Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026; Second Reading

House of Representatives · Monday 17 August 2026

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate concerned the Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Bill 2026, which aims to fund the regulation of wagering reforms through industry levies. Minister Anika Wells introduced the bill as a companion measure to broader gambling reforms, arguing that the wagering industry should bear the costs of enforcement rather than taxpayers. The bill empowers the Australian Communications and Media Authority to recover expenses associated with administering new restrictions on inducement-based marketing and operating an advertising opt-out register. No other members spoke, and the debate was adjourned without a recorded vote in the transcript.

Outcome

The debate was adjourned.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Anika Wells (Lilley) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Wells supported the bill, describing it as a companion to the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026. Wells argued that the legislation allows for the recovery of costs related to administering and enforcing new gambling restrictions from the wagering industry. Wells stated that this approach ensures taxpayers do not bear the financial burden of regulating these activities. Wells highlighted concerns about wagering inducements exacerbating harm and noted that the Australian Communications and Media Authority would implement the reforms.

Government response

Anika Wells (Minister for Sport; Minister for Communications) ALP Lilley

Wells moved that the bill be read a second time, commending it to the House. Wells explained that the levy is intended solely to recover costs associated with the new regulatory framework. Wells emphasised that the government had listened to evidence regarding the harms caused by inducement-based marketing. Wells concluded by inviting contributions from other members before the debate was adjourned.