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

Ananda-Rajah supported the reforms, describing them as significant steps to minimise harm in a normalised gambling environment. Ananda-Rajah detailed measures capping ads on broadcast TV, banning ads during live sport and children's programming, and restricting inducements for new accounts and those deregistering from BetStop. Ananda-Rajah emphasised the increased civil penalties for breaches and the extension of protections to online streaming platforms.

Hanson-Young opposed the bills, arguing they failed to protect citizens and contained loopholes that benefited the gambling industry. Hanson-Young criticised the lack of a total advertising ban, a ban on all inducements, and the establishment of a national regulator as recommended by the Murphy report. Hanson-Young described the opt-out register as ineffective and condemned the legislation as a protection racket for vested interests.

Liddle supported the amended bill, stating the coalition had secured necessary improvements to address serious shortfalls in the original draft. Liddle highlighted strengthened protections for children, alignment of online and broadcast rules, and bans on predatory inducements targeting vulnerable gamblers. Liddle argued the reforms balanced harm reduction with the economic importance of the wagering and racing industries.

Whiteaker supported the legislation, describing it as the largest reform to online gambling in Australian history. Whiteaker outlined measures to protect children from ads in stadiums and on screens, including bans on celebrity endorsements and odds-style ads. Whiteaker noted the introduction of a levy on gambling companies to fund safety measures and the strengthening of BetStop.

Pocock opposed the bill, characterising it as a betrayal of the Murphy report's recommendations and a victory for vested interests. Pocock argued the reforms were weak, preserving the status quo on many issues and failing to ban ads or inducements entirely. Pocock moved a second reading amendment calling for a conscience vote and noting the failure to implement specific recommendations regarding advertising bans and national regulation.

Scarr announced he would cross the floor to support amendments, citing fatal flaws in the legislation such as loopholes allowing ads during breaks after 8.30 pm. Scarr argued the bill failed to address the public health crisis of gambling harm and did not reflect evidence from experts and community organisations. Scarr stated he would vote with advocacy groups and experts who opposed the compromised nature of the reforms.

lead

Walker argued that the bills address the pervasive nature of gambling advertising, which normalises betting for young Australians and contributes to significant harm. Walker highlighted that the legislation bans wagering ads during live sport, restricts inducements for new and at-risk customers, and prohibits the use of celebrities and athletes to promote gambling. Walker emphasised that the reforms extend protections to online streaming services and establish an opt-out register funded by a levy on the gambling industry. Walker noted that while some advocates call for a complete ban, the government has strengthened the original bill based on inquiry feedback to provide robust protections.

Waters opposed the bills, characterising them as weak measures that prioritise gambling industry profits over public health. Waters argued that the legislation fails to implement key recommendations from the Murphy report, such as a total advertising ban and the establishment of a national regulator. Waters criticised the reliance on an opt-out system for advertising, stating it is ineffective compared to an opt-in model, and highlighted the significant political donations received by major parties from the gambling sector. Waters contended that the reforms leave Australians vulnerable to predatory marketing practices and do not adequately address the scale of gambling losses.

Cadell described the original bill as unacceptable but acknowledged that amendments improved its overall quality. Cadell argued that while regulation is necessary, excessive controls can lead to perverse outcomes, citing examples from tobacco and vaping markets where strict rules fuelled illegal trade. Cadell suggested that the compromise reached balances harm reduction with personal responsibility, though he noted the process involved questionable deals and inconsistencies. Cadell reserved further criticism of the government's engagement methods for later in the debate.