This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Budget, tax & economy
Gambling companies would have to report to AUSTRACThe government body that receives reports about suspicious money activity under the anti-money-laundering law. when they reasonably suspect a customer is trying to pay for gambling with money or property obtained illegally.
Gambling companies can profit when bettors use stolen or illegally obtained money, leaving innocent victims to bear the loss. The bill requires gambling companies to report these suspicions to AUSTRACThe government body that receives reports about suspicious money activity under the anti-money-laundering law., stop supplying gambling services in those cases, and lets courts order compensation.
Australia already had anti-money-laundering rules, but Andrew WilkieThe independent MP who introduced and backed the bill. argued gambling companies could still accept bets funded by stolen money while victims carried the loss, against a backdrop of very high gambling losses and examples such as the 2024 Carolyn Crawford case involving $400,000 stolen from an employer to feed gambling. He repeatedly brought the idea back in 2020, 2022 and 2024 to make gambling operators report suspected illegal funds to AUSTRACThe government body that receives reports about suspicious money activity under the anti-money-laundering law., stop supplying gambling services in those cases and face compensation orders, but the 2024 bill lapsed when Parliament was dissolved in March 2025.
The main reservation recorded is that the bill is too limited to tackle the broader drivers of gambling harm, especially industry practices and advertising beyond stolen or criminal funds. That concern came from a supporter, Rebekha Sharkie, who described the measure as a necessary first step rather than a complete response, and no party represented in the debate opposed it.
Andrew Wilkie MPThe independent MP who introduced and backed the bill. introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Centre Alliance, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
130 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Gambling companies would have to report to AUSTRACThe government body that receives reports about suspicious money activity under the anti-money-laundering law. when they reasonably suspect a customer is trying to pay for gambling with money or property obtained illegally.
Gambling companies would need to send that report to the AUSTRACThe government body that receives reports about suspicious money activity under the anti-money-laundering law. CEO within three business days after forming the suspicion.
Gambling companies would be banned from providing gambling services when they believe a person will pay with property obtained illegally, and breaking that rule could trigger a civil penalty.
People who lost money or property to theft could ask the Federal CourtThe court that could make compensation orders in favour of people who lost money or property to theft. to order a gambling company to compensate them if the company provided gambling services when it should reasonably have suspected illegal funds were being used.
This bill will ensure that gambling entities are more accountable by preventing them profiting from illegal behaviour. The bill amends relevant legislation to put a positive obligation on gambling companies to report to AUSTRAC if they have reason to suspect a person is paying for a gambling service with money they have obtained illegally.Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment (Making Gambling Businesses Accountable) explanatory memorandum
Item 3 inserts a provision requiring the gambling company to give the AUSTRAC CEO a report about the suspicious matter, implemented by Item 2, within three business days of forming the suspicion.Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment (Making Gambling Businesses Accountable) explanatory memorandum
Sections 100A and 100B stipulate that a reporting entity, of which a gambling company is, must not provide a gambling service to a person if they have reason to believe the person will pay for the service with property they have obtained illegally. Section 100B(1) is a civil penalty provision.Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment (Making Gambling Businesses Accountable) explanatory memorandum
Item 7 inserts a provision which allows the Federal Court to make a compensation order to compensate an injured person. An injured person is a person who has suffered, or is likely to suffer, loss or damage because another person has paid for a gambling service using property they obtained illegally from the injured person.Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment (Making Gambling Businesses Accountable) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia already had anti-money-laundering rules, but Andrew WilkieThe independent MP who introduced and backed the bill. argued gambling companies could still accept bets funded by stolen money while victims carried the loss, against a backdrop of very high gambling losses and examples such as the 2024 Carolyn Crawford case involving $400,000 stolen from an employer to feed gambling. He repeatedly brought the idea back in 2020, 2022 and 2024 to make gambling operators report suspected illegal funds to AUSTRACThe government body that receives reports about suspicious money activity under the anti-money-laundering law., stop supplying gambling services in those cases and face compensation orders, but the 2024 bill lapsed when Parliament was dissolved in March 2025.
Wilkie first brings the gambling accountability proposal to Parliament
Wilkie's 2020 bill proposed making gambling companies report suspected illegal funds to AUSTRACThe government body that receives reports about suspicious money activity under the anti-money-laundering law. and opened the push to make operators liable when they profit from stolen money.
Hansard ↗The proposal is reintroduced in the next Parliament
Wilkie returned with the same basic plan in 2022, showing the issue had remained unresolved after the earlier bill failed to pass.
Hansard ↗Carolyn Crawford case highlights stolen money being used for gambling
Supporters cited the case of Carolyn Crawford, who stole $400,000 from her employer to feed a gambling addiction before later being jailed, as a clear example of losses being shifted onto innocent victims.
Hansard ↗Wilkie introduces the 2024 gambling accountability bill
The new bill sought to require gambling businesses to report suspected illegal funds within three business days, refuse gambling services in those cases and expose operators to compensation orders.
Parliamentary timeline ↗The bill lapses when Parliament is dissolved
The 2024 bill did not pass before dissolution, so the proposed new duties on gambling operators never took effect.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main reservation recorded is that the bill is too limited to tackle the broader drivers of gambling harm, especially industry practices and advertising beyond stolen or criminal funds. That concern came from a supporter, Rebekha Sharkie, who described the measure as a necessary first step rather than a complete response, and no party represented in the debate opposed it.
No significant broader public case against the bill is recorded so far.
Too narrow to address wider gambling harm
The clearest criticism was that the bill only deals with illegal or stolen money used for gambling and does not go far enough to curb the wider causes of gambling harm, including industry practices and gambling advertising. The concern was about the bill's limited scope, not opposition to its main goal.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Wilkie strongly supports the bill, saying it would make gambling companies accountable by forcing them to report suspicious illegal funds and return stolen money to victims.
Read in Hansard ↗Rebekha Sharkie supports the bill and says it would force gambling companies to report suspected criminal funds and give victims a way to recover losses.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 6 contributions · 2 support
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Andrew Wilkie, including an amendment-moving contribution. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Wilkie supports the bill and says it would make gambling companies more accountable by forcing them to report suspected illegal funds and compensate victims. He argues it is needed because major betting firms have preyed on vulnerable people and failed to act on suspicious gambling.
“This bill will ensure that gambling entities are more accountable and also prevent them profiting from illegal behaviour. The bill amends relevant legislation to put a positive obligation on gambling companies to report to AUSTRAC if they have reason to suspect a person is paying for a gambling service with money they have obtained illegally. Where a gambler has paid for a gambling service using funds they obtained illegally, the bill enables the Federal Court to order the gambling company to compensate the injured party for damage or loss suffered. This will prevent gambling companies from profiting off the misfortune of others and facilitate a remedy for the victim of the original theft.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Wilkie supports the bill and says it is needed to stop gambling companies profiting from illegal or predatory conduct. He argues the companies should be held accountable because they targeted a gambling addict and failed to check where the money came from.
“This brings me back to the bill. Gavin Fineff believes—and I agree with him—that he was deliberately targeted by the gambling companies for his addiction. Of course the betting agencies would have known that Gavin's gambling was suspicious, because their software tracks certain behaviour and hunts down the most vulnerable so they can be groomed and milked of every dollar they have. And this must stop, because gambling companies are preying on the financially and emotionally vulnerable and must be held accountable for their unconscionable and unethical behaviour. So, while I in no way condone Gavin's behaviour, I do acknowledge that an addict, by definition, has lost control of their behaviour and that the bigger crims are those that knowingly create the addiction in the first place. At least Gavin is prepared to try and do something about it, and good on him for that.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Moved amendment
Wilkie strongly supports the bill, saying it would make gambling companies accountable by forcing them to report suspicious illegal funds and return stolen money to victims. He argues the industry has profited from addiction and says the law is needed to stop that behaviour.
“Which brings me back to this bill, and the undeniable fact that these companies knew, or should have known, that Gavin's gambling was suspicious. Yet they deliberately targeted him for his addiction. That should be a crime.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 3 separate contributions by Rebekha Sharkie on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Sharkie supports the bill, saying it would make gambling companies accountable when stolen money is used for betting and give victims better protection. She argues the measure is needed because gambling harms many Australians and the industry should be forced to scrutinise money coming in, not just money going out.
“It's about time those betting companies applied the same level of scrutiny to the money coming in the door as they do to trying to stop the money going out. This bill will make gambling companies liable to the person placing the bet if they are using stolen money, and, if a better has paid for a gambling service using money they obtained illegally, the Federal Court could order the gambling company to compensate the victim of the original crime. This would be a truly remarkable step in accountability.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Sharkie supports the bill and says it is only a small first step, but a necessary one, because it would put accountability on gambling companies and help victims of gambling-related theft recoup compensation. She argues the government should do far more to curb gambling harm and advertising.
“We need to hold them accountable and they need to be more responsible. We need to do more in this place. Enacting this bill would allow victims of such theft to recoup compensation from the gambling firms who are ultimately reaping huge, huge rewards. I commend this bill to the House as an important first step in helping to address gambling harm that impacts our whole society.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Rebekha Sharkie supports the bill and says it would force gambling companies to report suspected criminal funds and give victims a way to recover losses. She backs it because the government has been too slow to act on gambling harm and existing rules do not adequately hold gambling businesses to account.
“I commend this bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Lapsed at dissolution
Lapsed at dissolution
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
