Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026; Consideration in Detail

Albanese characterised the legislation as the most substantial overhaul of gambling advertising undertaken by any Australian government. He stated the measures would reduce children's exposure to advertisements by prohibiting them during children's programming and live sporting events from 5 am until 8:30 pm. Albanese pointed out the prohibition on celebrity endorsements and the creation of an opt-out register. He praised the amendments from both the government and the opposition in the House.

Rebello moved amendments to reinstate the exemption for foreign-matched lotteries. Rebello argued that removing the exemption would cause 50 jobs to disappear in the Robina lottery office. Rebello cited specific employees who relied on their income for mortgages and family support. Rebello requested the government to retain the exemption to avoid destroying livelihoods before further research was conducted.

minister

Wells stated the government would not support the amendments, arguing they imposed unnecessary regulatory burdens or fell outside the bill's scope. Wells defended the government's approach, highlighting the introduction of triple-lock requirements for online advertising and strengthened BetStop self-exclusion measures. The Minister noted that the bill already included substantial penalties for non-compliance and provisions for a future review of the reforms. Wells acknowledged the crossbench members' efforts but maintained that the current bill balanced harm minimisation with consumer choice.

Ryan moved amendments to prohibit wagering advertising on online content services and require sporting organisations with annual turnover over $50 million to report gambling-related revenue. Ryan argued the bill failed to implement the Murphy report's recommendation for a comprehensive ban and allowed harmful advertising to continue. Ryan highlighted that major sporting codes receive significant tax-exempt income from gambling partnerships, which the amendments would make transparent.

Chaney moved amendments to implement a three-year phased ban on all licensed interactive wagering service advertisements and establish a statutory duty of care for providers to prevent harm. Chaney argued that partial restrictions were ineffective, citing evidence that advertising volumes increased after previous reforms. Chaney also proposed an independent review of the advertising restrictions after two years to assess their impact.

Wilkie supported Chaney's amendments, arguing the government had diluted the Murphy report's recommendations. Wilkie stated that Australians had lost over $108 billion to gambling since the report was released and that hundreds of suicides were linked to addiction. Wilkie criticised the bill for protecting broadcasters and sporting codes rather than vulnerable individuals, noting that the proposed restrictions left loopholes for advertising during live sport.

Haines moved amendments requiring gambling providers to collect and publicly report data on harm indicators, including aggregate customer losses and self-exclusion requests. Haines argued this data was essential for evaluating the effectiveness of the reforms and understanding industry practices. Haines noted that the government already intended to use similar data for identifying high-risk customers, making public reporting a logical extension.

Spender moved amendments to prohibit all wagering inducements, such as sign-up bonuses and free bets, aligning with recommendation 16 of the Murphy review. Spender argued that inducements encourage excessive betting and reduce the perception of risk, particularly among young adults. Spender criticised the government's limited restrictions on inducements as insufficient to address the harm caused by these marketing tactics.

minister

The minister opposed the amendments, stating the government supports meaningful consumer control through a prominent opt-out mechanism rather than an opt-in model. The minister defended the 8.30 pm blackout period as reflecting data on child viewership and noted that machinery of government arrangements determine portfolio responsibility. The minister highlighted that the bill includes a wagering advertising opt-out register and prohibits commissions for customer referrals, while maintaining that regulation remains a shared responsibility with states and territories.

Boele proposed amendments to shift the online gambling advertising framework from an opt-out basis to an opt-in one, mandating that users actively consent to receive such material. The member contended that default settings are persistent and that an opt-out regime does not adequately shield users, especially children, from seeing wagering promotions. Boele referenced data showing minimal active opt-outs and stressed that the industry must seek permission to advertise.

Scamps moved amendments to extend the live sports advertising blackout from 8.30 pm until 10.30 pm and increase buffer periods before and after events to one hour. The member argued that the current bill weakens existing protections and fails to account for children watching television late into the evening. Scamps also proposed transferring administration of the Act to the Health Minister, framing gambling harm as a public health issue requiring a health-led response.

Steggall moved amendments to establish a national online gambling regulator and ombudsman within two years, and to require warnings about the opt-out register before any gambling advertising. The member argued that the current bill leaves fundamental gaps in consumer protection and regulatory oversight. Steggall emphasized that online gambling is inherently national and requires consistent regulation, licensing, and a clear avenue for complaints.

Chaney spoke in support of Steggall's amendments, highlighting evidence from the Murphy inquiry regarding the need for a national regulator. The member argued that the current fragmented regulatory framework across states and territories is ineffective and places too much onus on individuals. Chaney cited concerns about regulatory capture and the influence of the gambling industry, noting that even wagering companies acknowledged the need for consistent national regulation.

Georganas put the question on the bill as amended. The member did not provide a substantive speech but facilitated the final vote on the legislation.