Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 4:31:07 to 5:15:50
ACMA officials are questioned about allegations of Sportsbet influencing media releases and the regulator's accountability. The committee examines the practice of sharing draft statements with regulated entities and the progress of alcohol advertising reviews.
Topics: Integrity, Lobbying
Speakers: Nerida O'Loughlin, David Pocock, Hon Jane Hume, Sarah Hanson-Young, Alana Fraser, Autumn Field, Jeremy Fenton, Nita Green, Rochelle Zurnamer, Varun Ghosh
from the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Um I welcome Miss Nerida Olaflin the chair and um your colleagues at the table as well. So thank you for being here. Do you wish to make an opening statement?
>> Uh thank you chair Narita Olan chair Australian communication media authority and uh no opening statement. Happy to take questions. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. I'll go to
>> I might start with uh the the chair. Thank you for your your time this afternoon. Yeah, it was reported on the ABC on the 31st of December 2025 that Sports Bed had pressured ACMA into quote watering down an enforcement announcement. And as I understand, this relates to the case where Sports Bed continued to text and email tens of thousands of customers even when they'd opted out of uh marketing. They've unsubscribed from Sports Bet. and the AKMA hit them with a with a fine and as understand from the article uh these were the quotes in the media release. It is highly likely that some of these people are vulnerable to gambling related problems and we're trying to address the issue of by unsubscribing from sports bets promotions. It is a significant decision for individuals to choose to cease gambling and sports bets failure in this matter had the real potential to cause financial and emotional harm to these people and their This drew a sharp response from Sports Bet who emailed Akma to say that the first quote should be and I'll quote again tempered or changed as the force breadth of basis for the statement is questionable. And then they made apparently made a similar claim about the second quote. After this intervention, your quotes changed to say that ACMA had received complaints from people experiencing gambling related problems and the company's failures had the, and I'll quote, real potential to contribute to financial and emotional did Sports Bet get you to change your your actual quotes in a media release?
>> Um, thanks, Senator. My notes say that we didn't change. Well, certainly none of what we um spoke to sports bet about changed the outcome of the investigation and the enforcement action that we took. >> That's not there was no change to that.
>> I'm not alleging that at all.
>> No. So, um I will pass to my colleagues, but my understanding there was some u discussion on the um uh the factual nature of the press release rather than the tone of it. Um and there were some small changes made. We do from time to time um provide media releases in advance to uh the companies that we're dealing with to make sure that we have our facts accurately and sometimes it gets down to matters of things like company names where there may be a number of company names that we're dealing with. uh but that doesn't mean that we uh negotiate outcomes of our our enforcement action um of of those things. Um but I'll pass to my colleagues on the
>> Can I maybe just ask a followup? Yeah. I guess my question very specifically goes to after the enforcement action. >> It's all been done. There's been procedural fairness. You've decided on the fine. You're now putting out a media release. >> What is alleged and and I'd like you to either say this is this is true or not. is that you sent your media release to sports but they came back and said we don't really like your direct quotes from the chair and after that feedback you actually watered down your quotes in a media release. Is that true?
>> Um I will pass to my colleagues for the detail.
>> You surely must know.
>> Um I will ask my colleagues to address.
>> You don't sorry I'm asking the chair of ACMA. You don't know if you're
>> referring to um my colleagues who've got the detail of that. Senator
>> uh Jeremy Fenton, executive executive manager, unsolicited communications um and scams uh branch at the ACMA. Sports Bet um did provide comment on a draft media release. Um it made um several uh claims around what it said were factual inaccuracies in the media release. Specifically um that the ACMA's media release was drawing a direct line between harms to consumers um resulting from the investigation. The ATMA's investigation um concerned whether commercial electronic messages were sent without an unsubscribe and didn't um establish as part of that investigation that specific harms had occurred to um individuals. Um as a consequence um that quote uh was um changed uh slightly to step back from the direct statement um to a more general statement.
>> Okay. Was was the press release you sent them checked by legal and your your team beforehand or not?
>> It would have gone through um standard clearance processes within the ACMA.
Yes. So ACMA has fined Sports Bet has put out a media release which the ACMA and your legal team think this is a fair representative of what we think and what the chair thinks. Sports bet who you're meant to be regulating then say well actually that I don't know we we dispute that uh and then you change the chair's direct quotes and chair I take exception to you palming this off. These are your direct quotes in a media release. So I
was passing to my colleague who knows the details. We want to get media releases accurate. Um I don't believe it would have gone through legal. It would have been through the normal clearance process. >> Um and we felt that in that circumstance where we were um putting forward a view that there was a direct correlation uh we could change um appropriately that media release to be accurate on that point. that did not >> that did not in any way impact on the enforcement action we were taking
maybe on notice confirm if it went through legal and and so chair you uh agree with sports bets claim that um saying it's highly likely that some of these people the victims are vulnerable to gambling related problems problems and we're trying to address the issue by unsubscribing was factually incorrect.
>> I'm not quite sure that was the particular quote.
>> No. Um, Senator, I will confirm that I do do not believe that media release went through our um, legal services. Um, and um, the quote was about or uh, sports bet feedback in relation to factual accuracy was that um, we were making a specific uh, um, statement, a specific statement was being made that attributed harm to its non-compliance.
>> No, Mr. Fenton, I'm reading directly from FOI documents that the ABC received. So, I do not accept that you can come in here and try and rewrite history. I'm so concerned that the regulator of this predatory industry after slapping them with a fine, like pretty small fine it seems to me, then say, "Hey, this is our media release. What are your thoughts?" And then you you change the chair's quotes. Chair, do you do you regret this? Do you think this is a a good look?
>> I think it is something we have reflected on um over the last many months and as I said at the outset what we have attempted to achieve in sharing media releases in advance of release has been to make sure that they are accurate. We understand that sometimes that may interpreted differently um and it may be that the reason why we've changed it may be a little more opaque. So what we've done internally is I've instigated a review um to look at the way we approach our media releases and step back from those um processes. We found that we had quite inconsistent processes across the organization. There were some areas where we were providing media releases well in advance. There were some areas we weren't. So we've taken on board the criticism that has been put to us by this committee. um and we will amend those processes and in future we will not be consulting on media releases before they go public. So I I accept the criticism of the committee and we will change our processes accordingly.
>> Given you did change your media release, can you um going to the FOI uh document, can you point out what was actually factually incorrect with what you changed?
>> Senator, I don't believe I have the FOI documentation in front of me. I'm very happy to
>> I'm happy to read it for you again, but
>> but I think it would be useful for us to be able to go through the document and reflect on it and take it on notice and provide you with something on notice and we're very happy to do that. Um, former
Supreme Court Judge Anthony Wheel um has said, and I'll quote, "The reason Sports Bet didn't want those sentences in there was because it magnified the harm of what they had done, but it magnified the harm correctly." >> Do you agree that this
>> I'd have to go back and read those comments, but I think what
>> No, I'm reading directly his comments.
What my colleague pointed out was that what sports bet were indicating that >> it wasn't an accurate reflection of the harm which is what we chose to reflect in the changes. Um we recognize there's been criticism of that approach and we're happy to take those criticism on board. What we do have requirements um under some parts of our act is the requirement to consult with affected entities. If um either publication of investigation reports or indeed media releases um associated with those would have an impact on the company, we are required under section 180 of the broadcasting services act to actually consult with people on those. That's the approach that we were taking. We recognize though that we've been criticized for those approaches and we will adjust our processes accordingly. The risk there is that we may get something wrong, but we're prepared to take that risk.
>> Senator Pok, um I need to move the call. Do you have one final question?
>> Sure. Um I assume you have a legal team at the ACMA.
>> We do, but most of the time in terms of media releases, they're actually developed by the line area rather than legal. Um, and even sometimes in in finalizing investigation reports, as I said earlier, some of this comes to sort of company names and company entities more than um flavor of quotes. But um we do have a strong legal team. We've not usually find it necessarily pass our media releases through that team, but we're happy to consider if that's >> because most of the act most of the detail of the investigations are actually residing in the line areas of doing it. But we take your criticism on
passing the call, but could someone on your team just check if legal looked at that release?
>> Certainly, we will
>> and and maybe if they could come back to us as soon as possible. I'm I'm sure we'll be here for a while.
>> Thank you, Senator.
>> Hopefully not too long, Senator Book, but we'll see. Um Senator Hanson Young.
Mr. Lachlan, uh you've just um released the new commercial radio and audio code of practice. Is that correct?
>> Uh, that's correct. Um, Senator, it was registered today.
>> Today. Um, could I
>> I believe so.
>> Yeah. Commercial radio code of practice effective 1 July 206. could I take you to uh page four um of the code? I assume you must have a copy with you seeing as this has been released today and you were fronting Senate estimates today. You must have expected
>> question Senator but we're very well across the so we're not to take your
questions. So, um I'm interested in terms of chapter 2 material not suitable for broadcast 2.6. During periods between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:00 p.m. and 400 p.m. on school days, a lences license area, a lency must exercise special care when broadcasting programs by giving due consideration to the fact that children might be listening to the relevant program. Um, is that about Kyle and
Jackie O? Uh, Senator, that was a a new provision that CRA volunteered to put in the code after we had raised this um, as you know, we have been talking to the broadcasting sector on codes for quite some time. We released our what audiences want um, uh, report some time ago. We've been in discussions with CRA over a considerable length of time. It was something the authority and our team were concerned about generally was the concerns of people of uh when people are in the car with their children first thing in the morning and later in the afternoon. Um it certainly has been raised um in investigations including Carl and Jackie O but it was a broader um consideration by the industry who volunteered to put that in their code. But I will just ask my colleague Miss Field if she wanted to add anything to
that. Um thank you Senator Autumnfield, general manager of content division. Um as the chair said, this um provision was uh put forward by CRA through the course of our consultations with them and in response to community concern that had been raised around a range of programs but including the Kyle and Jackieo
>> What what does 2.6 actually mean? What does it stop from happening?
Senator, I think what it does is specifically asks stations to turn their mind to the fact that at those particular hours of the day, there may be children who are traveling with their parents in cars and ask them to turn their mind to um to those facts uh in their programming during those times. So, it is what it says. it's um that they must um take special care in the broadcast of material during those times. Um but I will pass to my colleague Elena.
>> Um Alana Fraser, executive manager, content safeguards branch. Um so the special care provision, it builds on the existing decency provision. So nothing changes in terms of how that provision operates. Um but it I guess what we're expecting with that provision is that something extra is considered by broadcasters. So, um, like the chair was saying, um, uh, extra consideration given to the kinds of content that's broadcast during those hours. Um, whether additional steps might need to be taken, um, such as, uh, warnings before certain segments are added. Um, so yeah, we're looking for something extra. Um, it doesn't change the existing obligation around decency.
>> Okay. So, um, but Kyle and Jackie O have breached the decency provisions as they are, haven't they? So, the decency provisions weren't able to stop their vulgar, disgusting, misogynistic, sexious rubbish. but you think this new care provision
will uh No, Senator um as Mr. President said, the existing decency provisions stand and they are the matters on which we have found the KL and Jackieo program multiple times in breach of. That is a separate process that we're going through at the moment. As you know, we've um issued a notice of intention to place a license condition on the lens sees. Um and that's the pathway that those investigation briefs are going.
>> So this is but this is an addition.
>> The special care is an addition. It's a new um uh addition to the code on top of the decency provisions, but that will come into effect when the new code comes into effect on 1st of July this year.
>> Um the license conditions that will be placed on the J Kyle and um Jackie O show or the L E which is the the radio station itself. >> Um what what are those conditions? What
will they be? Uh Senator, we've uh our notice of intention um indicates that there are a couple of different limbs of the license condition. So for a period of 5 years from the date that this condition comes into effect uh in respect to the program, they will comply with clause 2.2 of the CRA code or any equivalent provision in any replacement code. That's condition one. Condition two, without limiting paragraph one, ensure the program does not broadcast content which is highly offensive to an ordinary reasonable listener or which contains strong and explicit sexual references. Condition three is about commissioning an independent audit of their governance frameworks um and implementing those. So that was the uh proposed license condition that we issued in our notice of intention. Um we're in the process at this stage. the licences are allowed under uh the law to make representations to us on those license conditions. They're under active consideration at the moment and we expect to settle the matter in the coming weeks.
so the first part of those conditions are simply saying that they must apply by the existing code.
>> That's right, Senator. And under the Broadcasting Services Act, that's one of the provisions that you can um I'll put it um colloally, lift a provision out of a code into a license condition, which means that it's the same provision. However, the consequences are quite different. Obviously, with a code, we can't do much. Obviously, with a license condition, it lifts that bar significantly. So it may be the same um uh provision and we have breached the licences on that provision a number of times but it lifts the consequences of
>> So what what will be the consequence of um Kyle and Jackie O breaching um that
condition. There are very I will just ask my colleagues to refresh my memory but um one of the things is in terms Sorry Miss Fraser
>> the remedial directions um and suspension or cancellation of licenses for breach of a license additional license condition.
>> When was the last time that happened?
>> Um I don't think we have breached on a license condition
>> on an additional license condition. No.
>> Yeah, >> we did. Sorry. The the then um authority introduced a license condition on the former licences for Kyle and Jackieo when they were at a different station. Um but we did not need to proceed any further with that because um Mr. Sandlins and Miss Henderson moved
>> Sounds like predators in the church. being moved around, not being held to account.
>> I I expect that's a question for the new lenses as to why they picked up the
>> Okay. Um what else is new in this code of uh practice?
>> Uh the other part that's new is that the radio industry has introduced um transparency provisions about the use of artificial intelligence. um which came up with a there was a particular program where it wasn't clear to listeners that the whole program was actually an AI bot. Um but I'll ask my colleagues to talk about that. But um that was something that CRA also thought that uh it was timely given they may use um AI particularly for something like a music program that it was important for their audiences to know that they were using artificial intelligence. Austral
did you want to add to that? Um so under the new code this um new transparency provision um radio stations must tell listeners when a synthetic voice generated by AI is being used used to host a regular program or news bulletin. Um so a regular program means something um that's broadcast in a repeating schedule at least once a month. Um so stations can disclose this on air in a later episode on their website, social media or any other suitable platform. Um uh and um yes, it's it's the first time in a broadcasting code um that we've had for provision um uh considering AI
>> Okay. Um I'm interested uh as to why the code uh the updated code hasn't taken um you haven't taken the opportunity to strengthen protection. um rules around Australian music.
Um Senator, we had extensive uh discussions with the industry about um the Australian music provisions. There were proposals that were put to us that we considered sat outside the Australian US free trade agreement. So they were not things that we felt we could pursue. Um they would be matters for um the government. So we didn't pursue those. What we did focus on was some of the concerns put to us by the radio industry about how stations are categorizing Australia programs and what level of Australian content is required and the music industry were very concerned that people were mischaracterizing um uh their programs and delivering a lesser amount of Australian content. So we have committed and CRA have committed uh to produce better guidance in that area and also we have committed to looking very carefully at how stations are categorizing to make sure they are delivering on the commitments that they should be delivering on Australian content.
>> How will how will we know that?
>> Uh that's a matter that we'll be working with the industry on over the coming
>> Working with who? The industry. with the
industry with CRA and the music industry
>> about how that will be monitored and regularly audited. >> Yes. >> Who in the in the music industry? I'm nearly finished this line of questioning. Um who in the music industry will you be um working with
>> at this stage? Most of the representations to us have come from area.
>> Okay. Okay. Um All right. Thanks, Chair.
>> Um Senator Hume.
>> Thank you, Chair. I want to ask some questions about uh ACMA's interpretation around the anti-siphoning laws and specifically how they apply to the Winter Olympics telecast that we're seeing right now. So, just to put this into context, I have some old family friends whose daughter is skiing in the cross country team. You know, go Mattie Hooker. It's very exciting. And her first race and on the first day of the Winter Olympics was this Saturday Saturday just gone. And the race was at 11:00 p.m. at night. So I sat up well past my bedtime to to watch Maddie in her first race and they'd advertised it throughout the evening that you know this the skiathlon was going to women's skilon was going to be at 11:00. Come 11:00 they said and if you want to keep watching the skiathlon you can turn to Stan uh Stan sport. And I thought oh that's a bit of a bug. Oh well the good news is I've got Stan. So I go over to Stan but it's not Stan it's Stan sport that I need to have. So, there's this whole bunch of fiddling to try and pay an extra $20 to start subscribing to a system that I would never otherwise use simply to watch one of only four events I think that day where Australians were participating. This was incredibly frustrating. Now I want to understand whether from your perspective whether the intent of the government's anti-iphening laws are to ensure that significance events are broadcast on freeto-ear TV and that the minister's anti-siphoning instrument outlines that the Olympics and that summer and winter are declared
so um so yes the winter Olympics are on the Andyhening list. So a designated event um but the way that the rules operate is so is to ensure that the freetoair broadcaster purchases the rights um in having the rights is then no obligations in relation to broadcasting that content. It can um air content on uh its streaming services. So that's within the rules. Um we have received um some uh inquiries about the Winter Olympics along along those lines. Um but um content uh that has been purchased by nine and aired on stand through their arrangements is within the
>> So obviously nine purchased that broadcast rights to both the summer and the winter Olympics and they purchased it for a period of 10 years. That's my understanding and that includes the winter Olympics all the way through to the 2020 the 2032 Olympic games in Brisbane which are going to be very important obviously. um this idea that you can choose or even um dare I say mislead as to what it is going to be shown on free toear and what is going to be shown on a subscription TV service is incredibly frustrating. Nine said that it promotes full replays all live content access all content and every event content in certain sports categories and then it says exclusively on sand sport. James we were trying to fix this. So, I'm wondering, do you think that this constitutes a a contravention at all of the intention of those anti-siphoning laws pushing Australians onto a paid subscription to watch content in full or live as Channel 9 has committed to and continues to commit to?
>> Senator, I think we can only comment on whether it's compliant with the existing law.
>> All right. What about when presenters say welcome back and the cross country is just getting underway. You can watch all that action. that's on Stan Sport right now. If you'd like to continue to watching this tense match between Canada and Sweden, you can stay and go to Stan Sport and stay across it. The women's downhill at Cortina, we're about to head in there in just a moment. But if you'd like to watch the skiathlon, Stan Sports, the place to get live action, all of that gatekeeping, live and full content behind a streaming service is so frustrating for those that are trying to watch the broadcast, particularly in a different time zone. Is this something that the minister has expressed a view to you about?
>> Um, Senator, as I said, I think our focus would be only on whether it was compliant with the existing rules, which as Miss Fraser said, um, it would appear that it is. Um, whether or not there's any contemplated changes would be a matter for for the government, but I don't believe it's been raised with us in the context of the Winter Olympics.
>> Minister, do you want to comment on this
one? Yeah, I mean look, I think generally the intention of those uh changes that the government brought in and also our ongoing policy position is that we are fully committed to ensuring that people can see free sporting events. Um, of course, every time there's a major event like this, it does raise um how those laws are being interpreted. There there is a review that the parliament agreed to, I think, within the laws that we pass. So there'll be an opportunity to review how the laws are being complied with, how they're operating. This is an everchanging environment um uh with lots of different platforms and the way that sports are being broadcast, but it's definitely something that we are keeping a watch on.
>> That review, do you know the timing of it, Minister?
>> Uh I think it might have been three. >> Yeah, 3 years after commencement, but I I can take it on notice and double check. It'll it'll be in the legislation. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, knowing the frustration, you can hear the frustration. I've got sort of, you know, reams and reams of complaints you can see on websites from Australians that are trying to watch the Winter Olympics. Um, knowing that Australians are fed up with the current broadcast arrangement, does AFA commit to doing an investigation to see if there is a breach or that um, you know, whether nine is being compliant, whether it is uh, you know, a concurrent investigation or whether it's a retrospective investigation. I don't
believe we have anything on >> the desk at the moment, but we can certainly take that offline and and consider the issues that you've raised. But again, it would sound from the discussion we've had here today that it would seem that um nothing that is uh N is doing is inconsistent with the current framework. Uh but we're happy to take that on notice and see if it needs to be drilled into a little more. Uh are
you getting feedback from the public on this issue?
>> Um I'm I'm aware we've received two complaints. Um two >> so again we've only just received those. So we will be looking at any complaints we receive we will consider. Um uh and if any more are received um any particular issues raised um then we will look at those.
>> Okay. it. I I'll finish here. Other than to say that we don't actually have a lot of Australians competing in the Winter Olympics. And when they do compete, I would have thought it would be a moment of extraordinary national pride. It's incredibly frustrating to know that somehow uh Channel 9 is happy to do um to broadcast sports or events where there are no Australians competing, but make Australians pay to watch their own people compete. I would hope that AKMA would take a a forward-leaning position in this and I would hope to that the minister might have something to say about it too. Thank you.
>> Thanks, Senator. >> We wish her all the best in her defense.
>> Thank you, Senator. >> Oh, sorry. I've got that wrong. Um, Senator PCO.
while I was uh listening to other um senators asking questions, I was having another look at that ABC article um by Michael Atkin and Allison Brley um and they reported that um AKMA declined an interview and I'm just interested why you declined an interview given the allegations.
Um, Senator, I'd have to refresh my memory, but I I'm not quite sure that we knew what the allegations were when we So, we felt it was best to provide a written response to written questions.
>> You surely must have >> You surely must have known the gist of it. You'd, you know, changed your direct quotes at the behest of Sports Bet.
Senator, I'd have to go back over my records, but my my recollection was we weren't told what the interview was about. We took the approach of asking uh the journalists what questions they wanted to ask. Um and we responded to
>> I mean, you you surely see the irony of the media regulator declining an interview with the media when they're
under scrutiny. It's always an option in terms of the way we approach things. Sometimes we're asked for interviews and it's preferable to actually particularly when it comes down to detail to actually get those questions um put to us in writing for us to respond to those writing.
>> But chair, where's the where's the accountability here? You you're on the big bucks to be the chair of the ACMA when
>> the accountability is we are here. We ask uh ask questions by the media. We respond to those questions by the media. Um, and I think we're totally
>> I think many Australians would disagree with that. Um, and I think they would expect you given you changed your quotes at the behest of Sports Bet to actually front up to the media and be able to explain we answered the questions that
were put to us um, directly to the media. So very different. we are accountable
>> providing sort of a a bland statement to actually fronting up and
>> I I don't think it was a bland statement. It was a response to the questions that were put to us.
>> Okay. Um so I wanted to go to some of the things that you were you were saying um earlier and you said that you share these media releases to pick up factual um inaccuracies. But if you go to the FOI documents, sportsbed don't um allege any thing was factually incorrect. Uh they just took exception to the tone and they asked that your quotes be tempered or changed as the force breadth or basis for the statement is questionable.
>> Senator, I think that goes to what Mr. Fenton pointed out earlier. Was there concern that those particular things were were pointing to a a causal relationship between what they done and an actual identifiable consumer harm rather than a general consumer harm. But I'll ask Mr. Fenton to go back
>> just before we hear from Mr. Fenton. But it seems to me that any reasonable person would read that and say these people just don't like what you're saying. They're not saying this is wrong, you need to change it. They're
>> well I don't think that was the only part that we changed because we thought they had um a a point on that particular
>> Yes is the answer. Um I can confirm what the the chair is saying. Um and the intent with the change was to keep um the general sense of the um the quote but to um address the particular concern about the causal relationship. May,
maybe I'll notice, can you outline to me the errors in fact that you corrected? Because when I read the two differences, it seems like you've basically just toned down the quote, which is exactly what Sports Bed asked you to do, and you didn't change anything in in terms of the the facts. So maybe just on notice, >> um, if you could do that, thank you. Um, ACMA investigations found that Tab Corp, Lightning Bet, Bet Focus, Temple Bet, Pickle Bet, and Bet Champs all failed to comply with rules that protect people who registered with Bet Stop. And I was interested that this just included one penalty uh, which was to Tab Corp of $112,000 uh, $680. Is that that correct?
Uh there were a number of actions taken Senator. I think one included a penalty, but there were other uh matters pursued including remedial directions,
>> but just the one penalty
>> uh and formal warnings um and one um >> and I think with tab corp there was a penalty plus an enforceable undertaking but my colleagues can go into that detail for you.
>> Thank you that that thank you for confirming that. which companies were found to have been marketing to people who self-excluded on Bedtop.
>> Sorry, Senator, I do have that material. It'll just take me a moment to let you so Bet Focus was found to have sent two regulated electronic messages to a self-excluded individual. Uh, Betch Champ was found to have sent um an electronic message on one occasion to And I believe those are the only ones who had sent messages to registered individuals.
>> Which companies allowed people to open accounts even though they had self-excluded?
>> Uh Senator, the findings were that Temple Bet had provided wagering services to one person who was excluded. Um, Bet Focus had provided wagering services to three individuals who were and there were a number of others, Senator, where um wagering accounts were opened but bets weren't placed. So, a slightly different category.
But still shouldn't be happening if you're on
>> No, no, absolutely. But yes, just um services were not provided but accounts were opened.
>> How much money was lost by people who had self-excluded and then opened accounts with these companies?
>> Uh Senator, I don't have that. I'll just check if my colleagues >> No, Senator, I don't have that information to hand, but I'm very happy to provide that on notice to you.
Um, in your release you said uh that if uh and I'll quote directly comp companies fail to comply with self-exclusion rules in the future, ACMA may take stronger enforcement action. And I was interested in how you arrived at $112,000 for a company with $2.6 billion of revenue. Um like for many it seems like a bit of a slap on the wrist.
>> Senator, I think that was the penalty provision available to us. So in and um these these are quite aged investigations. They date back to 2024. Um so um we've completed those. They were very much some of the earliest investigations we were doing around the NCR. Um so uh we've settled those. that my understanding of um the tab corp would have been that that was the um penalty open to us because um the tab corp findings were opening a wagering account for two registered individuals. So that that's why it's of that quantum. Obviously, if there were many many more um but we thought it was important even though there were low numbers here to investigate those matters and and come to conclusions that there was were breaches and put in place the actions that we put in place.
>> And so given Thank you. That that's useful to know. Given some of the other companies there also allowed accounts to be opened by individuals, why didn't they get a a fine as well?
I might just go ask my colleague, but I think it was possibly because infringement notices. It's it's a little frustrating for us, but infringement notices have to be given within a particular time and some of these because they were novel and new investigations. We had run out of time to do infringement notices. Um we we and it is a bit of an ongoing frustration for us, but we're trying to improve our processes so that that doesn't occur
again. Have you raised with government the need for potentially more powers and the ability to to levy higher?
>> We we have um infringement notice provisions though tend to be whole of government. Um but we would like some ability to have more time to impose infringement notices because we find that they they are an effective tool particularly if you've got large quantities of compliance issues.
>> Do you have any ongoing concerns with compliance with bet stop? Are there any other investigations a foot?
>> Um, I think we probably do have some investigations under foot. Um, just find >> So, my notes tell me that as as at 31st of December, we'd commence 21 investigations. Uh, but we have announced a number of those investigations recently, including the ones we talked
Does that include an investigation into into Ultrabet who I raised the last estimates who were sending out marking marketing material to people on who've self-excluded with the phrase happy
Um Senator that does oh sorry Michelle's executive manager um gambling and miss
and disinformation uh branch. Um I would have to check that. I'm just checking my list. I think we have previously investigated Alphabet um and we published that investigation on the 5th of June 2025. Um that breach related to reopening the account of one self-excluded individual and marketing sent to one self-excluded individual. I would have to take on notice whether or not it related to the person that you specifically raised with us um previously. And can you let us
know who's currently being investigated?
we might take that on notice. We'll take that. We don't >> tend to make that public, but may I take that on notice?
>> Fair enough. Um, and then just finally, I was I was keen to get an update on where you're at with your work on alcohol advertising during sports. We covered this last estimate when there
>> um so senator um we have been um as we've discussed previously we have developed a terms of reference for that review um we've been um undertaking some refinement on that and I expect that we'll release that terms of reference in the next few weeks
>> and and then what
>> and then there will be an open consultation process.
>> How long does that go for? Um I don't
think we've settled that as yet, have we?
>> No, I think we're anticipating between six to eight weeks. We understand that there will be a number of organizations who will have an interest. Um and we are continuing to meet with stakeholders. We have a meeting with fair in a couple of weeks. So continuing to meet with people who are interested in the outcomes of that
>> and then what happens after that? I've just had lots of concerns raised with me that this is just taking so long on such
an important issue. Um, Senator, we understand that um it has been um it's a matter of of in terms of our resourcing um in many respects. Uh but we we want to move it forward as quickly as possible. We do think though that an extended consultation period is necessary. So 6 to 8 weeks um to allow us not only to get written submissions in but as Miss Field said to actually consult directly with organizations such as fair who we've talked to previously um and then it will be a matter of the um authority coming to a view about what it finds through that process. Mhm.
>> Do you have a do you have a date to
>> Um I don't think we have a date at this point in time. Um but I'm hoping that it'll be done by, you know, middle of
>> Okay. Um thank you. That's all for me. Thank you, Chair.
>> Thank you, Senator Pocock. Senator Hanson