Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) | Link to this | Hansard source

There are four problems that remain in this bill. Firstly, the bill allows unlimited gambling advertising online. Secondly, the bill leaves predatory inducements untouched. Thirdly, on social media, it allows personalised, repeated predatory advertising when no-one is watching. Lastly, it's missing any future review to look at the consequences of the bill on gambling harm victims, the media industry and sports codes.

Australia has the highest gambling losses on planet Earth. That means this government, our government, does the worst job on planet Earth of protecting vulnerable people from gambling harm. In the coalition, we believe in three principles: freedom of choice, protecting kids and protecting the vulnerable. We want to apply these three principles to the bill and to those four problems I just outlined.

I want to be very clear. No-one on our side, or even the other side, is talking about doing anything to how you can gamble. It has never been easier to gamble in anyone's lifetime. You can gamble in question time. You can gamble in the party room. You can gamble in the bathroom. All you need is your phone—and no-one is talking about doing anything to that. No-one on our side is even talking about banning gambling advertising. We're not even talking about banning the ads. What we're talking about is protecting kids and vulnerable Australians from predatory advertising—with choice, not bans. It's just the advertising. I think it's very clear for the public listening to understand that.

I've socially punted, and I occasionally still do. So do many, many Australians. There's nothing wrong with that. Anyone who socially punts knows that, over time, you lose, but you do it for entertainment. That's not what we're talking about. We are not talking about that at all. What we're talking about is the parents of a young man I met, who read me a letter from him.

The letter said he was walking down the beach, and he talked about the addiction he had and the pull he felt. He had to pull his phone out, even though he was walking with his girlfriend and their dog, and he talked about the shame and self-hate he felt to look at the phone, to look at the odds, to put on a bet at the beach with a woman he wanted to marry. He talked about the shame he had that his mum had to take another job, in retirement, to pay off his gambling debts. And then his parents and his sister looked at me and cried when they told me he'd killed himself and that that was his suicide letter. That's what we're talking about.

What we're talking about is a young footballer with a gambling addiction, in his early 20s, who has a VIP manager looking after him—an older man, trying to be his mate. But this man is paid a percentage of what he gets this footballer to lose. The more he gets this footballer to lose, the more money this man takes home—performance pay. And so what does this man do? He buddies up with this footballer. He asks him what drugs he wants—asks him if he wants cocaine. He introduces him to the betting executives: 'Let's do a few lines with the CEO and the founder.' That's what we're talking about.

We're talking about the man in my office who was given hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonus bets, to lose millions. He was told: 'If you turn over a million dollars in the next month, we'll give you this big chunk of bonus bets.'

A man who loses his houses, his life and his livelihood—well, we're talking about the teacher I idolised at school. I watched gambling take everything from that man, over 15 years.

We're talking about protecting the vulnerable from advertising—that is it: the vulnerable, and kids. And it's surprising if anyone can disagree with that.

We're talking about watching the World Cup recently, where 850 kids from a local primary school in my electorate were watching Australia play Paraguay and 20 minutes before kick-off they see a bet365 ad where a talking head comes across the screen and walks them through the odds. This bothers me deeply, and I think it bothers millions of Australians deeply. We know that 80 per cent of people want to see fewer gambling ads.

Let's talk about the Prime Minister and his role in this legislation. For three years, the Prime Minister had the bipartisan Murphy report on his desk. He ignored it, day after day after day, for three long years. When it came time to draft the legislation, the Prime Minister capitulated—he bent to the betting companies, to the sporting codes, to the tech giants. When he did that, he ignored ordinary Australians. He ignored those people I just talked about, that this legislation should be about.

These vested interests have lobbyists who walk the halls of this parliament, in and out of offices. But the people who don't have lobbyists are those kids at the primary school, that teacher I had, and the young man with his betting VIP manager who's getting paid a percentage of what they can make him lose. These people do not have lobbyists. And this is the job of the Liberal Party. This is the job, I believe, of all elected representatives in this building.

The Prime Minister tried to stop this bill going to a Senate review, personally. He told the Senate and every Labor senator there to vote against the Senate review. They lost that vote, because the Liberals teamed up with the Greens. And that inquiry exposed exactly why scrutiny was needed.

What did we learn in this Senate inquiry that the PM didn't want us to hear? We learnt he didn't touch inducements. We learnt about these VIP predatory managers being paid on a percentage of losses or turnover and giving illegal drugs to people. We learnt about the unlimited gambling advertising online. We also learnt that the department was unable to explain where the three ads an hour came from or the gambling broadcasting windows. Why couldn't his department, the elected officials, explain this? Why?

The Prime Minister then said, at this very dispatch box right in front of me, 'Take it or leave it.' His words were:

This is a major step forward, and the parliament should vote for it.

He went on to say:

If they don't, then they do have the option of the status quo.

That's a threat unfitting of the office of Prime Minister—the threat of a small man, a schoolyard bully. Well, the Prime Minister has lost this public debate.

Well, he was—he was incredibly small and tried to bully this House and this chamber into accepting his substandard legislation. I won't be lectured to about a man who stood here and told this whole parliament to take it or leave it. Do you think we should take it or leave it?

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Skills and Training) | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you should follow the rules of parliamentary debate.

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you think we should have taken it and left that debate? That is indefensible. The scale of this problem should shock every member of the House. It's $100 million a day that is lost—not gambled, lost. It's $100 million today and $100 million tomorrow. They are the highest losses on planet Earth.

ACMA—the only thing we're talking about is the ads—found that there were one million gambling advertisements aired across free-to-air television and metropolitan radio in a year, as well as more than half a million online. This advertising doesn't just tell people that gambling exists; it normalises it. It turns odds into part of the conversation with young kids at primary schools watching Australia versus Paraguay. For gambling addicts, it can provide a trigger at precisely the wrong moment to put them back into the tailspin. The first loophole they left was unlimited gambling advertising. This legislation allows it during sporting events' scheduled and unscheduled breaks. It's unlimited, all day, every day. Who drafted this? The Prime Minister needs to front up and ask those questions. Who drafted that?

Secondly, it completely ignored inducements. The late Peta Murphy was clear on this. This is the temerity of this man, to try and lecture me and bully this parliament to ignore that, telling us, 'Take it or leave it,' after he left that out. Thirdly, it ignores social media that uses personalised data to repeatedly target people. It happens when no-one else is watching. It happens when you're alone with your phone. All through my electorate, I see kids on their phones. The social media ban hasn't worked, and they can be targeted personally and repeatedly when no-one is watching.

The last thing I would say is that I commend the Labor members who stood up here today and spoke on this bill. I commend you for having the courage to do what not many do, which is talk about the need to go further, in spite of this prime minister, who tried to silence his backbench and silence his own party. I commend those Labor Party members because this is what this prime minister thinks democracy looks like: silencing his own party, trying to threaten the parliament—'Take it or leave it'—but he's been pushed into a humiliating backdown, a capitulation, because we're standing up for average Australians, and I commend those Labor Party members who are as well. That is what the Prime Minister thinks of this democracy, and that's what he thinks of your role as a backbencher. He wants to shut you up, get you into line and not have you speak out—'Take it or leave it.'

I welcome some things in this bill—to get gambling advertising off sporting uniforms and out of venues, restrictions on celebrities, stronger action on illegal offshore operators. Those are genuinely good stuff that will address harm. But good measures in a bill that allows those loopholes don't work. I want to be clear. We need a healthy, free-to-air television and journal television sector, a free press and a healthy free press. Because of that, I think we should look at removing what is a digital ID. They want to digitally ID every single person who logs into every single website—Facebook, Instagram, Claude, ChatGPT, Spotify, Kayo, Foxtel, Go, the Guardian, The Australian, the Daily Telegraph, you name it! You're going to have to digitally ID yourself. It's a digital ID by stealth. Remove that. There are 20 million customers who've got 7plus and 9now apps.

Secondly, we need to prevent digital leakage. We can't have this leak away from Australian free-to-air providers to these tech social media giants. We need to shut that down. If that means looking at an opt-in on the social media giant, so be it. Social media needs tighter advertising. Thirdly, we need to pass a fair news media bargaining incentive to support the free press and support free TV. We should be looking at protection with AI companies for the copyright for journalists and free-to-air networks. We should look at the anticompetitive behaviours by Google on their adware and advertising platforms. We need a healthy, free-to-air sector and free journalists and press sector.

This should not, ultimately, be an argument between Left and Right. It shouldn't be an argument between people who gamble and those who do not. It shouldn't be a contest to see which industry lobby can get the most meetings in Parliament House. This is about whether we are prepared to acknowledge the enormous harm that gambling advertising—just the advertising—can cause and if we can design laws that genuinely reduce the harm.

We want the next generation to grow up loving sport without being taught to gamble on it. We may not be able to undo the damage that gambling has already done to families in Australia, but I don't want the kids, those 10-year-olds at my local primary school, who were watching to see a Sportsbet ad and be walked through the odds before they're about to do it. Those 10-year-olds want to watch the Socceroos. They want to think about the players and have pride in this country, the green and gold. They want to think about the score and the excitement of representing Australia, about how they might take that back to the football pitches in their local area or to their local teams. I don't want the first lesson, just before the game begins, to be about the odds on the game or on the first goalscorer or what you can do with a multi, and neither does the rest of Australia. So, Prime Minister, stand up, grow a backbone and listen to Australia.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a really important debate that we are having today about protecting Australians from gambling harm, and I want to begin my contribution by acknowledging the brilliant work of Peta Murphy, the former member for Dunkley, and her committee that gave us the report You win some, you lose more. I want to acknowledge what she did to really elevate the voices of Australians who had experienced gambling harm and the recommendations that she and that committee made for how we can better protect all of us from that and how we can break the link between sport and gambling.

Through that process, I want to acknowledge everyone who has shared their own experiences of gambling harm and everyone who has advocated on this important issue—from the constituents that have spoken to me, written to me and met with me about it to everyone across this parliament who has advocated to reduce gambling harm. I also want to acknowledge Tim Costello, who has taken on some of the hardest issues in Australian politics and always does, whether it's human rights, poverty or gambling. I want to thank him as well. I want to thank everyone who is contributing to this really important national conversation that we have to have, as well as the Canberrans who have really got behind the need to protect Australians from gambling harm. As I say, so many have written to me, have stopped me in the street, have come to my mobile offices, have made a time to meet with me to discuss this. It's important, and they want to see change.

I have been so proud to represent my community on this and to call for the strongest possible action on gambling harm in this place. And I have been heartened to stand beside so many of my Labor colleagues, who have that same dedication on this issue. We have worked together over a long time on this, and there have been many Labor members from all around the country who have stood up on this, not just those you have seen in the media.

Today we are debating legislation that will make a big difference—the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, along with the National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026. It is likely this legislation will be further strengthened; we have listened to the Australian community and we are open to strengthening it further. This is what Labor governments do. This is what I, as your Labor representative, have done. I have listened and I have raised your voices in our government and in this place. That's what we've been doing, and it has led to delivery, which is what we are seeing today.

My position on gambling harm is very simple and it's very personal to me. I will always advocate for the strongest possible action to minimise gambling harm, because nothing justifies it. I have said that in so many emails to my constituents, and I want to explain it. Like so many Australians, I have seen gambling harm firsthand. Honestly, I formed my views about what governments should do about gambling harm as a 19-year-old. I want to share a little bit about my personal experience not because it's extraordinary—quite the opposite—but because it is a common Australian experience, and it shouldn't be, and because I want my community to know that I mean it when I say I will always advocate for the strongest action on gambling harm.

When I was a young adult living in Sydney, someone close to me who I cared about very much had a problem with poker machine gambling. I was a uni student and he worked full-time. He routinely emptied his entire bank account into a poker machine, often on payday, meaning he had no money for food or rent or anything else. I was the only person there to support him through it, but for the most part I was the only person who even knew about it—and was probably not best equipped to help someone through something like that. His story is not mine to tell, but suffice to say he was dealing with some difficult and complex issues in his own life that he had no control over. What sticks with me so much is how his gambling was so deliberately self-destructive. He was vulnerable because of the other things he was dealing with, and I think the gambling was the way he dealt with the pain he was experiencing. It offered him a way to beat the system—and sometimes he would win, and it compounded that.

A low point was when his housemates left the rent for him to take to the real estate agent—for younger people listening, that used to be how you could pay your rent; you took cash to a real estate agent. But he walked past the pub and he lost it all. I gave him the money. At that time I had a friend who worked with people dealing with addiction, and I ended up confiding in her about what was going on. She told me in the kindest way that I shouldn't have done that, because you need to let people hit rock bottom so that they can help themselves—easier said than done. He decided it might help if he got an alert set up by the bank, where a text message is sent every time you withdraw from your account, and he wanted it to be sent to my phone. I said I didn't think that was helpful for either of us and I didn't want that role. But he set it up, so I got a text message every time he withdrew money. I remember us having an argument one night, and he went off and, through the night, withdrew his entire account, with me receiving a text for each withdrawal until the account was empty. I was unable to contact him because his phone was off.

I want to be clear that I don't share these examples to reflect on him. This is what happens when people are in the grips of an addiction that is destroying their life and they can't escape it. Problem gambling is very difficult stuff. I recently met with financial counsellors in my electorate, and they welcomed the additional funding we are giving financial counsellors, as part of these reforms, to deal with gambling. They said to me that the stigma and shame around gambling is something very different to everything else they deal with. In fact, they said they will never put one of their counsellors only on gambling matters because it is that distressing to that person, and that person will burn out and leave.

He wanted to stop. He self-excluded from local venues, but he found he could still walk in, and, anyway, there were always more pokies to find—at that time, 24 hours a day. In the end, he went to financial counselling and he got help managing his debts, which involved losing his car.

I don't mean to say that, in the scheme of gambling harm, my experience is extreme. We didn't share a home. We didn't have children to support. We didn't lose a business. The story doesn't include violence or suicide. But these are things that happen in Australian homes every day as a result of gambling, and it was enough to convince me that nothing justifies the harm that gambling causes—not the good that clubs do for our community, not the revenue that goes to broadcasting or sport, nothing. Anyone who has themselves tried, or seen a loved one try, to escape problem gambling knows that. When people are vulnerable, this predatory industry draws them in and hits them where it hurts the most—with their money, which in turn impacts their ability to live and participate and have dignity, and with huge impacts on their families and loved ones. This is not about stopping people from having a punt; it is about ensuring people are not bombarded by the persistent invitation to keep gambling to beat the system.

My experience is with poker machine gambling, a state and territory responsibility. I want to take this opportunity to commend the work of Dr Marisa Paterson, the ACT minister for gaming reform, and what she is leading in the ACT, including the compulsory reduction of poker machines, the introduction of mandatory cashless gaming, revolutionised self-exclusion that will no longer be venue based and working with clubs towards a more sustainable model. The reforms we are discussing today, though, relate to the approaches of the gambling industry that don't even require you to walk into a club. They are on your phone, on your television, in the stadium as you and your kids watch the sport that you love. As it stands, this legislation is going to make a big difference, and we don't want to lose that fact.

This legislation introduces important new restrictions, including restricting gambling advertising, strengthening BetStop, banning online keno and foreign match lotteries and closing the loophole that allowed fake trade promotion and reward club lotteries. Gambling advertising will be banned on TV during all live sport in set hours and limited outside of those hours. Celebrities, athletes and influencers will be banned from promoting gambling. Online advertising will only be permitted if online platforms implement restrictions, including an opt-out function, and, if they choose not to, then the rules are clear—they can't show ads at any time to anyone. It will tackle illegal offshore gambling providers to ensure that Australia's consumer protections apply for any gambling activity, and BetStop will be strengthened to ensure that anyone recovering from gambling addiction can easily and reliably opt out of gambling marketing and inducements.

BetStop is an essential service that is actively improving the lives of Australians every day. It was introduced by this Albanese Labor government. Since its launch in 2023, it has supported 61,000 Australians to exclude themselves from gambling, many of whom have spoken about the positive impact it had on their lives. But it can be stronger and more effective, and the changes in this bill will improve that.

I am very pleased that we have listened to the community on this. We are open to further strengthening this bill, and those negotiations are continuing. We are focused on strengthening the bill to provide stronger protections for children and vulnerable people from exposure to advertising or predatory industry tactics. We know that inducements are harmful, and this was rightfully recognised by our Labor rank and file at our recent national conference. I thank our Labor membership for their advocacy in that space.

The inquiry in recent weeks has also shone a light on this. Another local story for Canberrans is that of Luke Bateman, a former Raider. That showed the most disgraceful and illegal inducements that were offered, and we all want to see something more done about that. Consistent with that, we are focused on ensuring that this bill strengthens measures around limiting the harm of inducements. We will continue negotiating, and I want to say to everyone in this House that I do want to see the strongest possible action that we can take on this and implore all of us to think about the people that this legislation is protecting and to think about what sport means in Australia. I also think of my eight-year-old son, who is absolutely sports mad at the moment. He knows what Sportsbet is. He knows what odds are. He's eight. I have already had to have a talk with him about gambling, and I don't think any parent should have to do that. I know that parents that I speak to are disgusted by all the advertising that they constantly see when their children are interested in sport.

I am really pleased that we are acting in this space, and I commend the minister for the role that she has had in this. This is not easy. This is difficult stuff. This is a big step that we are taking, and there is always more to do. That may take time or happen as part of this debate. I mean it when I say I will always advocate for the strongest action on this because nothing justifies it. I know that my friend and my 19-year-old self deserve better, and so does every Australian.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a line-in-the-sand moment, a day on which the Australian government can decide to act with integrity in the best interest of all Australians or continue to serve the best interests of its donors, lobbying groups, sporting codes and media organisations. Unfortunately, the signs at this point are that the Albanese government is going to cave yet again to its friends in the NRL and AFL—the same vested interests that gifted members in this place about $245,000 of free tickets to sporting events in the last two years alone.

Three years ago, every member of the Murphy inquiry agreed on 31 steps to protect Australians from gambling harm. In the thousand days since the Murphy report was delivered, the Albanese government has blown an opportunity for legacy reform. Today is possibly its last chance to redeem itself on what has become a defining issue for this government—1,000 days of inaction, 1,000 days of harm, $104 billion in gambling losses, countless lives lost to suicide.

Australians have the sad distinction of being the biggest per capita gambling losers in the world—$32 billion a year. About 40 per cent of that comes from people who are experiencing significant gambling harm. One in seven Australians experiences some gambling related harm every year. That's more than three million Australians annually. Almost 70 per cent of high-risk gamblers suffer behavioural or mental health issues. One in six experiences suicidal thoughts. Young Australians aged 18 to 24 are nearly twice as likely to experience that harm. We have created a generation for whom a 'multi' is as normal as a pie and chips at the footy. Close to 200,000 Australian children are exposed to moderate or serious levels of parental gambling harm every year.

Australians are being preyed on by an industry which is actively seeking to do them harm, whose model depends on normalising gambling behaviour from as young an age as possible, and that industry is being aided and abetted by a complicit government, which has furiously resisted attempts to make it act on this emerging crisis.

Earlier this year, I introduced a private member's bill to have gambling harms addressed through a public health framework, because gambling harm deserves to be treated with the same rigour and resourcing as the harm that results from tobacco and alcohol. But the government wouldn't debate that bill. The legislation now before the House is a sad and sorry reflection of what happens when good policy, developed with experts and with those with personal experience, gets systemically subverted by donors, by lobbyists and by vested interests. We have a bill which fails to ban advertising on streaming services—in fact, it could increase. It includes a pathetic—sorry, 'partial'—ban on broadcast media.

We have a bill which completely ignores the issue of inducements, advertising and direct messaging, which can involve offers of free cash, same game multi bets, bonus bets, sign-up offers and rewards programs. Gambling companies use inducements to go after individuals who they know are at risk. They do everything in their power to get them back. Witnesses told the Murphy inquiry that, even after they'd self-excluded from one operator, they still received inducements from other operators or from affiliates, who receive a trailing commission on those referrals.

In Victoria, we have a coronial inquest currently investigating the suicide of a young man who was offered 500 inducements over four years. Further, last week's Senate inquiry heard of people who were offered free accommodation, $50,000 in bonus bets, free flights to sporting events, escorts, drugs—whatever they want. Inducement marketing, like cashback offers, creates a perception among young people that gambling doesn't carry any risk. They're influenced by celebrity endorsements from former sports stars, people who they admire, who are offering same game multis and bonus bets. They find themselves going down a rabbit hole. Inducements are a cynical tactic. They are used by predatory gambling companies against the most vulnerable. They are disproportionately targeting and disproportionately affecting problem gamblers.

The communications minister has tried to argue that the self-exclusion register, BetStop, offers a way for people to avoid inducements, utterly unconvincingly. I have heard from constituents who are registered with BetStop that those affiliates keep contacting them even though they've signalled that they want to stop gambling. Many companies have breached BetStop. Entain breached it more than 500 times and was not penalised for doing so. The Australian Communications and Media Authority has repeatedly documented breaches of the code and the harm that has resulted from them. We've banned tobacco companies from using promotions to recruit new smokers. We restrict the way that alcohol is marketed. But this government allows gambling companies to entice Australians with incentives specifically designed to increase gambling losses and harm, and inducements are only one example of how this bill falls short.

The transition arrangements of the bill allow uniform and venue contracts entered into before the bill's introduction to continue until 31 December 2031. So those entities which have entered new gambling related sponsorship and branding arrangements—codes like the NRL, with its recent $5.3 billion deal—will benefit from a grandfathering period of more than five years. That is a very generous gift to the NRL from the Australian Labor Party, a party which also recently gave the NRL $600 million for an expansion team in PNG. The close friendship between this government and the NRL reflects a level of generous support which is sadly lacking from the government's attitude to problem gamblers in this country. It is a travesty. The transition period should protect genuine existing agreements, not provide a pathway for generous agreements entered into while the Albanese government has dithered and delayed its response to the Murphy report.

Let's talk about what else is missing from this bill. If the government were serious about gambling reform, it wouldn't allow our biggest sporting codes—professional organisations that partner with the predatory gambling advertising industry in various ways with varying degrees of transparency—to continue to receive taxpayer subsidies and pay no tax on tens of millions of dollars in gambling revenue. It's estimated that the AFL receives as much as $40 million every year from betting agencies. Five AFL clubs are still sponsored by gambling companies. The NRL receives an estimated $50 million from gambling companies. All NRL clubs are sponsored by gambling companies. Between them, Australia's two largest sporting codes receive approximately $90 million every year directly from the gambling industry. Cricket Australia and the Victoria Racing Club are in the same camp.

None of them pay any income tax on the profits of their gambling income, but the VRC reportedly uses some of that tax-free income and donates it back to the political parties. It is a very cosy arrangement, and it is possible because, under section 50-45 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, sporting organisations are not-for-profit entities exempt from assessable income tax. This concession recognises that sporting organisations exist to promote participation in sport. We grant them an income tax exemption because they are assumed to exist for the public benefit. But many of these same organisations derive tens of millions of dollars from their commercial arrangements with a predatory industry whose business model relies on harm, loss and addiction.

The AFL's turnover last year was over $1.2 billion. The NRL's was $845 million. The Victoria Racing Club's was $225 million. That income is derived from profitable commercial relationships with betting companies, which means that in a cost-of-living crisis, with three million Australians harmed every year from gambling, the Australian government is happy for taxpayers to subsidise professional sporting organisations as they profit from commercial relationships with an industry that harms those taxpayers and hurts the sporting codes' supporters.

We don't even know the scale of this relationship. While some direct sponsorship arrangements are disclosed, there's no comprehensive public reporting of gambling related income, so Australians don't know how much revenue the AFL, the NRL, Victoria Racing Club, Racing Australia and other codes receive from clipping the ticket on every bet placed by supporters—from betting sponsorships, wagering partnerships, integrity agreements, gambling advertising, product and data fees, electronic gambling machines and other commercial and broadcasting arrangements. Although we've given these codes tax-free status, we have no insight into their sources of income.

I will be moving amendments to this bill to deliver reporting obligations on professional sporting organisations with a turnover in excess of $50 million. It's not on the local cricket or netball club but on those billion-dollar sporting codes. Those organisations will be required, under the Interactive Gambling Act, to report, every financial year, on their tax-free revenue from gambling sources. It's not their broader income base but their income from gambling. That is the money that is coming straight out of the pockets of their supporters and which they are receiving tax free. To enforce compliance with this reporting obligation, I'm proposing a 1,000-penalty-unit fine for failure to disclose gambling revenue. If this government were actually open, as was recommended by the Murphy report, to creating an independent national gambling regulator, then that should be the entity to enforce this reporting. The amendments will not remove the tax concession of professional sporting codes. They would simply ensure that Australia's largest tax-exempt sporting organisations are subjected to a semblance of public accountability and reporting standards for the millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies that they receive.

Looking forward, we need the government to tax gambling related income from those codes. The sporting codes should no longer be subsidised by the taxpayer on the income that they get from gambling companies. If the sporting organisation chooses to profit from gambling, a predatory industry, then those profits should be taxed like any other income. Earlier this year, the government introduced a bill to remove the tax incentive for the research and development of gambling. It recognised then that taxpayer money shouldn't subsidise the gambling industry. The member for Griffith said, 'Public resources should not be subsidising gambling related activities.' The member for Maribyrnong said, 'Taxpayers should not be subsidising activities that entrench addiction.' The Assistant Treasurer said that the legislation was about 'not subsidising activities relating to gambling'.

I agree with that principle, but we shouldn't stop at subsidies provided as research and development tax incentives. We shouldn't say that taxpayers shouldn't subsidise gambling on one hand while allowing Australia's wealthiest sporting organisations to receive tens of millions of dollars in tax-free gambling income on the other. All of these issues point to political parties which are beholden to the interests of the gambling industry over the interests of the community. The Labor Party received more than $4 million in gambling donations over the last five years, including $1.5 million at the last election. The Liberal Party was about the same. In the lead-up to the Voice referendum campaign, Shaquille O'Neal visited Australia. His visit to Australia was part of an advertising campaign for the Australian online gambling company PointsBet, but he had an opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister privately, ostensibly to talk about the Voice referendum. Is it a coincidence that one of PointsBet's significant shareholders is an individual who made significant individual donations of $315,000 to the Victorian Labor Party in both the 2022 and 2025 elections? Did Shaq get that private chat with the PM because he's a long-term supporter of the Voice? Did he get it because he's a banging basketball player, or did he get it because his sponsors from the gambling industry were major donors to the Labor Party?

We need to reform the Commonwealth Electoral Act to ban political donations from predatory industries so that Labor's next election isn't funded off the back of everyday punters and Australians with a gambling addiction. We need better, robust political donation laws. We need to ensure that prediction markets around the electoral system are snuffed out, and we need a national lobbying act so that the major parties' relationships with lobbyists can finally be regulated. When this bill is passed, Australians will be told that this government did enough. Let me tell you now: it's not enough, and this is not the end of the line for this issue.

Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a lot of respect for the member for Kooyong, from her time before she came into this place and during her time in parliament, but it was pretty disappointing to hear her questioning the motives of what our government is trying to do here. I can say that all members of the Labor government, when we come to this place, are committed to serving our communities. They are the people who drive us and they are the people we are squarely focused on.

You have heard from previous members who have spoken up on this bill how passionately they feel about making sure that we are protecting those who have gambling as an addiction and that we are protecting children from making that connection between gambling and sports. You've heard from people who've sat down with their constituents and listened to really harrowing stories of the impact this has had on their lives. So I'm disappointed to hear that some people are questioning the motives of people on this side of the House, on what we are trying to do.

There are no easy solutions. This is a really difficult and challenging policy area, and we are trying to get the best outcomes for Australians here. We, as a country, must decide what sporting culture we want to pass on to our children. For many Australian families, watching sport today is very different from what it once was. A child turns on the television to watch a game with their parents and, before the first whistle, they see betting odds. At half-time, they see gambling advertisements. They open their phone, and the same advertisements appear again. By the end of the match, gambling has become part of the experience, and that's the problem.

Sport should be about the game. It should be about teamwork, belonging and pride. It should be about kicking a footy around the park, cheering from the sidelines and volunteering at the local club. It should not be a vehicle for gambling companies to reach the next generation of customers. Yet, for many years gambling advertising has become woven into the fabric of Australian sport—not because families asked for it and not because communities wanted it but because it became profitable. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 is about drawing a line in the sand and restoring balance. It's about protecting children from growing up believing that gambling is simply part of being a sports fan. It's about supporting people who are experiencing gambling harm. And it's about ensuring that Australians can enjoy the sport they love without being relentlessly encouraged to place a bet.

At the parliamentary inquiry into online gambling last week, we heard powerful evidence from people whose lives have been turned upside down by gambling harm; people who lost savings, relationships and homes; and people who described gambling not as entertainment but as something that consumed their lives. The inquiry made clear that gambling harm is not simply an individual issue; it affects families, workplaces and communities.

Increasingly, it affects people through products and platforms that are available every hour of every day. That is one of the defining features of online gambling. It follows people wherever they go. A poker machine stays in a venue, but a betting app sits in your pocket, on your phone, available all day, every day. For people experiencing harm, the challenge is not finding gambling; the challenge is escaping it. That reality should concern every member of this parliament, because gambling advertising does more than sell a service. It shapes expectations, it influences behaviour and, over time, it changes culture. When children see gambling ads before, during and after sport, they receive a message, whether we intend it or not. That message is that gambling is a normal part of being a fan—but it shouldn't be this way. That is why our government is acting.

We have already taken important steps to reduce gambling harm. We established BetStop: Australia's national self-exclusion registry. It means that registrants won't be able to access phone or online gambling and they won't receive direct marketing from gambling companies. More than 65,000 Australians have used BetStop to take control and seek help. Behind every registration is a person making a difficult but courageous decision. An independent review into BetStop found that it's working: 96 per cent of registrants had stopped or decreased betting online, and 78 per cent had recorded an overall improvement in their quality of life after registering. Those outcomes matter because good policy is not measured by announcements; it's measured by the difference it makes in people's lives.

There are further ways we can utilise and strengthen the great work of BetStop, and that's what this bill aims to do. We know that this measure is helping people take control of their lives. This bill builds on the work that we have done with BetStop. It introduces some of the most significant gambling reforms Australia has seen in years. It restricts gambling ads across television, radio and online platforms. It removes wagering ads from live sport during key viewing periods. It prevents gambling ads on radio during school drop-off and pick-up times. It prohibits celebrities, athletes and influencers from promoting gambling products, and it removes gambling branding from jerseys and sporting venues. Taken together, these reforms are designed to achieve a simple objective: to ensure that Australians, especially children, aren't exposed to the amount of gambling promotion that we are currently seeing in our daily lives.

We are also focused on strengthening the measures in this bill that protect children from pervasive gambling ads. That must remain at the heart of this reform, because children should not have to navigate a sporting culture saturated with betting companies before they are old enough to understand what gambling is. The ban on celebrity and athlete endorsements is particularly important, because young people look up to sporting heroes. They admire them. When professional athletes promote a product, the message can feel more like a recommendation than an ad. That influence is powerful, and it should not be used to encourage gambling.

The bill also recognises that modern ad battles are fought online. For many Australians, gambling ads do not simply appear occasionally; they follow them across social media, streaming platforms and websites. This bill recognises that harsh reality. Australians should have greater control over what enters their lives, rather than having gambling promotions constantly forced on them. We also know that inducements can cause real harm. Offers designed to encourage people to open an account, place another bet or keep gambling can be particularly dangerous for people already at risk, and the need to address those harms was rightly recognised by the Labor rank and file in our Labor platform at our national conference this year.

I want to thank our Labor members, especially those from my electorate, for their advocacy in this space. Labor members across the country have listened to their communities and to people with lived experience and have continued to push for stronger protection. Consistent with that, we are focused on ensuring that this bill strengthens measures around limiting the harm caused by gambling inducements.

The reforms go beyond ads. The bill also targets illegal offshore gambling operators who seek Australian customers without meeting Australian standards. If a business wants access to Australian consumers, it should comply with Australian consumer protections. The legislation strengthens enforcement powers and helps disrupt operators who attempt to avoid our laws. The bill also addresses harmful gambling products, including online keno—often described as pocket pokies. It closes loopholes that have been exploited through fake trade promotion lotteries and strengthens protections for consumers across the sector. These are practical, targeted reforms and they are reforms designed to reduce harm. And some will say that the measures don't go far enough, but I would suggest the opposite. What has gone too far is the saturation of gambling ads in Australian life. What has gone too far is the assumption that every sporting moment can be turned into a betting opportunity. What has gone too far is children learning betting terminology before they understand the rules of the game.

This bill is about restoring balance. Australians love sport because it brings people together, and I see that every week in my electorate at local football grounds, basketball and netball courts, cricket pitches, community clubs. People from different backgrounds, different generations coming together through sport; volunteers giving up their weekends; parents driving their kids to training; young people building confidence and lifelong friendships: that is the real value of sport. That is what deserves promotion and protection. This bill reflects the recommendations of the parliamentary inquiry; it reflects the evidence; it reflects the voices of people who have experienced gambling harm firsthand; and it reflects the concerns raised by parents, educators, health experts and communities across Australia.

I also want to acknowledge the late Peta Murphy, the former member for Dunkley, whose leadership helped bring this issue to national attention. She challenged all of us in this parliament to listen to those affected by gambling harm and to have the courage to act. This legislation continues that work by putting children ahead of gambling profits, by putting people's lives ahead of unchecked ads and by recognising that reducing harm is not optional. It is our responsibility. This bill won't eliminate gambling harm overnight, but it will make a difference to the people who need it the most.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I want to refer to a book entitled The History of Gambling in England. It's from my library at home. It's from not last century, but the one before—in fact, 1898—and it's written by John Ashton. The introductory remarks at the start of this publication probably don't sit well with my contribution to this debate, but it's interesting, nonetheless. The book says:

Gaming is derived from the Saxon word Gamen, meaning joy, pleasure, sports, or gamingand is so interpreted by Bailey, in his Dictionary of 1736; whilst Johnson gives Gamble—to play extravagantly for money, and this distinction is to be borne in mind in the perusal of this book; although the older term was in use until the invention of the later—as we see in Cotton's Compleat Gamester (1674), in which he gives the following excellent definition of the word:—"Gaming is an enchanting witchery, gotten between Idleness and Avarice: an itching disease, that makes some scratch the head, whilst others, as if they were bitten by a Tarantula, are laughing themselves to death; or, lastly, it is a paralytical distemper, which, seizing the arm, the man cannot chuse but shake his elbow. It hath this ill property above all other Vices, that it renders a man incapable of prosecuting any serious action, and makes him always unsatisfied with his own condition; he is either lifted up to the top of mad joy with success, or plung'd to the bottom of despair by misfortune, always in extreams, always in a storm; this minute the Gamester's countenance is so serene and calm, that one would think nothing could disturb it, and the next minute, so stormy and tempestuous that it threatens destruction to itself and others; and, as he is transported with joy when he wins, so, losing, is he tost upon the billows of a high swelling passion, till he hath lost sight, both of sense and reason."

Now it's not a convincing argument to have a bet. The thing is, the more you bet probably the more you lose. We know that, but what I would hate to see in this debate would be for us, as the parliament—as those responsible lawmakers of the Commonwealth—to put in place regulations and laws that prohibit people from taking personal responsibility. That is what, perhaps, is before us. We live in a liberal—small 'l'—democracy, and people have choices. Some make good choices and some do not. If you gamble, chances are you are going to lose. You should never gamble more than you are prepared to lose, and you should always gamble responsibly.

I noted—with caution, as I stand here now, some hours after the event—when the question was asked from the crossbench of the Prime Minister in question time today. The member for Grayndler said, to paraphrase him, 'There's nothing wrong with having a bet'—he mentioned 'at the club or the pub'—and the looks of disdain from those crossbenchers when he uttered those words, or similar words, had to be seen to be believed. I do intend to come back in the next life as someone as perfect and pontificating and pious as the teals and the other crossbenchers, because everything they say is just dripping with sanctimony, dripping with virtue signalling.

There's nothing wrong with having a bet. I appreciate that, for some, they go too far, and that causes significant hardship in their lives and the lives of those who rely on them—their families, partners, children. It has health consequences; it does financial harm—and all the rest. I've spoken to many, many people who've been in that boat, but we cannot penalise all for the sake of a few.

I'm glad that horseracing has been exempted—we haven't heard all the amendments; we don't know all about the deals that might be struck elsewhere in this place that will come before this chamber and in this debate—but we need to just be cautious, particularly with whatever regulations we bring, because they'll never be enough for the crossbench. They will never be. The member for Kooyong talks about people who are affected by certain race meetings they might be given tickets to or lobbying or advocacy that they might have done to them to change their view or their vote on this particular legislation. I would think that members are above all that. They really should be, and they really are.

I also note that the horseracing industry, or the racing industry per se—thoroughbreds, harness racing and greyhounds—provide many, many thousands of jobs, mostly in regional Australia. Thoroughbred racing, indeed, in itself is more than 70,000 jobs, and, as I say, most of those are in regional communities. The regional race clubs provide so much charity and so much good and so much sport and so many social aspects for our country areas that I would hate to see what would happen should they close should some of the gambling aspects around horseracing be taken away. It's important that they're not, as part of this legislation, because any reduction in horseracing revenue means a reduction in horseracing clubs and the prize money that they can offer to hardworking trainers and jockeys and others in the racing industry. Horseracing should be, as it is, exempt in the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026. That's the first point.

The other point that hasn't really been raised—I had a chat with Senator Bridget McKenzie in relation to this, and it probably is covered by this bill—is the Stawell Gift, run each Easter in Victoria. The Stawell Gift has been run for many, many decades. It's not just about a footrace between very good athletes; it's also an avenue for gambling—and it has been ever since it started. And there's nothing wrong with that. If we're going to clamp down on gambling, I would hate to think what would become of a nostalgic event such as the Stawell Gift if we all get too caught up in the regulation.

The late Peta Murphy, who was educated at Wagga Wagga—Kooringal High School, in fact—was a very good member of parliament. I, like most others, cried the day we heard she died. She was a wonderful Australian. She headed up a committee alongside the member for Cowper, who I also have the greatest respect for. I know that the member for Cowper, before coming to this place, was a serving officer with the New South Wales police, worked in the court system and is a strident advocate for his community. He has seen the worst of what gambling does to families and to communities—and Peta Murphy was no different. They brought out a report with more than 30 recommendations. The government has stalled on that report. The government has sat on its hands in relation to the recommendations and what that report presented to the parliament—and that is on Labor. Given the fact it was their late, great former member who headed up that inquiry, we would have expected better from Labor.

I would say as well that we have seen, particularly in the cigarette and vaping industry—and it is an industry, let's face it—what overregulation can do. Illegal smokes and illegal vapes is an industry in itself. Four out of five cigarettes smoked in this country are said to be illegal. They're coming in from overseas—chop-chop and the like—and that is the method of choice by those people who are conducting illegal activities. That is bikie gangs' and other nefarious groups' method of choice as to how they do business. There have been more than 100 firebombings in Victoria alone, in just one state, dealing with the illegal smoke and vaping trade. Much of that has been caused by overregulation, because people simply can't afford to buy a packet of cigarettes and pay the legal price for it—so they go underground. They go to these shops where the cigarettes are sold under the counter. Businesses that are next door to these premises which are either selling smokes illegally or, indeed, legally now cannot get insurance because of the risk of firebombing. In Australia in 2026, that is of great concern.

I note that this bill, the main bill, has elements in it which would see proposed bans on foreign matched lotteries and online Keno. I've spoken on a number of occasions to Ben Kearney from the Lottery and Newsagents Association. I appreciate what he has told me in relation to small businesses like those newsagents, many of which are now facing the prospect of fewer print editions of newspapers—that is, the lotteries that are on sale, the scratchies et cetera that are of Australian derivation, are in many instances their biggest form of turnover. We don't want to see anything that's going to jeopardise newsagents' future, noting, also, that with Western Australia—and you've got to give it to Roger Cook, the Labor premier there—they have very much tried to shut down the competition over the border from the Northern Territory. We read that it's all about the foreign matched lotteries, which do account for a tiny percentage of the lottery market in Australia but they're very much promoted and sold through the Northern Territory, where there are different rules and regulations. Premier Cook would very much like to see that out because it then would lead to more activity and more money to be made for his state of Western Australia—short of actually stealing the National Rugby League grand final next year, which he has also attempted to do when the Pope visits. Good luck to him, but I digress.

With this particular legislation, we don't know everything that is being talked about behind the scenes and the amendments that might well come forward at the 11th hour. I know we're having a late sitting for this and I appreciate that everybody comes to this debate, apart from perhaps some of the ideas put forward by the crossbench, in a good spirit.

I get that there are different views amongst the government as well as different views amongst the coalition on this. But I am very much somebody who does believe in people's, certainly adult's, right to choose. At the same time, I very much applauded when then opposition leader, the former member for Dickson, stood during his budget-in-reply speech and said that there should be and there would be a ban on advertising on television during the football under a future coalition government, and that was to be applauded. I know there are ads at different times beforehand.

Certainly, with horse racing, once upon a time, once they jumped, you couldn't bet. I don't think that would be such a bad thing for football either during the game. I get all these exotics, I get all these different forms of gambling, but what we need to make sure is that we reach a sensible balance, and surely that is what we need in this debate. We can't be naysayers. We can't be nanny state all the time about everything. It's proven to be something that has caused so much hardship and heartache with those who smoke. Certainly, those who like to have a bet should be allowed to do that in a liberal democracy.

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill and the National Self-Exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill. As the Prime Minister said this week, this package of reform is about getting the balance right. It is about allowing people who want to place a bet in their free time to do so safely, while also making sure that we are dealing with problem gambling and protecting future generations of Australians from the harm that it can cause. I want to be absolutely clear: this reform package is the strongest action against gambling that Australia has ever seen. I am sure there will continue to be debates between those who think it has gone too far and those who think it hasn't gone far enough. As I've said before, this is the hard work of government. It's not letting perfect get in the way of progress, and it's making sure we consider a raft of unintended consequences that can flow on from the decisions that we make in this place.

I was proud to be one of 400 delegates from around the country at the Australian Labor Party's National Conference in Adelaide a few weeks ago. Our great party's highest decision-making forum came together to recognise the significant work that our government has done to reform this industry. Our national platform recognised that children and young people were especially at risk of gambling harm and we committed to strengthening measures around inducements. The allegations we have heard in last week's Senate inquiry around abhorrent alleged inducement practices showed why this is the right path forward, and I was proud to be part of that delegation that saw those amendments pass.

It is my very firm view that our government always has and always will be a government that collaborates, consults and listens when different opinions are shared and that is being demonstrated in real time as our Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications work collaboratively across the parliament right now in the spirit that I think all Australians rightfully expect to ensure that we get these reforms right. The Prime Minister has said that there will be further strengthened reforms coming, and he has said clearly that we will be seeing further government amendments to this bill. It is my view that those amendments will really strengthen these reforms and make a difference in reducing the real harm that problem gambling is causing across our communities, and I look forward to seeing those amendments brought forward shortly.

This package is not about an arbitrary set of rules about when you can and can't see something on television, and it's not an attack on the many Australians who can and do gamble responsibly every day. This is about helping and protecting those who are losing their livelihoods, and more, because of a system that was set up to exploit them.

I've heard so many heartbreaking stories from people in my electorate, throughout this debate, about what problem gambling has done to them or to someone that they love. People have told me about family members gambling away homes; marriages breaking down; serious mental health impacts; and, devastatingly, lives lost to suicide. I've had people compare it to tobacco advertising and to the American gun debate. Gambling and gambling advertising has been described to me as 'insidious', 'toxic' and 'a public health crisis'. I've had parents tell me how frightened they are for their kids, particularly their young boys. One parent said that their 11- and 13-year-old children could recite the names and catchphrases of six different online betting companies. And, as one local person put it—and we've heard it in here—'The house always wins.' Our government takes all of those concerns seriously, and we have committed to real change to crack down on the harms that gambling causes across Australia.

We know that sport has become far too linked with gambling. Everyone should be able to enjoy sport without gambling being treated as an inevitable part of it. Aggressive marketing strategies have been designed to lure in vulnerable people who are struggling, designed to keep people addicted and designed to keep company profits propped up on the suffering of everyday Australians. That is why we are taking this strong and decisive action today. We hear the concerns of parents who want to protect their children from seeing gambling ads every time they watch the footy. Our changes seek to break that link between sport and betting and to minimise the exposure that children have to the harms of gambling advertising.

These reforms will reduce the overall saturation of gambling ads on television, radio and the internet. We want Australians to be in control of what gambling ads they see and where and how they see them, so that those who want to can have a responsible bet and those who don't can avoid the bombardment. So what does this mean, practically? From 1 January 2027, this bill will ban the ads on TV during all live sport between specific hours, and establish frequency caps outside of specific hours; ban gambling promotion by celebrities, athletes and influencers, who are being used to target kids and younger Australians, especially young men; ban stadium and jersey advertising; ban ads on radio at school drop-off and pick-up times; and ban online advertising, except where users have an account with an opt-out functionality to allow users to opt out of gambling advertising and apply a family-friendly account setting. Importantly, if the online platforms choose not to implement these restrictions, they will not be able to show ads to anyone, anytime.

These are important changes. These are changes that will make a difference. And they are the biggest changes that we have seen on gambling advertising.

I would like to point out that today's package of reforms is not the first step we have taken to reduce harm from gambling. It is only the latest in what I have already said is the strongest action against gambling that we have ever seen in this country.

Three years ago, our National Self-Exclusion Register, BetStop, was launched. Since then, it has supported around 61,000 Australians to exclude themselves from gambling, helping those struggling with it to reclaim their lives. Nearly 40 per cent of those registered on BetStop have also opted for a lifetime ban, showing the power that this platform can have in supporting vulnerable people to recover from gambling harm. Once someone is registered on BetStop, wagering companies cannot take bets from them. They can't open betting accounts for them. And, importantly, they can't directly market to them, such as through emails and SMS. As part of those reforms, wagering companies were also required to promote BetStop.

While the BetStop review found the system is working, we don't think enough people know that it exists. The review found that only one in four people were aware of BetStop. Of those who had placed a bet in the last 12 months, only one in three knew about this important protection measure. This legislation seeks to strengthen BetStop, to make sure that more people know about the difference it could be making to their lives by funding a standalone advertising campaign along with strengthened education campaigns to boost community awareness of BetStop. At the same time, these changes improve data matching between BetStop and industry systems and increase monitoring and compliance activities with online wagering providers.

This bill will also ban online keno, the rapid-draw pocket pokies. These platforms are seeing people lose up to $1,000 every three minutes, which is just not acceptable, so we'll put a stop to it. In addition, this bill is also protecting small businesses, local newsagencies and charities from harmful and emerging lottery products. These products operate through loopholes that allow them to act as a middleman, buying a ticket in the offshore lottery on someone's behalf on the claim they will deliver the winnings to them if they do win. The law doesn't allow Australians to buy tickets in offshore lotteries, and these nefarious actors have found ways to get around that, so we're putting a stop to it.

We're also closing regulatory gaps that allow some operators to offer lottery-style products under the guise of trade promotions and rewards clubs, because they are not always subject to consumer protections, and they can undermine legitimate charity fundraising and genuine business loyalty programs. Charity lotteries estimate these fake lotteries diverted more than $60 million from the charity sector in 2024. Closing this loophole will protect genuine Australian lotteries, including charities.

We're making match-fixing criminal offences consistent across Australia, improving the integrity of Australian sport and lessening its appeal as a target for criminal infiltration. On top of this, our government has also previously legislated a ban on the use of credit cards for online wagering so that you can't place bets with money you don't have. Our national consumer protection framework also includes mandatory identity verification, deposit limit tools, restrictions on inducements and direct marketing, clearer activity statements and stronger responsible gambling safeguards.

I do want to acknowledge the incredible work of Peta Murphy, who was a tireless advocate for strong reform on gambling. Peta's work as chair of the House of Representatives inquiry into online gambling and the You win some, you lose more report are what has put us on this path today. We remain grateful for all that she worked so hard for.

As I said at the start of this speech, I know there will continue to be strong debates on both sides of the fence about whether these reforms go too far or don't go far enough. I welcome open and transparent debates on these difficult topics, as I do around all of the tough conversations that we need to have in our community. We can only get things right when we talk about them and when we debate them, factually and transparently. Part of our job as the government is to make sure the balance is right. To achieve that, we also have to think about unintended consequences, particularly for our regions.

We need to be working with free-to-air television, because that industry is under enormous pressure already, particularly in regional areas like the Illawarra. We must see sport continue to be shown live and free in our communities. Local sporting clubs in the regions are also under pressure. I hear from my local clubs all the time that they are struggling to get the financial backing that they need. We don't want to see adverse outcomes in that area either. That is also on my mind, and that is why it's so important to consult, to collaborate and to work with all stakeholders on these changes. We will continue to work with the streaming platforms, with free-to-air networks and with sporting clubs to ensure that we get that balance right and to ensure that Australians can continue to watch and play the sport that they love.

What I would like to say in conclusion is that I truly hope everyone across our parliament can take that collaborative spirit forward as we discuss these reforms. These are reforms that Australians feel incredibly passionate about. They are reforms that Australia needs, and our communities rightly expect that these discussions are undertaken in good faith.

Australians want to see these laws passed. They want to see strong action taken, and I would really call on all members of this place to work constructively with the government to see that happen. This doesn't have to be the end of the road. These are big changes. These are important changes. They steer us in the right directions, and they put protections in place that have been needed for decades, just like in changes with tobacco and just like in changes with alcohol. None of these changes happened with one piece of legislation, with one change in one moment of time. We started down a road, and we made adjustments that were appropriate over time.

I'll say it again, because it is so important: these are the biggest changes that Australia has ever seen when it comes to gambling advertising. No government has ever had the guts to make this sort of change. Only the Albanese Labor government has taken this on because we are not afraid of hard work, of having hard conversations with our community and with industry. Only the Albanese Labor government has tackled this systemic problem that has been growing for generations, and we'll keep working to protect local communities now and into the future.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 wastes a generational opportunity to improve our gambling laws. The Greens just can't vote for the bill in its current form. I move:

That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"declining to give the bill a second reading, the House also notes that:

(1) every day, vulnerable Australians are bombarded with gambling ads designed to keep them betting, even when they are trying to stop;

(2) Australians should have the right to enjoy sport, and to go about their lives, free from predatory gambling advertising; and

(3) passing this bill would be a massive favour to the rich gambling corporations that are ripping off Australians, robbing people of their livelihoods and taking money from struggling families".

The government is responsible for safeguarding the Australian public from harm, including the serious harms caused by gambling. That is ultimately, fundamentally what we are discussing and debating in this place today—this government's responsibility to everyday people, to all Australians. But how can the government seriously consider reform to the gambling industry when they refuse to acknowledge, let alone address, the influence of gambling lobby?

Meaningful action on gambling reform cannot occur without addressing the pervasive, insidious influence that corporate donations and corporate access have on politics and policy. The harmful impacts of gambling on physical and mental health are absolutely beyond doubt. For years, Australians have been the biggest gamblers in the world per capita. We know this problem is getting worse, with Australians losing $36 billion to gambling last year. Genuine gambling reform must take aim at the industry's most harmful practices, including their predatory online advertising and inducements.

This bill takes no action on inducements. It fails to create a national regulator and actively weakens advertising restrictions on online streaming. This bill ignores most of the Murphy report's recommendations. It includes carve-outs and special deals for big gambling companies. This bill is absolutely riddled with loopholes and must be amended if it is to make the positive difference we all so urgently need.

Prime Minister, is the gambling lobby in the room with you right now? Have they been shaping the government's gambling reform laws? Three in four Australians support a total ban on gambling ads. Four in five Australians support banning gambling ads on social media, online, in stadiums and on players' uniforms. Nearly four in five Australians agree that government policies should aim to reduce the time people spend on gambling, and nearly nine in 10 Australians—nearly 90 per cent of Australians—support banning gambling ads during prime-time TV hours for families and children. And yet, when looking at the government's proposed gambling reform laws, it's clear that the wishes and best interests of the Australian people were not their primary concern.

Perhaps, if you can believe it, there might have been another set of interests influencing their decision-making, the interests, possibly, of the gambling lobby—putting their finger on the scales, directing the government and ensuring that the gambling industry avoids proper regulation, scrutiny and consequences. Could it have something to do with the Labor government accepting $4 million in donations from the gambling industry in the last several years? Could it, possibly? When it comes to gambling reform in Australia, it seems the House always wins. You vote. Corporations don't. So why is it that corporations—

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Ryan, I'll just remind you to direct your comments to the chair.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

keep having more say than all of us? Why is it that this Labor government that promised change and promised integrity is giving us more of the same? It's the latest in a decades-long series of governments who—let's face it—sell out everyday Australians. You're the voter—thank you, Chair! Australians are the voters, but it's gambling corporation executives who sit at long, fancy dinners with government ministers. So it's gambling execs who get to make sure Labor's advertising laws are weak and ineffectual. Australians are the voters.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

You're sounding desperate.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it is a desperate situation we're talking about here. People are dying. They're losing their livelihoods and their lives. I think it's serious, but it's gas corporations who funnel millions in donations to the election campaigns of the major parties. So these corporations get our gas for free and don't pay any tax. Australians are the voters, ordinary people, but it's the AI companies who have multimillion-dollar sophisticated lobbying operations. So it's AI companies that get their destructive data centres fast-tracked with little to no regulation or public control. Australians vote. Corporations don't.

Here's the thing. We can actually change this, and it starts by electing people who don't take money from big corporations, who don't do dinners with corporate execs and lobbyists, and who will stand on the side of everyday people. Say what you will about us in the Greens, but we know whose side we're on.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

We will.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure you will, but we know whose side we are on, and we are on the side of ordinary Australians.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Too often in Bennelong I meet families devastated by a business model treating gambling addiction as a source of profit. Before I was first elected, throughout my first term and since the last federal election, gambling reform has been an important ask of locals in Bennelong, rightly so. Like many in the Labor caucus, I've been working diligently since the day I was first elected to bring our government to this point. Legislation before this House to bring the strongest gambling reform since Federation is being debated, and I have every hope that it will pass this parliament stronger than it is right now. As I said before the election, I was sick of seeing sport and gambling go hand in hand. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 seeks to break that link. As I said after the election, gambling reform was unfinished business for this reforming Labor government. With this bill we seek to get progress that our communities have been crying out for, for some time.

Beyond the statistics of gambling harm, the stories are gut wrenching. Gambling harm is insidious and must be addressed. The bill we're debating today, late into tonight, is the strongest gambling reform brought to this parliament since Federation. It builds on the last set of gambling reform delivered by this very Labor government in our first term. Despite the noise you might be hearing from our political opponents, this bill is another significant step being taken by this Labor government to protect Australians from gambling harm. It will protect children from gambling ads, it will break the link that currently exists between gambling and sports, and it will do much more, because it has to. Australians lost approximately $32.2 billion on legal gambling in the year 2023-24. That's the highest per capita loss globally, at $1,521 per person. These losses have grown 26 per cent since 2018-19. That trajectory is heading the wrong way.

Pervasive wagering ads make it hard for people to distinguish between watching sports and betting on them—from kick-off odds to updates during breaks to social media and influencer promotions, all while children and vulnerable adults are watching. We should no longer accept that a 10-year-old cheering for their team should be marketed to by gambling companies. This bill will end that.

What surprised me over the discourse is that some antigambling advocates have claimed that this bill is equal to or worse than the status quo. I say to them that that is an absurd proposition. Before us now is the option for Australian families who stream to remove gambling ads from their homes forever. That in itself is not worse than the status quo. That is reform and that is progress. We on this side of the House know that progressive reform is always hard to achieve but is always worth fighting for.

To those who claim that this reform is meaningless, I'll now take the House through the detail of this bill, because the detail matters. Schedule 1 introduces a legislative ban on wagering advertising during live coverage of sporting events across every platform, not just broadcast free-to-air television. It bans gambling advertising on radio during school drop-off and pick-up times, when parents and kids are travelling together. Outside those windows, on broadcast television it caps the frequency of gambling ads to no more than three times in any 60-minute block, it bans wagering advertising on sporting uniforms and inside sporting venues and it bans athletes, celebrities and influencers from being used to promote wagering products. We know influencers are being used to deliberately target kids and young men. That stops should this legislation pass this parliament.

Critically, this bill extends the advertising regime online to social media, to news websites, to streaming platforms, to podcasts, to search, to Spotify. If an online platform wants to keep showing wagering ads to Australians, the obligation is on that platform to keep those ads away from under-18s and from people who have opted out. If a platform cannot do that, the rule is simple: no ads at no time to anyone. That is the level of seriousness that this gambling problem demands, and that is the level of seriousness that this government has brought to this issue.

Then, of course, there's BetStop, the national self-exclusion register, which deserves particular attention in this debate. Since it launched in August 2023, BetStop has supported more than 63,000 Australians to exclude themselves from gambling. As of this year, more than 39,000 of those registrations remain active, meaning tens of thousands of Aussies are right now protected from the marketing and inducement tactics of an industry that would otherwise be chasing them daily.

But the statutory review of BetStop found something confronting: only one in four Australians knows that BetStop exists. Even amongst people who placed a bet in the last 12 months, awareness sits at only one in three. A self-exclusion register that two-thirds of active bettors have never heard of is not doing its job. We want to see the community know that there are protections available for them and those who are vulnerable to addiction. This bill seeks to address that deficiency. It strengthens BetStop's legislative framework. It improves clarity and the user experience and implements recommendations of that statutory review. And this government will back that up with a national awareness campaign, because a protection nobody knows about is a protection that cannot help anyone.

In some aspects of the bill, it goes further than the Murphy review. One of those is by banning online keno. These are basically pocket pokies—high-intensity gambling that stays with you 24/7 in your pocket on your person. We're outlawing foreign matched lotteries that just siphon money out of Australia with zero benefit to our community. This bill also closes the loophole around fake trade promotion lotteries, where some operators dress up a straightforward lottery as a rewards club or trade promotion to dodge the consumer protections that genuine lottery providers in Australia are subject to. Australian charities estimate that these fake lotteries diverted more than $60 million away from the charity sector in 2024 alone. That's $60 million that should have gone to causes Australians thought they were supporting. This bill closes that gap.

I want to address something directly, because it goes to the heart of why this debate matters. We have never pretended that this bill is the final word on gambling reform in this country. We have said from the outset that we would work with all members and senators in good faith to get gambling reforms legislated and to keep strengthening them as we go. We have listened throughout an extensive consultation process, and we've heard the community loud and clear on the issue of inducements.

Last week's Senate inquiry showed this parliament allegations of some of the most toxic versions of inducement conduct in this industry, and the government condemns those alleged actions in the strongest possible terms. Throughout this debate and these negotiations, none of us can walk away from that. We are working with the parliament right now to strengthen this bill further and to provide stronger protections for children and vulnerable Australians while striking the right balance. We are focused on ensuring that this bill goes further on limiting the harm of inducements and on utilising and strengthening the great work that BetStop already does.

I also want to take the time to acknowledge the Labor Party rank and file here too, because this issue has been a hot topic in branches right across the country and, of course, in Bennelong. It was their advocacy that saw the ALP platform recognise for the first time the heightened risk of gambling harm facing children and young people, and their advocacy committed our party to strengthening protections around inducements and much more. This is what a broad party membership engaging with this issue looks like—a platform commitment borne out of years of advocacy from our own membership right across the country. I'm hopeful that the bill that leaves this parliament supported by both houses addresses much of what is in the Labor platform.

That brings me to the point I want to leave this House with today. This government is the only political force in this building that has actually done the work to get real change on gambling reform into legislation. We are the ones who announced this suite of reforms. We are the ones that ran the consultation and who sat down with the state and territory governments, with banking and payments providers with broadcasters, with digital platforms, with sporting codes, with racing organisations and with antigambling advocates to get these settings right. We are the ones who have been in this chamber and in the Senate negotiating clause by clause in good faith to get this bill passed rather than talking about it. Every other voice in this debate has had the option to engage constructively, and I welcome every one of them who has. But it is this government, the Albanese Labor government, that has runs on the board in this space.

We have legislated the ban on credit cards for online wagering. We launch BetStop and will strengthen it. We legislated the restriction stopping gambling companies from accessing research-and-development tax concessions, and we have now brought forward the most significant suite of gambling advertising reforms that any Australian government has ever attempted to legislate. There's too much at stake for this bill to fail, and we have made decisive action to ensure that children and those who are suffering from gambling harm are protected. We want to break the link between the sports we that love to watch and the pressure to bet on them. We want a future where we celebrate skill, teamwork and the joy of watching our friends compete at their best and not become obsessed with the odds on the corner of the screen.

This government has done the hard work. We have consulted and negotiated in good faith at every step, and this government will keep going, with further reforms still to come, because getting the balance right on gambling harm is not a once-off exercise. It's an ongoing responsibility. The time for reform is long overdue. I commend this bill to the House.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Regrettably, this bill is diametrically opposed to the Murphy report. The Murphy report was the work of a unanimous cross-party parliamentary committee. It made 31 recommendations. It is, without doubt, the finest blueprint for reform this parliament—in fact, this country—has ever seen. It had flagship recommendations, like a phase-out of gambling advertising over several years. It had a flagship recommendation of a complete ban on inducement, and a flagship recommendation that there be a genuinely independent national regulator.

What have we got instead? We've got this half-baked bill from the government that's going to be supported by the opposition and that almost entirely ineffective—no ban on gambling advertising, no ban on inducements and no independent regulator. In fact, I think the saying is 'putting lipstick on a pig'. To sit in my office and sometimes sit in this chamber today and to hear speaker after speaker after speaker celebrating this as the best thing that's ever been done in this country for gambling—it's downright misleading. If this bill is the best thing this country's ever seen, then, heavens, this country hasn't seen much! This bill is going to do very little to make gambling safer in this country. I agree with the Prime Minister. People should be allowed to have a punt. But where I disagree with the Prime Minister is that it should be safe. We should be focusing on effective harm-minimisation measures.

So how do we explain this? How do we explain the fact that we had this fabulous blueprint, yet this bill is diametrically opposed to it? You might have heard me speculate before in this place about why it is so. Why are governments of either colour so reluctant to implement effective gambling reform? I've offered views on how governments are scared stiff of the gambling industry, scared stiff of the major media outlets and scared stiff of the power of the major sporting codes, and I think that's still in the mix. I've also speculated that some in the government are, in fact, fellow travellers and best mates with the leadership of gambling companies and media companies and major sporting codes. More recently, I've pondered that there's an element of a lack of humanity among some members in this place and that people don't care enough about the shocking, shocking human toll of gambling addiction.

Sadly—through you, Deputy Speaker, to the opposition—the opposition haven't gone nearly far enough and haven't put enough pressure on the government. I know there are a lot of good people in the opposition who want more effective reform, and I think the leadership of the opposition should have listened to them. Listen to former prime minister John Howard, who, to his credit, has been a leading advocate for reform in this country. I was delighted to meet with former prime minister John Howard in his office several months ago to discuss gambling reform, and it was clear that the old leadership of the party was right on board to have effective reform.

I'm going to add to those reasons for a lack of effective reform something that I raised in question time today, and that is the corruption of good governance by the vested interests in the gambling industry, the media companies and the major sporting codes. It may not be a criminal corruption, but it's a corruption of proper process. It's a corruption of the imperative on all of us here to listen to public opinion and to formulate evidence based policies in the public interest.

Let me just dwell on this for a moment. Let's talk about money; let's follow the money. There was a very good article in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age on 22 July. The journalists, Natassia Chrysanthos and Paul Sakkal—I hope I've pronounced those correctly—actually went to the trouble of doing the homework. They tallied up the figures. They've calculated that, in the four years between 2020-21 and 2024-25, according to donor records, the Labor Party received about $5 million in donations from gambling companies. I would add the coalition received about $4.5 million in donations from the gambling companies. You can't tell me that any organisation—or individual, for that matter—is going to invest that sort of money and not expect a return on that investment. If you donate a modest amount of money, you're supporting a candidate or a party. If you donate what adds up to $9.5 million in just four years, you're not supporting a party; you're buying a party. It saddens me to say that. It is an argument for much more effective reform in this space.

To those thumping big sums of money, you then add all of the lobbying, the hospitality, the tickets to events and so on. It influences people, but not in the simple way that we accept parties and candidates can be lobbied, can accept donations and can make their own decisions about policies. That's accepted. I'm not disputing that. But surely there's a line in the sand. Surely there's a point at which those sorts of sums of money are just so big that we would agree they are unacceptable.

Today, as a result of my concerns—and I flagged this in my question to the Prime Minister in question time today—I referred this matter to the National Anti-Corruption Commission. I'll read the letter into the Hansard record. It's only very short. It will only take me a couple of minutes. I sent this to the NACC today. I wrote:

I write to the Commission to express my concern that individuals in the Federal Government, when formulating gambling reform policy, have been improperly influenced by individuals in the private sector, most obviously but not exclusively through donations, gifts, hospitality and personal relationships. This has resulted in policy so clearly at odds with research, public opinion and the public interest, that the implementation of such policy could be characterised, in my opinion, as serious corruption in the Commonwealth public sector.

What finally prompts me to raise this matter with the Commission is an article in … The Sydney Morning Herald … and The Age

which I've already referenced—

on 22 July 2026. If this article is accurate, then one or more individuals in the private sector stand accused of affecting the impartial exercise of powers or performance of official duties by one or more public officials, and one or more public officials stand accused of a breach of public trust and an abuse of office.

I acknowledge that the Commission is not empowered to investigate governments, and also that governments have the right to accept donations, be lobbied and make their own policy decisions. Nor do I make any allegation against any specific individual and trust the Commission to investigate the matter thoroughly. However, in my opinion, individuals in the Government are acting so egregiously in response to individuals in the private sector that all reasonable limits on government behaviour have been exceeded. If this doesn't "cross the line", then I dread to think what would.

Senator David Pocock, in effectively summarising this matter last week, described the situation with the lack of effective gambling reform in the face of the tragic human toll of gambling addiction in this country. He used the word 'tragic'. I think that's a good word, but I'll add another word to what Senator Pocock had to say. That's the word 'betrayed'. The government, with this bill, is betraying all of the people in this country with gambling addiction. With this bill, the government is betraying all of the people in this country who are judged to be at high risk of developing gambling addiction. With this bill, the government is betraying all of the loved ones of those people. With this bill the government is betraying the thousands of people who have suicided from gambling addiction and the untold number of people who love those people who suicided. With this bill the government is betraying the people who have had money stolen by gambling addicts. We know from research several years ago that in Victoria gambling addiction is the second-most prevalent cause of crime in that state after drug addiction. There are so many layers to this, and the government, supported by the opposition, is betraying all of those people.

Let's remember, this is an intensely human story. The speeches today—and I'm guilty of this myself—have had lots of facts and figures and dates and numbers and dollars but let's not forget this is an intensely human story. The human tragedy of this is difficult to do justice to. I'm sure that many of my colleagues have met with the sorts of people I'm describing—the people who are battling addiction, the people who have come out the other side, the families whose loved ones have an addiction; the families, the mums and dads, the brothers, the sister whose son or daughter or brother or sister has suicided.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

People committed suicide over live export bans—didn't see you over that one.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd make the point that I have a right to be heard, and this constant heckling is not adding to the quality of this debate.

We've all met with these people. Surely, we all understand we have to do whatever we can to put an end to this, or to at least reduce it and we were given that blueprint in the Murphy report. Surely, we should have said, 'Hurrah, this is great. This is the blueprint. This is what we'll implement. The government and the opposition and the crossbench, we will all stare down the gambling companies. We will stare down the media companies. We'll stare down the major sporting codes who profit from gambling.' This was the opportunity for this parliament, all of us, to show real integrity. But at the last minute we've baulked and that's really, really sad.

Probably because I'm quite outspoken about gambling reform, I've become quite a lightning rod for people to tell me their stories, like the family where mum had been gambling, losing all of the housekeeping money and keeping it secret from dad. She was keeping secret even the fact that time and time again she was put on repayment plans by Aurora Energy for the power bill, and eventually Aurora had to cut the power off. There was a family—mum, dad and a couple of really young kids—living in a house in Hobart with no electricity, no lights, no heating, no hot water. I don't know what became of that family but that's not an unusual story. That's the human side of this. Gavin Fineff, a former financial adviser, is in prison in New South Wales for stealing millions of dollars from his clients. Now, I don't in any way justify that theft. That was a serious crime. Gavin, to his credit, acknowledges it's a serious crime and he has to do his time. But think of the effect on Gavin. He had an addiction. He couldn't help himself. Think of the effect on all of his clients who lost millions of dollars. I mean, again, this is the human face of this.

I will not support this bill. Now, I know there's a line of thinking that some reform is better than no reform, and, to a degree, that's right. To a degree, I would agree that sometimes you just have to suck it up, accept that that's the best you're going to get and not support it. I notice a number of government speakers said 'this is just the start'. I don't believe them. I think what's going to happen now is the government's going to say 'the job's done', the opposition's going to say 'the job's done' and this will be the end of any sort of meaningful reform—or any reform—for years and years and years, because they will keep saying 'the job's done', and that's going to mean that all of the main parts of the job will not be addressed. We won't get this ban on these pesky ads. We won't get this national regulator to do a much better job than this nonsense regulator in the Northern Territory that we've got at the moment. We're still going to have inducements. I'll be delighted if I'm proven wrong. I'll be thrilled if I'm proven wrong and in the rest of this parliament or maybe the next parliament there is strong and effective reform. But I just don't think it's going to happen.

I'm not going to support these bills, and I'm going to keep agitating as loudly as I can. The government and the opposition are yet to get the job done; that's the fact of the matter. I just hope that, over the coming years, the leadership of both sides understand the human imperative of this and the financial imperative. And, heavens, the political benefit to them—this was a chance for the government or the opposition to stare down these powerful interests and show real character. They would have benefited at the next election, I reckon—but not now. The only reason both sides will get away with it is they're in cahoots. They're in lockstep, and they agree that very limited reform is all that the community is going to get.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Clark for his contribution—a passionate point of view.

David Moncrieff (Hughes, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Problem gambling is one of the most urgent public health challenges facing Australia today. In our digital age, the pull of poker machines is not limited to the four walls of a local club or pub. The rise of smartphones, online betting apps and aggressive advertising means gambling is no longer something people need to seek out; it can follow Australians into their homes, their workplaces and their pockets, available 24 hours a day. The siren song of online gambling rings from the phones in our pockets, erupts on our TV screens while watching footy with our families and flashes on our feeds, beckoning us to try our odds. Aggressive online advertising follows us home on our smartphones and makes it harder for those at risk to escape their influence.

The corrosive impact of gambling advertisements is not restricted to those of us who are old enough to enter a licensed venue; it is ever present on television programs and screens watched by adults and children alike. Odds displayed before matches, bookies during breaks, betting promotions seamlessly integrated into the sporting experience—these accompaniments to the sport programs we watch are completely normalised, like chloroform for the mind. The coupling of gambling ads with sport sends a strong signal to viewers that the evening cricket or footy is best enjoyed with a bet.

For years, Australians have been exposed to betting advertisements throughout sporting broadcasts. Odds are displayed before matches, bookmakers advertise during breaks and betting promotions are increasingly integrated into the sporting experience. Gambling is presented alongside the game itself, creating the impression that placing a bet is simply another way of participating in sport. The linking of online gambling with sports is a pernicious bait-and-switch for young people.

Gambling ads are prevalent. A comprehensive report from the Australian Gambling Research Centre estimated that 78 per cent of Australian adults reported seeing or hearing a gambling advertisement at least once a week, with 41 per cent being exposed four or more times per week. If the link between gambling inducements and behaviour was weak, there might be limited reason for concern. But a growing body of evidence suggests otherwise. That same report highlighted that exposure to gambling ads had the greatest impact on young people aged 18 to 34 and people at risk of gambling harm. One in five young women and one in seven young men reported that they started betting for the first time after seeing an advertisement. Among those who were at risk of serious harm, two in five reported trying a new form of betting and another two in five bet on impulse as a result of seeing or hearing these advertisements.

Similarly, an international meta-analysis suggested a positive association between exposure to gambling advertising and gambling related attitudes, intentions and behaviours. Yet another study on gambling behaviours in Australian secondary school students found an association between online gambling ad exposure and gambling behaviours, and warned that young people are increasingly exposed to media promotion and advertising of gambling.

The empirical evidence is increasingly clear that gambling inducements do produce their desired effect, inciting susceptible gamblers to test their odds online. We know that the human cost of gambling can be severe. Its impact does not stop with problem gambling. On average, for every person suffering gambling harm, around six others—family and friends, colleagues and kids—experience the second-hand effects through financial pressures, stress and strained relationships.

The scale of problem gambling in Australia is immense. Australians collectively lose upwards of $30 billion through poker machines and online gambling every year. While many who gamble do not develop serious problems and might enjoy the occasional slap or punt, the personal consequences for those at risk of addiction can be shattering: savings eroded, pay cheques fed to poker machines, homes liquidated and families destroyed. I wish this were hyperbole, but it just isn't. There are countless stories attesting to this reality. This morning I met with representatives from the Salvation Army, Anglicare and UnitingCare, who described some of the profound personal tragedies they witness every day in their work, especially as financial counsellors.

It's not only financial counsellors, though, that struggle to cope with the fallout. Gambling harm bleeds across all social services. It's not enough to have a disclaimer, telling viewers to gamble responsibly, at the end of advertisements. Those struggling with gambling addiction are highly susceptible to these slickly produced ads and are not making a detached purchasing decision. The whole point of gambling ads is to induce a behaviour, and they are enormously effective at that goal.

It is clear that Australians are fed up with aggressive online gambling ads. They know that it's not just a matter of individual choice. Gambling ads prey on those struggling with addiction and those at risk, and the remit of their impacts extends well beyond the affected person. Australians recognise gambling harm for the public health issue it is and want Australian governments to take meaningful action to reduce the harms associated with problem gambling.

The bill that is before us today represents the strongest gambling reforms introduced in this parliament's history. It's a wide-ranging package that is evidence based, painstakingly consulted upon and informed by the lived experience of those who have suffered from gambling harm. The Albanese Labor government is serious about protecting young Australians and vulnerable people from online gambling. This bill spans restrictions on wagering advertisements and increased enforcement action against illegal gambling services. It strengthens BetStop and addresses harms from online lottery products. It means fewer gambling ads, a stronger and more accessible BetStop and a crackdown on dodgy video game lotteries. It will minimise our kids' exposure to wagering advertising and end the obscene saturation of advertising across the internet, over the airwaves and in our living rooms. The legislation involves the Australian Communications and Media Authority, governments across all states and territories, broadcasters, digital platforms and streaming services, sporting codes, wagering service providers, lottery providers, rewards club providers and banks, who will all be required to take action to implement the measures.

We want Australians to be in control of their exposure to gambling ads and to be able to sit down with their families without incessant inducements intruding on their night. This bill is a move to sever the link between sport and problem gambling, letting kids grow up enjoying sport and not conflating the games they love with online gambling. Under these laws, gambling ads will be banned during all live sport between 6 am and 8.30 pm, with a cap of three ads per hour outside of sport between these hours. Gone will be promotions and endorsements by celebrities, athletes and influencers targeting kids and younger Australians. Jerseys and stadia are getting a makeover, with the removal of all gambling insignia.

Morning drop-offs and afternoon pick-ups will be free from inducements over the radio, and a ban on online advertising will apply to all sites and platforms, including social media, news websites, Spotify, podcasts, streaming services, YouTube and search engines. The onus is on online platforms to implement these restrictions. If they choose not to, our message is clear: it's all or nothing. If they insist on running wagering advertisements, they will be banned from showing ads entirely—at any time, to anyone.

This bill goes beyond gambling advertising. It confronts illegal offshore gambling providers and ensures that anyone participating in online gambling in Australia does so with the safety of our national consumer protections. The bill strengthens BetStop, the national self-exclusion register, so that Australians grappling with gambling addiction can easily and reliably opt out of inducements. BetStop is a critical support service for many Australians. Since launching in 2023 it has helped more than 61,000 Australians exclude themselves from gambling advertisements, and many have attested to the beneficial impact it has had in their lives.

But BetStop can be even better. The statutory review of BetStop found that only one in four people are aware it exists. Even among those who placed a bet in the last 12 months, only one in three were aware of its existence. Every Australian should know where to turn for help and how to exclude themselves from online gambling inducements. That's why this bill will incorporate a national campaign to raise awareness of BetStop. Online Keno and Pocket Pokies, with rapid-draw format, high frequency of play and substantial spending allowances, are another prominent issue. These platforms can cause significant harm, with Australians able to lose up to $1,000 every three minutes. They will be banned under this proposed legislation.

We are also cracking down on foreign matched lotteries that allow Australians to buy tickets in offshore lotteries. They operate through legal loopholes that allow them to pose as a middleman, buying tickets on someone else's behalf while claiming that they will deliver the winnings if they are successful. It's as shady as it sounds. There are no guarantees that the offshore lottery would honour the ticket. I've been informed by social workers of cases where clients have purchased such tickets and experienced severe distress when their winnings were not paid out as advertised.

Other kinds of fake lotteries can be just as damaging. Australian charities have estimated that fake lotteries simulating charity fundraising and genuine business loyalty programs diverted more than $60 million from the charity sector in 2024. Closing these regulatory gaps will allow genuine Australian lotteries and charities to receive this revenue.

This bill is substantial in both its legislative breadth and the positive impacts it will have in reducing gambling harms by cracking down on online inducements. We acknowledge that many in the community and in this place have strong views and passionate proposals of their own. Of course, we will continue to listen to and consult with those affected for as long as gambling harm remains an issue in our society. The consultation for this bill has included more than 80 organisations spanning 10 sectors, including state and territory governments, harm reduction advocates, broadcasters, sporting organisations and gambling organisations. Fifty-nine written submissions were received, and feedback has been incorporated into the final bill. Stakeholders were invited to attend round tables on each of the four pillars in this bill.

This is a long road that governments of all levels, organisations and civil societies must traverse to meaningfully combat gambling harm. But the time for delays, for inquiries and for setbacks is over. Those who would prefer to wait to push back the passage of this bill in an endless procession of debate, to continue kicking the can down the road for the next generation, must recognise that lassitude has its cost. These reforms must commence from 1 January 2027. Debate, discussion and democratic contest is welcome, but action must be taken. The timely passage of this bill is of the utmost importance to ensure that families, victims of gambling harm and children can have the confidence to navigate the online world free of endless gambling inducements, without delay. That's why I commend this bill to the House.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

As some of the members opposite like to taunt, on such important subject matter, indeed it is an opportunity to talk about this legislation and the consistency around making sure that we protect children—something that's core to the Liberal mission—while also supporting people's freedom to choose, to be informed and to make conscious and responsible decisions for themselves. So I always welcome the taunting of Labor members, who don't understand liberalism and don't understand the foundations of a free society because, at every point, their objective, sadly, seems to be to directly assault it and violate it.

It's a common story on a Saturday night for a parent—let's say, a mum—to be sitting on the couch with their son or daughter. Of course, they're often watching sport—and, hopefully, it's the Demons flogging Collingwood, or, at least, how they flogged Freo last Sunday afternoon! The suspense builds. It's the third quarter, with maybe five or six points in the game, and mum is watching the game, but she's also watching her son, because she wants to know what he is watching. Is he someone focused on the sport, and believing in physical prowess and human achievement and what can be done, or is the son watching the odds and his phone, to be kept abreast of whether the betting odds are in his favour? Now, mum isn't a wowser—in my electorate, and, frankly, most of the electorates around the country. She is not asking this parliament to run her household. She just wants one thing: a fair chance to raise her son, before someone else starts doing it for her.

Now let's be very clear about who the villain in this story is. It's not a bloke putting 20 bucks on at the track. I can tell you, that's me; I like a flutter, and I suspect a lot of other members do, too. It's a good industry. People enjoy it, and they should be free to choose it. In fact, the Goldstein electorate has one of the largest shares, I understand, of VRC and MRC members in Melbourne, and we're very proud of that. Nor is gambling the enemy. The villain is a machine that tries to take advantage of children and the vulnerable—a sophisticated, billion-dollar marketing operation, with a commercial interest in reaching the children of Australia, or in going after those who are addicts and leaving their lives as human wreckage.

Let's also be clear about this. Not all gambling companies—or gaming companies, or however we want to talk about them—behave that way, necessarily, and it may not even sometimes be, I acknowledge, their intent. But it does not change the fact that there is predatory behaviour, and there's a point at which we have to make sure not just that we empower citizens to make responsible decisions for their own lives, but also where there is room for legal protection. Getting that balance right matters enormously, because the problem is not that adults bet; the problem is that gambling has stopped being incidental to sport and started to become the architecture through which young Australians understand sport. That is the problem in our community.

And here, of course, is the problem that parents feel. They feel outgunned—because they are. No family on any street in Goldstein, or anywhere else, can compete with the marketing budget or the sophistication of commercial operators, to influence the behaviour of their children and, sometimes, of parents themselves. That, by the way, isn't just limited to gambling.

My starting position is not to think the answer is always to censor or to silence. People being able to express their view is something I hold very dearly. But it doesn't change the fact that sometimes it can be wrong. Believing in freedom, and believing in adults' freedom to choose and make responsible decisions, I think, is central to not just a free society but the type of country we should want to be. If people cannot be free to make decisions for themselves and take responsibility, there is no learning or growth. But freedom depends on people having a genuine sense of agency and control, and the same rules that apply to adults simply do not apply to children.

Children should not be treated or approached as prospective customers. Parents should not have to compete with a machine that seeks to normalise gambling as part of sport because their sons or their daughters are not old enough to understand it. I hear this in our community all the time, particularly from parents, who can see the convergence that takes place between sports, phones, social media, influencers and gambling all occupying the same cultural space of our nation. They're concerned about it, and they ask simple questions, like, 'Why is it so hard for a child to simply watch sport without being sold a bet?' Frankly, for a lot of us, I suspect the answer is, 'Why can't any of us do that?'

One constituent, Dale Hardy, has written to me previously about his concerns—legitimate ones, I think—around gambling advertising on public broadcaster SBS. The parliamentary library says the evidence shows gambling advertising contributes to individual and social harm—but we all know that, because we know the human consequences—and, of course, there has been an inquiry that has established exactly those points. But I don't start where that inquiry landed; I start here. Adults should be free. Children should not be cultivated, and adults who do not want this stuff can ultimately choose to avoid it.

These three things can fundamentally coexist because we know the costs and the harm of what happens when they aren't honoured. The cost is human: decline in people's households, addiction, kitchen tables filled with people for dinner but no meals. But my support for this bill is conditional—as it is, I know, for many people. We step into this space with trepidation. We want to both get the balance right but also, frankly, call on the Prime Minister to work with the opposition to get a mutually agreeable outcome. I say that from a very low position of trust.

The Prime Minister has consistently demonstrated he will put politics above substance or outcomes for the Australian people. The Prime Minister has become an untrustworthy partner in advancing our national interest. So, at any point, we'll reserve the right to vote against components of this legislation, or the legislation itself in different stages, if we don't get to some sort of agreement where the Prime Minister puts the national interest first. Our focus must be on getting the law right, because a good liberal proposition is not built around maximising regulation, and it's certainly not about empowering the state needlessly. It's about putting responsibility in the right place.

The gambler's responsibility is to make informed choices. The wagering companies' responsibility is to obey the law and not exploit the vulnerable. The broadcasters' and the platforms' responsibility is to respect the protections that this parliament legislates. The parents' responsibility is to guide and develop their children. The government's responsibility is not to replace any one of those actors but to set fair rules where individual freedom cannot do the job alone.

Failure with this bill is not it being defeated; failure is a press conference declaring the problem solved but leaving behind a trail of human wreckage. Failure is obligations no-one can practically comply with, where we see illegal offshore operators strengthened by their own handiwork and they become the new predators. We should be very conscious of this, because we have watched the absolute failure under this government and successive governments in their attempts to stamp out the illegal tobacco trade. In fact the government, through its bad legislation, bad policy, arrogance and hubris has not just fed it; it's cultivated it and been complicit in the destruction of small businesses and the tax base from cigarettes, and it has led to the most ridiculous outcome, where the government through its own arrogance and pride, will not even acknowledge Australia has a problem while they have handed the law and the supply chain networks of an addictive product to organised crime.

The automatic position that the more you do automatically ends with a better outcome has absolutely been tested by this government. They've pushed past the Laffer curve, and now they're actively complicit in the firebombing of small business. Failure is seeing a replication of those standards once again.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

If you resume your seat, please, Member for Goldstein. The minister on a point of order?

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration) | Link to this | Hansard source

The assertion that members of the government are actively complicit in the firebombing of businesses is way over the top, and the member should consider withdrawing that comment.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the member for Goldstein assist by withdrawing that comment?

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

I have considered the comment, and I'll proceed, because, at the end of the day, we have a government that does not understand the consequences of their legislation or their legislative agenda. I have to say to the Prime Minister—as I said, he sees every piece of legislation through the lens of politics—can he please not do that for once? It will go against every fibre of his being and his character. I'm waiting to see the amendments, and, if he returns to his old games, we will of course exercise our rights too.

Success looks very different. Success is in the final quarter where there's six points in it. Hopefully the Dees are flogging Collingwood, and hopefully it's the flag this year! But the children of our nation are thinking about the tackle not the odds, not because the government is wrapping people in cotton wool, but because a child is free to love sport for the contest on the field, and I support that proposition. My hope is that we get the balance right. Australians expect us to get it right, and that is reform worth getting right.

Jodie Belyea (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I first want to acknowledge and thank the many people across my community who have advocated so very strongly for gambling reform. Your determination and persistence has inspired me to keep pushing for meaningful action. I acknowledge the very real impact gambling harm has on individuals, families and communities across Dunkley and Australia, as well as the responsibility of government to respond.

Success in gambling reform should ultimately be measured by its impact on people's lives, not by headlines, not by political victories and not by who receives credit for a particular reform. It should be measured by fewer Australians experiencing gambling harm and fewer families enduring financial stress and relationship breakdown, where gambling is less prominent and less normalised. Gambling is a public health issue underpinned by addiction, and it should be debated as one. This debate is about Australians whose lives have been affected by gambling addiction and the individuals and families who carry the consequences alongside them. Throughout my time in parliament and during more than 30 years in the community sector before entering this place, I have learned that every statistic represents a human story. Behind the figures are real people trying to navigate difficult circumstances and often rebuild their lives. I met partners in Dunkley who discovered debts they never knew existed, people who spent years trying to repair relationships damaged by addiction and secrecy, those impacted by the shame and social isolation that accompanies gambling addiction, and, at its worse, I heard stories of the loss of life. Those conversations stay with me. They reinforce a simple truth: policy decisions have real consequences for people's lives. Good policy can reduce harm, strengthen protections and create opportunities for people to recover and move forward. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, along with the National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026, delivers a package of reforms designed to reduce gambling harm and strengthen protections for Australians. It also recognises the need to protect our precious children and young people from an environment in which gambling advertising has become normalised.

Over the past decade, gambling promotions have become deeply embedded in many aspects of sport and entertainment. Advertisements appear across television broadcasts, radio, social media platforms, streaming services, websites and podcasts. For many young Australians, gambling advertising has become a routine part of watching sport. That level of exposure matters. Sport occupies a special place in Australian life. It brings communities together. It teaches teamwork, resilience and participation. It creates connection across generations and communities. Young people and children should be able to engage with sport and not be constantly exposed to messages encouraging them to place a wager and know the odds.

Before entering parliament, I spent three decades working alongside people experiencing disadvantage, trauma and addiction. One lesson remained constant throughout that work: prevention is always preferable to crisis intervention. The earlier we act the greater our opportunity to prevent serious harm from occurring. That principle underpins effective public health policy. It is why education matters and is why sensible regulation matters. On its own, no single measure will eliminate gambling harm. It's an issue that involves organisations, government and people—people and organisations and government who have the power of choice and the freedom to make decisions about what they choose to do with their time and money and power. However, that shouldn't be an excuse for inaction. Meaningful reform often incurs incrementally. Progress is rarely achieved through one decision alone. Instead, it is built through a series of reforms that collectively delivers better outcomes over time.

This legislation and further amendments are an important step on the reform journey. This bill reduces the volume of gambling advertising and restricts when and where those advertisements can appear. It limits gambling advertising during live sport broadcasts and at specified times and it places new restrictions on the use of celebrities, athletes, influencers in wagering promotions. It reduces advertising during key periods when children are likely to be listening to radio broadcasts on the way to and from school. This legislation also removes gambling advertising from stadiums and sporting uniforms and provides Australians with greater control over their exposure to gambling advertising online.

There is more we can do, and I'm hopeful the harms associated with inducements will also be addressed. This will help more families and reduce overall harm in the community. Consistent with addressing inducements, we will continue to work on strengthening measures that protect children from pervasive gambling advertising. This bill, as it stands, extends beyond advertising reform. BetStop was introduced in 2023 and is Australia's national self-exclusion register. BetStop has already provided thousands of Australians with a practical mechanism to exclude themselves from online wagering services. This bill will further strengthen this very important initiative.

It will also strengthen action against illegal offshore gambling operators. These operators function outside Australia's regulatory framework and often operate beyond the consumer protections Australians rightfully expect. The legislation further addresses emerging gambling products, such as online keno products. The bill also addresses foreign matched lottery products and sham promotional lottery arrangements, closing loopholes and strengthening consumer protections where regulation has not always kept pace with technology.

Throughout this process, I have appreciated the constructive engagement of many people and organisations from Dunkley and further afield—researchers, service providers, advocates, community organisations, parliamentarians and people with lived experience. They have all contributed to this very important discussion. Many Australians have shared deeply personal stories about the impact of gambling harm on their lives and on the lives of their loved ones. That takes courage. I want to particularly acknowledge Caroline and Stephen, who were prepared to share their experiences directly with me.

As a government backbencher, I have worked alongside colleagues who share a commitment to reducing gambling harm and improving protections for the communities we represent. I want to particularly acknowledge the members for Boothby, Macarthur, Bennelong, Macnamara, Macquarie, Reid and Spence for their advocacy and commitment throughout this process. The legislation before us and the amendments that are currently being negotiated are stronger because my community advocates and my colleagues have listened to evidence, engaged constructively and advocated for better reforms.

Recommendation 24 in the Murphy report outlined a phased approach to reform, and that process is already underway. In 2023, BetStop was established, and it was a significant reform in its own right. At the close of 2024, seven additional measures were introduced to address gambling harm. In April this year, the Prime Minister announced a suite of 11 additional measures—measures we are debating tonight—and there is hopefully more to come.

For those who have worked, like me, in government, community and the public health sector, we know that public health policy evolves over time due to advocacy and negotiation, and that is where we are right now in this process. As with any public health reform, these measures will be implemented, monitored and evaluated. Outcomes will be reviewed and further improvements considered. That is how effective policy operates. It adapts, learns and continuously improves over time. Today, however, is a day to recognise progress. It is a day to acknowledge those who advocated for change and the contribution of people with lived experiences. This hasn't been an easy debate for me and my community. This issue is not simply steeped in the tangible challenges gambling harm presents but in grief.

Throughout this debate, I have often reflected on my predecessor and friend, the late Peta Murphy. Peta was a passionate and determined advocate for Australians experiencing gambling harm. She understood both the scale of the problem and the very real human impact that sits behind it, but, first and foremost, Peta was a passionate and determined advocate for her beloved community of Dunkley. Before becoming the member for Dunkley, I came to Peta for advice on a career change. She was a friend and someone I could count on to be frank and honest with me. One of the things Peta told me was to back myself. I have used that advice since my election in 2024, creating opportunities and initiatives that engage and support my community of Dunkley in whatever way that they needed, and raising the concerns of our community consistently and persistently, including in caucus this week.

I have had discussions with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications about the need for stronger protections on gambling on a number of occasions, advocating for further restrictions on inducements and tighter rules on gambling advertising. As Peta's friend and successor, I have been engaged in this issue deeply, often asking her what she would do right now and hoping for some divine intervention or message on what she would do next. Throughout this debate, I have also spoken to Rod, her husband. In April this year, Rod wrote and shared on social media, 'Let's not let the pursuit of perfection stand in the way of reforms that will deliver real protection now.' I believe Peta would have recognised these reforms for what they are: an important next step—not the end of the conversation but a significant and meaningful step forward that will make a difference in people's lives and the community. That is worth supporting. Peta's legacy has been widely cited across the media and in this chamber by people who have worked with her on a number of issues.

As a friend of Peta, I cannot be in this chamber and let her legacy be defined by just one issue. She was more than that. She was a fierce advocate for breast cancer patients. She helped establish a national metastatic breast cancer register. She stood up for women fleeing domestic and family violence, helping stop a coalition proposal forcing women escaping violence to draw on their superannuation. She co-founded the Parliamentary Friends of Women's Health, helping lay the foundations for many of the women's health advancements we have seen made by this government, not to mention that she was a lifelong champion of squash. That is the legacy I want this parliament to remember of Peta. When I was elected as a member of Dunkley, I made a commitment to represent the views of this community in parliament, and, on gambling reform, I have.

The Albanese government has taken seriously its responsibility to protect children and young people in particular from gambling harm. These reforms will create stronger safeguards for future generations, and they will reduce gambling harm. But I have another important message: we need to keep listening. We need to keep evaluating.

There is a lesson the gambling industry needs to take from this. It is that they need to grow a conscience. Their standards and values have been shown to be more than questionable. Luke Bateman's story highlighted the lack of ethics and integrity that is the foundation of the gambling industry. To the leaders of these organisations, I invite you to wake up and check your values, because Australians are watching. I commend the bill to the House.

Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026. I want to start by making my position clear: I am not anti gambling. I'm not arguing that gambling should be banned. That would make me something of a hypocrite. I buy lotto tickets and sometimes play the pokies. I worked in a casino for a couple of years. Part of my job was supplying drinks and coffee to keep people at betting tables. I participate in a footy tipping competition, and, when I'm trying to work out who to back in around, I sometimes look at the betting odds to see what the market thinks. This isn't about stopping adults from having a bet. Adults should be allowed to make their own choices, and this parliament should steer clear of nanny state politics. This is about something different.

It's about whether gambling companies should be allowed to relentlessly push people to gamble, whether our kids should grow up believing betting is simply part of watching sport and whether people already struggling with gambling should be pursued with inducements designed to keep them betting. There's a difference between giving someone the opportunity to gamble and actively encouraging them to do so. The evidence tells us gambling advertising isn't simply providing information; it's designed to influence behaviour. The Parliamentary Library points to research showing the relationship between exposure to gambling advertising, increased gambling activity and gambling related harm.

The landmark Murphy inquiry report, You win some, you lose more, also heard extensive evidence about the normalisation of gambling through sport.

The late Peta Murphy and her bipartisan committee concluded Australians were being subjected to a torrent of gambling advertising and recommended a phased approach, ultimately leading to a comprehensive ban on online gambling advertising. Importantly, its first phase targeted inducements and inducement advertising, and inducements are one of my biggest concerns.