Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026
Ms BOELE (Bradfield) (16:52): I move amendments (1) to (7) as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 12 (line 17), omit "and to allow users to opt out of receiving such content", substitute ", and to ensure that users who have opted in to receiving such content can withdraw that opt-in at any time. (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 22 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph 62H(d), substitute: (d) has not opted in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the online content service in accordance with section 62S.
(3) Schedule 1, item 18, page 22 (after line 7), at the end of section 62H, add: Note: An online content service provider must not provide incentives for an individual in Australia to opt in (see section 62SA). (4) Schedule 1, item 18, page 31 (7 to 20), omit subsection 62P(2) (not including the notes), substitute: Exception — reasonable steps taken (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the online content service provider takes reasonable steps, in accordance with the requirements (if any) specified in a determination under subsection (4) of this section, to: (a) prevent restricted users from accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the service; and (b) ensure that individuals in Australia accessing or receiving wagering advertising content on the service are doing so using a registered account in relation to the service; and (c) ensure that any individual who has, in accordance with section 62S, opted in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content on the service, is provided with a clear, simple, effective and easily accessible means by which they can withdraw that opt-in at any time.
(5) Schedule 1, item 18, page 34 (line 5 to 6), omit "section 62S and". (6) Schedule 1, item 18, page 37 (lines 9 to 26), omit section 62S, substitute: 62S Requirements for opting in to accessing etc. wagering advertising content (1) For the purposes of paragraph 62H(d), an individual (the chooser)has opted in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the online content service only if: (a) the online content service provider has provided a means by which an individual may opt in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the service; and (b) the method requires an individual to take clear, affirmative action in order to opt in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content on the service; and (c) the chooser has, using the means mentioned in paragraph (a) of this section, taken clear, affirmative action to opt in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the service; and (d) any requirements determined under subsection (2) of this section are satisfied.
Note: Under paragraph 62H(d), an individual is a restricted user in relation to an online content service if they have not, in accordance with this section, opted in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the service. (2) The ACMA may, by legislative instrument determine requirements for the purposes of paragraph (1)(d). (3) Without limiting subsection (2): (a) the AMCA may, by legislative instrument, determine requirements (implementation requirements) that must be satisfied in order for a condition set out in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) to be met; and (b) if the ACMA determines such an implementation requirement in relation to a condition in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c), then the condition is taken to be met only if the implementation requirement is satisfied.
(7) Schedule 1, item 18, page 37 (after line 26), at the end of Division 3, add: 62SA Prohibition on providing incentives to opt in A person contravenes this section if: (a) the person is an online content service provider; and (b) the person provides incentives for an individual in Australia to opt in to accessing or receiving wagering advertising content provided on the online content service (for example by offers of discounted subscriptions to the service).
Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. The Murphy review made it very clear that we need a complete ban on gambling advertising, and the government's made it clear that it isn't willing to do this. As I outlined in my second reading speech, this is immensely disappointing.
It's disappointing for all the people affected by gambling harm. It's disappointing for their families and for their loved ones, and it's disappointing for our children, who are going to continue to grow up surrounded by gambling ads that they just don't need or want to see. The government has refused to implement a full ban, but there are still ways to improve this bill.
These amendments that I move today do one simple thing: they flip the online gambling advertising model from opt out to opt in. Under the bill as drafted, Australians using online content services will be shown wagering ads by default unless they take active steps to opt out. My amendments reverse that so no-one will see wagering advertising unless they actively choose to receive it.
This is the very least that the government should do, given how far short the bill falls of the Murphy report recommendations. Why does the default option matter so much? It's because we know that, from real-world evidence, the defaults are sticky.
When SBS introduced an opt-out function for gambling ads on its streaming service, it was reported that only 0.2 per cent of active subscribers used it over two years. That doesn't mean that 99.8 per cent of people wanted gambling ads; it means that people don't go looking for settings menus. They don't know the option exists and they don't know how to use it.
Most people, understandably, are not thinking about their exposure to wagering advertising while they're trying to watch the football with the kids—and they shouldn't have to. As gambling harm prevention expert Samantha Thomas told the Senate inquiry into this bill: Young people and parents should not be expected to navigate sophisticated commercial marketing systems to continuously identify and block novel gambling promotions.
But an opt-out model asks them to do exactly that. An opt-in model puts the burden back where it belongs—on the industry—to earn permission to advertise to someone rather than assuming that right by default. To repeat myself, a full ban is best.
That's what we all want. But, if the government continues to refuse to do that, it can make this simple and small change and dramatically improve the impact of this bill for the best. I commend the amendments to the House.