David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Hansard source

Does 'absorbed' mean there's no additional funding for ACMA, and they've just got to do that? You are giving ACMA, which is full of hardworking public servants who are struggling to keep up—Entain breached BetStop rules 500 times, and ACMA couldn't process that fast enough to fine them. Then the higher-ups at ACMA, who I think have a lot to answer for, decided not to go to the Federal Court because—I don't know. Why would you go after a betting company that has breached BetStop rules 500 times? Maybe it seemed like a lot of effort. I don't know. I think they probably should have. Now you're saying that they'll just absorb the cost of enforcing a patchy ban that your own analysis says is going to cost money. This just gets better and better.

I'd also ask about the penalties. Often here, in this place, when the government is under pressure to do something, they say, 'Well, we'll double the penalties, and that'll fix it.' But one of the issues with ACMA is that they very seldom actually use these penalties on gambling companies. What will change if you double the penalties? How will ACMA, given you're not giving them extra staff, actually be able to crack the whip and hold these companies to account?