Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026

Ms CHANEY (Curtin) (17:18): I rise to speak in support of the member for Warringah's amendments. I find it extraordinary that the government isn't going for a national regulator here, and I want to talk a little bit about what we heard in the Murphy inquiry and what the committee found in relation to a national regulator. Recommendations 3 and 23 talked about the need for a national online gambling regulator and the broad suite of powers that they needed, and we heard evidence about a number of different areas that makes this the right thing to do.

Firstly, we have weak and fragmented legislation. Australians lose the most to online gambling because we have a weak and fragmented regulatory framework, which places all the onus for reducing harm onto the person who gambles. That was the finding of the committee.

The committee also made findings about the fragmented approach, with four Australian government ministers and at least seven state and territory ministers with some responsibility for online gambling regulation and harm reduction. We heard evidence and made findings about the inconsistency across states and territories and how that inconsistency and fragmentation has negatively impacted harm reduction efforts.

We also heard that even the wagering companies agreed that this fragmentation doesn't work. Responsible Wagering Australia noted that providers are already accountable to 26 different regulatory bodies. There was really strong support for the Australian government to establish national regulation and a national regulator.

Suicide Prevention Australia said that the problem is that gambling regulation operates in silos. The Alliance for Gambling Reform backed it as well. Tabcorp—and I quote from their submission—said: The internet and construct of the Australian Constitution mean that only the Federal Government has the levers and authority to effectively introduce nationally consistent regulations in line with consumer expectations and the betting environment.

Effective enforcement is only possible if a single national betting regulator has the power to license and impose conditions on betting operators. So how about listening to the betting companies on that issue? We also heard evidence about regulatory capture, and concerns were raised about the regulatory capture of the Northern Territory Racing Commission.

Financial Counselling Australia said the NTRC was set up to further the development of the racing and betting industry in the Northern Territory. This is our de facto national regulator. Another submission said that the NTRC is basically a business partner, not a regulator, and Professor Charles Livingstone said there was a much too cosy relationship between the regulator and the regulated.

When asked about commission members, the NTRC said in their evidence: As you would imagine, some have an interest in the racing industry and sports, but those interests are declared as part of our regular commission meetings. It is so normalised they didn't see that there was a problem with it. The committee also heard that the gambling industry uses similar methods to the tobacco industry to minimise the impact of regulation.

These tactics include lobbying, public relations, political donations and funding, and supporting research agendas as well. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Georganas ): The question is that the amendments be agreed to.