Spender MP, Submission 115, page 1; Public Health Association of Australia, Submission125, page2; Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, Submission 137, page 6; AssociateProfessor Charles Livingstone, Committee Hansard, 28 February 2023, page24; Professor Samantha Thomas, Committee Hansard, 10February 2023, page 48.

[98]Associate Professor Charles Livingstone, Committee Hansard, 28 February 2023, page22.

[99]Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, Submission 137, page 6.

[100]FCA, Exhibit 20, ‘The sky didn’t fall in’, Winston Churchill Trust, March 2023, page 7.

[101]Mr Russell Northe, Submission 29, page 13.

[102]Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 6. Chapterfive examines the effectiveness of Australia’s current gambling advertising restrictions in reducing harm.

[103]Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 5.

[104]AHPA, Submission 54, page 2.

[105]AHPA, Submission 54, page 2.

[106]Ms Louise Francis, Member, AHPA, Committee Hansard, 10 February 2023, page 22. MrGavinFineff, Submission 7, page 7; Dr Sophie Scamps MP, Submission 100, page 5; SPA, Submission 41, pages 7-9; The Salvation Army, Submission 43, page9.

[107]Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 5.

[108]Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 2.

[109]Professor Samantha Thomas, Committee Hansard, 10 February 2023, page 49.

[110]Professor Samantha Thomas, Committee Hansard, 10 February 2023, page 49.

[111]DSS, Submission 87, page 10.

[112]Care Incorporated, Submission 45, page 4.

[113]New South Wales Government, Submission 114, page 5.

[114]Government of South Australia, Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, Submission 121, page 3.

[115]Government of South Australia, Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, Submission 121, page 4.

[116]Treasurer of Tasmania, Submission 23, page 2.

[117]Queensland Government, Submission 140, page 5.

[118]AGR, Submission 48, page 14.

[119]Dr Sophie Scamps MP, Submission 100, page 5.

[120]Australian Psychological Society, Submission 109, page 4; Government of South Australia, LiquorandGambling Commissioner, Submission 121, page 4.

[121]GTRC, Submission 65, page 14; Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 9; Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, Submission 137, page 4.

[122]GTRC, Submission 65, page 14.

[123]GTRC, Submission 65, page 14.

[124]GTRC, Submission 65, page 2.

[125]AMA, Submission 83, page 3.

[126]AMA, Submission 83, page 3.

[127]The Salvation Army, Submission 43, page 9.

[128]The Salvation Army, Submission 43, page 9.

[129]Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia (AHISA), Submission 62, page 3.

[130]AHISA, Submission 62, page 10.

[131]AGR, Submission 48, page 3; Name Withheld, Submission 112, page 2; Clubs Australia, Submission124, page 7; Mrs Lyn McDermott, Submission 27, page 3; Fairfield City Council, Submission 50, page 4.

[132]Mrs Annie Boehm, Submission 25, page 9.

[133]Mr Gavin Fineff, Submission 7, p 4; Turning Point and the Monash Addiction Research Centre, Submission68, page 9; QUT, Submission 91, page 3; GTRC, University of Sydney, Submission 65, page 4; AMA, Submission 83, page 3.

[134]Turning Point and the Monash Addiction Research Centre, Submission 68, page 9.

[135]Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) and Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), Submission 110, page 5.

[136]AMA, Submission 83, page 3.

[137]Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), Submission 96, page 14; FreeTVAustralia, Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice, 2018, page 40.

[138]DSS, Submission 87, page 10.

[139]DSS, Submission 87, page 9.

[140]RANZCP and RACP, Submission 110, pages 5-6.

[141]Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, Submission 137, page 5; and Professor Samantha Thomas, DrHannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 3.

[142]Professor Samantha Thomas, Dr Hannah Pitt and Dr Simone McCarthy, Submission 126, page 3.

[143]Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, Submission 137, page 5.

[144]Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, Submission 137, page 5.

[145]Australian Psychological Society, Submission 109, pages 2 and 4; CQ University, Submission24.1, page 4; Hobsons Bay City Council, Submission 38, page 4; Professor Thomas, Dr Pitt and DrMcCarthy, Submission126, page 9; AGR, Submission 48, page 3; Dr Rae Kaspiew, ResearchDirector, AustralianInstitute of Family Studies (AIFS), and Dr Rebecca Jenkinson, Executive Manager, AGRC, Committee Hansard, 5April2023, page 3; RANZCP and RACP, Submission 110, pages 5 and 10; NationalAboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO), Submission 70, pages 4-5.

[146]Turning Point and the Monash Addiction Research Centre, Submission 68, page 1; AnnaBardsley, Submission 128, page 3.

[147]Dr Angela Rintoul, Submission 150, page 4.

[148]RANZCP and RACP, Submission 110, page 10.

[149]CQ University, Submission 24, page 7.

[150]NACCHO, Submission 70, pages 4-5.

[151]Relationships Australia, Submission 93, page 2.

[152]Mr Nick Tebbey, National Executive Officer, Relationships Australia, Committee Hansard, 28February2023, pages 2 and 4; Victorian Arabic Social Services (VASS), Submission71.1, page 1; ProfessorRoss Gordon, QUT, Committee Hansard, 28February2023, page10.

[153]VASS, Submission 71.1, page 1.

[154]DSS, Submission 87, page 5.

[155]Dr Rae Kaspiew, Researcher Director, AIFS, Committee Hansard, 5April2023, page 3.

[156]Dr Rae Kaspiew, Researcher Director, AIFS, Committee Hansard, 5April2023, page 3.

[157]Dr Rebecca Jenkinson, Executive Manager, AGRC, Committee Hansard, 5April2023, page3.

[158]AGRC, Submission 76, page 11; Government of South Australia, Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, Submission 121, page 5; FCA, Submission 152.1, page 3; Wesley Mission, Submission 85, page 4; MsLouise Francis, Member, AHPA, Committee Hansard, 10February2023, page 25.

[159]AGRC, Submission 76, page 11.

[160]FCA, Submission 152.1, page 3.

[161]FCA, Submission 152.1, page 3.

[162]Ms Lauren Levin, Director, Policy and Campaigns, FCA, Committee Hansard, 28 March 2023, page 2.

[163]FCA, Submission 152, page 16.

[164]FCA, Submission 152, page 16.

[165]FCA, Submission 152.1, page 3.

[166]FCA, Submission 152.1, pages 9-10.

[167]RWA, Submission 106, page 8.

[168]Mr Adam Rytenskild, Chief Executive Officer, Tabcorp, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, page14.

[169]ACMA, Submission 96, page 4.

[170]ACMA, Submission 96, page 4.

[171]ACMA, Submission 96, page 4.

[172]ACMA, Submission 96, page 5.

[173]Responsible Wagering Australia, Submission 106, page 3; Ms Tania Abbotto, Chief Customer, Sustainability and People Officer, Sportsbet, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, page 43; Mr Steven Lang, Director, Regulatory Strategy and Safer Gambling, Entain Australia, Committee Hansard, 4 April 2023, page 18.

[174]Mr Gillon McLachlan, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Football League (AFL), Committee Hansard, 4April2023, page 26.

[175]RWA, Submission 106, page 3.

[176]RWA, Submission 106.2, page 3. RWA’s second supplementary submission and attachment were received seven weeks after RWA’s appearance at a public hearing, while the report was being drafted. As such, the Committee did not get the opportunity to test this evidence. RWA commissioned the research, which was conducted by the United Kingdom based H2 Gambling Capital. H2 Gambling Capital claims to be the gambling industry's leading market data, intelligence and consulting team.

[177]Ms Tania Abbotto, Chief Customer, Sustainability and People Officer, Sportsbet, CommitteeHansard, 4April2023, page 43.

[178]Sportsbet, Submission 81.1, pages 4-6.

[179]Sportsbet, Submission 81.1, pages 4-6.

[180]Dr Rebecca Jenkinson, Executive Manager, AGRC, Committee Hansard, 5 April 2023, page3.

[181]Tabcorp, Submission 101, page 1.

[182]FCA, Submission 152, page 25.

[183]FCA, Submission 152, page 31.

[184]Mr Richard Windeyer, Deputy Secretary, Communications and Media Group, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA), Committee Hansard, 4April2023, page 68.

[185]RWA, Submission 106.2, page 19; Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports, Submission 42, page 6.

[186]Name withheld, Submission 156, page 1.

[187]ACMA, Submission 96, page 5.

[188]ACMA, Submission 96, page 5.

[189]CQ University, Submission 24, page 6.

[190]Government of South Australia, Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, Submission 121, page 7.

[191]Clubs Australia, Submission 124, page 7.

[192]The Synods of Western Australia and Victoria and Tasmania, Uniting Church in Australia, Submission 86, page 6.

[193]Dr Angela Rintoul, Submission 150, page 1.

[194]Dr Angela Rintoul, Submission 150, page 4.