Key issues
2.1
This chapter examines the evidence received by the committee in
submissions to this inquiry.
2.2
Most submitters welcomed the proposed legislative framework contained in
the bill and the efforts being made to ensure that gambling advertising is
consistent with community standards across all viewing platforms. Some stakeholders
made observations about the likely effects of specific provisions, and sought
clarification or suggested changes in relation to the proposed regulatory
framework.[1]
Overall views on the bill
2.3
The
importance of ensuring that young Australians are not exposed to gambling
promotional content was recognised in evidence. The Hon Kelvin Thomson,
Alliance for Gambling Reform (AGR), drew the committee's attention to important
new research on the participation of young Australians in gambling activities,
noting that this generation is the first to be exposed to saturation marketing
of online betting products.[2]
Mr Thomson stated:
Since I started working for the Alliance for Gambling Reform,
I have been blown away by the evidence of gambling harm. Australians are the
largest gamblers per capita, by quite some margin, and the links with family
violence, homelessness, mental health problems, crime and so on are quite
striking. The alliance sees gambling as a public health issue analogous to
smoking, alcohol and traffic accidents. As a nation, we can be quite proud of
what's been achieved with government leadership and community support in
reducing harm from smoking, alcohol and traffic accidents, but the picture with
gambling harm is not the same. It's not one of reduction at all.[3]
2.4
In order
address these significants issues, submitters recognised that, for restrictions
on gambling promotional content to be effective, they must apply equally across
all platforms. The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation commented:
The Foundation views the introduction of a ban on advertising
and promotions during live sport as an important step in protecting children
from the socialisation effects of widespread promotions and advertising of
gambling that saturate all the media environment—a socialisation that changes
the meaning of sport and encourages false ideas about both the normality of
gambling and the risks associated with gambling.[4]
2.5
The
Department of Communications and the Arts (the department) informed the
committee that the bill breaks new ground by regulating online content. The
department added:
For the first time, broadcast-like standards will be applied
to online content service providers. The bill will ensure a platform-neutral,
consistent approach to the restriction of gambling promotions. This responds to
significant community concern over the amount of gambling advertising and the
normalisation of gambling in children's eyes through its association with
sport.[5]
2.6
The department added that without a consistent approach to
broadcasters and online services:
...different rules could apply to coverage of the same sporting
event, depending on the platform, and broadcasting services would potentially
be subject to stricter rules than online platforms. At present, online
platforms are not technically subject to any gambling promotion restrictions.[6]
2.7
The introduction of a level playing field was welcomed by several
submitters, including Commercial Radio Australia (CRA).[7]
However, it was noted that, in the interests of fairness and efficiency, the
rules should come into effect across all platforms at the same time. Free TV
Australia (Free TV) noted
the Government's announcement indicating that the proposed changes would come
into effect on 30 March 2018, and recommended that the bill should clearly
stipulate a commencement date for the proposed new framework.[8]
2.8
The department stated that the restrictions for online content
services will commence the day after royal assent of the bill. It noted that
the Government's intention is that these restrictions will come into effect on
30 March 2018 and that the indications are that changes to the broadcasting
codes of practice will meet that deadline.[9]
2.9
Some
submitters called for greater restrictions. For example, the Victorian
Inter-Church Gambling Taskforce, Alliance for Gambling Reform, and Victorian Local
Governance Association (VICGT, AGR, and VLGA) and UNICEF Australia expressed the view that
gambling promotions should be restricted through a comprehensive prohibition
that provides a clear and safe zone where parents can be confident children can
watch live sport without experiencing messages that normalise gambling as a
part of that sport.[10] The Australian Council on
Children and the Media (ACCM) commented that the proposed system was 'overly
timid' and 'skewed in favour of industry interests'.[11]
Industry codes of practice
2.10
Matters related to gambling advertising are currently regulated
via a number of instruments including broadcast industry codes of practice. The
department commented that, for licensed broadcasting service providers, the
Government intends that the broadcast industry codes of practice be amended to
include the additional restrictions proposed by the bill. The department added
that 'the co-regulatory process for making and enforcing industry codes of
practice is governed by the regulatory framework established by the
Broadcasting Services Act'.[12]
2.11
The Coalition of
Major Professional and Participation Sports (COMPPS) and the Australian
Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA) noted that there is a
framework already in place that regulates the broadcast of gambling advertising
during live sporting events, and that this is being strengthened further
through amendments to industry codes.[13] COMPPS encouraged the Australian
Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to use the existing industry codes of
practice as a guide to the application of rules for online content service
providers.[14]
2.12
VICGT, AGR, and VLGA expressed concern that the draft industry codes
contain loopholes that are inconsistent with the Government's announced policy
intentions in relation to gambling advertising restrictions.[15]
The Hon Stephen Conroy, Executive Director, Responsible Wagering Australia (RWA)
commented on the inadequacy of the draft codes in relation to long sports
broadcasts. Mr Conroy stated:
We were quite shocked when we saw the carve outs and the
exemptions. We've worked hard with the department, the government and the
sector to come up with a reasonable and responsible definition of long form
sports. I grappled with that myself in the past, and I think that the
government got the balance right. I was disappointed that the draft code seemed
to backslide away from community expectations.[16]
2.13
The department commented that provisions in the bill which
provided a mechanism for the Minister to act should the industry codes not be
amended as required. The department stated:
The bill also includes a regulatory mechanism that can be
used to apply the new gambling promotions restrictions to broadcasting
services, should the industry codes of practice not be amended appropriately.
The proposed new section, 125A, would provide the minister with the power to
direct the ACMA to apply the new gambling promotions restrictions to relevant
broadcasting services, by way of a program standard. However, I do need to
acknowledge that the broadcast sectors are working closely with the ACMA to
ensure that their codes are appropriately amended. At this stage it seems
unlikely that the minister will need to use this discretionary power to ensure
the new gambling promotions restrictions are applied to relevant broadcasting
services.[17]
2.14
In relation to codes of practice in the online environment, the Digital
Industry Group Incorporated (DiGi) raised the potential for inconsistent
regulation between rules enforced by the regulator as opposed to industry codes
of practice, and recommended that the department work with DiGi and other
relevant industry associations to develop self-regulatory codes of practice
similar to those for broadcasters. DiGi also stated that there had been limited
consultation with the digital industry on the implementation of these restrictions
and the proposed new Schedule 8.[18]
2.15
The department commented on reasons for a co-regulatory approach for
broadcasters and the use of codes of practice and a direct regulation approach
for online content services. It stated that unlike the broadcast sector, there
is no clear peak industry group or co-regulatory framework for online services.
The department stated that, as a consequence:
...our decision was that to make sure that it is very clear
what the rules are and who they apply to, our best opportunity was actually to
put the enabling framework in legislation, but then have the service provider
rules that the ACMA will develop, that are in some sense akin to the
broadcasting codes of practice, to actually give effect to the overarching
legislation.[19]
2.16
The department also responded to DiGi's recommendation for self-regulatory
codes of practice. The department commented that there are a finite number of
licenced broadcasters and a code can be established to cover all the
participants. However, in the online environment there are many providers and groups
representing those providers. The department commented that 'this would have put
the ACMA in a position of having to negotiate a multitude of codes and still
not have anywhere near the coverage required to enforce the rules'. It
explained that the bill provides an enabling framework approach which allows
the ACMA to develop service provider rules in consultation with the industry,
with provision to exempt responsible online service providers from the scheme.[20]
Special Broadcasting Service
Corporation (SBS) request for exemption
2.17
In its submission to the committee, SBS expressed concern with the way
in which the proposed regulation is to be implemented. SBS argued the
regulatory mechanisms proposed are inconsistent with the provisions of the Special
Broadcasting Service Act 1991 (SBS Act) which safeguard SBS's editorial
independence from Government. In addition, SBS drew attention to the statement
in the EM that there is no recognised industry group or co-regulatory framework
for online services, nor enforceable codes of practice for online services.
However, SBS pointed out that SBS Codes of Practice already cover both
broadcast and online services.[21]
Ms Clare O'Neil, Director, Corporate Affairs, stated that:
Our codes currently hold restrictions on advertising for our
broadcast services, and it is through the SBS codes that any new
gambling-advertising restrictions on TV and radio services will be imposed. To
have a separate regime just for online services while our other services are
dealt with by codes is inefficient, confusing for viewers and inconsistent with
the public-broadcasting frameworks that are well established and effective.[22]
2.18
To address this concern, SBS proposed that the bill be amended so that
SBS is expressly exempt from the operation of proposed Schedule 8. In addition,
it proposed that the new restrictions be implemented by the Board of SBS establishing
a set of rules in the SBS Codes of Practice for both broadcast and digital
platforms, which would be subject to the usual process of notification to the
ACMA.[23]
2.19
The department responded to SBS's concerns by acknowledging the
importance of independence for the public broadcasters. However, Dr Carolyn Patteson
added that 'this doesn't mean that rules that limit social harm arising from
exposure to gambling promotion should not apply to the SBS'. It was noted that
SBS is subject to other legislation aimed at preventing social harm from
advertising, such as the ban on tobacco advertising.[24]
Comments on specific measures—Schedule
8 (Online content services)
2.20
Some submissions expressed opposition to, raised drafting concerns about,
or sought clarification on particular proposed amendments. This evidence is
examined in the following sections.
Definitions
2.21
Clause 2 of the bill provides for the definition of 'gambling
promotional content' as adverting, sponsorship and promotional content that
relates to a gambling service. SBS proposed that the broad concept of
'promotional content' should be removed from the definition so that the
provision focuses on advertising and sponsorship content. SBS argued that
'promotional content' was a 'vague concept' and its removal from the definition
would avoid unintended consequences, such as the capture of advertisements on
team uniforms, and confine the provision to advertising and sponsorship content
only.[25]
2.22
In relation to 'promotional content', the department commented that the bill
will ensure a platform neutral, consistent approach so that the same rules that
currently apply to the restriction of gambling promotions for broadcasters will
apply in the online environment.[26]
2.23
Clause 3 of Schedule 8 provides the definition of 'online content
services'. DiGi submitted that this definition conflates three separate
functions—online content service providers, online content creators and online
advertising platforms. It recommended that further work be undertaken to
identify and address the different roles and responsibilities in the context of
the proposed amendments.[27]
Exemption of online simulcast
services
2.24
Proposed clauses 3(1)(e) and 4 of Schedule 8 provide that rules
determined under Schedule 8 would not apply to 'exempt online simulcast
services' under certain circumstances.
2.25
This was seen as a significant exemption for the commercial radio
industry as it would otherwise 'face substantial practical difficulties'.[28]
Free TV proposed that categories of permissible watermark-type content in
proposed clause 4 be extended beyond logos and insignia to include other
watermark-type graphics or textual material that may be relevant to the
fixture, such as closed captioning, providing that they did not contain
gambling promotional content.[29]
2.26
A further matter raised in relation to simulcasts was that the public
would have to know that the event was being broadcast as an online simulcast.
The ACCM considered that it should not fall on members of the public to
determine whether a breach has taken place.[30]
Geographical link to Australia
2.27
Proposed clause 5 of Schedule 8 would set out when a service has a
geographical link to Australia, that is, a reasonable person would conclude that
the service is targeted to Australians or the content is likely to appeal to
the public or a section of the public in Australia. Three matters in relation
to proposed clause 5 were raised.
2.28
First, ASTRA argued that this clause should provide an express exception
for services which are geoblocked to Australia.[31] The department responded
to this proposal by stating that the ACMA would decide on exemptions. It went
on to explain that, 'if a stream is successfully geoblocked, then it is not
something that should be available to viewers. But, ultimately, it provides the
ACMA with discretion to ensure that they're not covered by the rules'.[32]
2.29
Secondly, DiGi considered that the application of clause 5 was too
vague, and creates an 'incredibly wide link to Australia'. DiGi recommended
either removing the criterion that 'any of the content provided on the service
is likely to appeal to the public, or a section of the public, in Australia',
or specifically identifying the targeted sporting codes and making the legislation
applicable to .com.au domains only.[33]
2.30
The department noted that the definition of 'geographical link to
Australia' includes any of the content provided on the service that is likely
to appeal to the public, or a section of the public, in Australia. The
department further explained that 'likely to appeal' would have its ordinary
meaning in the legislation, and that every case would depend on the particular
circumstances. The approach taken in the bill is to provide for broad coverage,
and enable the ACMA to determine exemptions 'with the best possible chance of
capturing all the providers that it considers appropriate to capture'.[34]
2.31
The department also provided examples of what 'targeted to Australia'
would mean, including circumstances where a domestic broadcaster targets a
predominantly Australian audience; where a broadcast involves an Australian
team; where the broadcast is available for access by subscription to Australian
residents; or where it carries gambling promotional content for Australian gambling
services or other content relevant to people who reside in Australia.[35]
2.32
Thirdly, Free TV noted that it has traditionally been difficult to
enforce local laws on international operators. It submitted that the bill
should provide the ACMA with sufficient power to enforce the rules on
international operators using mechanisms such as those identified in the Review
of Illegal Offshore Wagering (O'Farrell Review).[36]
2.33
The department acknowledged that 'the vast majority of online content
would be provided by mainstream providers who would be keen to comply'.
However, it also noted that the ACMA already has powers in relation to foreign
providers, such as those contained in the Interactive Gambling Act 2001
and the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015.[37]
Cut-off time for restrictions
2.34
The ACCM noted that the bill does not specifically refer to an 8:30 pm
cut-off time for the proposed restrictions, even though the EM contains a lengthy
discussion about a proposed 'safe zone' between 5:00 am and 8:30 pm
for children to watch sporting content.[38]
In any case, it argued that the restrictions should apply to the full duration
of any live transmission of a sporting event scheduled to start before 8:30 pm,
as 'many parents would reasonably plan for children to stay up until the end of
play; and many adolescents would have a later usual bedtime in any case'.[39]
2.35
Professor Elizabeth Handsley, President, ACCM stated:
It's disingenuous to suggest that children would just go to
bed at 8.30, or that the family would just switch off the TV, or that children,
if they remain watching, would somehow be inoculated from the impact of this
content and this gambling promotion in a way that they weren't before 8.30 pm.
We just think it's far more realistic and it's going to be far more effective
in protecting children if these restrictions last right through a program that
we know there's a strong child audience for.[40]
2.36
The department noted that each sporting code would be able to set its
own scheduling and that there will be no guidelines in relation to such
scheduling.[41]
In addition, the EM comments that:
The current 5.00 am to 8.30 pm time slot is accepted in the
industry as the standard benchmark for existing content restrictions aimed at
protecting children. For example the advertising of alcohol and intimate
products, and the airing of mature classified content like MA15+ programming,
are all permitted after 8:30pm. Extending the prohibition to all platforms that
transmit live sport will mitigate against gambling advertising migrating to
other platforms which may distort the market for sports rights, and risk
exposing child audiences to gambling advertising on services that are being
rapidly embraced by audiences.[42]
2.37
COMPPS assured the committee that its members will adhere to the
respective codes of practice once finalised by the ACMA, and that it will
continue to work with broadcasters, wagering bodies and regulators on these
codes.[43]
Individual and class exemptions
2.38
Proposed clauses 15 and 16 of Schedule 8 would allow the
ACMA to determine certain exemptions from the online content provider rules and
set out criteria the ACMA
must have regard to when making such an exemption.[44]
2.39
Some submitters argued that the proposed exemptions may lead to
'regulatory bypass' for sections of the online industry and suggested that
clear decision-making criteria be included to guide the ACMA's decisions and
ensure consistency between all platforms.[45]
Ms Bridget Fair, Free TV, expressed concern that the legislation potentially
provides for a broad range of content services to be exempted from the rules.
Ms Fair commented:
This type of broad mechanism for exemptions will not apply
under the codes of practice for television or radio. To avoid regulatory
bypass, which we think is already problematic under the existing framework,
these matters should be addressed.[46]
2.40
The department explained that the decision-making criteria for class
exemptions will be provided for through legislative instruments and subject to
parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance, while criteria for individual
exemptions will be done through administrative action. Dr Patteson stated that
'the ACMA will be required to undertake appropriate and reasonably practical
consultation before making a class exemption'.[47]
2.41
VICGT, AGR, and VLGA proposed that the ACMA should be required to
consider the likelihood that an exemption will result in gambling related harm
and the number of children likely to be exposed to the gambling promotion as a
result of the exemption.[48]
2.42
The department explained that responsible online service providers who
have been exempted from the restrictions by the ACMA would not be required to
prohibit gambling advertisements. It noted that the ACMA would deal with a
provider who acted contrary to the policy intent of the Government through the
complaints process but that, where an exemption is in place, the person or
company receiving the exemption would no longer have to comply with the rules.
The circumstances under which an exemption would be provided are set out in the
bill.[49]
2.43
The department also noted that the
bill sets out the overall regulatory framework, including service provider
rules, in order to provide flexibility and agility for exemptions under the rules,
recognising that the internet changes 'almost on a daily basis'.[50]
Age-gating
2.44
COMPPS and RWA noted that there is no explicit reference in the bill to
'age-gating', where users are required to verify their age, as a criterion for the
ACMA granting an exemption to the online content service provider rules. They
noted that Australian-licensed online wagering providers are required to verify
the identity of their customers, including name and age, as a key protection
against financial fraud, money laundering and terrorism financing. COMPPS and
RWA submitted that the bill should allow for exemptions where an online content
service provider has an age-gating mechanism in place.[51]
2.45
Mr Alex Alderson, General Manager, Digital, National Rugby League (NRL),
made further comment on behalf of COMPPS:
But as a general proposition online services today tend to be
consumed through some form of registration process. That's different for FOX
SPORTS than it is for, for example, a streaming service that the NRL offers.
But, typically, people who are hoping to consume a service are asked to provide
some personal information: their name, often some contact information and,
increasingly, other information about themselves, including their birthdate in
some cases, and in some cases just an indication, positive or negative, of
whether they are over the age of 18. With that information provided by a user,
the technology is available for us to provide them with a different experience
in almost every respect, be that advertising or even showing them a different
feed of the match if that was something that we were able to do. So the nature
of our point around age-gating is that, where we can identify that someone is
over the age of 18, we think that there should be an opportunity to incorporate
wagering advertising in the live stream where that's in the interest of our
respective business models—and that, I'd hasten to add, is not necessarily the
case always, or at all. But we think that the ability to identify someone who
is over 18 does achieve the kind of policy aim of what's proposed here.[52]
2.46
The department responded by stating that the matter of age verification
was discussed with a number of industry groups. However, it acknowledged that
age verification is 'really, really difficult without going through a formal
100-point ID check' and that, ultimately, it would be for the ACMA to determine
if the age verification is sufficient to ensure that children are not likely to
be part of the audience.[53]
2.47
Mr Chris Rummery, Social Justice Researcher, Uniting Church/Victorian
Inter-Church Gambling Taskforce pointed to a weakness in the proposed exemption
for simulcasts viewed via sporting codes applications or websites, citing the
Cricket Australia website as an example.
Under the current exemption this
application would be exempt, because all you're doing is simulcasting what
Channel 9 is simulcasting themselves. But what we do have down below is a
bet365 advertisement. If you click on that advertisement, you are asked whether
you're 18 or not, you click yes and it will take you straight to the bet365
website, taking you to all the live odds for that sport, including cricket but
also horseracing and other sports. The point is that age gating doesn't prevent
the advertisements. While it may prevent someone going on and actually creating
an account and betting via the bet365 website, it doesn't actually prevent a
minor or someone under 18 from using that application and then accessing the
live sports website.[54]
2.48
The department explained that gambling advertisements could be run on a
page within a broader domain that is live broadcasting. The department added
'so it's the button that you click on or the window that you click on to open
up the viewing—what you are
viewing and around that—that is the streaming of the live sport'.[55]
When a part of an online content
service is taken to be an online content service in its own right
2.49
Proposed clause 17 of Schedule 8 is intended to clarify when a part of
an online content service is taken to be an online content service in its own
right in relation to a sporting event.
2.50
COMPPS sought clarification as to whether this clause is intended to limit
the proposed ban to the page on which the livestream is shown, rather than a
broader application across the entire website. Specifically, COMPPS sought
clarification that the ban would apply only within the live stream of a sports
match and around the live stream, such as banner advertising or other imagery
that is visible to the viewer from within the live stream view port/landing
page.[56]
Mr Alex Alderson, NRL, provided a further explanation on behalf of COMPPS.
What I would say is that the nature by which some
advertisements—for example, a visual appearance of the odds on an event—are
included in the code for a website or an application tends to be what's
described as hard-coded. The challenge that we have today, as we sit here, is
that that is not an easy thing to switch on and off. It involves a technical
process, and, with live matches commencing and a series concluding over a
weekend in the case of my sport, that would be quite a labour-intensive process
and I would say that the risk of error in stepping down or switching off an
advertisement during a live period would be so high that we might not do it at all.[57]
2.51
The department noted this concern and explained that the bill clearly
envisaged that banner advertisements would be captured by the online content
service provider rules by referring to banner ads shown 'in conjunction with'
live sporting events. In circumstances where an age-gating mechanism is in
place, the ACMA would be likely to exempt the whole service 'because, at the
end of the day, children aren't part of that audience, which would then allow
banner ads or other clickable internet material surrounding the sports
broadcast'.[58]
Gambling service
2.52
Proposed clause 18 of Schedule 8 would allow the ACMA to have the discretion
to make rules prohibiting or regulating gambling promotional content that
relates only to some types of gambling services, with the effect of excluding
gambling promotional content in relation to other particular gambling services
(e.g. lotteries) from the rules.[59]
2.53
Several submissions welcomed the proposed exemption from gambling
advertising restrictions for racing broadcasts and government related lottery
draws, which would be consistent with current regulations.[60]
2.54
Tabcorp expressed concern that the bill may provide an avenue for the
granting of a class exemption for synthetic lotteries (where bets are placed on
the outcomes of overseas lotteries), noting that several state governments are
taking steps to ban synthetic lotteries.[61]
Tabcorp and ASTRA proposed that advertisements for fantasy sports betting
products should be specifically excluded from the gambling advertising
restrictions on the basis that the market is small, the products have different
messaging and incentives and, unlike traditional wagering products, they are
based on skill rather than chance.[62]
2.55
The Flinders Centre for Gambling Research (FCGR) expressed concern
regarding any proposal to exclude fantasy sports, noting that they share the
same psychological mechanisms as traditional wagering products.[63] Concerns have been raised
by researchers about the emergence of daily fantasy sports platforms in
Australia and their potential for creating gambling-related problems.[64]
2.56
The Hon Stephen Conroy, RWA, also commented on these proposed exemptions
and stated:
I think gambling companies that have advocated that they
should be exempt for certain products, whether it's fantasy sports—if you want
to watch a growth gambling sector, fantasy sports is coming. We've already seen
the extraordinary response to the synthetic lotteries like Lottoland, but with
Tabcorp and Lottoland looking to carve themselves out I think that's
undermining the government's policy, and I believe it's supported across the
parliament. I think these exemptions have undermined the
government's policy objectives, and they all ensure that kids are not protected
from them.[65]
2.57
Mr Thomson, Alliance for Gambling Reform, similarly argued that the 'risk
of loopholes in this area is real and I don't think the case for exemption is
strong. I think it's weak and we'd prefer to see them covered'.[66]
2.58
The department noted that the size of the audience is just one of the
factors that the ACMA would take into account when considering exemptions.[67]
Live coverage of a sporting event
2.59
Proposed subclauses 21(1) and (3) provide that gambling promotional
content will be regarded as an online content service in conjunction with live
coverage of a sporting event if:
-
the content is provided on the service during the period
beginning five minutes before the scheduled start of the sporting event, and
ending five minutes after the conclusion; and
-
the content is broadcast on the service during the period
beginning 30 minutes before the scheduled start of the sporting event, and
ending 30 minutes after the conclusion.[68]
2.60
VICGT, AGR, and VLGA proposed that the restriction on gambling
advertising and promotion be amended to apply to the period from when the
broadcast of the sporting event starts and ends, or five minutes before the
event starts and five minutes after it ends, whichever is the longer.[69]
Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF) argued that consideration
needs to be given to extending the restrictions to from the scheduled start of
play to include pre- and post-match activity. Mr Phillips commented:
It seemed to us that, if you thought about, say, an AFL grand
final or an NRL grand final, once they cross to the ground, from the customer's
point of view and particularly from the children's point of view, that is when
they're sitting down to watch. In fact, they may be watching and the parents
may still be busy at the barbecue or whatever. They are not doing very much.
The children are watching. They've crossed to the ground, so the event's begun.
Likewise, at the end—so, again, imagine the end of the tennis or the end of a
grand final—the players do not leave the arena immediately. Again, from the
point of view of the children watching, that is still the event. That is still
exciting. That is why we suggested that in fact it should work that way, so
that basically—again, normally, just from the point of view of the consumer—what
are they seeing and what for them constitutes the live event.[70]
2.61
However, DiGi noted that it may not be possible to place time-based
restrictions on the delivery of all online content, and recommended a
self-regulatory code-based model where online content providers enforce their
own policies to ensure timely takedown of infringing content.[71]
2.62
The department explained that online companies would remain subject to
regulation by the ACMA even though they may demonstrate they have adequate
mechanisms in place to prohibit advertising during live sport on their
platforms.[72]
Definition of 'live' coverage
2.63
VICGT, AGR, and VLGA recommended that the definition of 'live' in relation
to sporting events in the bill should be amended so as to capture any replay of
a sports event within a 24 hour period. This means that, if a sporting event is
happening overseas at 3:00 am in the morning Australian time and then it
is replayed in Australia at 7:30 am, it would be captured by the
restrictions.[73]
2.64
VICGT, AGR, and VLGA
also specifically supported proposed subsection 125A(10) that states that
any matter broadcast in an unscheduled break in play during a sporting event
would be taken to be part of the live coverage for a sporting event, and
gambling advertising restrictions would apply to the material broadcast in that
unscheduled break.[74]
2.65
However, ASTRA
did not consider that any
replacement program matter transmitted by a broadcaster during unscheduled
breaks in play should be deemed to be part of the live coverage of the sporting
events.[75]
2.66
Free TV submitted
that 'live sporting event' should mean contemporaneous coverage of a sporting
event while it is live, to ensure that it does not capture recordings of live
events delivered online or retransmissions delivered after the sporting even
has taken place.[76] Ms Sarah Waladan stated:
We just wanted to make absolutely sure, because I think the
definition refers to the conclusion of an event. We wanted to make absolutely
sure that, because there might be several days in between the start of an event
and the conclusion of an event and, in relation to those types of events, there
may be programming such as news or other programs that are broadcast, the
policy should only apply to live sporting events. It shouldn't apply to other
programming that may be broadcast in between.[77]
2.67
The department explained that 'the bill defines "live sport"
as sport that is live in the ordinary meaning of that word, as happening in
real time, and delayed coverage, provided that that coverage commences when the
event itself is still in progress'. It added that this is done to prevent a
loophole where somebody might delay a game for five minutes and is no longer
live in the ordinary meaning of that word and therefore outside the scope of
the rules. It noted that instant replays are categorised as also part of the
live sports event but, if it has been delayed by two hours, for example, then
it would not be regarded as 'live'.[78]
2.68
The department also noted that, under the provisions of the bill, the
ACMA would determine the rules that apply in relation to different time zones
across Australia. It noted that time zone issues have been raised by
subscription television providers in particular, because they have a single
national signal and are unable to 'split out' their signals to different
licence areas. Mr David Jansen added 'we expect that the rules will reflect the
compromise positions reached in the codes.'[79]
Complaints and enforcement
2.69
Proposed clause 24 of Schedule 8 would provide that a person who has
reason to believe that an online content service provider has contravened the
rules may complain to the ACMA. Proposed clause 25 of Schedule 8 would set out
the mechanisms that may be used by the ACMA to enforce compliance with online
content service provider rules. It is anticipated that investigating potential
breaches of the rules would be largely complaints-driven.
2.70
VICGT, AGR, and VLGA proposed that broadcasters and online content
providers should be required to submit all gambling advertising and promotion
content and scheduling covered by the standards to the ACMA to ensure
compliance prior to broadcasting.[80]
Dr Mark Zirnsak, Chair, VICGT, commented that:
In terms of this bill, we support it and its passage,
although we would prefer to see some amendments which are outlined in the
submission. Particularly, we take the view similar to what already happens with
alcohol advertising that there be a requirement for gambling advertising to be
submitted to ACMA prior to the advertising taking place and advertising plans
be submitted to ACMA in advance of the broadcast. We think that the complaints
system effectively means the harm has already occurred, and then you're
potentially looking at placing sanctions on people after they've already been
able to get away with whatever they shouldn't have been doing.[81]
2.71
The department noted
that, ultimately, it is up to the online service providers to ensure that they
are compliant with the regulations in the content that they provide.[82]
2.72
SBS noted that the proposed complaints-handling process would establish
different complaint pathways for the same content provided on broadcast
television (where audiences must complain first to the provider before
complaining to the ACMA) and via an online content service (where audiences are
not required to attempt to resolve the complaint with the online content
service provider).[83] It also had significant
concerns about the provision for the ACMA to impose financial penalties on SBS
in relation to online content services and requested that, should SBS not be
entirely exempted from the operation of Schedule 8, the bill be amended so that
civil penalties cannot be applied to SBS.[84]
2.73
The department responded to this concern by noting that SBS is a
significant player in the live sports game and that the application of the
proposed amendments to SBS is 'consistent with the government's intention to
ensure parity across all the players'. It noted that the ACMA would be the
point of contact for any complaints arising on potential contraventions of
rules, rather than SBS which is currently the case.[85]
Comments on specific measures—Section 125A (Program standards)
2.74
Proposed section 125A would provide the Minister with the power to
direct the ACMA to determine a program standard about the broadcasting of
gambling promotional content, should existing industry codes of practice not be
amended to include the new gambling promotions restrictions.
Minister's power to direct the ACMA
2.75
Some submitters were
concerned that the bill does not set out the conditions under which the
Minister would trigger such a process, and proposed that the ACMA should be
required to determine a standard consistent with current requirements for
children's television and Australian content.[86]
2.76
ASTRA proposed that the Minister's power in the proposed
subsection 125A(1) should reflect the existing standards power in the BSA
so that, in order for the ACMA to be empowered to make standards, it must be
satisfied that there is convincing evidence that a code has failed to meet
policy objectives, and/or if an appropriate code has not been developed by a
specified date or within a specified time period. Such a direction should be
subject to disallowance, and any timeframe specified by the Minister for the
ACMA to determine a standard should not precede any period under which either
House of Parliament may disallow such a legislative instrument.[87]
2.77
CRA noted that the existing section 125 already provides a broad power
for the ACMA to determine standards in certain circumstances, and recommended
that commercial radio broadcasters be specifically excluded. CRA added that if there
are areas of section 125A that the committee believes are not already covered
by the existing section 125, then these aspects could be expressly applied to
commercial radio broadcasts.[88]
2.78
The department
explained that the bill does not set any conditions under which the Minister
would direct the ACMA to determine a program standard under proposed section
125A but that, if the government formed a view that the code process is
failing, then the Minister would be free to issue a direction. The department
commented further that 'every indication that we have at the moment is that the
code process is working effectively and there will be no need either to issue a
direction or for the ACMA consequently to determine a program standard'.[89]
Explanatory matter and record
keeping
2.79
Proposed subsection 125A(6) would provide for certain explanatory matter
to be provided in a manner specified in the standard. Proposed subsection
125A(7) states that a gambling promotion program standard may make provision for
record keeping. A similar clause exists in relation to online content service
provider rules in clause 13(3) of Schedule 8.
2.80
Several submitters expressed concern about the proposed requirement for
providers to publish rules on-air and recommended that the bill ensure that they
retain flexibility as to how explanatory content is provided to ensure that it
is relevant to their platforms and audiences. They also submitted that the
record keeping requirements would impose an additional compliance burden on both
broadcasters and online content service providers, and submitted that they exceed
record keeping requirements in existing codes of practice.[90]
2.81
The department stated that the ACMA is mindful of concerns raised by
stakeholders regarding unnecessary financial and administrative burdens on
online content service providers as part of the compliance regime. It noted
that the cost of applying government regulation is a matter for online content
service providers to ensure that their services are in line with government
regulation as part of their business models.[91]
Committee view
2.82
The committee welcomes the Government's commitment to protecting
children from exposure to gambling advertising during the broadcast of live
sporting events. It is clear that the amendments proposed in the bill are
consistent with the Government's policy intent to establish a clear and
practical zone for families and children to watch live sports.
2.83
The committee notes that the proposed amendments in the bill would
establish a legislative framework for applying gambling promotions restrictions
during live coverage of sporting events to online content services. It would
also establish a regulatory mechanism that could be used to apply the new
gambling promotions restrictions to relevant broadcasting service providers
should existing industry codes of practice not be amended to include the
restrictions. The committee considers this to be a significant initiative and
one which will ensure that community expectations in relation to restrictions
on gambling advertising in the online environment are met.
2.84
The committee agrees with the overall approach and drafting of the bill.
It notes that online services are not currently subject to any gambling
promotion restrictions, and that the amendments are intended to extend the
restrictions that currently apply to the broadcast of gambling promotional
content during live sport to the online environment. In doing so, it would
ensure that there is a level playing field between competing services and
platforms, and that the ACMA becomes the single, independent regulator for both
broadcasters and online content service providers in relation to gambling
promotional content.
2.85
The committee notes that the department has engaged with industry during
the preparation of this bill, although it acknowledges that some stakeholders
have recommended specific exemptions, raised technical issues or sought
clarification on specific matters during this inquiry.
2.86
In this report the committee has highlighted drafting matters raised by
stakeholders, and it has specifically drawn some issues to the Government's
attention for consideration. These technical drafting matters do not change the
committee's overall view on the bill. The committee notes that parts of the
explanatory memorandum could be revised to provide the clarification sought by
stakeholders.
Recommendation 1
2.87
The committee recommends that the bill be passed.
Senator Jonathon Duniam
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page