Speaker: The member for Bradfield.

Nicolette Boele: Speaker, I move the amendment as circulated in my name. 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, that 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. Our kids, who are going to continue to grow up surrounded by gambling ads that they just don't need or want to see. The government's refused to implement a full ban, but there are still ways to improve this bill.

This amendment that I move today does one simple thing: it flips 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 amendment reverses 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.

And why does the default option matter so much? 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% of active subscribers used it over two years.

That doesn't mean that 99.8% of people wanted gambling ads, it means that people don't go looking for setting menus. They don't know the option exists and they don't know how to use it. And 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 their parents should not be expected to navigate sophisticated commercial marketing systems to continuously identify and block novel gambling promotions.

But an opt-out model does ask 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, small change and dramatically improve the impact of this bill for the best. I commend the amendment to the House.

Speaker: Just before I call the minister, can I ask the member for Bradfield to clarify if you've moved all amendments one, two, seven or just number one because you said I move amendment.

Nicolette Boele: I move amendments one to seven. Thank you.