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

Dr HAINES (Indi) (10:32): Every day, Australians are exposed to a relentless stream of gambling ads. The gambling industry does not spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising every year because it has no effect. They do it because it works.

Studies show a clear and consistent link between gambling ads and gambling activity and, consequently, gambling harm. Not all gambling is harmful. It's a legal activity that many Australians enjoy safely, and banning gambling advertising does not mean banning gambling.

This is not about those who enjoy having a flutter now and then, perhaps on the grand final, the Eurovision winner or even at the Dederang races and other wonderful country carnivals. I grew up as a kid on a racetrack. My grandfather owned and trained racehorses.

Back then, though, there were no inducements or advertisements flooding our screens. It wasn't possible to lose thousands of dollars in a few taps of a smartphone without leaving home or without even talking to another human being. Online gambling is a completely different beast, and we know that for some Australians it is incredibly harmful.

From March last year to March this year, we lost $36 billion to gambling. Our per capita losses are the highest in the world. In my own home state of Victoria, gambling cost us more than $14 billion in 2023, and that includes the direct financial impacts as well as the wider costs of things like job losses, divorce, family violence, police and court processes, and physical and mental health care.

As the Murphy report laid out in heartbreaking detail, gambling losses have a massive human cost. Australians experiencing gambling harm are significantly more likely to experience physical and mental health issues. Gambling is linked to a fourfold increase in the risk of suicide.

Family violence is three times more likely to occur alongside harmful gambling. We know that, for every person experiencing gambling harm, six more are directly affected. Husbands, wives, children, parents, colleagues, friends and communities all suffer.

Gambling harm is, most certainly, a deeply serious public health issue that has become normalised through constant exposure. Gambling ads sell false hopes, easy wins and good times that obscure the very real and significant damage that gambling addiction can cause. And that's why the Murphy report recommended a complete ban on gambling ads and inducements.

Again, I want to be clear. This is not about banning gambling. It's not about telling people what they're allowed to do.

Adults can and will continue to make their own choices. Make no mistake: this is about greed. This is about whether we allow multimillion-dollar companies to boost their profits by bombarding us with ads and inducements for a product that we know—and they know—causes profound devastation.

It's about the greed of recruiting our children. This is a massive and most pernicious public health problem. I acknowledge that there are concerns from media organisations and sporting codes about the potential effect on their financial viability if we were to ban advertising for gambling.

However, these concerns must be balanced against the rights of the community, and especially children, to be protected from harm. Young Australians are growing up associating sport, entertainment and gambling as though they naturally belong together. Of course, we've heard these arguments before, when tobacco companies tried to convince us that our sporting codes would die out without their advertising and sponsorship, or when alcohol companies claimed the industry would collapse if we put a small warning about the dangers of drinking during pregnancy on bottles and cans.

But you know what? I've got faith in the ability of Australian sports and media to evolve, to adapt and to have a business model that is not dependent on gambling advertising. The Murphy report laid out a comprehensive action plan to address gambling harm, including the immediate phased introduction of an ad ban.

If the government had acted on that recommendation, the process would be complete. Online gambling advertising and sponsorship would already be banned. Instead, more than three years later, we've been presented with a tepid and frankly insulting imitation of real action.

The problem is clear. The expert evidence is unanimous. The Australian public is screaming for action.

If ever we have needed a social licence to do something important and radical, then we've got it. Yet this parliament has not acted, and the government has refused to take up these recommendations from the Murphy report in full. I am concerned about the effect of inducements on individual gamblers, and I have to wonder, really, about the effect of inducements to political parties who take political donations from gambling companies.

We have real problems with trust in government, in this country and across the world, and we have to look at an issue such as that. Despite the Murphy report's unequivocal conclusion that partial bans do not work, this bill establishes a complicated maze of half-measures and exceptions. Gambling advertising is banned in some instances, at some times of day, for some kinds of programs, on some kinds of platforms.

If you want to know whether your children are about to be exposed to gambling ads, you need to work through a multistep checklist: What time of day is it? Which platform are we on? Whose account is logged in?

How many ads have already been shown in the last 59 minutes? It shouldn't be that difficult. The answer should simply be no.

One of the most frustrating things about this legislation is the unnecessary complexity of these advertising restrictions. In trying to include so many loopholes, carve-outs and compromises, the government has created an unfathomably complex regime. In some cases, these amendments may actually weaken existing protections, allowing the broadcast of more ads during live sports than would currently be permitted.

I mean, go figure. It makes the government's approach even more baffling. It would have been so much easier to just implement a comprehensive ban.

As well as the limited and, frankly, inadequate reforms to advertising, this bill makes some other changes to gambling regulation, including: additional restrictions on illegal gambling, including new requirements for financial institutions to prevent related payments and transfers; improvements to the BetStop legislative framework in line with recommendations from the recent statutory review; and prohibition of online keno and foreign match lotteries.

Well, these are small but welcome improvements but, unfortunately, there's a lot more this bill chooses not to do. Despite the Murphy report's finding that they are a significant incubator of harm, the bill does not ban inducements. Bonuses and two-for-one deals might be okay in a supermarket aisle but they have no place as a tool to exploit people at risk of gambling harm because, let's be clear, these promotions are not intended to keep you winning.

If you're making money from online gambling, you'll get kicked off the platform, not flown to the Gold Coast. Gambling companies offer inducements as a calculated investment in the continued suffering of their most vulnerable customers. Make no mistake about that.

Just last week we heard extraordinary testimony about the lengths to which gambling companies will go to make sure that people keep losing money. Like the rest of Australia, I was absolutely gobsmacked by Luke Bateman's evidence about being offered flights, accommodation, alcohol and even illegal drugs. But the truly predatory nature of inducements was also illustrated by Russell Northe, who described repeatedly being offered inducements after—after!—closing his accounts.

Russell knew he was in trouble. He took steps to protect himself, and the gambling companies sought to actively undermine that. It is unconscionable.

The bill also does not establish a gambling regulator despite the Murphy report identifying a glaring need for a national regulatory framework overseen by a dedicated body with the sole objective of reducing harm. It reflects the reality that gambling companies operate nationally and should be regulated nationally. Right now, responsibility is fragmented across multiple regulators, different resources, powers and enforcement, and they face varying levels of criticism, some of it scathing.

A regulator established for the sole purpose of reducing harm would, in the words of the Murphy report, 'put people above profits and public health before commercial interests'. Members of the crossbench have suggested a number of amendments to the bill, all of them seeking to bring it closer to being something that offers real protections from gambling harm.

Consistent with the Murphy report, I will be voting to implement a full ban on advertising, a full ban on inducements and the establishment of a dedicated national regulator. I notice the crossbench, not the government nor the opposition, is carrying the torch for the Murphy report, an inquiry that was grounded in the lived experience of people whose lives were devastated by this predatory industry practice.

I've also circulated two small, reasonable amendments to improve the bill: firstly, a complete ban on gambling ads during G-rated television programming. Ratings are designed to help viewers make informed choices about what they and their families watch, and a G rating indicates a program is suitable for all ages, including very young children. A G rating is a green light for a family friendly viewing, and that shouldn't change when the ad break starts.

Secondly, I'm proposing a requirement for gambling companies to collect and publicly report on harm indicators, including aggregate customer losses, self-exclusion requests and complaints. It's information they already have and it would provide a vital evidence base to help understand whether these reforms are effective in reducing and preventing gambling harm.

If this bill results in only limited improvement to industry practice then the data will be even more important when it comes to reviewing our laws in the years to come. It's been widely reported that there will be further changes to this bill. In its current form, the bill is unpassable, so it seems the government will be dragged kicking and screaming to take stronger action to get it through the parliament.

I can't speak to any government amendments at this point because they haven't been circulated. So often in this place we're dealing with problems that don't have an obvious solution. This is not one of those times.

The evidence couldn't be clearer. Everyone in Australia except the gambling companies and apparently this government knows what needs to be done. Since this bill was introduced, I have received hundreds of emails from people in my electorate who are not just disappointed that the government won't commit to a full ban; they are outraged.

I've grappled with whether I should support this bill. It falls so far short of what we know is needed. As a legislator, I ask myself: when we know what good looks like, how low are we willing to set the bar?

It's a very important consideration. The Murphy report gave parliament a clear roadmap, but this bill has chosen a shortcut. Make no mistake: Australians will pay the price for that.

In the time I've been speaking, Australians have lost more than half a million dollars to gambling. Just consider that. The clock is ticking.

The opportunity is here. The moment is now. The time for courage is right before us, and I call on every member of this parliament to do the right thing: pass a law that fulfils the recommendations of the Murphy report and do the right thing for the Australian people.