Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026; Second Reading

Neumann supported the bills, citing rising gambling losses and the recommendations of the 2023 parliamentary inquiry chaired by Peta Murphy. Neumann detailed the advertising restrictions, the ban on online keno, and the strengthening of BetStop, noting over 64,500 registrations by June. Neumann emphasised the government's commitment to harm minimisation and called for the legislation to be passed to implement reforms from 1 January 2027.

Haines criticised the bill as inadequate, arguing it created a complex maze of exceptions rather than implementing a full ban on gambling advertising and inducements as recommended by the Murphy report. Haines highlighted the public health crisis, noting high per capita losses and links to suicide and family violence. Haines proposed amendments for a complete ad ban during G-rated programming and mandatory reporting of harm indicators by gambling companies.

Briskey supported the legislation, describing it as the strongest action taken by any Australian government to tackle gambling harm. Briskey focused on the removal of advertising from sporting venues, uniforms, and broadcasts, and the ban on influencer promotions. Briskey highlighted the strengthening of BetStop and the national awareness campaign, arguing the reforms protected children from being targeted by the industry.

Webster acknowledged positive elements of the bill, such as advertising restrictions and the ban on online keno, but raised concerns that it might weaken existing protections for children's programming. Webster advocated for an opt-in system for gambling advertising rather than opt-out, and emphasised the need for stronger measures against illegal offshore operators. Webster stressed the importance of balancing adult choice with harm reduction and industry responsibility.

French supported the bills, arguing they addressed the saturation of gambling advertising and its impact on children. French detailed the restrictions on TV, radio, and online ads, and the prohibition of online keno and foreign matched lotteries. French emphasised the strengthening of BetStop and the measures against illegal offshore operators, stating the reforms gave families more control and protected children from gambling culture.

Wallace opposed the bill, arguing it did not go far enough to protect vulnerable Australians and children. Wallace called for a complete ban on sports gambling ads for an hour before and after games, and for opt-in arrangements for inducements and streaming ads. Wallace highlighted the societal costs of gambling, including domestic violence and financial loss, and urged parliament to adopt a public health approach similar to tobacco control.

lead

Clutterham supported the bill, sharing her personal experience with online betting to illustrate how easily addiction can develop. Clutterham argued that the legislation breaks the link between sport and gambling by banning advertising during live broadcasts and on uniforms. Clutterham emphasised that the reforms strengthen BetStop and block payments to illegal operators, representing necessary progress even if not perfect. Clutterham urged the House to support the bill to minimise harm, particularly for children.

shadow minister

Chester acknowledged the need to reduce gambling harm but warned against heavy-handed regulation that could create unintended consequences, citing the illicit tobacco market as a cautionary tale. Chester argued that the current bill fell short of community expectations and the Murphy report recommendations. Chester stated the Coalition would not support the bill in its current form but was open to negotiations to strengthen protections while preserving choice for adults and supporting industries like horse racing.

Roberts strongly supported the bill, highlighting reforms that cap television advertising at three ads per hour and ban wagering promotions while live sport is broadcast from 6 am until 8.30 pm. Roberts detailed the triple-lock approach for online advertising, requiring users to be logged in, over 18, and able to opt out. Roberts also noted the ban on online keno and foreign matched lotteries, and the strengthening of BetStop to include app notifications.

Sharkie expressed reluctance to support the bill, describing it as woefully inadequate and ignoring most recommendations from the Murphy report. Sharkie cited statistics on gambling losses and harms, including family breakdown and suicide, arguing the reforms were piecemeal and influenced by industry interests. Sharkie criticised the government for failing to act on the unanimous bipartisan inquiry findings over three years.

Witty supported the legislation, sharing stories from constituents about the impact of gambling advertising on children and families. Witty argued the reforms restore balance by banning ads on uniforms and in stadiums, and restricting radio ads during school travel times. Witty emphasised that the bill strengthens BetStop and tackles illegal offshore operators, responding to community concerns about the normalisation of gambling.

Chaney opposed the bill, arguing it was unfit for purpose and ignored the Murphy report's call for a full advertising phase-out and a national regulator. Chaney moved a second reading amendment to reject the bill, citing the failure to ban inducements and the ineffectiveness of partial bans. Chaney claimed the government prioritised vested interests over public wellbeing and called for a comprehensive phase-out of gambling ads.

Jarrett supported the reforms as a significant public health measure, detailing bans on live broadcast advertising and restrictions on online platforms. Jarrett highlighted the prohibition of online keno and the investment in financial counselling and public awareness campaigns. Jarrett argued the bill strikes a balance between consumer protection and personal freedom, aiming to break the link between sport and gambling.

shadow minister

Kennedy argued the bill failed to protect vulnerable Australians by allowing unlimited online gambling advertising and ignoring predatory inducements. Kennedy criticised the government for capitulating to vested interests and ignoring the Murphy report recommendations. Kennedy highlighted the harm caused by personalised social media targeting and the absence of a future review mechanism. Kennedy called for stronger protections for children and vulnerable people without banning gambling itself.

Boele argued the bill fell short of the Murphy report recommendations, particularly regarding a total ban on gambling advertising. Boele criticised the opt-out model for online ads as ineffective and highlighted the lack of a national regulator. Boele stated she would move an amendment to change the online advertising requirement from opt-out to opt-in.

Burnell supported the reforms as necessary updates to laws that had not kept pace with digital gambling accessibility. Burnell highlighted restrictions on live sport advertising, bans on celebrity endorsements, and strengthened BetStop protections. Burnell argued the legislation protects children from normalised gambling while respecting adult choice.

Chesters' speech was interrupted by the suspension of the debate in accordance with standing order 43. Chesters was granted leave to continue speaking when the debate resumed.

Payne shared personal experiences of gambling harm to emphasise the need for strong action. Payne supported the bill's restrictions on advertising and strengthening of BetStop, noting the government remained open to further strengthening the legislation. Payne highlighted the importance of addressing inducements and protecting children from pervasive marketing.

Ryan criticised the bill for ignoring inducements and allowing continued advertising on streaming services. Ryan argued the government had failed to act on the Murphy report and was influenced by gambling industry donations. Ryan moved amendments to require professional sporting organisations with high turnovers to report tax-free gambling revenue.

Sitou defended the government's commitment to reducing gambling harm and protecting children. Sitou highlighted the success of BetStop and the bill's measures to remove gambling branding from jerseys and venues. Sitou argued the reforms restored balance to sporting culture by separating sport from betting promotions.

McCormack warned against overregulation, citing the illegal tobacco trade as a cautionary example. McCormack supported the exemption of horseracing from certain restrictions to protect regional jobs and prize money. McCormack argued for a sensible balance that respects adult choice while acknowledging the harm caused by problem gambling.

Byrnes argued the reforms represented the strongest action against gambling harm ever taken by an Australian government, aiming to balance responsible betting with protection for vulnerable groups. Byrnes detailed measures including bans on ads during live sport between specific hours, restrictions on influencer promotions, and the strengthening of the BetStop self-exclusion register. Byrnes emphasised the need for collaboration to avoid unintended consequences for regional communities and free-to-air television, noting that further amendments would be introduced to strengthen the package.

Watson-Brown moved an amendment to decline the second reading, arguing the bill wasted a generational opportunity and favoured gambling corporations over public health. Watson-Brown criticised the legislation for ignoring most Murphy report recommendations, failing to create a national regulator, and weakening online advertising restrictions. Watson-Brown alleged that corporate donations influenced the government's policy decisions, resulting in loopholes that protected industry interests rather than addressing the severe harms of gambling addiction.

Laxale described the bill as the strongest gambling reform since Federation, highlighting bans on wagering ads during live sport across all platforms and restrictions on influencer marketing. Laxale noted that BetStop had supported over 63,000 Australians but required greater awareness, which the bill would address through a national campaign. Laxale stated the government was working with parliament to strengthen provisions on inducements and protect children, asserting that the legislation was a significant step forward despite not being the final word on reform.

Wilkie argued the bill was diametrically opposed to the unanimous Murphy report, lacking a ban on advertising, inducements, or an independent national regulator. Wilkie referred the matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, citing concerns that large donations from gambling companies to major parties had improperly influenced policy outcomes. Wilkie stated he would not support the bill, warning that accepting limited reform would likely end meaningful progress for years and betray those suffering from gambling addiction.

Moncrieff framed problem gambling as an urgent public health challenge, noting that aggressive advertising normalises betting for young people and contributes to significant financial and social harm. Moncrieff detailed the bill's provisions, including bans on ads during live sport, restrictions on online platforms, and the closure of loopholes for fake lotteries and online keno. Moncrieff emphasised that the reforms were evidence-based and consulted upon, aiming to give Australians control over their exposure to gambling inducements.

Wilson stated his support for the bill was conditional, emphasising the need to protect children while respecting adult freedom of choice. Wilson criticised the government's approach as potentially overreaching and warned against unintended consequences such as strengthening illegal offshore operators. Wilson called for good faith negotiations to achieve a mutually agreeable outcome, reserving the right to vote against components if the balance between protection and liberty was not struck correctly.

Belyea argued that success in gambling reform should be measured by reduced harm to individuals and families, viewing the bill as an important incremental step in a broader public health strategy. Belyea acknowledged the need for further action on inducements but supported the current measures to reduce advertising volume and strengthen BetStop. Belyea paid tribute to the late Peta Murphy, suggesting she would have recognised these reforms as a meaningful step forward rather than waiting for perfection.

Penfold stated she could not support the bill in its current form, arguing it failed to adequately address predatory inducements and weakened existing protections for streamed live sport. Penfold highlighted survey results from her electorate showing strong community support for stricter restrictions and concern over the normalisation of gambling for children. Penfold supported the carve-out for racing but insisted that the legislation needed significant amendments to properly balance personal responsibility with corporate accountability.

lead

Templeman supported the bill as a significant step to break the connection between sport and gambling, citing community concern over advertising saturation. Templeman detailed measures including bans on ads during live sport between specific hours, restrictions on influencer promotions, and prohibitions on online keno and foreign matched lotteries. Templeman emphasised the strengthening of BetStop and the need to disrupt illegal offshore operators. Templeman acknowledged that further negotiations could strengthen the legislation, particularly regarding inducements, but affirmed the government's commitment to harm reduction.

Spender supported elements of the bill but criticised it for falling short of the Murphy report's recommendations, particularly the lack of a national regulator and a ban on inducements. Spender argued that partial bans and opt-out mechanisms place an unfair burden on individuals and fail to protect children from normalised gambling culture. Spender highlighted community surveys showing low confidence in the government's ability to act effectively and called for a complete ban on gambling advertising.

Coker commended the bill for introducing robust laws to protect Australians from gambling harm while allowing responsible participation. Coker highlighted the importance of breaking the nexus between sport and gambling, particularly for children, and praised the restrictions on celebrity endorsements and stadium advertising. Coker noted the low awareness of BetStop and supported the government's plan to run a national awareness campaign alongside strengthening the register.

Wood argued that the bill does not go far enough to address gambling harm, particularly regarding inducements and advertising during online streams. Wood criticised the three-year delay in responding to the Murphy report and called for a complete ban on gambling advertisements before, during, and after live sporting events across all platforms. Wood also advocated for stopping gambling firms from incentivising employees through customer losses and implementing stricter marketing restrictions for at-risk individuals.

Miller-Frost described gambling addiction as the industry's business model and welcomed the bill as a step forward in harm reduction. Miller-Frost highlighted the predatory nature of targeted inducements and the normalisation of gambling through pervasive advertising. Miller-Frost supported the government's existing measures, such as BetStop and credit card bans, and endorsed the new advertising restrictions while acknowledging the need for continued negotiations to strengthen protections.

Steggall strongly opposed the bill, characterising it as a weak compromise that preserves loopholes for the gambling industry. Steggall argued that the legislation ignores the central recommendations of the Murphy inquiry, including a total advertising ban and the establishment of a national regulator. Steggall highlighted the public health crisis of gambling harm in Australia and criticised the government for prioritising industry interests over evidence-based reform.

Gee argued that the bill fails to address the devastating human cost of gambling addiction, citing stories of suicide and financial ruin. Gee attributed the lack of comprehensive reform to political donations from gambling companies and called for a full ban on online gambling advertising and inducements. Gee emphasised that the crossbench has been the primary driver for reform and urged the House to implement the full Murphy report recommendations to protect communities.

lead

Scamps argued that the bill was deeply flawed and ignored the 31 unanimous recommendations of the 2023 parliamentary inquiry into online gambling harms. Scamps contended that the proposed restrictions on advertising were insufficient, particularly regarding exposure for children, and that the opt-out framework for online ads was ineffective compared to an opt-in model. Scamps opposed the retention of gambling inducements, citing evidence that they increase harm and target vulnerable individuals. Scamps also criticised the absence of a single national regulator, noting that current fragmented regulation allowed companies to exploit weaker jurisdictions. Scamps attributed the government's weak response to significant political donations from the gambling industry and intense lobbying efforts.