Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not a betting woman but you can always be confident betting on the two major parties to screw over the people who live in this country. It isn't even a gamble to bet on Labor and the Liberals joining up to pass half-baked weak laws, because this is what the big gambling corporations want them to do. They just say, 'Yes, sir'. Labor collected over $4 million in gambling-related bribes—sorry, I mean 'donations'—between 2020 and 2025.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd ask that Senator Faruqi withdraw that.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faruqi, there's been a request that you withdraw your reference to bribes. I think that it would be appropriate for you to do that. You corrected it and said something else, so I will ask you to withdraw that, please.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. Labor collected over $4 million in gambling-related inducements between 2020 and 2025. This legislation makes clear exactly who is pulling the strings.

The late Peta Murphy, in a foreword to her report You win some, you lose more, said that she was proud to deliver a unanimous report that says enough is enough. She was explicit when she said:

A phased, comprehensive ban on all gambling advertising on all media, that leaves no room for circumvention, is needed. Partial bans on gambling advertising do not work.

But you guys paid no heed. Since the publication of Peta Murphy's report, Australians have lost over $104 billion to gambling. That's $666 million per week. The social harm that this has caused has devastated people and families.

The Labor and Liberal senators voting for this today should be so ashamed. It seems that you come in here with the determination of harming people and communities. Yesterday, it was the cruel NDIS cuts. Today, it is the gambling industry that you are supporting and propping up. This is the Albanese Labor government's MO: do just enough to get a headline, but don't actually fix the real issue, and definitely do not risk upsetting whichever corporations and their bigwigs that are paying politicians so they can keep ripping people off.

It's not oversimplifying to say that this is all just about political donations. In this case, it couldn't be clearer. Four in five Australians support a total ban on gambling advertisements, including on TV, radio and online. A total gambling ad ban is an overwhelmingly popular policy. But what does this bill do? It is nowhere near it. The only winners today are the big gambling companies preying on the vulnerable and raking in profit after profit.

One of the core focuses of this so-called reform has been on inducements, or what the gambling industry likes to sanitise through the term 'generosities'. This was yet another crystal clear recommendation of the Murphy report: ban inducements. Yet the draft bill we got from Prime Minister Albanese didn't even touch on them. Now, pushed in the Senate inquiry to do something, the Prime Minister and Angus Taylor have cut a deal to put their gambling company donors in charge of who is or isn't able to access inducements. What an utter disgrace!

Recent data from the Australian Gambling Research Centre showed that around three million people are engaged in some form of harmful gambling. Many of these people have told their devastating stories over and over, but the government has turned the other cheek and somehow still feels comfortable getting up and pretending that this is reform and that this will stop harm. Well, it won't. It won't stop harm. This is just another Labor and Liberal stitch-up that will continue to see gambling decimate families and decimate communities. Gambling companies are the winners once again, just like the gas companies are the winners of the failure to impose a gas export tax and just like the war machine is the winner of the failing AUKUS deal.

Time and time again, this Labor government proves that it is completely bought out by vested interests. The days of a Labor Party that stands up for the workers are long gone. What is left is a party bereft of courage and full of cowardice. They have shown that again today, and they showed it yesterday. We see right through you. People see right through you. You are fooling no-one, and you will be held to account for these terrible decisions. The Greens will be moving amendments to give teeth to this legislation, and I want to foreshadow two amendments to the bill that I will be moving. They will remove the gambling reform exemptions from horse racing, harness racing and greyhound racing. It hasn't been talked about much, but it is a very important amendment.

After decades of excusing horse and greyhound deaths, all in the name of so-called sport, the Labor government now wants to say that horse racing and greyhound racing are not sports for the purposes of gambling. Which is it? Are you finally admitting that this horrific cruelty is no sport at all? There are no lines the Albanese government won't cross. There is no hypocrisy it won't engage in if it fills their election war chest. In the inquiry hearing, even Racing Australia CEO Paul Eriksson admitted that, without wagering, there is no racing industry. This is because horse and greyhound racing lost their social licence years ago.

Ordinary people don't want to watch horses and dogs be run to their deaths. Go to a greyhound racing meet, and the stands will be empty. But the racing industry says: 'No worries. Under Labor, Liberals and One Nation, we will always be able to rely on robbing the public of their hard earned money. We can continue to cover their screens in ads encouraging gambling, and we will always be able to prey on people's suffering.' The exemption for animal racing is purely to sustain what would otherwise be a dead and buried industry—buried in the ground alongside the gorgeous animals that they have forced to race.

This bill does not protect Australians from gambling harm. It gives a green light for wagering companies to go all-in on funnelling their marketing budgets into horse and greyhound racing, but the irony doesn't stop there. The Albanese government says that, if you are a dedicated racing channel or program, you're not constrained by any of these weak reforms either. Effectively, you are saying gambling advertising must be constrained somewhat because of the harm it causes—that is, unless your whole business is dedicated to increasing gambling. Make it make sense. Minister, my question to you is: why the hell have you brought this piss-weak bill into parliament?

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm going to call you in a moment. Senator Faruqi, I note that some of that phrasing is going right up to the line of what would be parliamentary. I'm giving you an indication of that.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Faruqi, for the question. This is the most substantial and strongest ever action that any government has taken in terms of gambling reform. You can tut-tut all you want, but it's actually the reality of what we are dealing with in terms of this legislation. You did make mention of the Murphy report, which is obviously a substantial bit of work that has gone into influencing the government's decision on this. I am someone who has the highest regard for the late Peta Murphy and the work that she did, and that has been important in terms of influencing government on the decisions that we've taken.

This is part of an extensive consultation where we've listened to a range of views to land the balanced approach that we have in this legislation. Whilst we've heard for a long time that many Australians enjoy having a bet and that it's part of their social life, for others it becomes a trap that they can't escape. That's something that we're dealing with in terms of this legislation.

We understand that there are strongly held views about this issue in the parliament and also around the country, but we believe that this legislation gets the balance right. It implements reform that protects people from gambling harm. It also protects children from overexposure to gambling ads. We think that that gets the right balance for this parliament to be supportive of.

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the next question, I need to note that, with the concurrence of the Senate, the statements of reasons accompanying the requests circulated for this bill will be incorporated in Hansard immediately after the requests to which they relate. There being no objection to that, it is so ordered.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—in respect of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, I move amendments (1) to (9) on sheet 3863 together:

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

(2) Clause 4, page 2 (line 15), omit "Schedule 1 of", substitute "Schedule 4A to".

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

Schedule 4A — Full prohibition on wagering advertising

Part 1 — Main amendments

Interactive Gambling Act 2001

1 Section 3 (paragraph (g))

Omit "in certain circumstances", substitute "in most circumstances".

2 Section 62A

Repeal the section, substitute:

62A Simplified outline of this Part

Content that includes advertising, promotional or sponsorship content (called wagering advertising content) must not be broadcast, datacast, or included in online content.

Sporting uniforms, apparel or equipment and sporting venues must not display wagering advertising content.

Athletes, celebrities and certain other people must not be used to promote wagering services.

Exceptions apply, including for programs, channels and online services dedicated to racing and for internet search engine results for licensed interactive wagering services.

3 Section 62B

Repeal the following definitions:

(a) definition of account;

(b) definition of channel;

(c) definition of live;

(d) definition of odds;

(e) definition of promotion of odds;

(f) definition of program;

(g) definition of restricted user;

(h) definition of scheduled break;

(i) definition of scheduled start;

(j) definition of unscheduled break.

4 Sections 62G and 62H

Repeal the sections.

5 Subsections 62 J( 7) to (12)

Repeal the subsections.

6 Division 2 of Part 7C

Repeal the Division, substitute:

Division 2 — Prohibition on broadcasting or datacasting wagering advertising content

62K Prohibition on broadcasting or datacasting wagering advertising content

Civil penalty provision broadcasting or datacasting of content

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if the person broadcasts or datacasts wagering advertising content in Australia.

Note: See sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC for general exceptions for conduct relating to content.

Civil penalty:

(a) for an individual—2,000 penalty units; and

(b) for a body corporate—20,000 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision authorising or causing broadcasting or datacasting of content

(2) A person must not authorise or cause wagering advertising content to be broadcast or datacast in contravention of subsection (1).

Note: See sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC for general exceptions for conduct relating to content.

Civil penalty:

(a) for an individual—2,000 penalty units; and

(b) for a body corporate—20,000 penalty units.

Exception dedicated racing or wagering program or channel

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if the broadcast or datacast of wagering advertising content is on:

(a) a dedicated racing program or channel; or

(b) a dedicated wagering program or channel.

Note 1: 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).

Note 2: See also sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC (which are about general exceptions for conduct relating to content).

Note 3: For when a program or channel is dedicated to racing or wagering, see section 62E.

7 Division 3 of Part 7C

Repeal the Division, substitute:

Division 3 — Prohibition on providing wagering advertising content on online content services

62P Prohibition on providing wagering advertising content on online content services

Civil penalty provision providing content on online content service

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

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

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

Note: For the meaning of online content service provider, see section 4. For the meaning of online content service, see section 10C.

Civil penalty:

(a) for an individual—2,000 penalty units; and

(b) for a body corporate—20,000 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision authorising or causing content to be provided on online content service

(2) A person contravenes this subsection if the person authorises or causes wagering advertising content to be included in content provided on an online content service in contravention of subsection (1).

Civil penalty:

(a) for an individual—2,000 penalty units; and

(b) for a body corporate—20,000 penalty units.

Exception internet search engine service

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if:

(a) the person is an internet search engine service provider; and

(b) the content is a search engine result for a licensed interactive wagering service.

Note: A person who wishes to rely on subsection (2) or (3) bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in those subsections (see section 96 of the Regulatory Powers Act).

Exception dedicated racing or wagering online content services

(4) Subsections (1) and (7) do not apply if the wagering advertising content is provided on:

(a) a dedicated racing online content service; or

(b) a dedicated wagering online content service.

Note 1: 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).

Note 2: For when an online content service is dedicated to racing or wagering, see section 62E.

Separate contraventions

(5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2)commits a separate contravention of that subsection in respect of each time that wagering advertising content is provided on the online content service.

8 Division 4 of Part 7C

Repeal the Division.

9 Subparagraph 62V(a)( i )

After "uniform", insert "or other apparel".

10 After subparagraph 62V(a)( i )

Insert:

(ia) equipment used by an individual in Australia who is a participant or official in connection with a sporting event or an activity related to a sporting event; or

11 Section 62V (penalty)

Repeal the penalty, substitute:

Civil Penalty:

(a) for an individual—2,000 penalty units; and

(b) for a body corporate—20,000 penalty units.

12 Section 62W

Repeal the section, substitute:

62W Prohibition relating to notable people promoting wagering advertising content

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

(a) the licensed interactive wagering service provider makes a contract or arrangement, or arrives at an understanding; and

(b) the contract, arrangement or understanding relates to the sponsorship, participation or involvement of a notable person in connection with the promotion of wagering advertising content in Australia.

Note 1: See sections 62ZA, 62ZB and 62ZC for general exceptions for conduct relating to content.

Note 2: For the meaning of notable person, see section 62F.

Civil penalty

(a) for an individual—2,000 penalty units; and

(b) for a body corporate—20,000 penalty units.

Exception racing

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the sponsorship, participation or involvement of a notable person relates to the promotion of wagering advertising content that:

(a) relates solely or principally to racing; and

(b) is or will be:

(i) broadcast or datacast on a dedicated racing program or channel; or

(ii) provided on a dedicated racing online content service.

Note 1: 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).

Note 2: For the meaning of racing, see section 62B. For when an online content service is dedicated to racing or wagering, see section 62E.

13 Sections 62X, 62Y and 62Z

Repeal the sections.

14 Paragraph 64A(xa)

Omit "subsection 62K(3)", substitute "subsection 62K(2)".

15 Paragraphs 64A( xb ), (xc), (xd), ( xe ), ( xf ) and ( xg )

Repeal the paragraphs.

16 Paragraph 64A(xi)

Omit "subsection 62P(7)", substitute "subsection 62P(2)".

17 Paragraphs 64A( xj ), ( xk ), (xl), ( xm ) and ( xn )

Repeal the paragraphs.

18 Paragraph 64A( xp )

Omit "subsection 62W(1)", substitute "section 62W".

19 Paragraphs 64A( xq ), ( xr ), ( xs ), ( xt ), (xu) and (xv)

Repeal the paragraphs.

20 Paragraph 64C( 1)( xa)

Omit "subsection 62K(3)", substitute "subsection 62K(2)".

21 Paragraphs 64C( 1)( xb ), (xc), (xd), ( xe ), ( xf ) and ( xg )

Repeal the paragraphs.

22 Paragraph 64C(1)(xi)

Omit "subsection 62P(7)", substitute "subsection 62P(2)".

23 Paragraphs 64C( 1)( xj ), ( xk ), (xl), ( xm ) and ( xn )

Repeal the paragraphs.

24 Paragraph 64C( 1)( xp )

Omit "subsection 62W(1)", substitute "section 62W".

25 Paragraphs 64C( 1)( xq ), ( xr ), ( xs ), ( xt ), (xu) and (xv)

Repeal the paragraphs.

26 Paragraph 64D( 1)( xa)

Omit "subsection 62K(3)", substitute "subsection 62K(2)".

27 Paragraphs 64D( 1)( xb ), (xc), (xd), ( xe ), ( xf ) and ( xg )

Repeal the paragraphs.

28 Paragraph 64D(1)(xi)

Omit "subsection 62P(7)", substitute "subsection 62P(2)".

29 Paragraphs 64D( 1)( xj ), ( xk ), (xl), ( xm ) and ( xn )

Repeal the paragraphs.

30 Paragraph 64D( 1)( xp )

Omit "subsection 62W(1)", substitute "section 62W".

31 Paragraphs 64D( 1)( xq ), ( xr ), ( xs ), ( xt ), (xu) and (xv)

Repeal the paragraphs.

(4) Schedule 5, page 93 (after line 3), before item 1, insert:

Part 1 — Interpretation

(5) Schedule 5, item 1, page 93 (lines 6 to 10), omit the following definitions:

(a) definition of commencement day;

(b) definition of new IGA Act.

(6) Schedule 5, item 1, page 93 (after line 10), at the end of the item, add:

stage 1 commencement day means the day when Schedule 1 commences.

stage 2 commencement day means the day when Schedule 4A commences.

stage 1 IGA Act means the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 on or after the stage 1 commencement day and before the stage 2 commencement day.

stage 2 IGA Act means the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 on or after the stage 2 commencement day.

(7) Schedule 5, page 93 (after line 14), after item 2, insert:

Part 2 — Stage 1 application

(8) Schedule 5, items 3 to 12, page 93 (line 15) to page 96 (line 15), omit the items, substitute:

3 Application provision — broadcasts, datacasts and online content

(1) The following provisions of the stage 1 IGA Act apply in relation to a broadcast or datacast that occurs on or after the stage 1 commencement day:

(a) Division 2 of Part 7C;

(b) subsection 62W(2);

(c) sections 62X, 62Y and 62Z.

(2) The following provisions of the stage 1 IGA Act apply in relation to content that is provided on an online content service on or after the stage 1 commencement day:

(a) sections 62P, 62R, 62Y and 62Z;

(b) subsection 62W(2).

(3) Section 62Q of the stage 1 IGA Act applies in relation to content that is delivered to (or attempted to be delivered to) or accessed by an individual on or after the stage 1 commencement day.

4 Transitional provision — displaying wagering advertising content on uniforms and at sporting venues

Excluded arrangements

(1) Section 62V of the stage 1 IGA Act or the stage 2 IGA Act does not apply in relation to the display of wagering advertising content if:

(a) the display occurs during the period starting on the stage 1 commencement day and ending at the end of 31 December 2031; and

(b) the display is covered by an arrangement entered into before the introduction day; and

(c) the arrangement has not been varied, on or after the introduction day, for the purpose or effect of:

(i) extending the duration of the arrangement to the extent it relates to wagering advertising content; or

(ii) increasing the prominence, size, duration or number of displays of wagering advertising content under the arrangement.

Subsequent broadcasts of displays

(2) If:

(a) subitem (1) applies in relation to the display of wagering advertising content; and

(b) a person engages in conduct which causes or results in the broadcast, datacast or provision on an online content service of the display of wagering advertising content in contravention of one or more provisions of Part 7C of the stage 1 IGA Act or the stage 2 IGA Act;

then, the person is taken not to contravene the provision.

Meaning of arrangement

(3) For the purposes of this section, an arrangement includes a contract, arrangement or understanding.

5 Application provision — notable people promoting wagering advertising content

Subsection 62W(1) of the stage 1 IGA Act applies in relation to a contract, arrangement or understanding entered into on or after the stage 1 commencement day.

6 Application provision — information gathering

Section 22A of the stage 1 IGA Act applies in relation to information or documents required to be given or produced on or after the stage 1 commencement day, whether the information or document was obtained or created before, on or after that day.

7 Application provision — use and disclosure of information

(1) Sections 62T and 62U of the stage 1 IGA Act apply in relation to the collection, use or disclosure of information on or after the stage 1 commencement day, whether the information was obtained or created before, on or after that day.

(2) Section 59DC of the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005, as inserted by Schedule 2, applies in relation to the disclosure of information on or after the stage 1 commencement day, whether the information was obtained or created before, on or after that day.

8 Application provision — record keeping

Section 62ZD of the stage 1 IGA Act applies in relation to a broadcast, datacast or provision of content on an online content service, that occurs on or after the stage 1 commencement day.

9 Application provision — transfer of funds

(1) Section 15J of the stage 1 IGA Act applies in relation to a payment or transfer of funds to be made on or after the stage 1 commencement day.

(2) Subitem (1) applies whether the relevant designated interactive gambling service was provided before, on or after the stage 1 commencement day.

10 Application provision—use of infrastructure

Section 15AB of the stage 1 IGA Act applies in relation to a use of infrastructure or facilities, or a provision of services that occurs (or begins to occur) on or after the stage 1 commencement day.

11 Application provision—removal notices

Division 5A of Part 7A of the stage 1 IGA Act applies in relation to a removal notice given on or after the stage 1 commencement day, whether the designated interactive gambling service advertisement is published before, on or after that day.

12 Application provision—civil penalty provisions

Subsection 64C(1A) of the stage 1 IGA Act applies in relation to an infringement notice given after the stage 1 commencement day, whether the conduct constituting the alleged contravention, or alleged contraventions, of the provision to which the infringement notice relates occurs before, on or after that day.

(9) Schedule 5, page 96 (after line 15), after item 12, insert:

Part 3—Stage 2 application

12A Application provision—stage 2

(1) Division 2 of Part 7C of the stage 2 IGA Act applies in relation to a broadcast or datacast that occurs on or after the stage 2 commencement day.

(2) Division 3 of Part 7C of the stage 2 IGA Act applies in relation to content that is provided on an online content service on or after the stage 2 commencement day.

12B Application provision—information gathering

Section 22A of the stage 2 IGA Act applies in relation to information or documents required to be given or produced on or after the stage 2 commencement day, whether the information or document was obtained or created before, on or after that day.

12C Application provision—record keeping

Section 62ZD of the stage 2 IGA Act applies in relation to a broadcast, datacast or provision of content on an online content service, that occurs on or after the stage 2 commencement day.

12D Application provision—transfer of funds

(1) Section 15J of the stage 2 IGA Act applies in relation to a payment or transfer of funds to be made on or after the stage 2 commencement day.

(2) Subitem (1) applies whether the relevant designated interactive gambling service was provided before, on or after the stage 2 commencement day.

12E Application provision—use of infrastructure

Section 15AB of the stage 2 IGA Act applies in relation to a use of infrastructure or facilities, or a provision of services that occurs (or begins to occur) on or after the stage 2 commencement day.

12F Application provision—removal notices

Division 5A of Part 7A of the stage 2 IGA Act applies in relation to a removal notice given on or after the stage 2 commencement day, whether the designated interactive gambling service advertisement is published before, on or after that day.

12G Application provision—civil penalty provisions

Subsection 64C(1A) of the stage 2 IGA Act applies in relation to an infringement notice given after the stage 2 commencement day, whether the conduct constituting the alleged contravention, or alleged contraventions, of the provision to which the infringement notice relates occurs before, on or after that day.

12H Application provision—proceedings entered into before stage 2 commencement day

(1) Despite the amendments of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 made by Schedule 4A, the stage 1 IGA Act continues to apply, on and after the stage 2 commencement day, as if those amendments had not been made, in relation to the following:

(a) an application made, or proceedings on foot, as at the stage 2 commencement day;

(b) an application for review of, or an appeal relating to, an application or proceedings referred to in paragraph (a) (whether the application for review was made, or the appeal proceedings were brought, before, on or after the stage 2 commencement day).

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), an application or proceedings are on foot until all rights of review and appeal in relation to the application or proceedings have expired or have been exhausted.

Part 4—Transitional rules

Minister, this sheet implements the flagship recommendation from the Murphy report. That was a phased-in ban on all gambling ads over three years. The bill will pass today. Should these amendments be supported then, in three years time, gambling ads in all forms would be banned, as the Murphy report said, giving three years to sports, free-to-air and the gambling companies to transition.

My question is: given that multiple reports now—the Murphy report and the rapid review into family and domestic violence—say that we need a full phased-in ban on all gambling ads and that partial bans don't work, why has the government gone for a partial ban that gets the balance right with three ads every hour? How is three ads every hour from 5 am to 8.30 pm getting the balance right?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Pocock, for the question and also for moving the amendments. Just to be clear, the government will be opposing these amendments. We will not be supporting them.

As I mentioned when I was responding to Senator Faruqi before, we believe that the gambling reform bill seeks to deliver real, deliverable and lasting measures that will genuinely tackle gambling harm. The reforms in this bill have been targeted to address key community concerns at the same time. That's why I emphasise that balanced package approach that we're taking, which will significantly reduce the exposure to wagering advertising—particularly for children and vulnerable people, which we believe is important—and also the work that would be done in regard to the opt-out system online. We believe that this approach gets the balance right between what is a legitimate industry that's allowed to advertise and protecting and responding to community concerns at the same time.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I'd take this opportunity to clarify for the honourable senators my position in relation to the bill. I voted against it at the second reading. I intend, during committee, to vote for Senator Pocock's amendments. They find favour with me. My intention, at this stage, is to vote no at the third reading.

I'd like to congratulate my friend Senator Scarr on his contribution at the second reading. I've been very much swayed by Senator Scarr's advocacy and also by the members for Fisher and Cowper in the other place. The member for Cowper is also, I think, the only member remaining from the Murphy report.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

In the coalition.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Scarr. The legislation, in my view, does very little, virtually nothing, to respond to the substantial findings of the Murphy review. I just really question what the point of a bipartisan review is when you can't respond to very significant and heartfelt recommendations from that committee.

I don't see anything in the bill that really diminishes the rivers of gold that the corporates are earning, or sufficient restraints on their abilities to prey on the most vulnerable, particularly our children. I've listened to the charities who have to respond to the carnage caused by addiction. It's their voices we should be acting on, not those that are making the money.

I've listened to arguments at the second reading made by some coalition members that there could be unintended consequences that are similar to tobacco regulation. I don't find them persuasive. We're not banning gambling; we are debating how it can be promoted. We are debating the nature of the promotion of gambling and that the behaviours of many of the companies can be rightly described as predatory and underpinning addiction.

This bill will pass today. The numbers are clear. I think when we come to the review in three years we'll find that organisations like Anglicare will tell us nothing has changed, if not become worse. I hold Anglicare in the highest regard and have volunteered for them. I think that they will be saying to us, as they do now, that the regime that underpins gambling advocacy and promotion is founded on quicksand, moral quicksand, and I can't bring myself to vote for these bills in good conscience.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety) | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition won't be supporting this amendment. In my second reading speech this morning, I laid out the many and vast number of amendments that the coalition has worked on and brought forward. This is now a vastly stronger bill than previously, of course. But I just want to reiterate that in the bill now, with the coalition's amendments, there are now tougher restrictions on broadcasters. The data shows that, in relation to children switching on to watch live sport, the preceding 15-minute window is the principal window when most Australians seeking to sit down and watch their favourite game, switch on to wait for the whistle to blow and the game to start, so in the bill there'll be an extended blackout period that's been tripled from five minutes to 15 minutes.

There is a current prohibition in relation to gambling ads not being able to be shown in children's television programming in the industry code, but, unbelievably, the government's bill before it was amended allowed up to three gambling ads per hour in children's television programming and also didn't deal with gambling ads being directed towards children. That has now been resolved and is now prohibited, reflecting the current prohibitions in the industry code. There's been an extension of this restriction window. The restriction window now starts at 5 am, as is the current law, rather than 6 am. Very significantly for the commercial networks, which apply the same broadcast rules to simulcasts of their programming, their terrestrial program on their BVOD platforms will be only on the condition that there will be no gambling ads allowed during video on demand catch-up TV programs. There'll be tougher online restrictions because the government's bill previously weakened the online rules in a number of respects, including dropping the five-minute window.

There have been some very significant amendments now incorporated into this bill and passed in the other place banning predatory inducements. These amendments combat some of the worst harms then caused and directed towards addicted gamblers where many Australians are really suffering. There is a ban on staff commissions relating to customer activity to stop the horrendous conduct where gambling companies have been chasing those customers incurring very large losses. There's a ban on inducements to red flagged customers, including via social media targeted advertising, with very strong obligations on the wagering companies to monitor customers' activity and very big fines for breaches of that provision.

Despite what Responsible Wagering says in talking about the framework that is in place in relation to limiting inducements and red flagging problem gamblers and other gamblers showing real signs of harm, there are no laws at all, and there were no provisions in the government's bill until it was amended in the other place. These are very significant changes to the law, with the regulator having very strong powers in relation to the direct marketing of inducements. There will be a complete prohibition for all new accountholders and, of course, there will be the cooling-off period for three months after for people who have deregistered from BetStop.

The other really important thing—and this is incredibly important for families, including, of course, for children—is that every single family in Australia can, because of the coalition's amendments, go to the global opt-out register, a one-stop shop to stop all wagering ads online. This will be established and paid for by industry. There will be 12 months of design and implementation. For those who don't want to use the one-stop shop, they can be assured that every online platform will be required to display the opt-out option for gambling ads very prominently. That's another improvement to the bill.

I think one of the most significant elements of the bill, and one of the most significant amendments brought forward by the coalition, is that publishers of gambling advertisements are now going to be directly liable for publishing illegal gambling ads, such as from illegal offshore casinos. They are a scourge on social media. They are everywhere, and they are so hard to detect because they are so misleading and deceptive. They mimic the logos of the legitimate licensed wagering companies in this country, and that is a very, very big step forward. I can tell you, these ads are all over Facebook. They are costing Australians billions of dollars, and the provisions now in this bill will ensure that the regulator has very strong powers not to just play whack-a-mole against the illegal overseas websites—they take them down, and they pop up in a flash—there is now direct liability for the publishers of these advertisements in Australia so that before a wagering ad is actually published, the publisher must ensure that that ad is being served by a licensed wagering provider in this country.

I very much respect my good friends Senator Scarr and Senator McLachlan. One of the great features of the Liberal Party is that we respect the freedom and the individual conscience of every senator and member who sits on the backbench, and they have the ability to cross the floor when they feel that they have no other choice. I did it last year in relation to another matter, and so I totally respect the very strongly held views of Senators Scarr and McLachlan, but I do say that this is a vastly improved bill, and I'm really proud of the work that the coalition has done in this respect.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to withdraw the amendment on sheet 3971 in my name, and I move the amendment on sheet 4008 to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026:

(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 106 (lines 4 to 8), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 4, item 11, page 109 (line 9), omit subparagraph 8D(2)(a)(iii).

Varun Ghosh (WA, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cadell, I'm informed that we've already got a question before the chair, so I don't think you can move it.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) | Link to this | Hansard source

I shan't move it, then; I shall merely withdraw it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you.

But I want to talk about the reasons that this is important. I think there's a lot of talk about the Murphy report and what has been watered down, which seems to be everything from the Murphy report except one thing, and that is the action on foreign matched lotteries. Even a part of the government response in February said that foreign matched lotteries and the regulation around them should be tightened up so they're part of BetStop—no credit cards—forming part of everything. But someone with the right phone number, somewhere across Australia, got that and said, 'It's not good enough.' So, in between the recommendations, there's been an outright ban.

The only thing that has got harder, from the report to the legislation, is the action on foreign matched lotteries, and it has a real effect. Everyone talks about this as a gambling restriction bill and everything like that, but it's also a case where friends in the right places get the right answers. We have the Lottery Corporation, which runs the lottery—the one, as you would know, that's still owned by the state in every state except Western Australia, so maybe they were on the call—out there saying: 'We're trying to protect Australians. Who knows if they're going to get paid?'

A question that Senator Hanson-Young was able to ask in the committee was: how do these people know they're going to get paid if there's an opt-out in there? What they forgot was that the current CEO of the Lottery Corporation was the CEO of the Illinois Lottery in America, where some of these things are taken. He had to admit on the stand the next day that he has never not paid anyone, whether they were a corporation, an entity or whatever. He admitted that everyone always gets paid in the American lottery, but it was just an argument that was happy for them.

They also had to come forward about how they were protecting Australians, but they forgot page 71 of their 2025 annual report, where the Lottery Corporation actually states that they are seeking to increase licence value by using regulations and advocacy to restrict competition such as foreign matched lotteries. They forget to say they were out there saying that this is against newsagents, because the Australian lotteries and newsagents association were saying: 'No. This is against our members. This is bad.'

I phoned four newsagents in my own electorate—I didn't get the tape measure out, but they were probably the four closest to my home—and I asked them about it. Do you know what they said is the greatest threat to their business? The Lottery Corporation—the people who are advocating to shut these foreign matched lotteries down. I said, 'Why?' It's all to do with your phone and your app. There used to be an app, the Lott app, on your phone, where, if you bought a ticket from your local newsagency and you scanned it, you could see if you were a winner or a loser. You could take it back to the newsagency, you could get your winnings and you could put it on again if you wanted. You could decide not to put it on and instead buy a magazine or a chocolate—invest in your local business. But no. No, no, no.

In this 2025 annual report, it also talks about increasing yield. When you have return to player odds, when you have these things, the only way to increase yield is to lower your costs. How do you lower your costs? You cut out the people that sell your product so you sell it yourself. On the app now, when you scan your ticket, you have to have an account. You never used to need an account. You now have to have an account on your phone with the Lott to scan the ticket you bought in your newsagency. As soon as you scan it, if it's a winner, it will ask, 'Shall we put this money in your account for you?' It will not go back into the lottery. It will not go back to your newsagent. Shall they take the money straightaway and put it on your online account? If you lose, it's 'play again.'

They are cutting out the newsagencies. They are cutting out small businesses all across Australia to improve their yield. They came to give testimony that it's all about protecting Australians, but their annual general report, given to the Australian stock exchange, said that it is about increasing the value of their licence and increasing the yield of their business. By coincidence, today they have reported their 2026 figures. Now we know why. Profit's down 22 per cent. Profit's down 22 per cent for the Lottery Corporation, and they're talking about the same things in their annual general report today.

So, the only thing that gets tightened is the only thing that returns profitability, yield and value to one company: the Lottery Corporation. Also, maybe it's done for Western Australia. Who knows! They've had this bad GST thing come out recently. Maybe this is a consequence, that we can't touch Premier Roger Cook's little bay in there. This is why this amendment that I will foreshadow, coming up later, is to make this a level playing field, to allow competition. Without these foreign matched lotteries—and there are lots of other things, the trade lotteries and things like that, which I agree are rorts; get rid of those—there is no competition. There are no options for newsagents to turn to, to sell products, if you eliminate these things.

If you eliminate competition with the one company that has the licence to sell this across Australia—bear in mind that the Lottery Office has a licence out of the Northern Treasury and employs 50 people. I think the amendment is likely to go down, but I say to Jaclyn and I say to your staff: thank you for putting up this fight for small business, thank you for being strong and thank you for continuing to fight this good fight. I am sorry that we have lost it. I am sorry that you'll be letting your staff go over the next year, and I'm sorry that a big corporation that publishes their greed in their AGM and comes to a Senate hearing and tries to dress it up as something else has won this. Australian small business deserves better. Australians deserve better. That is why my foreshadowed amendment would fix that if it was carried. Let's not forget that the only thing that gets tightened from the Murphy report in this whole legislation is the one thing that delivers special profits to one corporation.

I seek leave to withdraw the amendments in my name on sheet 3971.

Leave granted.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment before us, of course, goes to the heart of the Murphy report. All of the expertise and all of the advice to successive governments and to successive parliaments has been that if you want to limit the harm of gambling, particularly to those most vulnerable—young people and those with a gambling illness—you stop the dangerous advertising. Senator McLachlan hit the nail on the head. This isn't about banning gambling. This is about stopping the promotion of a product that is very dangerous and very harmful to a number of Australians, just like we've done with tobacco advertising. When they banned tobacco advertising, they didn't ban tobacco. It was about the advertising. We're not banning gambling. We're following the advice of the experts to stop the ads. By the way, a lot of people who gamble don't like the ads either. People who are happy gambling don't like the ads either. People who play sport think ads have ruined the sport. They've certainly ruined the enjoyment of sitting down and watching your favourite team.

Of course, what has been put forward tonight, rather than a ban on gambling advertising, is this opt-out register, like a do-not-call register. The government have called it AdStop. I've got a couple of questions to the minister. Minister, how many people are expected to use AdStop? How many Australians does the government predict will use this register?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks very much, Senator Hanson-Young, for that question. I don't have a number before me, but I'm happy to see if the department can provide some help on that front. But the point about the opt-out register is that it will be established and administered by ACMA. The focus on that will be ensuring that it is in a prominent place that is displayed on each relevant online platform. It's enforceable by ACMA, and it can impose a penalty if not remedied within 30 days. So it will be prominent and easy to identify, and that will give those who do want to use that the best opportunity to do so.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

To clarify, does the government have those figures, and you just don't have them in your lap? Do they exist?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm trying to establish that. I'll come back to you.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to understand how AdStop is going to actually work. What information does an individual have to give the government to be able to register fully, to have no gambling advertising appear on any of their devices? What personal information will be required?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Hanson-Young, for the question. The wagering opt-out register will provide Australians with a single mechanism to opt out of receiving wagering advertising across online content service providers that elect to show wagering advertising under the new triple-lock rules. Together with other measures, we have created a layered consumer protection framework allowing Australians to opt out either directly through individual platforms or through a single register. The register is expected to be administered by a third-party register operator appointed by ACMA, similar to the operating model used for BetStop, with ACMA overseeing the administration of the program. It would aim to allow consumers to register once for their advertising preference to apply across participating online platforms, rather than requiring them to manage separate advertising preferences on each service. Individuals will remain on the register unless they elect to deregister.

Online content service providers will be required to connect to the register to match registered details against their user accounts and ban wagering advertising to registered individuals. The register is expected to use a limited set of identifying information, primarily email addresses and mobile phone numbers, to enable matching between registered individuals and online content service providers. Detailed operational arrangements, including registration requirements, matching processes, privacy safeguards and platform obligations, will be prescribed in opt-out register rules made by ACMA.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Do we know what level of personal information the register will require from an Australian citizen? Does it require their phone number? Does it require their email? Does it require their home address? Does it require their full name and date of birth?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only reiterate what I just gave in the answer before. The register is expected to use a limited set of identifying information, primarily email addresses and mobile phone numbers, to enable matching between registered individuals and online content service providers. Detailed operational arrangements, including registration requirements, matching processes, privacy safeguards and platform obligations, will be prescribed in opt-out register rules made by ACMA.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

The register takes the information that the citizen has given them—their name, their email address, their mobile number and maybe or maybe not their date of birth—and then gives those details to match them with 'participating platforms'. Who are those participating platforms?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Hanson-Young, for the question. That would be determined, I understand, by ACMA in terms of the rules that they're making. Sorry—just to clarify, online content service providers will be the participating platforms.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to understand from the government how widespread this opt-out is, because we've heard from the Liberals and the coalition members that this is going to be across the internet. This is going to be the strongest opt-out scheme. Which websites does the government expect will be included on this register?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

The simplest way to answer that question would be those websites that want to show wagering ads.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

So any website that wants to have gambling ads on them would have to be registered. And what happens? How on earth do ACMA search the entire internet to make sure they capture every page that wants to have gambling ads? How many people will be employed at ACMA to do this?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

The onus would be on the platforms to check the ACMA regulations.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

So the onus is on X website to tell ACMA that they want to run ads. Who's double-checking that? Where is the accountability? Where is the cop on the beat?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

That is obviously the job for ACMA as the body that will be responsible.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

How many people will be employed by ACMA to consistently scour the internet to make sure there's not a site that's running a gambling ad that hasn't self-registered?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't have a definitive number of staff, other than to point to the decision on the industry funded levy that will be responsible for ensuring that this service does work effectively.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

So we don't know how many staff this is going to take. Are they going to be working 24 hours a day, seven days a week? The internet doesn't turn itself off.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I've talked through the detail about how this will operate. We expect that they will have the resources they need to administer this.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

How much will it cost to implement this register and to ensure that it is being complied with properly?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't have a number as to how much that will cost. I'd just point to the information I provided before about the cost recovery.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a bit bizarre, isn't it? We are being told to ram through this place tonight what is being held up by your government as a new register under ACMA—a new role for the regulator. You don't know how much it's going to cost. You don't know how many people are going to be required to do the job. You don't even know how far the work is going to be stretched. How on earth can we be expected to vote on this tonight when you can't even tell us how much the job costs?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Probably the best example I can give, Senator Hanson-Young, is to look at BetStop. That cost $20 million to build, and the cost recovery levy will allow for the actual costs to be recovered from industry.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

To be clear, BetStop is a very confined thing. You register yourself on BetStop, and that's that. In order for the department and your government to keep the entire internet clean of gambling ads, you're going to have to be scouring the internet day and night every day of the week. This is how laughable this policy is. You can't explain how it actually works. You can't explain the people power it's going to require. You can't explain how much it's going to cost. It is designed to fail. I put it to you, Minister. This is designed to fail. I'd like to know who makes the call. Who's going to pick up the phone and call Kayo, call news.com, call Instagram, call Facebook, call Domain, call realestate.com, call Uber, call Uber Eats and call the various gaming apps and online and standalone applications? Who is going to be on the phone making sure these companies are doing the right thing? Is that the role of ACMA?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, absolutely.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the government have a prioritised list of which websites, platforms and applications will be targeted?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only just reiterate what I said before about all those who want to sell gambling advertising would be responsible for meeting this demand.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to be clear, an Australian citizen who doesn't want to be bombarded with gambling advertising needs to send their details, such as their name, their email address, their phone number, to ACMA, as the government agency, and then they will get on the phone and they will call Spotify, will call Kayo, will let news.com know and will let Pornhub know that X John Citizen over here—This is his email address. This is his mobile number. This is potentially his date of birth. Even though he likes Pornhub, he doesn't want to see any gambling ads. Are you really suggesting that that is what public officials are going to be spending their time doing?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Hanson-Young. I think you have touched on what the key point here is. If Australians are motivated to want to get out and not see these ads, then they'll have the opportunity to do it. We've talked through what the rules will be around who can and can't advertise as a result. I think the other thing that is relevant in this discussion is around what the fines would be as well. There's obviously going to be, if you are doing the wrong thing, an opportunity to be held accountable for that. That would be $1.82 million for corporations per contravention, which can be 1,000 penalty units. There is a substantial incentive there for these companies to do the right thing, and it's both ensuring that Australians have the opportunity to opt out and that the punishment, if they do the wrong thing, is severe, at the same time.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is putting lipstick on a pig. It's not going to work. You can't even explain it. You don't know how much it's going to cost. To seriously suggest that public officials are going to need to spend their time scouring the internet, from porn sites to news sites to gaming sites to sports sites, and that Australians are going to feel comfortable handing their details over to the government to do that—you know this is a farce. You know this is a farce. Who advised the government that AdStop would work?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Hanson-Young. It's obviously been the work of government as we've developed this package over recent months. I'd point to the examples of BetStop and the Do Not Call Register as evidence that these sorts of policies can work and be impactful and as the best examples of what this would be based on.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

ACMA doesn't fine anybody, by the way, let alone random websites on the internet that are running gambling advertising and targeting young, vulnerable, impressionable men. Could the minister please explain how the government is going to stop the predatory gambling industry from finding who the weakest customers are?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Hanson-Young, for the question. I'd point to the range of reforms that we've pursued through this legislation as being relevant to this. As I mentioned when I first spoke, these are the most substantial reforms around gambling harm that any government has ever taken and the strongest action that any government has ever taken. The reforms include the blackout period for live sports restrictions, which will change blackout rules from five minutes before live sport to 15 minutes before live sport between 5 am and 8:30 pm, which is important; the banning of commissions and financial incentives to staff and affiliates based on customer activity, where a wagering service provider must not provide, offer or arrange any commissions to staff or any third party involved in the referral of provision of online gambling to an individual based on customer activity; the banning of direct marketing of inducements to red-flag customers, which goes to the heart of what you're talking about and which prohibits direct marketing of inducements to Australians who are exhibiting indicators of gambling harm; the banning of direct marketing of inducements for 14 days after the opening of an account; the banning of direct marketing of inducements during a cooling-off period for 90 days; the fact that, following BetStop deregistration, customers are required to opt in to receive future marketing inducements; the move of the start time of the frequency cap on live sports rules for children from 6 am to 5 am to align the bill with the commercial television industry code of practice currently in force; the banning of gambling ads in content principally directed at children; the extension of the live sports restrictions to online platforms; the opt-out prominence, which I've mentioned—the opt-out register; the cost recovery expansion, which is obviously significant and which we've been talking about; and then also the illegal ads on social media.

So I think you can see, across a whole range of areas, that this package goes to the issues that you've raised. We believe it's substantial, we believe it gets the balance right and we think it's going to be in the best interests of the country.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be true if any of it were actually doable, but we've just discovered that you don't even know how much any of this is going to cost. It's laughable to think it can be implemented. And, of course, this is the gambling industry that has spent years creating a business model that is all about deceiving people and sucking them in. The biggest suckers of all seem to be the Albanese government.

I want to come back to my question about inducements. It feels to me that the government has fundamentally misunderstood the business model of the gambling companies and how they use inducements, because they use inducements to get people addicted. Their whole process is to induce people into gambling more, taking bigger risks and feeling special because they're doing it, even when they're losing: 'Come back for more, come back for more, come back for more.' It is an addictive business plan. That is the point. How on earth do you expect the gambling industry to identify the 'red flag' customers? Do they wait until they're addicted or do they flag them beforehand?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

As we've been upfront on, as has been in the news and as we've seen through the Senate legislative inquiry, we understand that inducements can quickly turn for people and become toxic. It also means that gambling no longer remains fun and goes to an addiction and becomes a problem. The Senate inquiry showed us the most toxic version of inducements, and we condemn those actions in the strongest possible terms. We also dealt with this at our national conference; this was something raised from the floor, and people identified the heightened risk of gambling harm. We included a commitment around measures around inducements at that conference.

Our strengthened measures as part of this include additional protection for consumers at critical points where they risk tipping into the domain of gambling harm. The new additional measures are: banning inducements for 14 days after signing up with a gambling company; banning inducements on all 'red flag' customers; banning inducements for three months after a person deregisters from BetStop; and banning commissions to staff or affiliates based on customer activity. These gambling companies know who to target and who will bet more. These amendments will require them to use that intelligence to identify and protect potentially vulnerable customers. That is the focus of this government and how we intend to ensure that we're doing our best to reduce the harm caused by inducements.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

():  The gambling companies who have set up an entire business model designed to induce people to make them addicted to their product, to suck them in, to keep them there, to trap them, to groom them like predators—they're the ones you're expecting us to believe should be trusted to red-flag the most vulnerable? Andrew Wallace said this was like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank; it's a very good description.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I remind you to refer to members of the other place by their correct title.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

The very brave, courageous and honest Mr Wallace, who had the guts to say out loud what needed to be said, has described this sham of an inducement policy as 'putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank'. How does the government explain to the Australian people why it believes that the gambling companies will do the right thing?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

The key point is that the government, not the gambling companies, sets the indicators for red flags. The risk indicators will be evidence based and will take the appropriate time to settle them via legislative instrument. I also point to the fact that many gambling advocates, including Mr Tim Costello, asked us to impose duties on gambling companies to identify customers at risk of gambling. We believe that this is something that will be important, and we believe that this is workable and will make a difference.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

To be fair—and I think it's worth putting on the record here—the Reverend Tim Costello asked the government to ban inducements and asked for the government to have done it three years ago. I don't think it's a good idea for the minister to come in here and verbal the reverend. Does the government believe that free tickets to the football, business class flights, Christmas hampers and tickets to the races, where you get to hang out with the hot models in the birdcage, are appropriate inducements?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Hanson-Young, could you repeat the question?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the government believe that gambling companies offering business class flights; tickets to football games; tickets to the races; special passes to the special marquees at the races, where they get to hang out with the hot models; and Christmas hampers or thousands of dollars in free credit for bets—are any of those appropriate inducements for any customer?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Hanson-Young. My understanding is that those inducements would not be allowed for any red flagged customers.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

So you have to be evicted—

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Hang on, Senator Hanson-Young. I will come to you, then I acknowledge that Senator Pocock also has some questions.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

To be clear, the government's position is that those types of predatory inducements are okay for the majority of gamblers.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously the point I made before is that government, not the gambling companies, would set the indicator for red flags. That is something that, to my understanding, would be done at the appropriate time through a legislative instrument.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, it's concerning to hear that the ACMA is going to be the one enforcing this. I don't know if you were aware, but Entain broke BetStop rules 500 times, and ACMA took so long to investigate it that they couldn't levy a fine. Then they decided not to take it to court because, I don't know, it was too hard or something. So there are some serious concerns there. But I want to drill into some of the detail of your bill. It allows three ads per hour on television between 5 am and 8.30 pm. What evidence does the government hold that three gambling ads per hour until 8.30 pm including during PG programming—shows like Lego Masterswon't continue to normalise gambling among children?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, I understand you put this question at the start as well. The broad objective of this is to reduce exposure. That's why we settled on the three ads per hour as the best way to do that.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

So it's about reducing exposure and not actually stopping the normalisation of gambling amongst our children. That's good to know. I'd say most Australians want the government to stop normalising gambling amongst young people, not just reducing exposure to three gambling ads an hour. What evidence do you have that there is a drop in viewership after 8.30 pm in order to justify allowing, as Senator Scarr has talked about so well and passionately, the half-time of State of Origin and all these great sporting events to have gambling ads? How'd you pick 8.30?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that OzTAM data says that child audiences decrease after 8.30.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm really glad you've mentioned that, because the department's own analysis of OzTAM data shows that, on average, 160,000 children are still watching TV at 8.30 pm—and you can bet the house that on State of Origin night there are multiples of that average of 160,000 children. What is the average viewership of sports programs by children after 8.30 pm according to the government's analysis?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't have that data, sorry.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Why not? How can you bring legislation to this place, telling us that you are somehow reducing the risk of exposure to children, and then, when I ask you how you've come up with 8.30 pm as a drop-off, say, 'Well, we don't have that data.'

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

As I explained before, Senator Pocock, the OzTAM data says child audiences decrease after 8.30 pm. If we can provide some more information around that, I'm happy to do it.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, just to clarify, it's the government's view that 160,000 children per night, on average, is an acceptable number to be viewing unlimited ads after 8.30 pm?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

So 8.30 pm is the watershed that the broadcasters currently subscribe to under the rules. That was part of the thinking as well. Obviously, the whole point of this, as I mentioned at the start, is the balanced approach that we've taken to these reforms around advertising. We're doing what we can to ensure that we're minimising that harm, and the access that children have to the content as well.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for clarifying that, Minister. So getting the balance right is allowing 160,000 Australian children, on any given weeknight, to see an unlimited number of ads when they're watching TV after 8.30 pm. I was wondering if I could get you on the record confirming that these reforms are not about stopping normalisation among Australian children; they're about reducing exposure?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

In my view, they're about doing both. That's substantially what we've tried to achieve, through this package, and I think that's what we're all striving to do. It's about getting that balance right around advertising and ensuring that we're protecting vulnerable people at the same time.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

So, Minister, what evidence is there that three ads per hour will stop the normalisation of gambling amongst Australian children?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, we think this gets the balance right in ensuring that fewer ads will be available. The frequency cap works alongside other restrictions, like the sport restrictions, the ban on children programming and the ban on radio advertising during school drop-off and pick-up times. If you look at the range of measures that we've done, there has been a focus on ensuring there will be fewer ads coming into contact with young people.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, many people take offence when the government just makes stuff up. There is no evidence that three ads per hour will stop the normalisation of gambling amongst young people. That is not somehow getting the balance right; that's just the government saying, 'We're aiming to do that, but we have no evidence to do that.' In fact, Professor Samantha Thomas and her colleagues from Deakin University submitted to the inquiry that there is zero evidence of which they are aware that supports three ads per hour as a safe or proportionate number of ads for children. We wouldn't allow three tobacco ads for children. They cited an ABC investigation which found that children 10 to 17 years watch TV in far greater numbers during evening prime time compared to the morning or afternoon slots. So children are likely to see quite a few ads before 8.30 pm and then directly afterwards, when they are still up. In relation to Friday night footy, which I know is a concern for a lot of parents—they love watching Friday night footy, but they hate these damn ads and they expected they'd have a government that would actually listen to them and get rid of the ads—there is published, peer reviewed evidence which shows children will stay up after 8.30 pm to watch an entire game. Minister, on what basis did your government make this decision that children go to bed or stop watching TV at 8.30 pm? And how can you seriously be telling us that this is somehow getting the balance right, if there is no evidence to back you up on that?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

The overall goal was to reduce advertising, and that's what this bill does. It does it across, as I mentioned before, a whole range of areas, including TV, advertising, radio and live sport. There will be no ads, for instance, during play on Friday night football. There'll also be an ad ban on advertising on jerseys and on the naming of stadiums at the same time. I think, when you look at the whole of the package, it does deliver on that aim of ensuring that we are reducing the amount of advertising. That is exactly what the bill does.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you just told me that your aim was also to stop the normalisation of gambling amongst young people. Is your aim to reduce the number of ads on television, or is it to stop the normalisation of gambling amongst young Australians? Maybe you can talk us through what your aims are with this legislation. Every time we raise something, you say, 'Well, that's also an aim,' but then you keep coming back to this thing about just reducing the number of ads, despite there being no evidence to suggest that'll actually work.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, I'm happy to talk you through what the government wants to achieve through these bits of legislation. As I've mentioned repeatedly, this is the strongest ever action that any government has taken to tackle the harms of gambling. As part of our extensive consultation, we've listened to a range of views across the community and we've also ensured that we are taking action to do that.

I've mentioned what we've done in regard to inducements and the work that's been happening there. I've also mentioned the amendments that we're making to identify and protect those potentially vulnerable customers.

On advertisements, there's an expectation that what you see on TV should match the experience online. To meet this, we'll enshrine the current protections through the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice into law and extend them to online streaming services. This means restrictions on gambling ads online will match those for broadcast, with the cap starting at 5 am. The rules that are in place for advertising during children's shows will also be enshrined in law. This was always the intention of the bill, but it is now in black and white in the legislation. We'll also extend the blackout of gambling ads before live sport from five to 15 minutes.

For services subject to the triple-lock system, the opt-out choice must be displayed prominently so people can make an informed choice. We are providing further choice for Australians by ensuring the wagering opt-out register, a one-stop shop where people can choose not to see gambling ads and have it applied across their online services.

These reforms are delivering real action to protect Australians from gambling harm. The amendments make the reforms stronger where Australians need protection most while ensuring that new rules are practical, enforceable and delivering. Overall and to sum up, we're protecting children from the harms of gambling, we're reducing the saturation of targeted wagering advertising and we're making those who profit from gambling pay for the protections to help keep people safe.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

It doesn't seem like the government's very clear about the aims. We hear these talking points that you read out, but it doesn't seem like there's much of an aim there. Maybe I'll read out what Minister Wells said the aims of these reforms were in her press release:

The Bill delivers on the Albanese Government's commitment to break the connection between gambling and sport, minimising children's exposure to wagering advertising and stopping the saturation of wagering ads on radio, TV and online.

Could you tell the Senate how this bill breaks the connection between gambling and sport when we will see gambling ads on sport after 8.30 pm, we'll see gambling ads during sport replays and we'll see gambling ads during sport if Australian teams are playing in world cups overnight and millions of Australians are potentially waking up to cheer on their favourite team. The NRL and AFL will continue to receive commissions on bets placed on those sports. How does this reform break the connection between gambling and sport? That's a huge claim.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Pocock, for the question. I think there are a number of key areas where this applies. The ban 15 minutes before live sport and during live play was substantial and will make a significant difference. There's also the ban on advertising on jerseys and the ban on the naming of stadiums. Across that range of areas—live sport, jerseys and stadium-naming rights—there are three key ways where we're breaking that connection between sport.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, this sounds a lot less like a break and more like a hairline fracture with sport where we'll get rid of some of the links but we're still going to flood you with ads after 8.30 pm during sport. If you're watching a replay, unlucky for you—you're going to see gambling ads. If you're waking up at midnight to watch the Socceroos, the Matildas or the Rugby World Cup, you're going to see gambling ads. How can you seriously claim that you're breaking the link between gambling and sport when you have a patchy ban that Peta Murphy warned would not work?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Pocock. I disagree with your assessment of the reforms. I think they are meaningful. They will make a difference. They'll be impactful on the sporting codes as a result, and I think that's the evidence of how significant it is in terms of the impact it will have on them when it comes to their sponsorships, when it comes to naming rights and also when it comes to the fact that they will not be able to advertise during live sporting games.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Back on the area of inducements, could the minister please explain what indicators will be used to create a red flag.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Hanson-Young. All I can do is reiterate the points I made before. The government will set the indicators for red flags, not the gambling companies. The risk indicators will be evidence based, and we'll take the appropriate time to settle them via a legislative instrument. We think it is important that we hold the gambling companies to account on these matters.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

So we are to understand that your government is acting on one part of inducements but you can't give us the details of what those indicators are—that is, who cannot be hassled, cannot be groomed and cannot be preyed upon by the gambling industry. You haven't decided that yet. You haven't worked that out yet. Is it going to be based on age? Is it going to be based on whether someone's prefrontal cortex is fully developed? Is it going to be based on their income? On their disposable income? Is it going to be based on whether they have a house or whether they're a renter? Do they have a mortgage? Is it going to be based on whether they have children and dependants? Is it going to be based on whether they even have a job? Surely the government must have some idea who they believe should not be preyed upon and groomed by the gambling industry. If you can't give us an idea of who you think should be protected, then it really begs the question: is anyone going to be?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

To provide a bit more of an example that might be helpful, Sarah Hanson-Young, that is being prepared—escalating wagering expenditure, the number of deposits into a licensed interactive wagering service account within a session, wagering at unusual hours, failed or declined deposits into a licensed interactive wagering service account, removal or relaxation of gambling minimisation measures, and any other indicators determined that would be made as part of the instrument. That's to give you some examples of what would be looked at. That is actually in the bill.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

All of those indicators, Minister, are indicators that somebody is already addicted—that the gambling companies have already got to them, that they have already been groomed, that they have already been preyed upon and that life is not good. What an absolute failure. The gambling companies can groom and prey on young men, young women and people who can't afford to be gambling their weekly earnings, and the only indicators that they should be flagged for not being induced, coached in or groomed any further are those that show they have already been preyed upon and are already addicted.

It fundamentally misunderstands the business model of the gambling companies. They use inducements to groom gamblers to make them into addicts. Once they're addicts, maybe they will get a red flag. It beggars belief that the government tonight is asking the Australian people to believe that this gambling bill and these measures are worthy of any sort of praise. No wonder the late Peta Murphy's own husband has called it for what it is. It falls well short of anything that's required.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

The list I read out before is some of the specifics that are contained in the bill itself. Further indicators will be made by the minister following consultation. So it's not an exhaustive list.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young is right to raise serious concerns about the predatory inducements used by wagering companies, because, until the provisions that are now in this bill, there were no laws at all which stopped this insidious, revolting, disgusting behaviour. And what some of the wagering companies have been doing is repulsive—chasing massive losses incurred by those who are addicted to gambling, watching patterns of behaviour and targeting those people. I have even heard of cases where people were red-flagged and they were still being targeted.

However, with the amendments brought forward by the coalition, agreed by the government, for the very first time, Senator Hanson-Young, these practices—assuming this bill is passed—will be unlawful. I do reject the way that you're characterising the provisions that have been now passed in the other place, because what's important to understand is that the first obligation, when it comes to red-flagging individuals at risk of gambling harm, is that a licensed interactive-wagering service provider must monitor the customer activity of individuals who use the licensed interactive-wagering service, to identify individuals that may reasonably be considered to be at risk of gambling related harm. Now that is a positive obligation.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one trusts the gambling companies. No-one trusts them.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety) | Link to this | Hansard source

You raise the issue of trust, and you have got a good basis, Senator Hanson-Young—and I'll take the interjection—to raise the issue of trust. There are now civil penalties of a thousand penalty units, which will apply if there is a breach of that obligation—$364,000 on an individual and $1.82 million for a corporation. So the failure to monitor customer activity of individuals considered to be at risk of gambling related harm will, for the first time, be a breach of the law and give rise to a very, very significant fine if that provision is breached.

As the minister has indicated, there is an unlimited number of bases on which the gambling companies must identify whether a customer is at risk. I agree—I mean, even if someone is red-flagged, we know of many cases where wagering companies have dodged this obligation and imposed more harm on these people who are gambling and who cannot stop. There are a number of indicators, including wagering expenditure; someone betting at three in the morning, which should raise alarm bells; someone betting very frequently; someone making frequent deposits into their account; where there have been failed or declined deposits; where there's been a removal or relaxation of gambling minimisation measures—they are indicators that someone is at risk. But that's not a conclusive list.

That's why it is important that the minister, by way of a legislative instrument, has the ability to add to that list—to add further indicators for the purposes of ensuring that the gambling companies are doing everything to red-flag and identify those at risk of harm. So, when we hear the stories about wagering companies talking about frameworks and how they've got all these processes in place, the coalition doesn't trust them either. That's why these predatory inducements, if this bill is passed, will be unlawful. There are very, very significant fines that now will be applied if the breach has occurred.

I also just want to raise concerns in relation to the way that Senator Hanson-Young has reflected on the wagering advertising opt-out register. What's very important about the opt-out register, Senator Hanson-Young—through you, Chair—is that this is giving Australians choice.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Chair, I'm actually quite enjoying Senator Henderson's answers to questions, but I am wondering whether she's sitting on the wrong side of the chamber.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: What is your point of order, Senator Hanson-Young? Clearly, there was not a point of order.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Digital Safety) | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I tell you, Senator Hanson-Young—through you, Chair—that this bill was deficient. For the first time, if this bill is passed, the predatory inducements and the predation on gamblers at risk that we have seen over and over again by wagering companies in this country will be unlawful. We've been very vocal, including through the Senate inquiry, about the fact that this bill, as the government presented it to the parliament, was not good enough. But I am proud that we worked together, in relation to supporting a Senate inquiry, to shine a light on what is going on. To give credit where credit is due, Senator Hanson-Young, this is a very significant step forward in holding wagering companies to account.

I do want to quickly reflect on the concerns you've raised about the wagering advertising opt-out register, because this is a very important initiative to give Australians choice. They don't have to use it. They don't have to sign up to the register if they don't want to see wagering ads online—and, of course, they need to comply and log in and be an adult. Whether it's Instagram, whether it's news.com.au or whatever the online platform is, they can go to that individual online platform and opt out. They don't have to use the register. If Australians want one place to go, a one-stop shop, to ensure that they never see a wagering ad online in this country again, they just need to sign up once.

Again, for an online content service provider, advertising wagering content to an individual who is on the register—if they contravene that that particular obligation, there will be very significant penalties up to a maximum of $364,000 for an individual and $1.82 million for a corporation. Australians have a choice. They can either do it through the individual platforms or they can go to the register. For families or individuals—Australians who do not want to see gambling ads online in this country—this initiative, brought forward by the coalition and agreed to by the government, is a very important choice for Australians to make.

I am disappointed with the way that this has been demonised. Of course, it was a former coalition government which legislated BetStop, which is a very important initiative. If they can do it for BetStop, they can do it for AdStop in the same way. We were not happy with the fact that there was a burden imposed on Australians of having to dig down a tunnel every time they wanted to opt out. There's also now an amendment, passed by the parliament in the House—in the other place—that the opt-out option must be prominent.

This gives Australians a choice. This is a very important initiative. I would ask you to be a bit more gracious, Senator Hanson-Young, in relation to the important way that this register can give Australians the ability to click once, to go to the register and to never again see another wagering ad online.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister—or minister Henderson; credit where credit's due!—I've got a question about this flagging of customers with risk indicators. Isn't it the case right now that wagering companies under the Northern Territory rules where all these companies are registered, are already supposed to manage flagged customers with risk indicators?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to table a correction to the revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026. Thanks. Senator Pocock, your question would be better put to the Northern Territory government.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a bit of a concern that you don't even know that. Maybe I'll answer for you—yes, they are. Under the NT rules, these wagering companies have an obligation to flag customers with risk indicators. I'm interested why you now want ACMA to oversee that if it's already happening, and, given you haven't put up a national regulator as recommended by the Murphy report, are you happy with the regulation happening in the NT?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

This will be a new system at the Commonwealth level that will ensure consistency for gambling companies. We believe it is important reform and that it will make a difference, which is why we are happy to support it and bring it forward.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

It almost sounds like you're making the case for a national regulator here. After all the evidence that the Murphy inquiry heard, that's why they recommended one. Will the gambling industry have any input into the development of your risk indicators?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I mentioned that I talked through what was in the bill and that the minister, by legislative instrument, may determine indicators for other purposes and that there would be ongoing consultation with that. I would expect that the gambling companies would be part of that consultation. We make no apologies for wanting to be tough on them and ensure that they're being held to account as part of this legislative reform.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Why would you allow the gambling companies to help develop the risk indicators? Surely, you're going to the experts?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not what I said.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

You just said that you were sure that they probably would be involved in the consultation.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order, senators. Please make sure you go through the chair in terms of your remarks.

So the government's going to develop risk indicators to flag customers, and they're going to talk to the industry, which is currently meant to be flagging customers with risk indicators but just isn't doing it because they don't have to because we have a useless, ineffective, under-resourced regulator in the NT with no full-time staff. And the Albanese government thinks this is just cool and normal. Of course, you'd get the gambling companies to come up with the risk indicators, because they're the experts! They're the experts in gambling harm. They're the ones who have been denying and then delaying and then influencing Prime Minister Albanese. I'm keen to get to some of the questions about where he's getting information in a bit. Consultation means that they have a seat at the table. It means that you are literally developing risk indicators with the very industry that you're trying to protect those people from. How are we meant to accept that you're serious about this, if this is what you're telling us you're going to do with risk indicators?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

What is absolutely in no doubt is that this law strengthens the role that ACMA can play, which is the appropriate regulator at the national level. The gambling companies are the ones that have the data, so of course we would want to talk to them about what data they have. So, yes, as I said before, we would consult with them about how this is implemented and to ensure that it does work effectively. As I've said repeatedly, we make no apologies for wanting to hold the gambling companies to account on this. It is a tough new provision, one that we believe will be impactful and will make a difference.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

On a number of occasions, the Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that, if we implement the Murphy report in full, then we would see more people betting with illegal offshore operators, a claim that has only ever been made by the gambling industry. I'll read you a quick part of a transcript so you've got some context. Sabra Lane said:

A full ban is what Labor MP Peta Murphy pushed for. She died last year. She headed an inquiry into gambling. The Committee handed down a bipartisan report finding that gambling is a health hazard, insidious and needed to be banned. Why won't the government honour her legacy with a full ban?

The Prime Minister said:

Well what we're doing is making sure that we get these reforms right. There is such a thing as the internet, there is offshore gambling as well, which is therefore difficult to regulate and has implications across a range of areas as well.

Minister, what evidence has the Prime Minister been relying on to make such claims?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I think when you look at the history of these matters and how impactful they've been—it's always hard to respond to a question like that, when you haven't seen the transcript and seen the context of the interview, which is often important in these matters. But we know that there has been a level of offshore gambling and that, when that happens, no Australian benefits from that. In fact, for illegal gambling companies, there's no taxation, there's no regulation and punters may not even get their money back. So this bill is tough on illegal gambling. We make no apologies for that. We think it is something that is a threat to the Australian industry.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

But, Minister, surely you concede that Australians are concerned when they hear the Prime Minister essentially parroting industry talking points, and there is no researcher in the country that can point to research that can justify that. And then we hear on Radio National, who provide a great service in this country, an interview with the founder of Paddy Power, Stewart Kenny. When he was asked about this argument that the Prime Minister and Responsible Wagering Australia have been putting forward that has been absolutely panned by researchers, he said, and I'll quote him because I think it's worth getting it into Hansard: 'I used that argument all the time when I was lobbying. I was the main lobbyist in Ireland. I knew all the politicians. That was the first line I always used. As an industry we've been using that argument for 20, 30, 40 years. But look at Spain. They put in a blanket ban and there was virtually no pick-up in the illegal offshore market. This is a load of baloney. I used to use it all the time.' Minister, is the government misleading the Australian people with a load of baloney and giving us talking points that really aren't backed up by any evidence?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I don't believe that's the case, Senator Pocock, and it's always very difficult to respond to questions like that when you haven't seen the transcript and the words and the context in which those claims have been made. But illegal onshore gambling is a serious concern. That's why this bill strengthens ACMA powers to disrupt illegal operators and block access to unlawful services. Australians should not be denied important consumer protections simply because illegal operators ignore Australian law. This bill strengthens protections in the regulated market while also making it harder for illegal operators to target Australians at the same time. So we obviously believe, as part of these important reforms, that targeting illegal offshore companies is an important part of that, and I do believe it is of concern to many Australians as well.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

But, Minister, targeting illegal offshore gambling, which is illegal and should be targeted, is very different to the Prime Minister of this country getting up and saying, 'If we stop gambling ads, if we stop your kids seeing gambling ads, people are going to go to illegal offshore operators.' There's just no evidence for that. The Albanese government is just parroting the line from industry. And for extra measure—because we heard this during the Senate inquiry, obviously from the gambling companies—I asked Curtin University to fact-check the illegal offshore gambling claims made by Responsible Wagering Australia and passed on to the Australian people on our national broadcaster by the Prime Minister.

Here's what they said: 'None of the witnesses disclosed that the H2 Gambling Capital research was commissioned by Responsible Wagering Australia itself. The central argument of the industry case was presented to the committee as independent market monitoring when it was actually research paid for by the industry peak body—with no methodology—before the inquiry. The French and Polish studies relied on in RWA's submission concern illegal online casino markets, a product class already prohibited in Australia. In one case, in a country that prohibits online casinos entirely—and the UN figure is a global estimate of illegal betting that says nothing about the marginal effect of Australian advertising settings—on H2's own timeline, the offshore market doubled between 2019 and 2024, a period of saturation advertising in Australia.'

Peak gambling ads—if Aussies think back to 2019 to 2024, that is when gambling ads hit the roof. That's when I think Aussies just had a gutful. We were seeing them everywhere. It was during that time that, according to this research, it doubled. I'll go back and quote: 'Advertising is demonstrably not what contains the offshore market; enforcement is.' So, sure, crack down—enforce them. But this comes to the denial then delay that we've seen from the Albanese government and, ultimately, lands on what experts say and what I think the community says and what a handful of senators will say are ineffective reforms.

I understand that most in the major parties think that this is a great thing for the country. I'm wondering if you can put on the record whether it is still the government's view, the Prime Minister's view, that implementing the Murphy report would cause people to shift to the illegal offshore market.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

What I can do is guarantee that I think the best part of this bill is that we're doing both of these tasks in terms of restricting wagering advertising in Australia—which is important and something that a lot of people identified as wanting to happen—and cracking down on offshore illegal gambling services as well. I think that is something where we are taking both issues head-on when it comes to advertising and restricting the nature of advertising and the amount of advertising that we'd see in Australia and also cracking down on illegal gambling services at the same time.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I want to follow up, because part of the strategy, it seems, from the gambling lobby post Murphy, was to, obviously, lobby very hard but then really lean on sports and free-to-air TV and say that, rather than protecting Australians, 'We need to get the balance right.'

Part of the strategy, it seemed, was to say, 'Don't look at us. Look over there. Look at pokies, look at lotto, look at all these other things. Don't worry about us; we're a small part of the market. We're not to be regulated first. The real harm is happening over there.' I was very troubled when I heard, and I know many others were troubled when they heard, the Prime Minister say in the House in 2024:

We know, when we look at where the harmful gambling comes from, that almost 70 per cent of that harmful gambling is actually poker machines. More than or around 15 per cent off the top of my head—it's about that figure—comes from lotteries and lotto and those tickets as well.

When the Senate asked where these mystery statistics came from, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was Acting Prime Minister at the time, said, 'The Prime Minister was relying on a recollection of published material.' I asked every researcher that my office could contact, 'Where does this come from—can you find it?' No-one could find it, but it sounds suspiciously similar to comments attributed to Mr V'landys in the Sydney Morning Herald, which read:

V'landys argued that independent statistics show that out of 100 people who sought help from a problem gambling hotline, 70 were due to poker machines, 15 due to lotteries, eight due to racing, four due to sport and three due to casinos.

Apparently, when the ABC contacted the NRL to find out where these stats came from, the NRL refused to respond, just as they refused to respond to questions on notice from the Senate and they refused to turn up to the Senate inquiry. Now that a couple of years have passed since these remarks, do you or any of the officials know if there's any more clarity about where the PM got those figures?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Pocock. No, I'm unable to help you on that, but I do know that the legislation before us tonight will be really important. I think that there are a lot of Australians out there that are keen to see this legislation pass because it will make a difference in terms of the impact that it will have for Australians, who are sick of seeing the proliferation of gambling ads that we have seen over recent years. As I've mentioned consistently, we believe that this bill gets that balance right in terms of what we're trying to achieve, and we urge the Senate to pass it.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

So, Minister, just for the record, are lotteries more harmful than wagering products?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I might be able to provide some helpful information, Senator Pocock. My understanding is that part of those numbers is based on a Queensland Government Statistician's Office report from Queensland Treasury around gambling numbers—the share of gambling numbers is based off that. So I presume, from that, it would be based off Queensland numbers—nationwide numbers is what I'm advised.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Please could you table that for the Senate.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll see if we can find access to it and provide it.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd just like to ask the minister how the gambling ads currently on the AFL website will be blocked.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding, Senator Hanson-Young, is they'd be required to be triple locked.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Right now, if you go onto the AFL website, right at the top of the banner are the odds—Sportsbet. It's there for everyone to see. What will the AFL now have to do under these rules? What is it that the AFL website will require customers or anyone going to their website to do?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

If they wanted to see gambling ads, they'd have to be age assured—

Just let me finish. They'd have to be age assured, registered and not opted out—to see gambling ads.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

What I'm asking is: how will the AFL website change, or what will change, under this legislation? Right now, anyone, of any age, from anywhere in the country—you log onto the AFL website, and there are gambling ads there.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that the AFL website would have to provide the option of the triple-lock system for all users.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

At the moment, you can access the AFL website to work out what the ladder looks like, what the line-up's going to be. You don't have to log in. You don't have to have an account with the AFL. It's a publicly available website. Are you suggesting that everyone, every sports fan in the country, young or old, child or teenager or adult, is now going to have to create an account and log in in order to see the details of their favourite team's next game?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that if the AFL wanted to show wagering advertising, they would have to offer a triple-lock system. If they cannot offer a triple-lock system, they cannot show wagering ads under these reforms. I believe that's a good thing.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

In order to have the triple lock, there has to be an account. I just want to be really clear. The AFL will not be able to have any gambling ads on their website as it is today.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Unless they offer a triple lock.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to ask how all of this is going to be monitored. What is the auditing process for all of these various new laws? Does the government believe that the NT gambling commission is a viable option for keeping watch over what gambling companies around the country are doing?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll leave commentary on the Northern Territory regulator to the Northern Territory government. ACMA will monitor and enforce these laws. The laws also give ACMA the capacity to raise revenue from the gambling companies, which can be used to resource the enforcement should it be needed.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I know it's an uncomfortable question for the minister. Gambling companies around the country are regulated, registered and licensed through the NT commission because it's the only one in the country. We've called for a national regulator, and Peta Murphy called for a national regulator. Your government has said no. All of the experts have said we need a national regulator. You've said no. The reason these gambling companies get to trade and exist is that they are registered and regulated via the NT. I would like to know whether the Albanese government believes the NT commission is sufficient.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only reiterate what I said before. We're talking about Commonwealth law. We're in the federal parliament. We do believe that this strengthens the hand of ACMA as the body responsible for these laws federally. We've got the power to regulate that in line with our constitutional power, and the laws empower ACMA, who can impose additional requirements. So we believe that this will be significant. It will give ACMA power to do more. And we also think that it's important that the gambling companies are the ones who are paying to help ensure that ACMA can do this regulatory job effectively.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I might try and help the minister out here. ACMA's job, under your laws that you're putting through today, is to oversee the advertising, the communications element. But ACMA is not the body that registers the gambling company. So ACMA can have a whole list of fines—I doubt they will, by the way; they can't seem to fine anyone. Let's just say ACMA do find Sportsbet in breach of the law and fine them, ACMA can't do anything to restrict Sportsbet's licence. Maybe they'd fine them 10 times, a hundred times or a thousand times. But they can't shut the gambling company down. They've got no power to regulate what the gambling company actually does. That is all left to the NT commission. I want to know whether the government thinks the NT commission is sufficient for holding the gambling companies to account. It has got nothing to do with ACMA.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll leave commentary on the Northern Territory commission to the Northern Territory parliament, as they're the ones responsible for its administration. But what I can say is that this bill provides ACMA with a full suite of enforcement tools for each offence under the legislation. This gives ACMA flexibility in its regulatory posture and in light of the breadth of organisations captured by these measures. We believe they will have the power to take action that will be meaningful and will ensure that the corporations are held to account, including fines of up to $1.82 million for corporations per contravention.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

ACMA has no power to strip a gambling company of their licence. Is that true or not?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

That is my understanding—that they are licensed by states and territories. But I would reiterate the strong provisions under the bill in terms of the opportunity for ACMA to use the full suite of enforcement tools, including the fine that I mentioned before of $1.82 million for corporations per contravention. We make no apologies for wanting to be tough on gambling companies and holding them to account as part of this legislation.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

So the government is setting up a regime where they're asking the parliament to pass a law and they're telling the Australian people these are the toughest laws ever on gambling, and yet the Commonwealth has no power over the licence of a gambling company? What on earth happens when these gambling companies continue to contravene and break the law? You have riddled yourselves useless, impotent. Why hasn't the government moved on the recommendation for a national regulator? Why has the government refused to give itself the power to hold the gambling companies to account and to be able to remove their licences?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

We obviously have a different approach as part of this bill, but we believe it will be incredibly effective in terms of holding these betting companies to account. We've talked about the power that we have to impose heavy penalties. That is set out in this bill, which I've talked about—the potential fines of $1.82 million for corporations per contravention. So we do believe that this does set out and give ACMA the powers to hold those companies to account, recognising that they're licensed in the states and territories.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to be clear here. This is what the government is setting itself up for: to promise the Australian people that you'll put in place new laws to restrict the actions of a gambling company but, if the gambling company does not obey those laws, there's nothing you can do about it. This is like fining people for speeding day after day after day, drink-driving and speeding—they might even crash and kill somebody—and you've got no power to put them in jail. This government's bill is useless. It is useless. You want us to believe in fining these gambling companies a couple of million dollars for breaching some advertising law when they're banking $104 billion off the losses of Australians?

Do you know how much money the gambling industry spends on advertising? It's $600 million a year, and you think a little slap on the wrist in the form of a $1½ million fine is going to be the bogeyman in the corner that's holding them to account. It beggars belief that the government thinks that the parliament should take you seriously. It is quite clear that this entire piece of legislation is designed to look like you're doing something while doing nothing. It is riddled with holes, loopholes and carve-outs. It is designed to fail. There is a reason that the gambling industry is happy for it to pass. Because it's not going to change the dial one iota.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

You're completely wrong, Senator Hanson-Young. I've listened to your commentary on this matter for a couple of hours now, which has been dripping in cynicism the whole time and full of innuendo about the motivations of a government that's trying to do the right thing in this matter. We absolutely stand by these laws that are before the parliament now as being laws that will work and make a meaningful difference to the Australian people.

We know that for a lot of years there have been a lot of Australians who've wanted to see action. They don't want to see the proliferation of ads from the gambling industry that we've seen on TV. This deals with that. They don't want to see children impacted by these ads at the same time. We've reduced the risk that they will go before children at the same time. So you can add all the cynicism that you want, but this is an important bit of reform that will make a meaningful difference for many Australians, and it does hold the gambling companies to account at the same time.

We absolutely stand by these laws. We know that they will make a meaningful difference. We've done the hard work of ensuring that we get the details right so that we get the balance right between reducing harm for those people that are going to be impacted while ensuring that the industry can continue at the same time. We think that's important. We think we've got that. We've also got the ability for ACMA to ensure that they can enforce these provisions and have a strong hand in terms of determining fines that help hold those gambling companies to account.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Why hasn't the Minister for Communications stood up and done a press conference since this dog's breakfast of a deal was done?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure the Minister for Communications has been very busy and focused on getting this legislation through the parliament. I also believe the news bargaining legislation is before the Reps, and it will hopefully be here before the Senate tomorrow as well, so Minister Wells has a big agenda when it comes to this portfolio. I'm sure at the appropriate time we'll be happy to do media.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Why has no-one from the government stood up and taken questions outside of this particular—you are the only person, you are the only minister, who's had to take any questions on this dog's breakfast since it was announced. It says everything, doesn't it?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for the high praise, Senator Hanson-Young.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Do we have any other speakers? No? We have before us on sheet—I'm sorry, Senator Hanson-Young.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

That's okay. I was just giving some of my colleagues an opportunity to speak if they wished to. I'd like to ask the government if they believe that the public broadcasters should be able to show gambling ads?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that the ABC does not show ads of any type but that the SBS do show ads, as they operate on a level playing field with other broadcasters.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the government believe that Australian taxpayers should be funding a public broadcaster that advertises a dangerous product like gambling?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I can say that it would be appropriate for the SBS to be subject to the same rules as its competitors. In terms of the reforms that apply to broadcasters, that would be the case.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not a question directed to the minister; it's just a reflection on the debate in committee at this point in time. I know my calls to oppose these bills will fall on deaf ears because the die is cast, but I think it's a lost opportunity. I'm not convinced in any way by the argument that something is better than nothing. This is, as I said, a real lost opportunity to regulate.

I ask senators to reflect: why does the industry need the ability to have incentives? Why does the industry need to advertise? It's because its business model is predatory and designed to facilitate addiction, which is why I'm voting against these bills. I don't think these bills seek to regulate; I think they seek to facilitate. This industry is founded on the darkest practices known to corporate Australia. Tonight you stand with either the faith based organisations that live and work in the community, based on compassion and love, or the faceless board members that are counting their cash flows and their investor returns. That, for me, is the simpler choice this evening—the moral choice. When I vote on the third reading, I'll have one thing on my mind—the children of Australia.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, can you explain to me the logic of the first 25 minutes of State of Origin, with the kick-off at 8.05 pm, being covered by gambling advertisement restrictions, but those restrictions being lifted for the subsequent 55 minutes of the match and half-time?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr, I don't know if you were here when Senator David Pocock went to some of these matters around free TV or broadcast TV issues. I point out that, during live sport, the change would be that there would be no advertising during live sport. That is a significant change that we think will be impactful.

I mentioned the 8.30 timeslot because that is when the OzTAM data says the number of children decline. I understand the point you're making about State of Origin, being a Queenslander—a lot of people across the states are staying up and watching that. But we believe that this will see a reduced number of ads, as a result, across the whole board. That will be impactful and will ensure that fewer children have to come into contact with or visualise gambling ads as a result.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, do you accept the proposition that there are going to be hundreds of thousands of Australian children who are going to be exposed to gambling advertisements during the State of Origin after 8.30 pm?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Scarr. I think the key point with this is that under this legislation—and we've always been very clear that this is about striking a balance, which we're doing in this legislation by ensuring that there will be fewer ads that people see as a result of that. That will no doubt be the case. That's delivered as part of this. Anyone watching a sporting game won't see them during live coverage. We think that's important. The 15 minutes on either side are also important. I think you've got to look at the whole package to ensure that there is less access to advertising as a result of these changes.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. I have considered the whole package, and I've considered it very carefully. I also note that you're not the minister with responsibility for this portfolio, and I appreciate that you haven't had the carriage of this matter. You say there won't be any ads during live sport, but the fact is—isn't it—that after 8.30 pm there will be unlimited ads during scheduled breaks and non-scheduled breaks of, for example, the State of Origin.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that's essentially correct, Senator Scarr, but the point I was making before, which is applicable, is that this needs to be seen across the whole package and how it applies across the whole industry—obviously, not on jerseys and not on stadium-naming rights. Those other elements are really important. If you were watching a game currently, you'd see that throughout the whole match. I think, across the whole range of reforms—be it in advertising, be it in restrictions on stadiums, be it in restrictions on jerseys, or be it in the 15 minutes before a game—there will be less ads as a result of the changes that we're talking about. I think that's important, and I think that'll be welcomed by Australians.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I think it would be more welcomed by Australians if there were no gambling ads during the State of Origin. That's my strong view. I think it would be welcomed by more Australians if there were no ads during Friday night football, as Senator Pocock referred to. Queensland has secured the Olympic Games in 2032. The swimming finals will be on after 8.30 pm at night. Will there be an opportunity for gambling companies to have unlimited ads during the Olympic Games finals held after 8.30 pm?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's getting a little bit technical in terms of how it applies. My understanding is that the Olympic Games would be covered as live sport. It would depend on when the scheduled breaks were as part of that.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, assuming that a final is held after 8.30 pm in relation to, for example, swimming—and Australians are passionate about swimming—is there an opportunity for unlimited gambling ads during scheduled breaks of those finals?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's getting into hypothetical territory, but—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is what the whole thing is about.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm answering the question if you'll let me, Senator Hanson-Young. Dealing with the Olympics, who knows what time these things would be on? But, if they were outside the 8.30 time period, there would be no restrictions on the number of ads.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

So then it necessarily flows that Australian children who are watching their Olympic champion swim in, for example, swimming finals—we know it extends to any sporting events—after 8.30 pm will be exposed during both scheduled breaks and unscheduled breaks to potentially unlimited gambling advertisements. That's correct, isn't it?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be the case, but, as I've been reiterating as we've discussed some of these, you do need to look at these reforms in the overall sense. They're restricting the number of ads that are on during the day from 5 am till 8.30. Obviously, there are the changes that we've made with regard to radio at school drop-off times, the changes that we've made during live sport and the 15 minutes either side, the restrictions on jersey advertising and also stadium naming rights. I think, when you look at these across the whole range of measures that we're taking, they are significant changes. They are going to reduce the exposure, and that's the aim of this bill and that's the aim of the government.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you referred to the 15 minutes either side of a sporting event, but it's the case, isn't it, that, if the sporting event starts after 8.30, then it's irrelevant because, whether or not it's 15 minutes before or 15 minutes after the end, there are no gambling restrictions after 8.30?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Apologies, Senator Scarr. It is only the 15 minutes before the live sporting event, not the 15 minutes after. The other thing I'd point to in terms of these changes is the statutory review that will come into place—the opportunity to look at these matters and how they've been impactful in three years time.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the statutory review, why is it that the statutory review is going to take place after three years and not, say, after two years?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe it's just that the government believes that three years was the appropriate time to get the right amount of data to ensure that we're making informed decisions.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

How do the provisions in the legislation ensure that any statutory review is entirely independent, that the statutory review will be open to public submissions, that the public submissions will also be made public and that the people who are appointed to undertake the statutory review have the relevant expertise?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I can provide a bit of detail on the statutory review in three years time. We will include a statutory review mechanism to assess the operation and effectiveness of the following parts of the bill: part 7C, restrictions on wagering advertising; part 7D, restrictions on inducements; and part 7E, the wagering advertising opt-out register. As minister, Minister Wells would be required to initiate the review as soon as practicable after three years from the commencement of the act. The review process must include public consultation to ensure stakeholder and community input is considered.

In terms of who would do the review, the legislation does not prescribe which entity must conduct the review. The minister will determine the most appropriate reviewer or review body at the time. This could be the department or an independent reviewer. The minister is then required to table the report in both houses of parliament within 15 days of receiving it.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I note that you said the reviewer could be the department. I think this chamber needs to reflect on that. We just had confirmation from the minister that this statutory review, which is meant to be this wonderful check and balance in relation to the effectiveness of these provisions, could actually be undertaken by someone within the department—an internal review. We don't know who it will be, but presumably they're marking the government's own homework. Given this package that has been delivered up to this chamber, what confidence can we have as a chamber that that statutory review will be sufficiently independent, will be sufficiently rigorous and will be conducted by people with the relevant expertise?

In this regard, I note the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Pocock which calls upon a panel of reviewers with the relevant expertise, in terms of gambling harm, with respect to the marketing devices used by the gambling industry and with respect to their impact on children. One of the benefits of the review which has been undertaken in relation to this legislation is that we have a pretty good record of all the wonderful experts who have undertaken research in this space over many, many years. But we have no comfort whatsoever from the review mechanism which has been proposed that (a) it will be independent (b) it will be conducted by relevant experts or (c) the public submissions will actually be published so that the public has a right to see what submissions are made, including from the gambling industry. So what comfort can you provide, Minister, that there will be a rigorous, independent statutory review undertaken by appropriate experts? And why would the minister—I'm not talking about you here, Senator Chisholm; I'm talking about Minister Wells—possibly consider that a statutory review undertaken by the department would be appropriate?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I can make clear that the government's intention is that it will be a statutory reviewer. It will not be internal; it would be done by an appropriate external person. Any persons who undertake the review would be required to meet integrity standards, including declaring any conflicts of interest, which would be standard practice.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the opt-out register, Minister, do you think the opt-out register will be up and running by the time of the statutory review?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

We believe that the global opt-out register would take about 12 months, but we will have the platforms having to make available the opt-out service from 1 January next year.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you just explain to me the difference—you might need to take advice on this—in relation to the platforms being available from 1 January but it taking approximately 12 months for the register to be operational. I'm not going to hold you to every month. What's the distinction that's being made there?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

From 1 January, if a platform wanted to have gambling advertising, they'd have to have the triple lock option available on their website. It will take us about 12 months to build the opt-out system that we are implementing as part of this.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I only have a few questions left, and a couple on the ACMA. Your own impact analysis said that this partial ban that you've gone with will be more expensive and more time consuming to enforce because it's patchy, and that a full gambling ad ban, as recommended by the Murphy report, would be cheaper to enforce and have more benefit for Australians. The ACMA and the department told us that the ACMA would be getting zero extra staff for ongoing compliance. They may get some for implementation, but then that will fade away from the forward estimates back to 12 staff to oversee everything that you've been telling us that they're going to do. Minister, is it still the case that the ACMA will be getting zero staff to manage ongoing compliance with the government's patchy ban? Just as a reminder of the need for staffing, this is a regulator that failed to investigate a single breach of BetStop within 12 months and so couldn't fine Entain for 500 breaches of BetStop.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is the cost recovery levy will cover ACMA costs for staff, BetStop, inducements and also opt-out requests at the same time. My understanding is that the important point here is that the levy to industry will help us meet that need.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, will the cost recovery levy also cover compliance with the ad ban? Is that what you're saying?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

That's absorbed.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | 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?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

We have confidence that ACMA will be able to meet the challenge that is obviously being set for them here. There is obviously the interactive wagering cost-recovery bill which will ensure ACMA have resources that will be recovered from wagering services providers. We've strengthened their powers in these areas, and we expect them to make use of them.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

On inducements—I found this one of the saddest parts of the government's decision around this bill. I commend Senator Henderson for at least doing something on inducements. This was something that wasn't even a loss of revenue for the NRL, AFL and free to air—who the gambling companies leant heavily on to ensure that you didn't implement the Murphy report.

You could have banned inducements, and you probably would have avoided a lot of pain for Australians. You probably would have prevented suicides. I just want to read you an email that I received from a person in Victoria recently.

It starts off: 'My partner of 40 years took his life in 2024 by jumping out of our rented fourth-floor apartment. He gambled his money away on the phone using apps. Sportsbet, from where he was banned—and I believe he was also able to set up another account with BlueBet. I've not contacted the betting agencies; however, I do know that they would have offered him inducements. I have access to his account, as he left a suicide note. They recently contacted him to inform him of an account charge, as he hadn't used the betting account for a period of time. I was unaware that he was continuing to gamble online. He took his life in shame, shattering mine, his family's and our friends' lives forever. I understand the government is debating gambling reforms in the current sitting of parliament and that the government wants the parliament's assistance in passing these laws. I do not believe they go far enough to save lives. I'm speaking from a very raw experience. I don't believe it because of the trauma that a lot of people speak about. I also lost a nephew to suicide due to gambling 10 years ago now.'

Minister, I have so many of these stories. I assume anyone who's listening does. You had a blueprint for reform. Peta Murphy stood up in the other place and said that the most urgent thing that the parliament can and should do is ban inducements. In some ways, you can actually make a fairly strong case around gambling ad revenue for free to air. I have sympathy for free to air. I think we, as a parliament, could have found a mechanism to actually plug that gap and provide them with the transition. But on inducements, it's indefensible. What your government has decided to do is totally indefensible.

Let's go straight to the Murphy report. An industry that encourages losses from people who cannot afford to lose while banning people who win deserves to be called out. While online wagering service providers use inducements, inducement advertising and VIP programs to attract customers and develop market share, they can also do this by offering fair value and showing that they care for their customers—imagine that! Imagine just having a good product and good customer service.

The committee notes that the inducements and VIP programs are also used to entice individuals to return to betting after a timeout or to continue to bet and lose. There is no doubt that banning inducements and inducement advertising is a key measure for reducing online gambling harm and ensuring that one of the significant incubators of gambling harm—VIP programs—has no place in Australia.

Minister, in your amendments with the coalition you have a ban on online gambling companies offering someone an inducement in the first two weeks after they sign up to an account, and there will also be a ban on offering inducements for 90 days after someone comes off BetStop. The Murphy report said: 'Ban these damn inducements.' You're admitting that they are harmful, and you're saying: 'Well, for the first two weeks you can't induce someone.' For 90 days after someone comes off BetStop, you can't provide an inducement.' If they're so harmful that we can't allow a person with an addiction to receive them when they get off BetStop, why not ban them all together?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by saying that I didn't catch the name of the person you were referring to in regard to someone who took their own life because of a gambling addiction. I pass on my condolences to that family and to anyone out there who's listening and who's been impacted by that as well. At the same time, I acknowledge the role that they've played in this reform process over a number of years. It has been important and impactful on government and on others as part of this debate, I'm sure.

On the changes around inducements, we've had a number of discussions across the chamber on this. The changes that we have here are significant and meaningful, and they have been based on a number of iterations. Obviously, I've mentioned before the role that the national ALP conference played in people raising these issues. Senator Henderson has made a contribution to this as well. There's no doubt that the reforms that we have in here are significant and will make a meaningful difference. To reiterate what they are, the reforms ban direct marketing of inducements on red flagged customers, they ban direct marketing of inducements for 14 days after opening a new account and they ban direct marketing for inducements during a cooling-off period for 90 days following BetStop deregistration. Then there are other changes that we've made as part of this bill.

I understand the point that you're making. The government has moved in this area. These will be substantial reforms that are going to make a difference. As I've been saying consistently, we make no apologies for wanting to hold these gambling companies to account for their behaviour.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Finally, I want to touch on privacy. I know Senator Hanson-Young has done some really good work in this space. To be honest, I've been really surprised that we haven't heard more from libertarians and others in the coalition who are concerned about this.

In its submission to the Senate inquiry, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner said:

The Bill would require a new cohort of entities who have not previously had to conduct age checks under other laws or regulations (e.g. Social Media Minimum Age (SMMA)) to implement age assurance should they wish to offer online wagering advertising. This includes large online content services, such as sports streaming services, broadcasters and news websites.

…   …   …

The excessive collection of personal information is of great concern to the Australian community.

In particular, the OAIC notes that this bill—the one that's passing tonight—will require online service content services not to verify whether you are over or under 18 but to verify your exact age. The OAIC recommends that 'the bill does not refer to age without further clarification, as this introduces a disproportionate privacy risk to individuals by requiring the collection of an exact age, rather than an under/over 18 threshold'. Why are we requiring Australians to give out their precise age and not just verify whether they are over or under 18? Why are we doing all this so that a predatory industry can continue to advertise to Australians?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that it's just age assurance to ensure whether they're over or under 18. That is the justification for how this would be applied.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not what the OAIC said. They said that the bills just say age, and that's how you interpret it. Given there is such a massive intrusion into people's lives who just want to be able to watch their streaming service, scroll the news or do whatever they want to do online, why didn't the government consult with the OAIC prior to releasing the bill?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that there was consultation with both the OAIC and the Attorney-General's Department as well.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to progress a point that Senator Pocock raised in relation to these egregious obligations upon Australian people to share very private information in order to take the benefit of what flows from the opt-out register. Isn't one of the benefits of an opt-in system that the people who want to participate need to share their private information, whereas, in an opt-out system, you don't want to participate but you still have to share your personal information?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

We believe that the opt-out model in the gambling reform bill allows individuals to avoid wagering advertising content if they choose without imposing a complete prohibition on advertising to adult users. The bill also specifies that the opt-out option 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 the service. It goes on to talk about how the bill provides ACMA with the powers to issue and hold these providers to account. That is why we believe that the opt-out model is a better one for the reforms that we're talking to, and that is why we've pursued that in the bill today.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, do you accept the proposition that an opt-in system would mean that there wasn't an absolute prohibition on gambling advertising but that someone would have to positively opt in and choose—make the choice, exercise their freedom of choice—to receive the flow of gambling advertisements?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

All I'll say in response to that is that we believe that this model is a better option. We believe it allows individuals to still have that choice that they want to take if they do not want to receive gambling advertising, but believe that any other option would potentially see a complete prohibition on gambling advertising as a result.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

What are the reasons that gambling companies are so wedded to inducements? In the course of framing this legislation and coming up with these checks and balances—which I'll move to shortly—why is it that gambling companies are so wedded to the concept of inducements?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously they're matters that I'd be happy for you to put to the gambling companies themselves, Senator Scarr, but I am aware of the evidence that was provided about the impact that these are having, and it was alarming. That's why the government have taken the action that we have in regard to inducements. We want to ensure that these laws restrict inducements, particularly for those people who are most at risk of harm. That's what we believe this bill does a good job of. We believe that's important. Obviously, there's impact that we saw from the Senate legislating inquiry. I've talked about the influence of the Labor Party National Conference and, indeed, other members of the parliament that have put forward suggestions in regard to this matter that we've taken on board.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did you make a decision not to prohibit inducements altogether? Why is it impossible for the gambling industry to operate without inducements? You've recognised how invidious inducements are. You've recognised the harm that can be caused by inducements. Why didn't you make a prohibition against inducements?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that this is where this legislation gets the balance right. We've focused on those inducements that would have an impact on those people who are most at risk. For many people who enjoy having a bet on the weekend as part of their social life, receiving a bonus bet is something that they enjoy and it doesn't cause them any harm. That's why we think we've got the balance right as part of this legislation.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

You refer to the fact that those who enjoy a bet enjoy receiving a free bet; on the other hand, are you aware of the extensive research that has been undertaken that indicates that inducements lead to greater bet frequency, to higher bets being made and in many cases are a catalyst for gambling harm?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that's why I'd focus on where this package has been strengthened. The measures include protection for those consumers at critical points who might be at risk of tipping into that domain of gambling harm that you talk about. That's why those additional measures that we've seen as part of this—banning inducements for 14 days after signing up with a gambling company, banning inducements on all red-flag customers, banning inducements for three months after a person deregisters from BetStop, and banning commissions to staff or affiliates based on customer activity. It's often the case, as we've seen with other issues that we've discussed as part of this legislation today, of looking across the range of reforms to see how we've adequately dealt with these matters that impact those people who are potentially impacted by gambling harm.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, do you accept that if someone has taken advantage of the BetStop service that's available then, almost by definition, they're someone who's vulnerable and at high risk? What is the justification for someone who has been on the BetStop register coming off the BetStop register, and gambling companies being entitled to offer them inducements after any cooling-off period? Aren't they necessarily red-flagged by definition in terms of them having been on the BetStop register? Isn't it akin to an alcohol company running down the street and giving a bottle of whisky to a recovered alcoholic after three months?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I think what you're alluding to there is the banning of inducements for three months after a person deregisters from BetStop. We believe that is an important part of these reforms that does help protect those people who might be at risk. We also wouldn't want anything that we do as part of this legislation or these changes to discourage someone from registering with BetStop in the first place, and that there's potential around some of these changes that would be impacting on that. That's why we think that that reform is important.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Goodness me! What evidence did the government receive to justify what you've just said to us here—that behavioural interpretation in relation to someone who's put themselves on bed stop? What expert advice did you receive that not offering inducements to someone who's been on BetStop would prejudice the rates of people taking advantage of the BetStop service? Who did you get advice from in relation to those matters?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I can probably just help provide some clarity. Those persons who were coming off those three months would still have to reconfirm consent to direct marketing of inducements after that period of time, so it would be up to that individual to say whether they wanted to receive those.

I talked through, at the start, the substantial consultation that has gone on as part of this bill. Obviously there have been a number of factors that have been influential as part of these discussions and as we've come to the final package that is before us in the Senate today. There has been heavy consultation across industry with those people who advocate for anti-gambling measures, those people who've been impacted by these matters and, obviously, the Senate legislation committee hearing—so across a whole range of areas—which has been impactful in terms of deciding the legislative piece that the government has taken before the Senate tonight.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I put it to you, Minister—and I note this isn't your portfolio—I don't think the government has received any expert evidence in relation to this three-month cooling-off period after BetStop or the 14-day cooling-off period after someone opens their account. I don't think any expert evidence was received in relation to the three advertisements an hour, because I don't know of any expert who, having read all the submissions, is opined that any of these measures are going to be efficient or effective to achieve their purpose.

This has been one of the fundamental issues with this whole process. This is a compromise package. It is not informed by evidence. It is not informed by the evidence of the experts who have been studying gambling addiction for decades. That is what the experts are telling us.

Inducements are invidious. All of the research indicates that inducements lead to bigger bets, higher frequency gambling and greater gambling harm. All of the evidence suggests that. I commend the members who provided their views with respect to the Murphy report in relation to the importance of banning gambling inducements. One of the other factors that was raised in that report was the impact especially on young people—the impact on young Australians. We're talking about 600,000 children. The statistics tell us 600,000 children under 18 are actually engaging in online gambling. It's horrendous. And one of the issues with these inducements of free bets and the bonus bets that you referred to is that they distort the cost of gambling in the minds of those young people, and it lures them in and causes huge gambling harm.

This is my final question. Minister, you're a decent person. I've got no doubt about that. I know you don't have carriage of this matter, but what do you say to the agencies in Queensland who are the not-for-profits, the faith based organisations like St Vincent de Paul—Vinnies—the Salvation Army and Anglicare? They are always there helping Queenslanders in need, in their direst hour, and always there to pick the pieces up and do whatever they can. They have given a collective cry from the heart to ban gambling inducements and ban gambling advertising. What do you say? How do you defend this compromise package to those faith based organisations?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

What I'd say to them is that this is the strongest action on gambling reform that any government has ever undertaken in Australia. It is going to make a substantial contribution to minimising gambling harm and minimising the impact on children, and it is going to ensure that we hold the gambling companies to account. I'm more than happy to engage with those organisations in Queensland—I'm even a member of some of them, Senator Scarr. We understand that these are important matters. We do believe that the government has worked diligently on these and we've got the balance right in terms of the reforms. They're going to have a meaningful impact on those people who are at risk. We're going to ensure that it does minimise the exposure to young people.

But it does ensure that, for those people who do enjoy having a bet as part of their life—their social activity—they're still able to go and do that, which is important as well. So we do think that the balance is right in terms of these reforms. They are going to make a meaningful difference. We are going to hold the gambling companies to account for poor behaviour, and that is an important thing that I think the Australian people will welcome and one those organisations that you mentioned will welcome as well.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a morally corrupt piece of legislation. What we have just heard from the minister is that the government wants you to believe, just because they say this is strong, that it is, when all of the evidence, all of the expertise and all of the lived experience shows it's not because it is riddled with loopholes and tricks. This is a piece of legislation that is designed to look like the government has listened while—the entire time—facilitating the very business model that drives people to gambling harm and suicide. This parliament has heard over and over again the pleas from parents, mums and dads and grandparents around the country who have had to bury their sons. We have heard from children who have lost their fathers.

This is an industry that grooms and preys on people. Nobody starts out thinking they want to be groomed. Nobody puts their first bet on thinking they are going to be the one who has to sell their home because they've got no money left in the bank. No-one in this country is putting their hand up and saying: 'Please groom me. I'm a gambling addict.' No-one, I put it to the government, wants to see the damn ads. No-one wants to be tricked into spending money they do not have—no-one. No-one wants to bury their kids because the gambling industry has preyed on them and groomed them.

This is a morally corrupt piece of legislation, and the reason the government tonight cannot answer the questions is that they know it is wrong. The reason this legislation is being rammed through the Senate without any of the details and without any of the bureaucrats being able to answer the questions of how this system will work is that both the Labor Party and the coalition know it's a farce. This is a stitch-up. It is a three-way deal between the gambling industry, the government and the Leader of the Opposition. No-one is buying it.

You can pretend all you like. We can hear as many times as you want about how this is the strongest reform. It is not going to move the dial. Do you know what Australians are really frustrated about? When I talk to the parents who've had to bury their sons and the fathers whose houses are now remortgaged over and over again because their kids are suffering from a gambling addiction, they look at the government, and they say, 'But this came from your own side.' You have 94 seats in the other place. There was a majority in this chamber, if you wanted to take it, to put in place reform that would actually protect people, but you squibbed it. You're too scared. You're cowards.

I feel extremely heartbroken for the members on the government side, on the Labor benches, who know how bad this is. And you've got to sit there—like silent, stunned ducks—pretending that somehow this is great. The fact that the minister has not been able to sell this proves it. You've got people from the coalition side crossing the floor. Everyone can see what is going on here. You've been captured by the industry. You're scared of what the big sporting codes are going to say. You're worried about what kind of coverage you'll get from the media companies. There is no-one in this country more addicted to the gambling industry than the Labor Party. We can see it for what it is.

When you have someone in your household or a loved one who has an addiction, trying to get through to them is really hard sometimes; that's a terrible thing. The shame shuts them down and stops them from even having the conversation. The anxiety, the embarrassment, the shame, the horror—they isolate themselves and become lonely. They do things they would never have thought they would ever do.

That's what's happening in the Labor Party. You've got an addiction. And we're trying to help you, but we can't get through. The Australian people have been crying out, grabbing you by the shoulders, trying to wake you up. But you're so deep. You're ashamed—I get it. We would help you, and this place would have helped you. But the first thing you'd have to do is admit you've got a problem.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (9) on sheet 3863 to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to move the Greens amendments on sheet 3995. These amendments implement one of the key recommendations from the Murphy report, and that is the establishment of a national regulator. The reason we need this is that, as we've heard tonight in the committee debate, there is nothing the government can do to hold these gambling companies to account if they fail to follow the law. There is nothing the government can do to strip these companies or even—

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Could senators either leave the chamber quietly or cease talking?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason we need a national regulator and the reason the Murphy report and every single expert on this matter has recommended it is that, without a national regulator, there will be no enforcement of any national law. There will be no enforcement of the rules that tonight this chamber wants to implement that will actually hit the gambling companies where it matters. Without a national regulator, all of the gambling companies register themselves—we know this—through the NT commission, which, by the way, doesn't even have one full-time staff member. It doesn't have one full-time staff member. They are set up as a protection racket.

It is not a coincidence or a sheer accident that every gambling company in the country is registered through the NT. It is not an accident that they do that. They do it because they get a free ride. They do it because they are not held to a high standard. They do it because not one penalty has ever been handed out by the commission. They have no full-time staff. They have no power. They don't intend to use any power. They're used as a protection racket for a predatory industry that continues to profit off harm.

Tonight, we've seen arguments from the government to introduce new laws. Yet there are no consequences for the companies—nothing. There's a reason this national regulator was recommended. Unless you have a cop on the beat, a watchdog with teeth, it won't matter how many times the gambling industry promises not to do it again; they will. We've seen it over and over and over again. The gambling industry flaunts the rules, breaks the rules, and they don't care because the federal government has no power to deregister them. The only thing that matters to these gambling companies is their licence.

We hear from the government that these are the strongest laws possible ever created. Yet the one thing those in the gambling industry need is their licence, and the federal government is saying: 'We don't want anything to do with that. It's not our problem.' It's like having a serial offender speed, drink drive, crash, hit a pedestrian and you can fine them, but you can't put them in jail. The fines are useless anyway. A couple of million bucks for companies that spend $600 million a year on the advertising of their dangerous product—it is the cost of doing business.

So unless you have the ability to strip these companies of their licence and shut them down, they will do whatever the hell they want. That is why we need a national regulator. I urge my colleagues. I didn't come up with this idea. The experts did. The Murphy report recommended it. It said it that it doesn't matter what rules you put in place, if you don't have a national regulator, none of them will work.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, were you seeking to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3995 together, by leave?

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the amendments:

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

(2) At the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 6 — National gambling regulator

Interactive Gambling Act 2001

1 After Part 1, insert:

Part 1A — National gambling regulator

14A Definitions for this Part

Murphy Report means the report entitled You win some, you lose more, prepared by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and published in June 2023.

Note: In 2026, a copy of the Murphy Report was available on the website of the Parliament of Australia (https://www.aph.gov.au/).

14B National gambling regulator

Establishment

(1) The Minister must establish a national gambling regulator within 6 months after the commencement of this section.

Powers and functions etc.

(2) The Minister must take all reasonable steps:

(a) to ensure that when the national gambling regulator is established, the regulator has the powers and functions that the Murphy Report recommends for such a regulator; and

(b) to give effect to any other recommendations made by the Murphy Report in relation to a national gambling regulator.

Note: Recommendation 3 of the Murphy Report recommends the establishment of a national online gambling regulator with the sole purpose of reducing harm, and with responsibility for all licencing and regulation. Other recommendations of the report also deal with matters relating to such a regulator.

(3) Within 6 months after the establishment of a national gambling regulator, the Minister must publish a report:

(a) setting out whether the recommendations made by the Murphy Report in relation to a national gambling regulator have been implemented; and

(b) if there are recommendations that have not been implemented—explaining why that is the case.

Publication requirements

(4) A report that the Minister is required to publish under subsection (3) must be:

(a) published on the Department's website before the end of the period mentioned in that subsection; and

(b) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is published on the Department's website.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I really commend these amendments and Senator Hanson-Young's work on them. As we heard during the Senate inquiry, this is an outfit in the NT that has no full-time staff. And the head of the NT Wagering Commission had to admit that he'd received hospitality from the gambling industry. But he promised he wouldn't do it again!

Senator Chisholm tries to tell us that the ACMA will take over some of the enforcement. Yet the Albanese Labor government is not providing any additional resources to the ACMA to do that. They tried to say, 'Oh well; there'll be a cost-recovery model for the ads,' or whatever it is—the 'do not call' register, and duplicate for online. I'm sure that will be a raging success, based on people's experience with the 'do not call' register! But when it actually comes to enforcing the register online: zero additional staff.

This is insanity, if, as a country, we think we're going to solve this and we just throw away evidence based policy. We take the Murphy report and we rip it up, like this, and say: 'Oh well; we're just going to do our own thing. We're not going to implement evidence based policy.' Minister, what's the justification for not having a national regulator, given that so many of the things you've said tonight point to the need for one?

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, I appreciate the passion, but please don't use props in the chamber. Minister.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Pocock. And just to be clear, whilst I'm on my feet: the government will not be supporting the amendments from Senator Hanson-Young. In relation to the proposed amendments to establish a national regulator, the government has a longstanding shared responsibility for the regulation of gambling with the states and territories, and we continue to work constructively with those jurisdictions to address harms from online gambling.

Then, I can point to the significant changes we've made as part of this bill, which go to complement that, including the important reforms that will give ACMA more powers to act. So we believe that across a whole range of measures we are making significant reforms that are going to strengthen the hand of ACMA to hold these gambling companies to account, and that is something that is important in this legislation.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is absolutely crucial that there be a national regulator. It was a strong recommendation coming out of the Murphy report. We've heard about the egregious wrongdoing of these companies. The evidence that came out of the Senate committee that looked at this legislation was clear. The recommendation from the Murphy report was clear. Again, I reiterate: it was a unanimous recommendation, supported by three members of the coalition. And one of those members of the coalition, the Hon. Pat Conaghan, crossed the floor in the House of Representatives in relation to this point, and I take this opportunity to commend Pat and also my dear friend Andrew Wallace from Queensland.

I do not see how you are going to implement and enforce the additional safeguards that you say are contained in this legislation without a national regulator, without a strong cop on the beat. And I don't understand why ACMA is being given all these responsibilities, as opposed to a bespoke regulator dealing with the gambling industry, especially given the evidence we've heard and the information Senator Pocock has shared with this committee with respect to the Northern Territory regulatory system. I mean, it is just farcical, absolutely farcical. If ever there was a message coming out of evidence given to a committee, it was that we need a national regulator—and a strong national regulator.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is following on from Senator Scarr's contribution. In relation to the Northern Territory regulator, as I understand it from a response to a question from Senator Hanson-Young, they will be auditing whether inducements have been offered to someone who's been red flagged. Will those audit results be published, and, if they are published, what is the legislative instrument that underpins their publication?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that it's a complaints based system, so that is the basis of how it would operate.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, are you telling us that the vulnerable person who should have been stopped from participating in gambling by the gambling company itself, which is incentivised to keep that person gambling—that we're expecting the vulnerable person to make the complaint before any action is taken? Are you telling us that there will not be any requirement for independent audits with respect to the robustness and the rigour of these systems—that it's simply going to be dependent upon the person who's the victim of malfeasance to actually make a complaint?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

It could be the person impacted. It could be a support worker. But, obviously, ACMA will have a monitoring role as part of that as well.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Minister, I suspect the support workers are going to be overwhelmed, trying to help people who are suffering gambling addiction. They're already overwhelmed by people suffering gambling harm. Why wouldn't you have an independent audit system? At the moment, ASIC audits companies with respect to their compliance, the ACCC engages in audits—a whole range of regulators. Workplace health and safety regulators go onto sites and carry out inspections. Why wouldn't you have a system where you had a regulator checking on the gambling companies to make sure that they were appropriately implementing this system? Why put it on the victim who's suffering the harm?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said, it could be the person impacted. It could be a support worker who provides that complaint to ACMA. It could be a family member. Obviously, as I mentioned before, ACMA will have a monitoring role, and the cost recovery powers that ACMA have mean they'll have more capacity to resource this work as well.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I think your answers to this line of questions from me just underline the fact that we need a national regulator, and that's one of the reasons I'll be supporting this amendment.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Do the gambling companies have an obligation to self-report to the regulator or to the auditor?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that there's no obligation.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I want to return to evidence based policymaking, or the lack thereof. We had the Murphy report, which everyone agrees was a landmark inquiry. The report was unanimously backed by the parliament, backed in by experts and pointed to by the community as what they wanted the parliament to do. The government have tied themselves in knots not to do that.

One of the commitments they have made, though, is to end family and domestic violence in a generation. They commissioned the rapid review, and the rapid review came back with the report titled Unlocking the prevention potential: accelerating action to end domestic, family and sexual violence. It recommended 'stronger restrictions leading to a total ban on advertising of gambling'. If you won't implement the Murphy report because you say we don't need to, because we just need to get the balance right instead, how are we going to end family and domestic violence in a generation? How, if you won't implement the findings of your own rapid review that said that gambling contributed to family and domestic violence and that there should be a full gambling ad ban?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Pocock, for that important question. You went to the matters that I mentioned in terms of the implementation of the rapid review recommendations. What I'd pointed to, which is available online, is the Australian government implementation update from 20 February 2026 in regard to the rapid review recommendations. If it's matters regarding to that, I'm not as familiar with that report as I am with what we're dealing with tonight. But we also know that work in the social policy area in regard to this matter will need to be ongoing. It is important work, and that's why I'd point to the implementation report, which is available on the website.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you can't just point senators to an online report when we have a very specific question. As Pat Conaghan said, what's the point of these government inquiries? What's the point? What's the point of Peta Murphy and the committee spending so much of their time coming up with a landmark report? And what's the point of commissioning a rapid review if it says you should do what the Murphy report told you to do and then when we ask you about it you just say, 'Oh well, implementation something or other, check a website, getting the balance right.' What is the point of these reviews?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly value the work that Senate committees do on a daily basis, and it's disappointing that you don't in this regard. Governments go through the process of responding to Senate reports or joint reports or whatever it is, but it's obviously always up to the government to implement the legislative changes that might result from a report. I understand that there's a lot of interest in this issue and the bill before us that we're dealing with tonight—not only in this chamber but also in the House of Representatives and among the Australian people as well. I think that that is why it has taken time to ensure that we get the balance right in terms of what is in this reform.

I understand that you have a point of view different from the government's on this matter, but we are taking this issue seriously. The reforms that we have announced as part of this legislation are going to make a meaningful difference. I understand that it's not in your political interest to acknowledge that, but it is something that we are determined to deliver on, because we know that it is going to make a difference for people—not only those who are at risk of harm or who may be suffering from harm but also for young people. The important reforms that we're talking about are absolutely going to make an important contribution. As I've said repeatedly, they are the strongest action that any government has ever taken in terms of dealing with the harms of gambling. There has been extensive consultation that we've dealt with over a number of years. We've listened to a range of views across the community and we've heard from many people about the impact that this legislation will have, and that's why it's important.

I will point to the important parts of the reform that will make a difference and that I believe Australians will welcome and that will make a difference to their lives. The blackout period for live sports restrictions changes the live sport blackout rules from five minutes before live sport to 15 minutes before live sport between 5 am and 8:30 pm. It bans commissions of financial incentives to staff and affiliates based on consumer activity. It bans direct marketing and inducements of red-flag customers. It bans direct marketing and inducements on those who are opening a new account.

I, at the end of the day, understand that the Greens and others are often so impotent in terms of actually delivering meaningful change that is going to make a difference for many people across the country. They actually prefer to come in here and grandstand rather than do the hard work that is going to make a difference for people across the country. We've seen plenty of it tonight. It is disappointing that they can't actually recognise that this legislation is the most meaningful legislation that any government has brought before this chamber on gambling reform, and it is disappointing that they will not acknowledge the hard work that has gone into achieving a significant result in this matter.