Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026

Dr HAINES (Indi) (16:35): I move amendments (2), (4), (6) and (8) as circulated in my name together: (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 51 (after line 24), after Part 7C, insert: Part 7D — Data rules 62ZJA Definitions for this Part In this Part: data rules means the rules (if any) made by the ACMA under subsection 62ZJB(1). 62ZJB Data rules for licensed interactive wagering service providers (1) The ACMA may, by legislative instrument, make rules (the data rules) that require a licensed interactive wagering service provider to do any of the following: (a) collect information specified in the rules, in according with the requirements (if any) specified in the rules; (b) publish information specified the rules, in accordance with the requirements (if any) specified in the rules; (c) provide information specified in the rules to the ACMA, in accordance with the requirements (if any) specified in the rules; (d) otherwise deal with information specified in the rules in accordance with the requirements specified in the rules.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the data rules may require a licensed interactive wagering service provider to collect, publish, or provide to the ACMA, information about any of the following: (a) aggregate losses of customers of the provider; (b) actions taken by the provider to comply with the requirements of Part 7B (National Self-exclusion Register); (c) information about complaints made to or about the provider, including the volume of complaints and the outcome of the complaints.

(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the data rules may make provision with respect to how a licensed interactive wagering service provider may or must collect, publish, provide or other deal with specified types of information, including: (a) personal information (within meaning the Privacy Act 1988); and (b) information that is commercial-in-confidence. 62ZJC Civil penalty provision — contravening the data rules A licensed interactive wagering service provider must comply with the data rules.

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. 62ZJD Relationship with other provisions This Part does not limit, and is not limited by, any other provision of this Act that deals with: (a) the collection, publication or provision of information by a licensed interactive wagering service provider; or (b) how a licensed interactive wagering service provider otherwise deals with information.

Note: For example, this Part does not limit, and is not limited by, Division 7 of Part 7B (which deals with the disclosure of information that is protected information for the purposes of that Part). (4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (line 27), omit paragraph 64A(xz), substitute: (xz) subsection 62ZE(3); or (xza) section 62ZJC. (6) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (line 25), omit paragraph 64C(1)(xz), substitute: (xz) subsection 62ZE(3); (xza) section 62ZJC.

(8) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (line 23), omit paragraph 64D(1)(xz), substitute: (xz) subsection 62ZE(3); (xza) section 62ZJC. This bill obviously requires massively significant changes, and I'm not seeking to duplicate the arguments put by my crossbench colleagues to note that. Amendments put by my crossbench colleagues, I must say, were circulated well in advance as a courtesy to the House and to fellow members.

Up until this point, some of the debate that has ensued on amendments has been confusing, to say the least, in trying to ascertain who was moving what from the government and the opposition. I initially circulated amendments directed at a blanket ban on television advertising during G-rated programming, for example. A similar idea was in fact ultimately, I believe, taken up by the opposition and agreed to by the government.

So I'm not proceeding with that amendment that I had originally had. My remaining amendments would require gambling companies to collect and publicly report on harm indicators, including aggregate customer losses, self-exclusion requests and complaints. These indicators are well known and this is information that gambling companies, in fact, already have.

In fact, the government has indicated it intends to rely exactly on this sort of information in identifying what are known as red-flag customers for the purposes of restricting inducements. In addition, I want to see that this collected information is published publicly on a regular basis in a single, consistent format. It would provide a vital evidence base to help understand whether these reforms are effective in reducing and preventing gambling harm.

If this bill results in only the most limited improvements to industry practice then that data will be more important than ever when it comes to reviewing these laws in the years to come. In the interests of time and other people having a chance to speak, I will terminate my remarks at this point and move this relatively small improvement in good faith, an approach that is, sadly, not always shared by others in this place.

I commend these amendments to the House.