Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Deputy Leader of the National Party) (11:56): I want to begin by acknowledging the contribution of the former member for Dunkley Peta Murphy in this public debate of great importance. I don't think any of us in this place can pretend to speak for the late Peta Murphy, but I do know that, as a lady with enormous social conscience, she would be heartened to hear members in this place talking about a piece of work that she was deeply engaged in which was directly aimed at reducing the amount of harm caused by problem gambling in our nation.
I also acknowledge there's a great deal of interest across Australia and a great deal of media speculation about where this legislation will eventually land, but it's important that we remember the key principles of what we're trying to achieve in this place—that is, to try to get the balance right on an issue where there are very strongly held views across the chamber, within our individual parties and amongst the crossbench as well.
There is a lot of interest, and I recognise and acknowledge the feedback I've received in my own office from people who are very passionate and who have been impacted by gambling when it's got out of control for them in their lives or the lives of their family members. There are a few key principles that I've tried to consider in reflecting on the legislation and the need for more reform in this space.
One is that we still need to respect our freedom of choice in a nation like Australia. We do need to accept a level of individual responsibility for our actions, but we also need to take every step we can reasonably take to reduce gambling harm, particularly as it impacts children or vulnerable people. The challenge for members in this place is to somehow try to get that balance right in our deliberations.
People do need protection from predatory behaviour. People do need protection from illegal activities, particularly those younger Australians who are at the risk of becoming addicted by saturation of gambling promotion in our community, because the world has changed. Quite obviously, the world has changed in only a short amount of time.
The amount of exposure to advertising in our own lounge rooms and on our screens has changed dramatically from what previous generations experienced, and the legislation that we're seeking to implement here is designed to try to, in some respects, catch up and minimise that harm, particularly, as I said, for younger people. There wouldn't be a member in this place who hasn't been personally touched in some way by the issues in their own community or perhaps even in their own families when it comes to gambling addiction.
It goes without saying but is probably worth repeating that, as members of parliament, we are approached by people whose lives have spiralled out of control as a direct result of their gambling addiction. We see people who have lost their businesses, who have lost relationships, who have self-harmed or who have had their lives destroyed in other ways by being lured into criminality to feed their gambling addiction.
There wouldn't be a member in this place who hasn't been approached by someone in their community with that experience. Alternatively, gambling can be harmless fun. Gambling can be a way for mates to get together, male and female, and enjoy some time with each other, having a bit of a flutter or a punt using money they can afford to lose, if they're in that position.
Done responsibly, gambling can be quite an enjoyable experience for a lot of people, and literally millions of Australians do that every year. So, the members who have spoken today and will speak throughout the day will tell their personal stories. Some will be quite emotional, and we've got to try and find the balance here, as an opposition and as a government ,of where the sensible centre is and where the balance is right in terms of the right regulatory reforms in this area.
We have a cautionary tale in this country right now in relation to getting the balance right, because where we've got it wrong is in regulation and taxes around tobacco. The rules we put in place for public health reasons, as well as the regulatory structures and the taxes placed on tobacco have resulted in government effectively outsourcing the supply of tobacco to organised crime.
The illicit tobacco and vaping industry in Australia today is worth more than the legal industry. That is a direct result of heavy handed regulation and government tax decisions made in this place and other places, which have resulted in governments outsourcing the tobacco industry to organised crime. In my home state of Victoria, it's resulted in more than 100 firebombings in the past couple of years, as organised crime figures compete for turf to sell their illegal product.
There's the example of what I say is a cautionary tale about how we get the settings right and somehow find the sensible centre in this debate to allow people to take responsibility for their own actions but also to protect Australians from predatory behaviour. The parliamentary inquiry chaired by the late Peta Murphy was aimed squarely at trying to achieve those outcomes.
The report was titled You win some, you lose more, but it's better known as the Murphy report. It was also supported in full by the deputy chair, my friend and colleague the member for Cowper, Pat Conaghan, a man who has worked in New South Wales police, worked in the court system and now represents his community with distinction. He, through the lived experience of his former workplace, is fully aware of some of the challenges we face in terms of gambling addiction and the impact it has on our society.
Between them, Peta Murphy and Pat Conaghan prepared a report which I think was a work of great substance, and I am pleased that it has remained a subject of debate in this place, though I'm not pleased that it's taken so long for some of the 31 recommendations to actually be actioned. The focus was on online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.
The inquiry was in direct response to the growing concerns, particularly amongst young people, of the harm caused by online gambling, and it made recommendations which reflected the fact that Australians are the biggest losers in the world when it comes to gambling. Peta Murphy said herself at the release of the report: We have a culture where sport and gambling are intrinsically linked.
These behaviours are causing increasingly widespread and serious harm to individuals, families, and communities. I agree with Peta, and I agree with the vast substance of that report. I've previously worked in government to help introduce gambling advertising bans during live sport.
That's not because I'm a wowser. I punt fairly infrequently. I may have a few bets during the Spring Racing Carnival and rapidly lose interest for the rest of the year, but I think we need to draw the distinction between sports which were primarily set up for punting—horse racing, greyhound racing, the trots.
They're sports that exist because people can gamble on them. We need to draw the distinction between those and sports like the football codes, which have become saturated with gambling but were never intended to be used for that purpose. That is where the gambling industry and the sports themselves have got to take some more responsibility, because families sitting down to watch the National Rugby League game of the week or the AFL game of the week on a Friday night should not be exposed to saturation gambling advertising, and that is the fundamental issue that many of us in this place can agree on.
There is a major difference in my mind between those sports which exist for the sole purpose of gambling, like the racing codes, and the normalisation of gambling in other sporting codes like our football codes. That's why the coalition took action in 2018 and banned advertising during live sport. I respect the community's view that further action is required, and that's why we've got to this point here today with the legislation.
It's important to note that the legislation before the House today will not pass unamended. The coalition is engaged with the government in negotiations today—and, I'm sure, going forward—about some of the amendments we'd like to see put in place to strengthen the legislation before the House. The bill we're debating right now is not the legislation that will return to the chamber sometime next week after it's been through the Senate.
The Murphy report, amongst its 31 recommendations, which applied a public health lens to online gambling and reducing harm in Australia, included some significant reforms around the Australian government developing and implementing a comprehensive national strategy on online gambling harm reduction supported by a national regulation, an online gambling ombudsman, a harm-reduction levy on online-wagering service providers, a public education campaign, more independent research and improved data collection.
It was, as I said at the outset, a comprehensive piece of work. Peta Murphy should be commended for that work. Pat Conaghan, in deputy chairing it, should also be commended.
For reasons that only the Prime Minister can explain, the Murphy report has not been acted on with the level of urgency that members in this place expected. I know of many Labor backbenchers who are anxious to see this legislation finally make it to the chamber, just as there are members on my side of the chamber keen to see more action. We do need stronger protections for vulnerable people.
We do need to stop the predatory behaviour. More action is required to target the foreign actors who are preying on Australians. The mainstream sports, such as the football codes, have to get the message that they need to find other forms of revenue and not depend so heavily on the gambling revenue that is flowing their way.
They have to reduce their own dependence on gambling for their future financial sustainability. In closing, I want to refer again to this question of balance. We need to make sure, in this place, that we don't introduce legislation which has unintended consequences.
The three fundamental principles that members on this side are seeking to apply to the legislation when it comes back in its amended form are that Australians must have choice, that adults should take a level of responsibility for their decisions and their actions and that governments have an obligation to protect vulnerable Australians, particularly children, from exploitation and harm.
I don't think those three principles are contradictory. They provide what I think is a balanced framework that respects personal freedoms while recognising the need for sensible safeguards. Those principles recognise that there are legal industries, such as horseracing, which employ thousands of Australians and which are an important part of our regional communities in particular.
If we are too heavy handed in our approach to this legislation today, we will jeopardise the future of thoroughbred racing, particularly in regional communities. They're the most marginal racetracks in the country. There is nothing to be gained by undermining that sport, which actually exists for the purpose of gambling.
The jobs associated with that—the trainers, the jockeys, the course staff, the catering industry, the fashion industry—are all jobs that Australians, quite rightly, want to see maintained and kept into the future. So it is important we do get the balance right in terms of Australians having choice and Australians taking responsibility for their own actions but also government fulfilling its obligation to protect vulnerable Australians, particularly children, from exploitation and harm.
Australians enjoy their sport. For many families, their weekends and their evenings are centred around local and professional sporting events. Sport should not just be an opportunity for gambling products to be marketed, particularly to young people.
I think Australians understand that governments can't remove all risk from life, but they do expect us to step in when businesses or criminal figures target vulnerable Australians in order to try and make money. We do need to avoid unintended consequences, but the coalition will support reasonable measures to reduce gambling harm. We support protecting our children, we support protecting vulnerable Australians and we support evidence based reform, but we will not be supporting legislation if it weakens the existing safeguards, ignores the available evidence or creates unnecessary economic consequences.
The government has had three years to get this right. They've got another four or five days in negotiation with the coalition to fix this legislation. Unfortunately, the bill as it stands today falls short of what the community expects and won't be supported by the coalition, but we do stand ready to work with the government to support some amended legislation so it genuinely protects vulnerable Australians.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Scrymgour ): It's my understanding that the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into Hansard, in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.