The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Kooyong be agreed to.

I thank the member for Kooyong for moving these amendments. The government will not support the amendments. We do not support imposing new reporting obligations through this bill. These amendments would create a new regulatory reporting regime for sporting, cultural and recreational organisations with annual turnover above $50 million requiring disclosure of gambling related revenue and publication by ACMA. This proposal is outside the scope of the bill's aim to directly reduce harm from gambling and would impose additional compliance and administrative burdens without a demonstrated impact.

The government agrees that more must be done to stop gambling advertising from proliferating online. The restrictions introduced by the government ban wagering advertising online by default, unless online content services implement the triple lock requirements—that is, users must be over 18 years of age, logged into an account and have not opted out of wagering advertising. The government takes seriously our responsibility to protect Australians, particularly children and young people, from the harms of online gambling. The government has supported an amendment to establish a wagering advertising opt out register to provide individuals with a one stop shop to opt out of receiving all wagering advertising content.

We have worked constructively with the opposition and the crossbench to consider practical amendments to this bill, and I'd like to thank my shadow counterpart, Senator Henderson, in the other place for working with me diligently over a number of weeks in order to get this ready for consideration today in the House. I thank you for your conscientious work, Senator Henderson, and I thank the House.

Question negatived.

I move:

SHEET 1

(1) Clause 4, page 2 (line 21), after "Part 7C", insert "or 7D".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 5 to 8), omit the item, substitute:

1 Section 3 (after paragraph (f))

Insert:

; (g) licensed interactive wagering services must not be advertised.

1A Section 3 (note)

Omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".

1B At the end of section 3

Add:

Note 2: Some of the prohibitions mentioned in paragraph (g) begin on 1 January 2027 (see Part 7C), and the remainder are phased-in over a period of 3 years starting on that date (see Part 7D).

(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (after line 7), after paragraph 16(e), insert:

(f) Part 7D;

(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (after line 12), after subparagraph 21(1)(a)(v), insert:

(vi) Part 7D;

(5) Schedule 1, item 14, page 8 (line 22), omit "or 7C", substitute ", 7C or 7D".

(6) Schedule 1, item 14, page 9 (line 24), omit "or 7C", substitute ", 7C or 7D".

(7) Schedule 1, item 18, page 12 (lines 1 and 2), omit the heading to Part 7C, substitute:

Part 7C — Initial prohibitions on advertising etc. licensed interactive wagering services

(8) Schedule 1, item 18, page 51 (after line 24), after Part 7C, insert:

Part 7D — Expanded prohibitions on advertising etc. licensed interactive wagering services

Note: See Division 8 for the phased implementation of this Part.

Division 1 — Preliminary

62ZK Relationship between this Part and Part 7C

To avoid doubt:

(a) this Part applies in addition to Part 7C; and

(b) this Part does not limit, and is not limited by, Part 7C.

Division 2 — Interpretation: definitions

62ZKA Definitions

Note: A number of expressions used in this Part are defined in section 4, including the following:

(a) broadcasting service;

(b) datacasting service;

(c) online content service.

In this Part:

broadcast means transmit by means of a broadcasting service.

datacast means transmit by means of a datacasting service.

display includes continue to display.

exempt library means:

(a) a public library; or

(b) a library of a tertiary educational institution; or

(c) a library of an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory.

government or political matters means government or political matters relating to any level of government in Australia, and includes any of the following matters:

(a) participation in, association with and communications in relation to any election or appointment to public office;

(b) political views or public conduct relating to activities that have become the subject of political debate;

(c) the performance, conduct, capacity or fitness for office of a person elected or appointed to, or seeking election or appointment to, any public office;

(d) the actions or policies, or proposed actions or policies, of any government in Australia or any Australian political party.

licensed interactive wagering service means a regulated interactive gambling service that:

(a) is a wagering service (see section 4); and

(b) has an Australian-customer link (see section 8); and

(c) is not provided in contravention of subsection 15AA(3).

licensed interactive wagering service advertisement has the meaning given by Division 3.

licensed interactive wagering service provider means a person who provides a licensed interactive wagering service.

periodical means an issue (however described) of a newspaper, magazine, journal, newsletter, or other similar publication, issues of which are published at regular or irregular intervals.

program has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

public place means a place, or a part of a place, to which the public, or a section of the public, ordinarily has access, whether or not by payment or by invitation (including, for example, a shop, restaurant, hotel, cinema or club).

publishes, in relation to a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement, has the meaning given by Division 4.

section of the public includes:

(a) the members of a particular club, society or organisation; and

(b) a group consisting only of persons with a common workplace or a common employer.

workplace means premises in which employees or contractors work, other than any part of such premises that is primarily used as a private dwelling.

Division 3 — Interpretation: licensed interactive wagering service advertisement

62ZKB Basic meaning of licensed interactive wagering service advertisement

(1) For the purposes of this Part, a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement is any writing, still or moving picture, sign, symbol or other visual image, or any audible message, or any combination of 2 or more of those things, that gives publicity to, or otherwise promotes or is intended to promote:

(a) a licensed interactive wagering service; or

(b) licensed interactive wagering services in general; or

(c) the whole or part of a trade mark in respect of a licensed interactive wagering service; or

(d) a domain name or URL that relates to a licensed interactive wagering service; or

(e) any words that are closely associated with a licensed interactive wagering service (whether also closely associated with other kinds of services or products).

(2) This section has effect subject to sections 62ZKC, 62ZKD, 62ZKE, 62ZKF, 62ZKG, 62ZKH and 62ZKI.

62ZKC Exception — political communication

(1) To avoid doubt, if:

(a) something (the advertisement) does not promote, and is not intended to promote, any particular licensed interactive wagering service or services; and

(b) the advertisement relates solely to government or political matters;

the advertisement is not a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement for the purposes of this Part.

(2) Without limiting paragraph (1)(a), the use in an advertisement of the whole name of a licensed interactive wagering service provider does not, of itself, constitute promotion of a licensed interactive wagering service or licensed interactive wagering services for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a).

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to the use of a name referred to in that subsection in a way prohibited by regulations made for the purposes of this subsection.

(4) Section 62ZKB does not apply to the extent (if any) that it would infringe any doctrine of implied freedom of political communication.

62ZKD Exception — websites etc. and business documents

Words, signs or symbols that appear:

(a) on the website of a licensed interactive wagering service that is provided to customers using an internet carriage service, or on or at an equivalent point of provision of any other licensed interactive wagering service; or

(b) as part of the standard wording of an invoice, statement, order form, letterhead, business card, cheque, manual, or other document ordinarily used in the normal course of the business of a licensed interactive wagering service provider (whether or not the document is in electronic form);

do not, when so appearing, constitute a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement (but this does not prevent a still or moving screen shot of a website or equivalent point of provision referred to in paragraph (a), or a still or moving picture or other visual image of a document referred to in paragraph (b), from being a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement).

62ZKE Exception — premises of providers

Words, signs or symbols that appear in or on land or buildings occupied by a licensed interactive wagering service provider do not, when so appearing, constitute a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement (but this does not prevent a still or moving picture, or other visual image, of words, signs or symbols that so appear from being a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement).

62ZKF Exception — management advertisements etc.

To avoid doubt, none of the following constitutes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement:

(a) the doing of anything that is, or apart from this Part would be, required to be done by any other law of the Commonwealth or by any law of a State or Territory;

(b) an advertisement (for example, an advertisement for staff or calling for tenders), relating to the internal management of the business of a licensed interactive wagering service provider, that does not promote a licensed interactive wagering service;

(c) the taking of any action to prevent persons becoming victims of fraud or any other dishonest or unethical conduct.

62ZKG Exception — products or services having the same name as a licensed interactive wagering service

(1) If:

(a) apart from this section, something (the advertisement) that relates to a product, or a service, that is not a licensed interactive wagering service would, technically, be a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement because the name, or part of the name, of the product or service is the same as, or substantially similar to, the name, or part of the name, of:

(i) a licensed interactive wagering service; or

(ii) a licensed interactive wagering service provider; and

(b) the manufacturer, distributor or retailer of the product, or the provider of the service, is not associated in any way with the licensed interactive wagering service provider concerned;

then, despite section 62ZKB, the advertisement is not a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement for the purposes of this Part.

Related bodies corporate taken to be associated with each other

(2) Without limiting the circumstances in which 2 persons would, apart from this subsection, be taken to be associated with each other for the purposes of subsection (1), 2 bodies corporate that are related to each other are taken to be associated with each other for the purposes of that subsection.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the question whether 2 bodies corporate are related to each other is to be determined in the same way as the question would be determined under the Corporations Act 2001.

62ZKH Exception — anti-gambling advertisements

If:

(a) apart from this section, something (the advertisement) would, technically, be a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement; and

(b) it is clear from the advertisement that its sole or principal purpose is to discourage the use of gambling services or particular kinds of gambling services or to reduce harm caused by gambling services or particular kinds of gambling services;

then, despite section 62ZKB, the advertisement is not a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement for the purposes of this Part.

62ZKI Exception — advertisements of a kind specified in the regulations

The regulations may provide that an advertisement of a kind specified in the regulations is not a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement for the purposes of this Part.

62ZKJ Meaning of words

In this Division:

words includes abbreviations, initials and numbers.

Division 4 — Interpretation: publication of licensed interactive wagering service advertisements

62ZKL Basic meaning of publishes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement

(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person publishes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if the person does any of the following things:

(a) the person includes the advertisement, or something that contains the advertisement, on a website;

(b) the person includes the advertisement in a document (including, for example, a newspaper, magazine, program, leaflet or ticket) that is available, or distributed, to the public or a section of the public;

(c) the person includes the advertisement in a film, video, television program or radio program that is, or is intended to be, seen or heard by the public or a section of the public;

(d) the person:

(i) sells, hires or supplies the advertisement, or something containing the advertisement, to the public or a section of the public; or

(ii) offers the advertisement, or something containing the advertisement, for sale or supply to, or hire by, the public or a section of the public;

(e) the person displays, screens or plays the advertisement, or something that contains the advertisement, so that it can be seen or heard in or from:

(i) a public place; or

(ii) public transport; or

(iii) a workplace;

(f) the person otherwise:

(i) brings the advertisement, or something that contains the advertisement, to the notice of; or

(ii) disseminates the advertisement, or something that contains the advertisement, to;

the public, or a section of the public, by any means (including, for example, by means of a film, video, computer disk or electronic medium).

(2) This section has effect subject to sections 62ZKM, 62ZKN, 62ZKO, 62ZKP and 62ZKQ.

62ZKM Publish does not include broadcast or datacast

For the purposes of this Part, the broadcasting or datacasting of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement by a person does not amount to the publication of the advertisement by the person.

62ZKN Exception — trade communications

For the purposes of this Part, the communication of information that is or includes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement to a group of people all of whom are involved in the provision of licensed interactive wagering services, does not, of itself, amount to a publication of the licensed interactive wagering service advertisement.

62ZKO Exception — advertisements in telephone directories

(1) For the purposes of this Part, the publication of the name of a licensed interactive wagering service provider in a telephone directory does not, of itself, amount to the publication of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) the publication is on the internet; and

(b) the entry for the provider contains a link to a website for the provider that relates to a licensed interactive wagering service.

62ZKP Exception — ordinary activities of exempt libraries

Nothing that a person does for the purposes of the ordinary activities of an exempt library amounts, for the purposes of this Part, to a publication of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement.

62ZKQ Exception — acknowledgements of assistance or support

For the purposes of this Part, the publication of an acknowledgement of assistance or support does not amount to the publication of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if it complies with regulations made for the purposes of this section that permit the publication of such acknowledgements.

Division 5 — Broadcasting or datacasting of licensed interactive wagering service advertisements in Australia

62ZKR Licensed interactive wagering service advertisements not to be broadcast or datacast in Australia

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person broadcasts or datacasts a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement in Australia; and

(b) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKS; and

(c) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKT; and

(d) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKU; and

(e) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKV.

Penalty: 120 penalty units.

(2) A person must not broadcast or datacast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement in Australia if:

(a) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKS; and

(b) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKT; and

(c) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKU; and

(d) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKV.

Civil penalty: 180 penalty units.

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person authorises or causes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement to be broadcast or datacast in Australia; and

(b) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKS; and

(c) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKT; and

(d) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKU; and

(e) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKV.

Penalty: 120 penalty units.

(4) A person must not authorise or cause a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement to be broadcast or datacast in Australia if:

(a) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKS; and

(b) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKT; and

(c) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKU; and

(d) the broadcast or datacast is not permitted by section 62ZKV.

Civil penalty for contravention of this subsection: 180 penalty units.

62ZKS Accidental or incidental broadcast or datacast permitted

(1) A person may broadcast or datacast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if:

(a) the person broadcasts or datacasts the advertisement as an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the broadcasting or datacasting of other matter; and

(b) the person does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for broadcasting or datacasting the advertisement (in addition to any direct or indirect benefit that the person receives for broadcasting or datacasting the other matter).

(2) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part.

62ZKT Broadcast or datacast of advertisements during flights of aircraft

(1) A person may broadcast or datacast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement in an aircraft during a flight of the aircraft unless the flight begins at a place in Australia and is intended to end at another place in Australia.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), each sector of a flight of an aircraft is taken to be a separate flight.

(3) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part.

62ZKU Broadcast or datacast of advertisements on dedicated racing channels

A person may broadcast or datacast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if the sole or dominant purpose of the relevant broadcasting or datacasting service is to provide an excluded wagering service within the meaning of subsection 8A(1).

Note: Such services relate to horse racing, harness racing and greyhound racing.

62ZKV Broadcast or datacast of advertisements on small community radio services

In the 2 year period beginning when this Part commences, a person may broadcast or datacast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if the relevant broadcasting or datacasting service is a small community radio service.

Division 6 — Publication of licensed interactive wagering service advertisements in Australia

62ZKW Licensed interactive wagering service advertisements not to be published in Australia

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person publishes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement in Australia; and

(b) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKX; and

(c) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKY; and

(d) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKZ; and

(e) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZL.

Penalty: 120 penalty units.

(2) A person must not publish a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement in Australia if:

(a) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKX; and

(b) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKY; and

(c) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKZ; and

(d) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZL.

Civil penalty: 180 penalty units.

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person authorises or causes a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement to be published in Australia; and

(b) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKX; and

(c) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKY; and

(d) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKZ; and

(e) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZL.

Penalty: 120 penalty units.

(4) A person must not authorise or cause a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement to be published in Australia if:

(a) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKX; and

(b) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKY; and

(c) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZKZ; and

(d) the publication is not permitted by section 62ZL.

Civil penalty: 180 penalty units.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement that is included on a website is taken to be published in Australia if, and only if:

(a) the website is accessed, or is available for access, by end-users in Australia; and

(b) having regard to:

(i) the content of the website; and

(ii) the way the website is advertised or promoted;

it would be concluded that it is likely that a majority of persons who access the website are physically present in Australia.

62ZKX Periodicals distributed outside Australia — acts of publication permitted

(1) A person may do, with a periodical that contains a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement, something that amounts to publishing the advertisement if the periodical is not principally intended for distribution or use in Australia.

(2) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part.

62ZKY Accidental or incidental publication permitted

(1) A person may publish a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if:

(a) the person publishes the advertisement as an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the publication of other matter; and

(b) the person does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for publishing the advertisement (in addition to any direct or indirect benefit that the person receives for publishing the other matter).

(2) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part.

62ZKZ Publication by person not receiving any benefit permitted

(1) A person may publish a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if:

(a) the publication is not in the course of the provision of licensed interactive wagering services; and

(b) the person publishes the advertisement on the person's own initiative; and

(c) the person does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for publishing the advertisement.

(2) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part.

62ZL Publication of advertisements during flights of aircraft

(1) A person may publish a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement in an aircraft during a flight of the aircraft unless the flight begins at a place in Australia and is intended to end at another place in Australia.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), each sector of a flight of an aircraft is taken to be a separate flight.

(3) Subsection (1) only has effect for the purposes of this Part.

Division 7 — Miscellaneous

62ZLA Recommendations relating to compensation

(1) The ACMA may make recommendations to the Minister in relation to compensation payable by the Commonwealth in respect of economic losses caused by the operation of this Part.

(2) The Minister is not bound to follow any advice given under subsection (1).

62ZLB Failure to broadcast, datacast or publish advertisement not actionable if this Part would be contravened

Civil proceedings do not lie against a person for refusing or failing to broadcast, datacast or publish a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement if the broadcast, datacast or publication is prohibited by this Part.

62ZLC Additional conditions for licences under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992

Commercial television broadcasting licence

(1) Each commercial television broadcasting licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, broadcast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement.

Commercial radio broadcasting licence

(2) Each commercial radio broadcasting licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, broadcast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement.

Community broadcasting licence

(3) Each community broadcasting licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, broadcast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement.

Subscription television broadcasting licence

(4) Each subscription television broadcasting licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, broadcast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement.

Provision of a broadcasting service under a class licence

(5) The provision by a person of a broadcasting service under a class licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, broadcast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement.

Datacasting licence

(6) Each datacasting licence is subject to the condition that the licensee will not, in contravention of this Part, datacast a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement.

Definitions

(7) In this section:

class licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

commercial radio broadcasting licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

commercial television broadcasting licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

community broadcasting licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

subscription television broadcasting licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

Division 8 — Phased implementation of this Part

62ZLE Phase 1

(1) In the 12 month period beginning when this Part commences:

(a) Division 5 (broadcasting or datacasting of licensed interactive wagering service advertisements in Australia) has effect only to the extent that it prohibits:

(i) broadcasting or datacasting of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement during news and current affairs programs; and

(ii) broadcasting of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement on a commercial radio broadcasting service during the period beginning at 8:30 am and ending at 9:00 am and the period beginning at 3:30 pm and ending at 4:00 pm; and

(b) Division 6 (publication of licensed interactive wagering service advertisements in Australia) has effect only to the extent that it prohibits publication of a licensed interactive wagering service advertisement on a social media service or on an online content service.

62ZLF Phase 2

In the 12 month period beginning on the first anniversary of the commencement of this Part, Divisions 5 and 6 have effect (in addition to the effect as provided by section 62ZLE) only to the extent that they prohibit:

(a) any licensed interactive wagering service advertisements during live coverage of a sporting event; and

(b) any odds advertising or odds commentary from one hour before the start of the live coverage until one hour after the end of the live coverage; and

(c) in-stadia advertising, including logos, marks or words relating to a licensed interactive wagering service appearing on players' uniforms or sports equipment, and any publication of the same.

62ZLG Phase 3

In the 12 month period beginning on the second anniversary of the commencement of this Part:

(a) Division 5 has effect only to the extent that is provided by sections 62ZLE and 62ZLF and to the extent that it prohibits all broadcasting or datacasting of licensed interactive wagering service advertisements between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm; and

(b) Division 6 has effect only as provided by sections 62ZLE and 62ZLF.

62ZLH Phase 4

On and after the third anniversary of the commencement of this Part, this Part has effect according to its terms.

(9) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (line 27), omit "62ZE(3).", substitute "62ZE(3);".

(10) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (after line 27), after paragraph 64A(xz), insert:

(xza) subsection 62ZKR(2); or

(xzb) subsection 62ZKR(4); or

(xzc) subsection 62ZKW(2); or

(xzd) subsection 62ZKW(4).

(11) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (line 25), omit "62ZE(3).", substitute "62ZE(3);".

(12) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (after line 25), after paragraph 64C(1)(xz), insert:

(xza) subsection 62ZKR(2); or

(xzb) subsection 62ZKR(4); or

(xzc) subsection 62ZKW(2); or

(xzd) subsection 62ZKW(4).

(13) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (line 23), omit "62ZE(3).", substitute "62ZE(3);".

(14) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (after line 23), after paragraph 64D(1)(xz), insert:

(xza) subsection 62ZKR(2); or

(xzb) subsection 62ZKR(4); or

(xzc) subsection 62ZKW(2); or

(xzd) subsection 62ZKW(4).

_____

SHEET 2

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 2), insert:

(2) Schedule 1, page 51 (after line 24), at the end of Division 6, add:

62ZJA Independent review of this Part

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Part.

(2) Without limiting the requirement in subsection (1) that the review must be independent, the Minister must ensure that the person who conducts the review:

(a) is not an APS employee; and

(b) would be regarded by a reasonable person as being able to conduct the review without any real or apparent conflict of interest.

(3) The review must commence soon as practicable after the end of the period of 2 years beginning on the day this Part commences.

(4) The person conducting the review must complete the review, and must give the Minister a written report of the review, within the period of 12 months beginning on the day the review commences.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(3) Page 92 (after line 28), after Schedule 4, insert:

Schedule 4A — Statutory duty of care

Interactive Gambling Act 2001

1 Section 3 (before the paragraph beginning "The ACMA may, on its own initiative")

Insert:

A licensed interactive wagering service provider has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent and minimise foreseeable harm to individuals arising from the use of the provider's services.

2 After Part 1

Insert:

Part 1A — Statutory duty of care to prevent harm

14A Definitions for this Part

In this Part:

licensed interactive wagering service has the same meaning as in Part 7B.

licensed interactive wagering service provider has the same meaning as in Part 7B.

14B Licensed interactive wagering service providers must take reasonable steps to prevent harm etc.

(1) A licensed interactive wagering service provider must take reasonable steps to prevent and minimise foreseeable harm to individuals arising from the use by those individuals of a licensed interactive wagering service provided by the provider.

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

Harm arising from use of a service

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), and without limiting that subsection:

(a) harm includes financial and psychological harm; and

(b) harm may arise from the use of a licensed interactive wagering service because of the way that the service is designed or operated.

Relevant matters

(3) Without limiting subsection (1), in determining whether a licensed interactive wagering service provider has taken reasonable steps for the purposes of that subsection, regard may be had to the following matters:

(a) whether the provider has systems in place to identify patterns of behaviour indicating risk of harm, including but not limited to rapid or escalating loss patterns, chasing losses, and extended session duration;

(b) whether the provider intervenes when such patterns are identified, including by contacting the individual, imposing precommitment limits, or restricting access to the service;

(c) whether the design of the service (including its interface, incentives, and promotional features) avoids features known to encourage compulsive or harmful use;

(d) whether the provider provides individuals with accessible tools to set and enforce their own deposit, loss, and time limits;

(e) whether the provider's staff are trained to identify and respond to signs of gambling harm.

Necessary steps

(4) A licensed interactive wagering service provider is taken to contravene subsection (1) if the provider does not take the steps (if any) specified by the ACMA, under subsection (5), for the purposes of this subsection.

Note: A provider that takes the steps (if any) specified by the ACMA for the purposes of this subsection is not guaranteed to satisfy the requirement in subsection (1). Taking those steps is necessary, but not sufficient, for satisfying the requirement in subsection (1).

(5) The ACMA may, by legislative instrument, specify steps for the purposes of subsection (4).

3 Before paragraph 16(a)

Insert:

(aa) Part 1A; or

4 Before subparagraph 21(1)(a)(i)

Insert:

(ia) Part 1A; or

5 Subparagraph 22A(1)(a)(i)

Omit "Part 2", substitute "Part 1A, 2".

6 Paragraph 22A(1)(o)

Omit "Part 2", substitute "Part 1A, 2".

7 Before paragraph 64A(a)

Insert:

(aa) subsection 14B(1); or

8 Before paragraph 64C(1)(a)

Insert:

(aa) subsection 14B(1);

9 Before paragraph 64D(1)(a)

Insert:

; (aa) subsection 14B(1);

There have been lots of speeches in this House about the harm done by the gambling industry and the normalisation of gambling as part of sport, and it's been jarring to hear those same members profess to believe that this complicated bill full of loopholes will actually fix this problem. I don't think most of them actually believe it.

The crossbench and the Greens have been pretty clear about the flaws in this bill. The coalition has been a bit all over the place, with some standing up to the gambling industry and others negotiating a package of amendments that bring to mind lipstick on a pig. A number of Labor members have spoken about the harm they or their loved ones have experienced from gambling. Many have spoken about honouring the legacy of Peta Murphy. Last week in their speeches about this gambling reform bill, I counted about 10 Labor members who effectively said that this is a step in the right direction but there's more reform to do. This is the equivalent of wild dissent in today's Labor Party, and the country is worse for it. There are many in this House who know that their communities want them to support a full gambling phase-out, but they're primarily answerable to their party bosses, so they obediently do what the gambling industry wants, and it breaks my heart.

My first sheet of amendments would implement the flagship recommendation of the unanimous Murphy review, recommendation 26, which is a full phase-out over a three-year period of ads for online gambling. Australians should be able to expect that reform is based on evidence. Now, let me remind you about four pieces of evidence we have about the partial restrictions being proposed. Firstly, the evidence clearly shows partial restrictions don't work. After the 2017 media reforms which restricted gambling advertising around live sport, the total volume of gambling advertising in prime-time metro TV increased by 40 per cent. The Murphy report found that harmful industries have shown they will identify and capitalise on any gaps in marketing restrictions.

Secondly, in relation to the proposed TV rules, there is no evidence to back up three ads per hour or the 8.30 pm watershed. Research shows that 83 per cent of children aged 11 to 16 continue watching sport after 8.30 pm, meaning the government's defined threshold does not achieve even its own stated purpose of protecting children. How can three ads per hour not have a normalisation effect?

Thirdly, the evidence shows that the opt-out approach won't work for digital platforms, whether platform by platform or one off. One in 800 subscribers have used the opt-out function on SBS. That's the only evidence we have about the effectiveness of opt-out, and the government knew this when they decided that this was the way to go. The amendment agreed with the coalition so you only have to opt-out once is a small change. To be even mildly effective, it would need to be accompanied by a widespread public promotion campaign. And it raises more questions: what if I own the streaming subscription, but my family members have profiles and we want to make different decisions about opting out?

Fourthly the department's impartial impact assessment showed that, compared to the partial restrictions being proposed, a full ban would have the lowest regulatory burden on industry, cost the least to implement and have a more significant positive impact on Australians, especially those experiencing gambling harm. That is what the evidence shows us. A full ban is supported not only by three-quarters of Australians but also by the AMA, the Alliance for Gambling Reform and all the academics.

The next amendment I'm proposing here is a statutory duty of care. This is given effect to by amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 2. Licensed interactive wagering providers should be required to take all reasonable steps to prevent and reduce gambling harm. They are so far from doing that. This is a predatory industry where profit is directly connected to harm.

The last amendment I'm proposing here is a statutory review. This is given effect to by amendment (2) on sheet 2. I'm pleased to hear the government will now agree to a review of the operation of the ad restrictions, the inducements and the opt-out register. A review will leave the door open for a future braver government to actually deal with this problem.

As each member of this House casts their vote on these amendments for a full ban, a duty of care and a two-year review, I encourage them to remember they were sent here to represent Australians and their communities, not to represent the gambling industry or primarily their political party. That is the choice now available to every single member of this House.

I rise to support the amendments moved by the member for Curtin, though I do so without enthusiasm because it shouldn't be necessary. Remember three years ago this parliament received the Murphy report, which was a landmark, thorough, evidence based inquiry unanimous across Labor, Liberal and crossbench members recommending a complete phased-in ban on gambling advertising. What's the government done with it? It's buried it, diluted it and dressed up the leftovers as 'the strongest reforms this country has ever seen'. But let's be clear. That's all patent nonsense because these reforms will do little to fix the problem.

Indeed, since the Murphy report landed, Australians have lost more than $108 billion—not gambled but lost. Moreover, at least 400 people take their lives each year because of gambling addiction in this country, a figure likely chronically underreported. In other words, because of this government's inaction, well over a thousand Australians have been lost to suicide since the report was handed down.

The member for Curtin's amendments and others from my crossbench colleagues do what this government has lacked the spine to do. They close the streaming loophole, ban the inducements and bonus bets that hook people and keep them hooked, flip the defaults so children are protected unless a parent opts in and set a binding timeline instead of yet another 'the pen is never down' promise from a minister who's hoping we'll all forget. I say this to the minister and to the Prime Minister: we will not forget, nor will the 79 per cent of Australians who support a full advertising ban.

We are elected to serve Australians, not the vested interests who profit from this insidious industry, in particular the gambling companies, the media companies and the major sporting codes. They're the perpetrators directly responsible for this harm, and the government is complicit in letting it continue. Let's be honest about who this bill protects. It's not the person who's lost a loved one to suicide over gambling addiction, it's not the people who had $8 million stolen from them by their financial adviser and it's not the kids watching the footy at 8:31 pm, the very minute this bill decides they're fair game—no.

This bill protects the broadcasters, the sporting codes and the gambling companies—companies which, as I've said in this place before, behave like jackals feeding on the carcases of gambling addicts. The government's bill lets them keep feeding. The amendments from the member for Curtin at least drag the carcases out of their reach. So I say to the government and to the opposition, which has also rolled over to have its tummy tickled: this fight is not over, not by a long way.

I thank the member for Curtin for moving these amendments. The government will not be supporting these amendments. The government recognises the importance of harm minimisation and supports the argument that wagering-service providers have an obligation to uphold consumer protections. That's why the government is implementing its wagering advertising restrictions through this bill, which places the onus firmly on wagering-service providers to change the way they market their products.

In line with the amendment from the member for Curtin, the bill introduces significant penalties for noncompliance. If a wagering-service provider breaches the new rules, they could face fines of up to $364,000 for an individual and $1.6 million for a corporation. The bill also strengthens BetStop, the national self-exclusion register, by: implementing the legislative recommendations made by the independent statutory review of BetStop, including enforcing mandatory information checks against the BetStop register to prevent circumvention, adding friction to the cancellation process to reduce early exits from self-exclusion; extending the minimum three-month exclusion period to all users, including those who have been on BetStop before, to reduce harm when users cycle on and off the register; expanding communications restrictions, minimising exposure to harmful or triggering messages; and requiring the linking of old and new wagering accounts to improve the use of data to detect harm.

The bill will also be amended to require the minister to review the proposed restrictions on wagering advertising and inducements as well as the wagering advertising opt-out register to assess the operational impact of the reforms, ensuring that they remain effective and fit for purpose. This will be in addition to the continuous monitoring by ACMA following the commencement of these reforms.

The bill already implements many of the measures moved by the member, including a live ban during sport across broadcast platforms, removal of wagering advertising from sporting venues and jerseys, and extension of the complaints investigations and enforcement framework. In fact, the bill also already provides for substantially larger penalties than the proposed amendments moved by the member for Curtin and gives the Australian Communications and Media Authority rigorous enforcement powers. It also introduces rules that would ban advertising on online platforms unless they are triple locked—that is, unless the person is over 18 years of age, is logged into an account and has not opted out of wagering advertising.

That being said, I note your conscientious leadership and dedication in this space, Member for Curtin, and I would like to thank you for your work here. While I have the member for Cook, I would like to thank him for supporting our amendments, and to thank the whole shadow ministry. (Time expired)

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

I move amendments (2), (4), (6) and (8) as circulated in my name together:

(2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 51 (after line 24), after Part 7C, insert:

Part 7D — Data rules

62ZJA Definitions for this Part

In this Part:

data rules means the rules (if any) made by the ACMA under subsection 62ZJB(1).

62ZJB Data rules for licensed interactive wagering service providers

(1) The ACMA may, by legislative instrument, make rules (the data rules) that require a licensed interactive wagering service provider to do any of the following:

(a) collect information specified in the rules, in according with the requirements (if any) specified in the rules;

(b) publish information specified the rules, in accordance with the requirements (if any) specified in the rules;

(c) provide information specified in the rules to the ACMA, in accordance with the requirements (if any) specified in the rules;

(d) otherwise deal with information specified in the rules in accordance with the requirements specified in the rules.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the data rules may require a licensed interactive wagering service provider to collect, publish, or provide to the ACMA, information about any of the following:

(a) aggregate losses of customers of the provider;

(b) actions taken by the provider to comply with the requirements of Part 7B (National Self-exclusion Register);

(c) information about complaints made to or about the provider, including the volume of complaints and the outcome of the complaints.

(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the data rules may make provision with respect to how a licensed interactive wagering service provider may or must collect, publish, provide or other deal with specified types of information, including:

(a) personal information (within meaning the Privacy Act 1988); and

(b) information that is commercial-in-confidence.

62ZJC Civil penalty provision — contravening the data rules

A licensed interactive wagering service provider must comply with the data rules.

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

62ZJD Relationship with other provisions

This Part does not limit, and is not limited by, any other provision of this Act that deals with:

(a) the collection, publication or provision of information by a licensed interactive wagering service provider; or

(b) how a licensed interactive wagering service provider otherwise deals with information.

Note: For example, this Part does not limit, and is not limited by, Division 7 of Part 7B (which deals with the disclosure of information that is protected information for the purposes of that Part).

(4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (line 27), omit paragraph 64A(xz), substitute:

(xz) subsection 62ZE(3); or

(xza) section 62ZJC.

(6) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (line 25), omit paragraph 64C(1)(xz), substitute:

(xz) subsection 62ZE(3);

(xza) section 62ZJC.

(8) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (line 23), omit paragraph 64D(1)(xz), substitute:

(xz) subsection 62ZE(3);

(xza) section 62ZJC.

This bill obviously requires massively significant changes, and I'm not seeking to duplicate the arguments put by my crossbench colleagues to note that. Amendments put by my crossbench colleagues, I must say, were circulated well in advance as a courtesy to the House and to fellow members. Up until this point, some of the debate that has ensued on amendments has been confusing, to say the least, in trying to ascertain who was moving what from the government and the opposition.

I initially circulated amendments directed at a blanket ban on television advertising during G-rated programming, for example. A similar idea was in fact ultimately, I believe, taken up by the opposition and agreed to by the government. So I'm not proceeding with that amendment that I had originally had.

My remaining amendments would require gambling companies to collect and publicly report on harm indicators, including aggregate customer losses, self-exclusion requests and complaints. These indicators are well known and this is information that gambling companies, in fact, already have. In fact, the government has indicated it intends to rely exactly on this sort of information in identifying what are known as red-flag customers for the purposes of restricting inducements.

In addition, I want to see that this collected information is published publicly on a regular basis in a single, consistent format. It would provide a vital evidence base to help understand whether these reforms are effective in reducing and preventing gambling harm. If this bill results in only the most limited improvements to industry practice then that data will be more important than ever when it comes to reviewing these laws in the years to come.

In the interests of time and other people having a chance to speak, I will terminate my remarks at this point and move this relatively small improvement in good faith, an approach that is, sadly, not always shared by others in this place. I commend these amendments to the House.

I thank the member for Indi for moving these amendments. The government will not support these amendments. The government shares the objective of reducing gambling harm and ensuring that Australians have access to transparent information about wagering services and their impacts. That is precisely why the government has brought forward this bill. The gambling reform bill introduces significant new restrictions on wagering advertising, strengthens ACMA's compliance and enforcement powers and expands the tools available to regulators to address the gambling harm.

We have been clear we take seriously our responsibility to protect children from the harms of gambling. We have supported, like you mentioned, an amendment to ban wagering advertising content during any program principally directed at children and during programs classified as G or lower during times when children are likely to be watching. The bill delivers substantial reforms that will reduce gambling harm, strengthen consumer protections and improve regulatory oversight.

Question negatived.

I move amendments (1) to (11) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 8), at the end of paragraph (3)(g), add:

; (h) wagering inducements must not be offered, provided or advertised to individuals in Australia.

(2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 12 (after line 26), at the end of section 62A, add:

Wagering inducements and incentives (including, but not limited to, sign-up bonuses, free bets, odds boosts, cashback offers, reload bonuses and VIP or loyalty incentives) must not be offered, provided or advertised to individuals in Australia. Serious contraventions of these prohibitions may attract higher penalties.

The ACMA may publish details of contraventions (and in certain circumstances, alleged contraventions) of the wagering inducement prohibitions.

(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 15 (after line 6), after the definition of section of the public in section 62B, insert:

serious contravention has the meaning given by subsection 62ZAG(1).

(4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 15 (after line 13), after the definition of wagering advertising contentin section 62B, insert:

wagering inducement has the meaning given by section 62ZAB.

(5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 45 (after line 18), after Division 5, insert:

Division 5A — Prohibition on wagering inducements

62ZAA Simplified outline of this Division

Licensed interactive wagering service providers must not offer, provide or otherwise communicate wagering inducements to individuals in Australia.

Advertising or otherwise promoting the availability of a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia is also prohibited.

Wagering inducements include sign-up bonuses, free bets, odds boosts, cashback offers, reload bonuses and VIP or loyalty incentives linked to wagering activity. The Minister may prescribe additional forms of inducement by legislative instrument.

Serious contraventions of this Division (deliberate contraventions that are part of a systematic pattern of conduct) may attract a higher civil penalty.

The ACMA may publish details of a person who is found to have contravened this Division or who pays an infringement notice that relates to an alleged contravention of this Division.

The general exceptions to this Part that are set out in Division 6 (which include exceptions for certain conduct that is required by law or is accidental) may also apply in some cases in relation to the requirements in this Division.

62ZAB Meaning of wagering inducement

Basic definition

(1) A wagering inducement is any benefit, offer, reward, credit, payment or advantage that:

(a) is offered, provided, or otherwise communicated to an individual in Australia; and

(b) is contingent upon, or is intended to encourage, facilitate or reward, any of the following:

(i) opening or maintaining a licensed interactive wagering service account;

(ii) making one or more bets or wagers;

(iii) increasing the frequency, volume or value of betting or wagering activity;

(iv) remaining an active customer of a licensed interactive wagering service;

(v) depositing funds into a licensed interactive wagering service account.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), each of the following is taken to be a wagering inducement if it is offered, provided or otherwise communicated to an individual in Australia:

(a) a sign-up bonus (including any bonus credit, free bet or other benefit offered to a new customer);

(b) a free bet (including a no-deposit bet, a matched bet or a risk-free bet);

(c) an odds boost (including any enhancement, promotion or special price offered in relation to a bet);

(d) a cashback offer (including any refund, rebate or return of funds contingent on betting activity);

(e) a reload bonus (including any credit, promotion or incentive offered to an existing customer contingent on a deposit or betting activity);

(f) a VIP or loyalty incentive (including any reward, benefit, preferential treatment or status linked to the volume, frequency or value of a customer's wagering activity);

(g) a referral incentive (including any benefit offered to an existing customer contingent on referring another person to the service);

(h) a benefit, offer, reward, credit, payment or advantage specified for the purposes of this paragraph in an instrument under subsection (3).

(3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify a benefit, offer, reward, credit, payment or advantage for the purposes of paragraph (2)(h).

Exclusions

(4) Despite subsections (1) and (2), wagering inducement does not include any of the following that is offered, provided, or otherwise communicatedto an individual in Australia:

(a) standard pricing (including odds for a sporting event or race published in the ordinary course of providing a licensed interactive wagering service);

(b) a benefit that is offered to all customers of a licensed interactive wagering service on equivalent terms without regard to betting activity, deposit history or account status;

(c) a winnings payment made to a customer in accordance with the outcome of a bet;

(d) a benefit, offer, reward, credit, payment or advantage specified for the purposes of this paragraph in an instrument under subsection (5).

(5) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify a benefit, offer, reward, credit, payment or advantage for the purposes of paragraph (4)(d).

ACMA may give advice

(6) The ACMA may provide advice to the Minister on any matter relevant to the making of an instrument under subsection (3) or (5).

62ZAC Prohibition on offering etc. wagering inducements

Civil penalty provision offering etc. wagering inducement

(1) A licensed interactive wagering service provider contravenes this subsection if the provider offers, provides or otherwise communicates a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia.

Civil Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

Exception to subsection (1)

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) the wagering inducement was offered, provided or otherwise communicated as a result of a genuine error, mistake or accident; and

(b) as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the error, mistake or accident, the provider takes all reasonable steps to reverse or cancel the offer, provision or communication.

Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act).

Civil penalty provision authorising or causing a wagering inducement to be offered etc.

(3) A person contravenes this subsection if the person:

(a) offers, provides or otherwise communicates a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia, on behalf of a licensed interactive wagering service provider; or

(b) authorises or causes a licensed interactive wagering service provider to offer, provide or otherwise communicate a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia.

Civil Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

Exceptions to subsection (3)

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if:

(a) the person's authorising of, or causing of, the licensed interactive wagering service provider to offer, provide or otherwise communicate a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia, as mentioned in subsection (3), was a result of a genuine error, mistake or accident; and

(b) as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the error, mistake or accident, the person takes all reasonable steps to get the licensed interactive wagering service provider to reverse or cancel the offer, provision or communication.

Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act).

(5) Subsection (3) does not apply if:

(a) the person is an individual; and

(b) the individual engages in the conduct mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) or (b) in the individual's personal capacity.

Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act).

Example 1: An individual who is a customer of a licensed interactive wagering service provider is sent a wagering inducement by the provider, and forwards the wagering inducement to a friend, in return for the provider giving the individual a reduced subscription to the service. Since the individual is acting in their personal capacity, they do not contravene subsection (3).

Example 2: An individual who is an employee of a licensed interactive wagering service provider, acting in the course of their employment, authorises another individual who is an employee of the provider to send, on behalf of the provider, a wagering inducement to a third individual in Australia. Neither employee is acting in their personal capacity, and so neither employee is covered by the exception in subsection (5).

(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5)(b), an individual who engages in conduct mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) or (b) does not do so in the individual's personal capacity if the individual does so in the individual's capacity as an employee, director or officer of:

(a) the licensed interactive wagering service; or

(b) a contracted service provider in relation the licensed interactive wagering service provider; or

(c) a related body corporate of the licensed interactive wagering service provider.

(7) In subsection (6), director, officer and related body corporate have the same meanings as in the Corporation Act 2001.

(8) Subsection (6) does not limit the circumstances in which an individual taken, for the purposes of paragraph (5)(b), not to engage in conduct in the individual's personal capacity.

62ZAD Prohibition on advertising etc. wagering inducements

Civil penalty provision advertising etc. on broadcasts, datacasts or online content services

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) either:

(i) the person broadcasts or datacasts content in Australia; or

(ii) the person is an online content service provider and content is provided in Australia on the online content service provided by the person; and

(b) the content advertises, promotes or otherwise communicates the availability of a wagering inducement.

Civil Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision authorising or causing advertising etc.

(2) A person must not authorise or cause content that advertises, promotes or otherwise communicates the availability of a wagering inducement to be:

(a) broadcasted or datacasted in Australia; or

(b) provided in Australia on an online content service.

Civil Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision direct communication of advertising etc.

(3) A licensed interactive wagering service provider contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the provider sends a direct communication, or causes a direction communication to be sent, to an individual in Australia (whether by electronic message, push notification, postal communication, telephone call or any other means); and

(b) the direct communication advertises, promotes or otherwise communicates the availability of a wagering inducement.

Civil Penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

62ZAE Prohibition on communicating wagering inducements to registered individuals

Civil penalty provision

(1) A licensed interactive wagering service provider contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the provider communicates a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia; and

(b) the individual is a registered individual (within the meaning of section 61GB) at the time of the communication.

Note: See also Division 5 of Part 7B, which deals with the marketing of licensed interactive wagering services to registered individuals. This section applies in addition to that Division.

Civil Penalty: 4,000 penalty units.

(2) To avoid doubt, in proceedings for a civil penalty order against a licensed interactive wagering service provider for a contravention of subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the provider knew, or could reasonably be expected to have known, that the individual was a registered individual at the time of the communication.

Note: See also section 94 of the Regulatory Powers Act.

Exception

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) the communication was made as a result of a genuine error, mistake or accident; and

(b) as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the error, mistake or accident, the licensed interactive wagering service provider takes all reasonable steps to reverse or cancel the communication.

Note: A person who wishes to rely on this subsection bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act).

62ZAF Record keeping in relation to this Division

Conduct covered by this section

(1) This section applies to a licensed interactive wagering service provider if the provider engages in any of the following conduct:

(a) offering, providing or otherwise communicating a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia (whether by means of a broadcast or datacast, or an online content service, or by any other means);

(b) authorising or causing a licensed interactive wagering service provider to do a thing mentioned in paragraph (a);

(c) advertising, promoting or otherwise communicating the availability of a wagering inducement to an individual in Australia (whether by means of a broadcast or datacast, or an online content service, or by any other means);

(d) authorising or causing a person to do a thing mentioned in paragraph (c).

Civil penalty provision keeping records

(2) The licensed interactive wagering service provider must keep and retain, for a period of 3 years after engaging in the conduct, sufficient records to enable it to be readily ascertained whether the conduct complies with this Division.

Civil Penalty: 120 penalty units.

ACMA may request records

(3) The ACMA may, by written notice given to a licensed interactive wagering service provider, request the provider to make available to the ACMA a record that the provider is required to keep and retain under subsection (2).

Civil penalty provision making records available

(4) If the ACMA makes a request under subsection (3) that a licensed interactive wagering service provider make a record available to the ACMA, the provider must comply with the request.

Civil penalty: 120 penalty units.

62ZAG Serious contraventions of this Division

Serious contraventions

(1) A contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division by a person is a serious contravention if the conduct of the person that constituted the contravention was:

(a) deliberate; and

(b) part of a systematic pattern of conduct by the person.

(2) Without limiting paragraph (1)(b), the matters may be taken to in account in determining whether the conduct of the person was part of a systematic pattern of conduct by the person include the following:

(a) whether the person has committed more than one contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division, and if the person has committed more than one such contravention:

(a) the period of time over which the contraventions occurred; and

(b) the number of individuals affected by the contraventions;

(b) if the person has received a complaint in relation to conduct of the person that constituted a contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division—how the person responded to the complaint.

Application for order in relation to a serious contravention

(3) If a person applies for a civil penalty order in relation to an alleged serious contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division, the application must specify the alleged serious contravention.

Increased penalty for serious contraventions

(4) If, in proceedings for a civil penalty order in relation to an alleged serious contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division, a relevant court is satisfied that the person has committed a serious contravention of the provision then, for the purposes of making a civil penalty order against the person in relation to the contravention, the pecuniary penalty specified for provision is 5 times the pecuniary penalty that would, apart from this subsection, be specified for the provision.

Note: Under subsection 85(2) of the Regulatory Powers Act, the pecuniary penalty specified for a civil penalty provision of this Division is the maximum amount that a relevant court may order a person who is not a body corporate to pay for a contravention of the provision (and the maximum amount for a contravention by a body corporate is 5 times the maximum amount for a contravention by a person who is not a body corporate).

Alternative orders

(5) If, in proceedings for a civil penalty order in relation to an alleged serious contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division, a relevant court:

(a) is not satisfied that the person has committed a serious contravention of that provision; but

(b) is satisfied that the person has contravened that provision;

then:

(c) the court may make a civil penalty order against the person for the contravention; and

(d) to avoid doubt, subsection (4) does not apply for the purposes of making that order.

62ZAH Publishing information about contraventions and alleged contraventions of this Division

Scope of this section

(1) This section applies if:

(a) a relevant court makes a civil penalty order against a person for a contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division; or

(b) a person pays an amount stated in an infringement notice given to the person in relation to an alleged contravention of a civil penalty provision of this Division.

Publication

(2) The ACMA may publish on its website any or all of the following:

(a) the name of the person;

(b) a description of the conduct constituting the contravention or alleged contravention;

(c) the provision of this Division contravened or alleged to have been contravened;

(d) the amount of the pecuniary penalty ordered by the court, or stated in the infringement notice, as the case may be;

(e) any other matter the ACMA considers relevant to public understanding of the contravention or alleged contravention.

Opportunity to comment

(3) Before publishing information about a person under subsection (2), the ACMA must:

(a) give the person written notice of the information the ACMA proposes to publish; and

(b) give the person a period of not less than 14 days to make a submission to the ACMA about the proposed publication; and

(c) have regard to any submission made by the person within that period.

Duration of publication

(4) Information published under subsection (2) must remain published for a period of not less than 2 years, unless the ACMA is satisfied that it is no longer in the public interest for the information to remain published.

No admission of liability etc.

(5) To avoid doubt, if the ACMA publishes information under subsection (2) about a person who has paid an amount stated in an infringement notice that relates to an alleged contravention of a civil penalty provision, that publication does not constitute:

(a) a finding that the person has contravened the civil penalty provision; or

(b) an admission by the person of guilt or liability for the alleged contravention.

No limit on other publication powers

(6) This section does not limit any power that the ACMA has apart from this section to publish information, including in an annual report or in the exercise of any of the ACMA's other reporting functions.

(6) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (after line 23), after paragraph 64A(xv), insert:

(xva) subsection 62ZAC(1); or

(xvb) subsection 62ZAC(3); or

(xvc) subsection 62ZAD(1); or

(xvd) subsection 62ZAD(2); or

(xve) subsection 62ZAD(3); or

(xvf) subsection 62ZAE(1); or

(xvg) subsection 62ZAF(2); or

(xvh) subsection 62ZAF(4); or

(7) Schedule 1, item 22, page 52 (before line 33), before paragraph 64C(1)(x), insert:

(wa) subsection 62ZAC(1);

(wb) subsection 62ZAC(3);

(wc) subsection 62ZAD(1);

(wd) subsection 62ZAD(2);

(we) subsection 62ZAD(3);

(wf) subsection 62ZAE(1);

(wg) subsection 62ZAF(2);

(wh) subsection 62ZAF(4);

(8) Schedule 1, item 22, page 52 (line 33), omit "; (x)", substitute "(x)".

(9) Schedule 1, item 24, page 53 (before line 31), before paragraph 64D(1)(x), insert:

(wa) subsection 62ZAC(1);

(wb) subsection 62ZAC(3);

(wc) subsection 62ZAD(1);

(wd) subsection 62ZAD(2);

(we) subsection 62ZAD(3);

(wf) subsection 62ZAE(1);

(wg) subsection 62ZAF(2);

(wh) subsection 62ZAF(4);

(10) Schedule 1, item 24, page 53 (line 31), omit "; (x)", substitute "(x)".

(11) Schedule 5, page 95 (after line 5), after item 5, insert:

5A Application provision — wagering inducements

(1) Section 62ZAC of the new IGA Act applies in relation to conduct occurring on or after the commencement day.

(2) Section 62ZAD of the new IGA Act applies in relation to the following:

(a) a broadcast or datacast that occurs on or after the commencement day;

(b) content is that provided on an online content service on or after the commencement day;

(c) a direct communication that occurs on or after the commencement day.

(3) Section 62ZAE of the new IGA Act applies in relation to a communication that occurs on or after the commencement day.

(4) Section 62ZAF of the new IGA applies in relation to conduct mentioned in subsection 62ZAF(1) of that Act that occurs on or after the commencement day.

(5) Section 62ZAG of the new IGA Act applies in relation to a contravention mentioned in subsection 62ZAG(1) of that Act that occurs on or after the commencement day (whether the systematic pattern of conduct mentioned in paragraph 62ZAG(1)(b) of that Act began before, on or after the commencement day).

(6) Section 62ZAH of the new IGA Act applies in relation to the following:

(a) a civil penalty order for a contravention of a civil penalty provision, if the contravention occurred on or after the commencement day;

(b) an infringement notice that relates to an alleged contravention of a civil penalty provision, if the contravention was alleged to have occurred on or after the commencement day.

The amendments that I have moved today go to inducements. They actually go to recommendation 16 of the Murphy review, which says:

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government prohibit all online gambling inducements and inducement advertising, and that it do so without delay.

I can't say that the government has followed this recommendation. The delay has been exhaustive. It took over a thousand days for the government to even respond to the Murphy review. It turns out that, now that the government has decided to act, we can't even have a full debate on the gambling advertising legislation and changes they're putting forward, because that apparently has to pass through without delay. I want to note that this is a bad way of managing complex legislation that matters to the Australian people. This is a deal between both the major parties, who have agreed to these amendments, which they have given to people without any notice at all. It's just a bad way to run this parliament and shows a deep lack of respect for the people who sent us to this place to address these issues.

I want to talk about why inducements are important. The government has said, 'We are trying to address gambling harm.' Well, if you're trying to address gambling harm, there is no better place than to ban inducements. I want to quote some research by Professor Samantha Thomas. These are some words that some young people have used to describe inducements: 'It did encourage me to place more bets than I usually would, because it felt like I wasn't using my own money. When I didn't bet for a while, I was sent bonus bet texts. This influenced me, as it prompted me to go back.' Inducements appeal to young adults because they make gambling feel easier, cheaper or more exciting. Promotions encourage people to bet more than they normally would, and that's exactly what they do. Inducements create urgency, reduce the perception of risk and make people feel like they're not gambling with their own money. This is what creates the problem-gamblers that we have in this country. This is what creates the harm that we have in this country, driven by gambling.

I recognise the government has put forward a number of amendments in relation to inducements, and I support those amendments for what they are. Honestly, though, this is not what the Murphy review requested, and I am sceptical about the impact of these minor amendments that the government and opposition have agreed to and about whether they will genuinely make the difference that they're intended to make. There's a cooling-off period of 14 days and a ban for those people who've been red flagged by the government's metrics, though we're not quite sure how that's going to work. There are also some bans for people who have put themselves forward with BetStop. This is a situation where we are literally providing the pathway for people to become problem-gamblers and for people's lives to be ruined by gambling and then saying, 'By the time you get there, we'll see if we can do anything to make this a little bit easier for you.'

The government has an option. The opposition has an option. It could just go out there and ban inducements altogether. It has failed to do this, and this is deeply disappointing. It is deeply disappointing to all the people who came and gave their time and effort to all the inquiries that we have had about gambling. We could be making Australians safer right now and we have chosen not to. That is a decision that has been made by the major parties.

I thank the member for Wentworth for moving these amendments. The government will not be supporting these amendments. The amendments we are making to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 relating to the direct marketing of inducements align with the government's overarching policy intent, which is to balance the protection of children and vulnerable Australians without limiting legitimate consumer choices. I would also note that some bans on inducements mentioned in the member's amendments, such as banning inducements relating to opening and closing an account, are already legislated by states and territories under the national consumer protection framework. I thank the House.

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Wentworth be agreed to.

I move amendments (1) to (7) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 12 (line 17), omit "and to allow users to opt out of receiving such content", substitute ", and to ensure that users who have opted in to receiving such content can withdraw that opt-in at any time.

(2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 22 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph 62H(d), substitute:

(d) has not opted in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the online content service in accordance with section 62S.

(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 22 (after line 7), at the end of section 62H, add:

Note: An online content service provider must not provide incentives for an individual in Australia to opt in (see section 62SA).

(4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 31 (7 to 20), omit subsection 62P(2) (not including the notes), substitute:

Exception reasonable steps taken

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the online content service provider takes reasonable steps, in accordance with the requirements (if any) specified in a determination under subsection (4) of this section, to:

(a) prevent restricted users from accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the service; and

(b) ensure that individuals in Australia accessing or receiving wagering advertising content on the service are doing so using a registered account in relation to the service; and

(c) ensure that any individual who has, in accordance with section 62S, opted in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content on the service, is provided with a clear, simple, effective and easily accessible means by which they can withdraw that opt-in at any time.

(5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 34 (line 5 to 6), omit "section 62S and".

(6) Schedule 1, item 18, page 37 (lines 9 to 26), omit section 62S, substitute:

62S Requirements for opting in to accessing etc. wagering advertising content

(1) For the purposes of paragraph 62H(d), an individual (the chooser)has opted in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the online content service only if:

(a) the online content service provider has provided a means by which an individual may opt in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the service; and

(b) the method requires an individual to take clear, affirmative action in order to opt in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content on the service; and

(c) the chooser has, using the means mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section, taken clear, affirmative action to opt in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the service; and

(d) any requirements determined under subsection (2) of this section are satisfied.

Note: Under paragraph 62H(d), an individual is a restricted user in relation to an online content service if they have not, in accordance with this section, opted in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the service.

(2) The ACMA may, by legislative instrument determine requirements for the purposes of paragraph (1)(d).

(3) Without limiting subsection (2):

(a) the AMCA may, by legislative instrument, determine requirements (implementation requirements) that must be satisfied in order for a condition set out in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) to be met; and

(b) if the ACMA determines such an implementation requirement in relation to a condition in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c), then the condition is taken to be met only if the implementation requirement is satisfied.

(7) Schedule 1, item 18, page 37 (after line 26), at the end of Division 3, add:

62SA Prohibition on providing incentives to opt in

A person contravenes this section if:

(a) the person is an online content service provider; and

(b) the person provides incentives for an individual in Australia to opt in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the online content service (for example by offers of discounted subscriptions to the service).

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

The Murphy review made it very clear that we need a complete ban on gambling advertising, and the government's made it clear that it isn't willing to do this. As I outlined in my second reading speech, this is immensely disappointing. It's disappointing for all the people affected by gambling harm. It's disappointing for their families and for their loved ones, and it's disappointing for our children, who are going to continue to grow up surrounded by gambling ads that they just don't need or want to see.

The government has refused to implement a full ban, but there are still ways to improve this bill. These amendments that I move today do one simple thing: they flip the online gambling advertising model from opt out to opt in. Under the bill as drafted, Australians using online content services will be shown wagering ads by default unless they take active steps to opt out. My amendments reverse that so no-one will see wagering advertising unless they actively choose to receive it. This is the very least that the government should do, given how far short the bill falls of the Murphy report recommendations.

Why does the default option matter so much? It's because we know that, from real-world evidence, the defaults are sticky. When SBS introduced an opt-out function for gambling ads on its streaming service, it was reported that only 0.2 per cent of active subscribers used it over two years. That doesn't mean that 99.8 per cent of people wanted gambling ads; it means that people don't go looking for settings menus. They don't know the option exists and they don't know how to use it. Most people, understandably, are not thinking about their exposure to wagering advertising while they're trying to watch the football with the kids—and they shouldn't have to.

As gambling harm prevention expert Samantha Thomas told the Senate inquiry into this bill:

Young people and parents should not be expected to navigate sophisticated commercial marketing systems to continuously identify and block novel gambling promotions.

But an opt-out model asks them to do exactly that. An opt-in model puts the burden back where it belongs—on the industry—to earn permission to advertise to someone rather than assuming that right by default.

To repeat myself, a full ban is best. That's what we all want. But, if the government continues to refuse to do that, it can make this simple and small change and dramatically improve the impact of this bill for the best. I commend the amendments to the House.

I thank the member for Bradfield for moving this amendment. The government will not support this amendment. The government supports the principle that Australians should have meaningful control over whether they see wagering advertising online. The bill is clear on the prominence of the opt-out mechanism. It must be clear, simple, effective and easily accessible. Online platforms must also display information about the means to opt out in a way that is prominent to individuals using the service. If platforms can't do this, then they can't show gambling ads.

The government has supported an amendment to establish a wagering advertising opt-out register to provide individuals with a one-stop shop to opt out of receiving all wagering advertising content. This amendment gives effect to the government's policy intent by giving consumers the opportunity to easily reduce the targeting and saturation of wagering advertising across online content service providers.

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

I move amendments (1) to (8), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 9), before item 2, insert:

1C After section 3

Insert:

3A Administration of this Act

(1) The Health Minister has the general administration of this Act.

(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) has effect despite anything in:

(a) an Administrative Arrangements Order; or

(b) a substituted reference order made under section 19B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

Note: Subsection (2) of this section does not prevent an order mentioned in that subsection from being used for the purposes of determining which Minister is the Health Minister.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 18), after the definition of court/tribunal proceedings in section 4, insert:

Health Minister means the Minister administering the National Health Act 1953.

(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 24 (line 29), omit "8:30 pm", substitute "10:30 pm".

(4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 25 (line 11), omit "5 minutes", substitute "1 hour".

(5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 25 (line 13), omit "5 minutes", substitute "1 hour".

(6) Schedule 1, item 18, page 26 (line 6), omit "8:30 pm", substitute "10:30 pm".

(7) Schedule 1, item 18, page 27 (lines 4 to 8), omit the example, substitute:

Example: Broadcasting of live coverage of a sporting event that is scheduled to start at 7 pm and ends at 11.30 pm is subject to both:

(a) the restrictions under section 62K between 6 pm and 10:30 pm (the restrictions start 1 hour before the scheduled start of the sporting event because of the operation of subsection 62K(2)); and

(b) the restrictions under this section between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm.

(8) Schedule 1, item 18, page 27 (line 34), omit "8:30 pm", substitute "10:30 pm".

To be clear, to protect the wellbeing of Australians, particularly young Australians, what's needed is a full ban on gambling advertising phased in over three years, exactly as recommended in the You win some, you lose more report that had unanimous and multipartisan support from all involved in that parliamentary inquiry. However, my amendments respond to the bill before me.

My first amendment would strengthen protections for children, protecting them from regularly seeing gambling advertising in the evenings as they watch footy. Currently, the unamended bill would ban gambling ads during live sports coverage on broadcast, datacasting and online content services between 5 am and 8.30 pm. My amendment would extend this blackout for gambling ads during sports broadcasts by extending that restricted period from 8.30 pm to 10.30 pm. After 8.30 pm, the government's bill would allow unlimited gambling advertising during live sports in both scheduled and unscheduled breaks, including half-time and rain delays. This undermines efforts to break the link between sport and gambling, and we know many children just do not go to bed at 8.30 in the middle of a match.

The government has stated that the reforms will protect children. They will not. The Australian Gambling Research Centre notes that, while child viewership drops after 8.30 pm, around half of children watching peak-time television are still watching at 9 pm and a quarter remain at 10 pm. Worse still, the bill actually weakens existing protections. The Alliance for Gambling Reform and the Monash Addiction Research Centre note that gambling ads are currently banned during live sport regardless of the time of day. Under the government's proposed bill, those protections would be removed after 8.30 pm. In the absence of a full ban, my amendment to extend the restriction period to 10.30 pm creates a more realistic and child-protective threshold that better reflects the evidence and real-life viewing habits.

Gambling advertising is harmful not only during the match itself but during the build-up and aftermath, when excitement is high and betting odds are being promoted. So my first amendment also extends the buffer period before and after live sporting events from what was five and now is 15 minutes. My amendment would extend that to one hour before and after the event.

To my second amendment, treating gambling as a public health issue was a core recommendation of the Murphy report. Gambling has serious and harmful effects on Australians' health and wellbeing. It causes over 400 deaths by suicide every year, and this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gambling related harms. The Australian Medical Association has consistently argued that gambling is a public health issue and gambling harm affects mental health, physical health and community wellbeing. Doctors and health professionals see the consequences: anxiety, depression, substance use, family breakdown, domestic violence, financial distress and social isolation.

However, currently gambling is not primarily dealt with by the Minister for Health and Ageing or the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. Instead, gambling is the responsibility of the Minister for Communications. This is a serious flaw. Gambling is far more than a communications issue. We treat tobacco and alcohol as public health issues. Gambling, also highly addictive and potentially harmful, should be no different. Indeed, the government's own explanatory memorandum to this bill describes gambling harm as 'a significant public health concern'. It's common sense that a public health concern should sit within a public health framework, under the responsibility of the minister for health.

Moving responsibility for the act to the health minister would send a clear message that this government is serious about safeguarding the health and wellbeing of Australians and protecting our children from the predatory gambling companies who target our most vulnerable relentlessly. Instead of protecting the profits of gambling companies, the government should be protecting the health and wellbeing of Australians, especially our children. Gambling is a highly addictive pursuit that causes untold harm to the health and wellbeing of Australians, and it needs a health led response. I want to thank Professor Samantha Thomas, the public health specialist, for her tireless work to reframe gambling as a public health issue.

These amendments would put gambling harm where it belongs—as a public health issue within the health portfolio—and would extend protections for children and young people watching live sport in the evening with their families. I urge all in parliament, in the House, to support these commonsense amendments.

I thank the member for Mackellar for moving these amendments. The government will not support these amendments. The government shares the objective of reducing gambling harm and limiting exposure to wagering advertising, particularly for children and young people. The gambling reform bill takes strong action to limit exposure to wagering advertising from the times and places that children are watching. It bans wagering advertising during live sports, it sets a frequency cap to ensure audiences aren't saturated with wagering advertising, and it makes a family trip to the footy a wagering ad free space by banning ads on sporting uniforms and at sporting venues. The frequency cap and live sport restrictions are in place until 8.30 pm, which reflects the data mentioned that shows child audiences drop significantly after this time.

In response to calls for more distance between wagering ads and sport events, the government has moved an amendment to extend the blackout period before a live sporting event to 15 minutes. This amendment, along with the measures I have just outlined, will break the link between wagering and sport. With regard to the amendment prescribing the health minister as the general administrator of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, I would note that it is not convention for legislation to prescribe which portfolios should have responsibility for specific acts. Machinery of government arrangements have long been decided by the Prime Minister as the head of government through established processes.

Question negatived.

I move amendment (1) on sheet 1 and amendments (1) to (8) on sheet two together:

SHEET 1

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

_____

SHEET 2

(1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 24 (before line 19), before section 62K, insert:

62KA Information about opting out must accompany any broadcast or datacast of wagering advertising content

If a person broadcasts or datacasts wagering advertising content in Australia, then the person must ensure that:

(a) the broadcast or datacast of the wagering advertising content must be immediately preceded by a broadcast or datacast, on the same service, of content (the opt out content) explaining how a person can opt out of receiving wagering advertising content on the service; and

(b) the broadcast or datacast of the opt out content must satisfy any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

(2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 30 (before line 26), before section 62P, insert:

62PA Information about opting out must accompany any provision of wagering advertising content on online content service

If:

(a) a person is an online content service provider; and

(b) wagering advertising content is provided in Australia on the online content service;

then the person must ensure that:

(c) the provision of the wagering advertising content on the online content service must be immediately preceded by the provision, on the service, of content (the opt out content) explaining how a person can opt out of receiving wagering advertising content on the service; and

(d) the provision of the opt out content on the service must satisfy any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units.

(3) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (line 1), omit paragraph 64A(x), substitute:

; or (xaa) section 62KA; or

(x) subsection 62K(1); or

(4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (after line 8), after paragraph 64A(xg), insert:

(xga) subsection 62PA; or

(5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 52 (line 33), omit paragraph 64C(1)(x), substitute:

; (xaa) section 62KA;

(x) subsection 62K(1);

(6) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (after line 6), after paragraph 64C(1)(xg), insert:

(xga) subsection 62PA;

(7) Schedule 1, item 24, page 53 (line 31), omit paragraph 64D(1)(x), substitute:

; (xaa) section 62KA;

(x) subsection 62K(1);

(8) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (after line 4), after paragraph 64D(1)(xg), insert:

(xga) subsection 62PA;

I move the amendments circulated because these are clear fundamental gaps in this government's proposal. I want to be really clear. The four fundamental gaps in this bill are still requiring the establishment of a national online gambling regulator, requiring the establishment of a national online gambling ombudsman, prohibiting payments and the referral of individual customers and requiring information about the advertising opt-out scheme to be presented before gambling advertising is aired, regardless of the platform. This should be paid for out of the time and by the gambling companies. These are not radical proposals. They are in fact mostly—other than the opt-out one—reforms that were drawn directly from the unanimous recommendations of the Murphy inquiry report, You win some, you lose more. I note that it's rather concerning to see that there are members who voted in support of these recommendations on the report who are voting against these very amendments that give effect to the recommendations of the report. I call hypocrisy in that setting.

The government has described this bill as landmark reform, but a bill that permits up to three ads per hour during prime time and ending that at 8.30 is not an advertising ban. A bill that asks Australians to opt out of gambling advertising while allowing the advertising to reach them by default does not put public health first, and a bill that leaves Australia without a national regulator or ombudsman does not provide a national system recommended by the Murphy review. The bill just doesn't pass the pub test, no matter how much grandstanding we see from members of government in this place.

The amendments here from many members of the crossbench would start to try and improve this legislation and bring it somewhere near what was recommended in the review. First, the amendments would require the minister to take all reasonable steps to establish a national online gambling regulator within two years. Online gambling is inherently national. A person can place a bet from anywhere in Australia through a company licensed in another jurisdiction, using a platform operating across every state and territory. The Murphy report recommended a national regulation and a national online gambling regulator with the sole purpose of reducing harm. Such a regulator can have the responsibility for licensing, compliance, enforcement, data collection and the development and enforcement of national standards. My amendment gives effect to that and gives the government two years to do it. Then, within six months of its establishment, the minister should report back in relation to the relevant recommendations and explain why they've been left out.

The second amendment is in relation to taking all reasonable steps to establish a national online gambling ombudsman within two years. I can't begin to describe how complex are some of the amendments in this legislation that have been proposed and how much responsibility has been put on the customer, on the users, yet they have no ombudsman to whom they can complain about the lack of compliance by gambling companies or online companies when it comes to the opt-out system. Somehow, without any ombudsman, they're supposed to have some avenue to say, 'Hey, in the system you are claiming is going to be so effective, there's nowhere for me to complain about it.'

It is a maze for consumers to complain around online advertising and gambling. At the moment, you could have a dispute about delayed or withheld withdrawal, failure to honour self-exclusion, relentless direct marketing, inappropriate inducement, closure or suspension of account, or a provider's or failure to respond to clear signs of gambling harm, and you would you'd need to have a law degree to know—even then I don't think you would—where you could actually complain about it. A customer and a vulnerable person should not be bounced between the provider, a state licensing authority, a consumer affairs body and a Commonwealth agency, each dealing with only one part of the problem. It's a fundamental consumer protection: there should be an ombudsman.

Finally, the government has included a cop-out in relation to an opt-out process when it comes to the advertising online and advertising. The final amendment is that, before any advertising in relation to gambling—whether it be online or free to air or on any platform—the gambling industry should have to pay for and promote upfront a warning and promote the opt-out register. They should pay to make sure a viewer is aware of this opt-out gambling register. It should not be the public that has to pay for such an ad campaign, and Australians should not be left at the mercy of having to go looking for where they can actually opt-out. This is makes sense that, prior to seeing damaging advertising, they should have a warning—and they should pay for letting people know about the opt-out.

I thank the member for Warringah for moving this amendment. The government will not support these amendments. The government has heard the concerns raised at the Senate inquiry, related to the harms of inducements, and we are committed to protecting vulnerable people from gambling related harm. The government has moved an amendment to the gambling reform bill to prohibit wagering service providers from providing, offering or arranging any commissions to staff or any third party involved in the referral or provision of online gambling to an individual based on customer activity. This will remove incentives for employees and affiliates of wagering companies to keep their customers gambling.

In relation to proposed amendments to establish a national regulator, the government has a longstanding, shared responsibility for the regulation of gambling with the states and territories. We will continue to work constructively with jurisdictions to address harms from online gambling. The gambling reform bill specifies that an opt-out for wagering advertising must be clear, simple, prominent, effective and easily accessible. Online platforms must also display information about the means to opt-out in a way that is prominent to individuals using that service. The amended bill has further strengthened this requirement by providing the ACMA powers to direct online content service providers to comply with the existing requirements in the bill to provide or display information about how individuals may opt-out of receiving wagering advertising. The ACMA may also issue written direction where they are not satisfied that an online content service provider is complying with opt-out prominence requirements. They may then issue a penalty where a provider has not complied with the written direction within 30 days.

I rise to speak in support of the member for Warringah's amendments. I find it extraordinary that the government isn't going for a national regulator here, and I want to talk a little bit about what we heard in the Murphy inquiry and what the committee found in relation to a national regulator. Recommendations 3 and 23 talked about the need for a national online gambling regulator and the broad suite of powers that they needed, and we heard evidence about a number of different areas that makes this the right thing to do.

Firstly, we have weak and fragmented legislation. Australians lose the most to online gambling because we have a weak and fragmented regulatory framework, which places all the onus for reducing harm onto the person who gambles. That was the finding of the committee. The committee also made findings about the fragmented approach, with four Australian government ministers and at least seven state and territory ministers with some responsibility for online gambling regulation and harm reduction. We heard evidence and made findings about the inconsistency across states and territories and how that inconsistency and fragmentation has negatively impacted harm reduction efforts. We also heard that even the wagering companies agreed that this fragmentation doesn't work. Responsible Wagering Australia noted that providers are already accountable to 26 different regulatory bodies.

There was really strong support for the Australian government to establish national regulation and a national regulator. Suicide Prevention Australia said that the problem is that gambling regulation operates in silos. The Alliance for Gambling Reform backed it as well. Tabcorp—and I quote from their submission—said:

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.

So how about listening to the betting companies on that issue?

We also heard evidence about regulatory capture, and concerns were raised about the regulatory capture of the Northern Territory Racing Commission. Financial Counselling Australia said the NTRC was set up to further the development of the racing and betting industry in the Northern Territory. This is our de facto national regulator. Another submission said that the NTRC is basically a business partner, not a regulator, and Professor Charles Livingstone said there was a much too cosy relationship between the regulator and the regulated. When asked about commission members, the NTRC said in their evidence:

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.

It is so normalised they didn't see that there was a problem with it.

The committee also heard that the gambling industry uses similar methods to the tobacco industry to minimise the impact of regulation. These tactics include lobbying, public relations, political donations and funding, and supporting research agendas as well. (Time expired)

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

The question is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.