Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026, Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026

Senator HENDERSON (Victoria) (18:53): 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. Senator Hanson-Young: No-one trusts the gambling companies. No-one trusts them.

Senator HENDERSON: 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? Senator Hanson-Young: 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. Senator HENDERSON: 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.