David Pocock

They've said that they're going to go with a partial ban, which we know partial bans don't work.

The government's own regulator says that partial bans don't work.

In the past where there's been a partial ban, we've seen more ads from gambling companies.

And they've also gone with the option when they released their sort of policy response, there was the underlying analysis from the department that said that a full gambling ad ban is cheaper to enforce and better for Australians, has a larger benefit for Australians.

A partial ban will be harder to enforce.

won't benefit Australians as much.

They've just capitulated, sided with vested interests and not the Australian people.

As I said, there's some money for an awareness campaign and then cracking down on illegal offshore gambling, which is exactly what the gambling companies have actually been pushing for.

One of the tragic things about their

response is it doesn't address things like inducements, which Peter Murphy says was the most urgent thing we can do to reduce gambling harm was to ban inducements.

Things like ongoing funding for gambling research, no response, nationally consistent data collection on gambling harm and suicide,

That's a no brainer.

We're the biggest losers in the world per capita.

Surely we can at least start collecting data on the harm.

And then the other big one was establishing a national gambling regulator.

It's an absolute travesty that we have gambling companies set up in the NT with basically no oversight.

It's not entirely clear yet.

They've said that they're going to go with an opt-out.

option where there will be gambling ads unless you go through the process of opting out.

And we know SVS have done that for a while.