-
Pocock moved amendments to implement a full prohibition on wagering advertising over three years, aligning with the Murphy report. Pocock questioned the government's reliance on a partial ban allowing three ads per hour, citing evidence that this would not stop the normalisation of gambling among children. Pocock challenged the minister on the lack of data supporting the 8.30 pm watershed for child viewership.
-
McLachlan stated an intention to vote against the bill at third reading and support Pocock's amendments. McLachlan argued the legislation did little to address the findings of the Murphy review or protect vulnerable Australians from predatory corporate practices. McLachlan expressed concern that the reforms were insufficient to diminish the profits of gambling companies or reduce harm to children.
-
Henderson supported the bill, noting significant improvements made through coalition amendments. Henderson highlighted new restrictions on broadcasters, including extended blackout periods before live sport and bans on ads in children's programming. Henderson emphasised the introduction of a global opt-out register and direct liability for publishers of illegal offshore gambling ads.
-
Cadell withdrew amendments regarding foreign matched lotteries but criticised the bill for tightening regulations only in areas that benefited the Lottery Corporation. Cadell argued the changes protected corporate profits at the expense of newsagents and small businesses. Cadell foreshadowed further amendments to ensure a level playing field for competition in the lottery sector.
-
Hanson-Young opposed the bill, arguing that the opt-out register was ineffective and placed an undue burden on individuals. Hanson-Young questioned the government's ability to enforce the register across the internet without sufficient resources or clear accountability. Hanson-Young criticised the reliance on gambling companies to identify red-flagged customers, arguing this allowed predatory practices to continue until addiction was established.
-
minister
Chisholm argued that the legislation strikes a necessary balance between reducing harm and maintaining industry viability, noting that it bans direct marketing of inducements to red-flagged customers and those recently deregistered from BetStop. Chisholm stated that ACMA would be empowered with significant fines, up to $1.82 million for corporations, and that cost recovery levies would fund enforcement activities. Chisholm defended the opt-out advertising register as providing consumer choice and clarified that a statutory review would occur in three years, conducted by an external reviewer rather than internally. Chisholm maintained that the reforms were the strongest ever undertaken and would significantly reduce exposure to gambling advertising, particularly for children.
-
Pocock questioned the government's reliance on industry talking points regarding offshore gambling and challenged the evidence behind claims that stricter regulations would drive users to illegal markets. Pocock criticised the lack of a national regulator and the decision to consult with the gambling industry on risk indicators, arguing this compromised the integrity of the reforms. Pocock also raised concerns about privacy implications of age verification requirements and the insufficient staffing for ACMA to enforce the new laws effectively.
-
Hanson-Young argued that the legislation was ineffective because ACMA lacked the power to revoke gambling licences, leaving enforcement reliant on the Northern Territory commission. Hanson-Young contended that the fines proposed were negligible compared to industry profits and that the bill contained numerous loopholes that failed to protect vulnerable individuals. Hanson-Young also questioned how gambling advertisements on sports websites like the AFL would be blocked under the new triple-lock system and criticised the government for not implementing a full ban on inducements.
-
McLachlan described the bills as a lost opportunity to properly regulate the industry, arguing that the legislation facilitated rather than restricted predatory business models. McLachlan stated that the industry's reliance on incentives and advertising demonstrated its harmful nature and that he would vote against the bills to support moral choices aligned with community compassion. McLachlan emphasised that the reforms did not go far enough to protect Australian children from gambling harm.
-
Scarr questioned the logic of advertising restrictions that allowed unlimited ads during scheduled breaks after 8.30 pm, noting this would expose children to gambling content during major sporting events like the State of Origin and Olympics. Scarr raised concerns about the independence of the statutory review, noting it could be conducted internally by the department, and challenged the government's justification for not banning inducements entirely. Scarr also highlighted privacy risks associated with the opt-out register and argued that the compromise package lacked evidence-based support from experts.
-
lead
Hanson-Young moved amendments to establish a national gambling regulator within six months, aligning with Murphy report recommendations. Hanson-Young argued that without a dedicated regulator with licensing powers, the government could not effectively enforce laws or penalise non-compliant gambling companies. Hanson-Young criticised the current Northern Territory registration system as under-resourced and ineffective, describing it as a protection racket for the industry. Hanson-Young emphasised that fines were insufficient deterrents and that the ability to strip licences was essential for accountability.
-
minister
Chisholm stated the government would not support the amendments, citing shared regulatory responsibilities with states and territories. Chisholm argued that the bill provided significant new powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority to hold companies accountable. Chisholm defended the government's approach as balanced and evidence-based, highlighting specific reforms such as extended live sports blackout periods and bans on marketing to red-flagged customers. Chisholm maintained that these measures represented the strongest action ever taken on gambling harm.
-
Pocock commended the amendments and highlighted the lack of full-time staff at the Northern Territory Wagering Commission. Pocock criticised the government for failing to provide additional resources to the Australian Communications and Media Authority for enforcement. Pocock argued that ignoring the Murphy report undermined evidence-based policy and questioned the government's commitment to ending family and domestic violence.
-
Scarr supported the amendments, reiterating that a national regulator was a unanimous recommendation of the Murphy report. Scarr argued that the Australian Communications and Media Authority was not a bespoke regulator suited to the gambling industry's specific harms. Scarr questioned the reliance on a complaints-based system, arguing that independent audits were necessary to ensure compliance rather than placing the burden on victims.
-
McLachlan questioned whether audit results regarding inducements offered to red-flagged individuals would be published. McLachlan sought clarification on the legislative instruments underpinning the publication of such audit results. McLachlan also asked whether gambling companies had an obligation to self-report to regulators or auditors.