Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026

Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (17:11): I move amendment (1) on sheet 1 and amendments (1) to (8) on sheet two together: SHEET 1 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: 4. Schedule 6 1 January 2027. 1 January 2027 _____ SHEET 2 (1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 24 (before line 19), before section 62K, insert: 62KA Information about opting out must accompany any broadcast or datacast of wagering advertising content If a person broadcasts or datacasts wagering advertising content in Australia, then the person must ensure that: (a) the broadcast or datacast of the wagering advertising content must be immediately preceded by a broadcast or datacast, on the same service, of content (the opt out content) explaining how a person can opt out of receiving wagering advertising content on the service; and (b) the broadcast or datacast of the opt out content must satisfy any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 30 (before line 26), before section 62P, insert: 62PA Information about opting out must accompany any provision of wagering advertising content on online content service If: (a) a person is an online content service provider; and (b) wagering advertising content is provided in Australia on the online content service; then the person must ensure that: (c) the provision of the wagering advertising content on the online content service must be immediately preceded by the provision, on the service, of content (the opt out content) explaining how a person can opt out of receiving wagering advertising content on the service; and (d) the provision of the opt out content on the service must satisfy any requirements prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

Civil penalty: 1,000 penalty units. (3) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (line 1), omit paragraph 64A(x), substitute: ; or (xaa) section 62KA; or (x) subsection 62K(1); or (4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 52 (after line 8), after paragraph 64A(xg), insert: (xga) subsection 62PA; or (5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 52 (line 33), omit paragraph 64C(1)(x), substitute: ; (xaa) section 62KA; (x) subsection 62K(1); (6) Schedule 1, item 22, page 53 (after line 6), after paragraph 64C(1)(xg), insert: (xga) subsection 62PA; (7) Schedule 1, item 24, page 53 (line 31), omit paragraph 64D(1)(x), substitute: ; (xaa) section 62KA; (x) subsection 62K(1); (8) Schedule 1, item 24, page 54 (after line 4), after paragraph 64D(1)(xg), insert: (xga) subsection 62PA; I move the amendments circulated because these are clear fundamental gaps in this government's proposal.

I want to be really clear. The four fundamental gaps in this bill are still requiring the establishment of a national online gambling regulator, requiring the establishment of a national online gambling ombudsman, prohibiting payments and the referral of individual customers and requiring information about the advertising opt-out scheme to be presented before gambling advertising is aired, regardless of the platform.

This should be paid for out of the time and by the gambling companies. These are not radical proposals. They are in fact mostly—other than the opt-out one—reforms that were drawn directly from the unanimous recommendations of the Murphy inquiry report, You win some, you lose more.

I note that it's rather concerning to see that there are members who voted in support of these recommendations on the report who are voting against these very amendments that give effect to the recommendations of the report. I call hypocrisy in that setting. The government has described this bill as landmark reform, but a bill that permits up to three ads per hour during prime time and ending that at 8.30 is not an advertising ban.

A bill that asks Australians to opt out of gambling advertising while allowing the advertising to reach them by default does not put public health first, and a bill that leaves Australia without a national regulator or ombudsman does not provide a national system recommended by the Murphy review. The bill just doesn't pass the pub test, no matter how much grandstanding we see from members of government in this place.

The amendments here from many members of the crossbench would start to try and improve this legislation and bring it somewhere near what was recommended in the review. First, the amendments would require the minister to take all reasonable steps to establish a national online gambling regulator within two years. Online gambling is inherently national.

A person can place a bet from anywhere in Australia through a company licensed in another jurisdiction, using a platform operating across every state and territory. The Murphy report recommended a national regulation and a national online gambling regulator with the sole purpose of reducing harm. Such a regulator can have the responsibility for licensing, compliance, enforcement, data collection and the development and enforcement of national standards.

My amendment gives effect to that and gives the government two years to do it. Then, within six months of its establishment, the minister should report back in relation to the relevant recommendations and explain why they've been left out. The second amendment is in relation to taking all reasonable steps to establish a national online gambling ombudsman within two years.

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

At the moment, you could have a dispute about delayed or withheld withdrawal, failure to honour self-exclusion, relentless direct marketing, inappropriate inducement, closure or suspension of account, or a provider's or failure to respond to clear signs of gambling harm, and you would you'd need to have a law degree to know—even then I don't think you would—where you could actually complain about it.

A customer and a vulnerable person should not be bounced between the provider, a state licensing authority, a consumer affairs body and a Commonwealth agency, each dealing with only one part of the problem. It's a fundamental consumer protection: there should be an ombudsman. Finally, the government has included a cop-out in relation to an opt-out process when it comes to the advertising online and advertising.

The final amendment is that, before any advertising in relation to gambling—whether it be online or free to air or on any platform—the gambling industry should have to pay for and promote upfront a warning and promote the opt-out register. They should pay to make sure a viewer is aware of this opt-out gambling register. It should not be the public that has to pay for such an ad campaign, and Australians should not be left at the mercy of having to go looking for where they can actually opt-out.

This is makes sense that, prior to seeing damaging advertising, they should have a warning—and they should pay for letting people know about the opt-out.