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

Senator SCARR (Queensland) (11:37): I will be supporting a number of the amendments of Senator Pocock today and I will be crossing the floor today. It'll be only the second time in the seven years I've served in this place that I've chosen to do so, but I think this is such a serious issue for millions of Australians who've been impacted by gambling harm, and the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 is such a flawed piece of legislation that I have no choice but to do so—and it is a flawed piece of legislation.

We were advised yesterday in the party room of the amendments that had been achieved, and I commend Senator Henderson for her work in relation to this—I do. We shouldn't forget this is the Labor government's bill. I went through those amendments last night.

I went through the legislation and there are serious flaws in this legislation. Hence, I will be crossing the floor and voting in favour of a number of amendments which I believe address those glaring flaws. Let me give you just one example.

Let me talk you through what's going to happen during the State of Origin. In my home state of Queensland, the State of Origin is the biggest sporting event during the calendar year. More than four million people watch State of Origin.

When I was a little boy of six or seven years old, wild horses couldn't keep me away from the State of Origin. State of Origin kicks off at 8.05 pm. This bill says: … if there is a scheduled break or unscheduled break in the sporting event—any content provided on the service during the break is taken to be content in conjunction with live coverage of the sporting event.

So, for the first 25 minutes of State of Origin, you can't play a gambling ad during a break when a try is scored or a penalty is kicked because it's taken to be in conjunction with live coverage of the sporting event. After 8.30 pm, everything changes. The provision says if there is a scheduled or unscheduled break in the sporting event after 8.30, any content provided on the service during the break is taken not to be in conjunction with live coverage of the sporting event.

That's the loophole. Black becomes white after 8.30 pm. How many kids are going to be watching the State of Origin from 8.05 pm to 8.30 pm, and then go to bed at 8.30 pm?

What happens at 8.30 pm? It's open slather in terms of advertising. Every time a try is scored, and there's a break: advertising.

At half-time, which will be after 8.30 pm: advertising. A penalty is kicked: advertising. An injury: advertising.

It is fatally flawed. So for the Prime Minister to get up and say that this is addressing advertising during live sport, when our most totemic sporting event, State of Origin, is only going to be regulated for 25 minutes out of 80 minutes is just absurd. It's an absurdity, and I won't be part of it.

I would like to commend all of those who were involved in the Murphy report. The Murphy report was bipartisan; it was unanimous. I've read the Murphy report, and I read it again last night as I was reflecting on what I'd do in response to the amendments which the coalition had secured.

The Murphy report is clear: gambling harm is a ravage through the Australian community, through Australian families. Can you believe that, on latest estimates, 600,000 kids under the age of 18 are engaging in sport betting. There are 900,000 Australians at risk in terms of gambling harm, and for every one of those there are at least one or two or three or four people impacted.

Millions of Australians are impacted by gambling harm, and all we're doing by introducing this bill is changing the contours of the marketing and advertising budgets of those who are preying on the vulnerable. That's all we're doing. Evidence—plain, unequivocal evidence—was given by gambling experts, psychiatrists, those who've studied gambling practices for decades.

The evidence was clear: gambling advertising works. That's why the gambling companies use it. It's having an impact on our children.

Gambling inducements work. The research is that with the use of free bets and other promotions and inducements, people gamble more. They gamble more frequently.

They're at more risk of harm. That is why, as Senator Pocock said, the Murphy report was clear and unequivocal that inducements need to end immediately. In my view, we should be spending less time listening to the gambling companies and spending more time listening to those wonderful people in the Australian community who are there to pick up the pieces after the gambling companies have done their work.

I want to commend all of those organisations who provided evidence to this inquiry. I'd like to commend the Alliance for Gambling Reform, and I spoke to Tim Costello last night. I went through these amendments with a fine toothcomb.

Senators know me. I went through these amendments with a fine toothcomb. This is what the Alliance for Gambling Reform said in their release.

I'll quote it because it's important that their words are on the record of this place when senators make their decision: The Senate Inquiry into these reforms highlighted shocking cases in which gambling companies were abusing their power, offering illicit drugs, escorts and free luxury accommodation in order to keep people betting—even when their betting was completely out of control.

The reforms that will now go through the Federal Parliament are cosmetic over substance and reflect the major party's intent to prioritise power, money and vested interests over the welfare of Australians who lose more to gambling than any other country on the planet on a per capita basis. That's what Reverend Tim Costello said in relation to this package. Reverend Tim Costello has been at the coalface in relation to trying to help people suffering from gambling harm, and some of the stories he has told are absolutely heartbreaking.

I commend the work of the alliance in terms of their advocacy, and I know how profoundly disappointed they must be with the outcome that we're seeing here today. I want to deal with a number of other issues. As Senator Pocock said, no-one is calling for a ban on gambling.

Anyone who argues that in this place is misleading the Australian public. No-one is calling for that. But this is a public health issue of the first order, and it needs to be addressed as a public health issue.

Earlier in the week, I saw a video of a psychiatrist who specialises in addictive medicine putting a gambling addict into an MRI machine to see what was happening to that gambling addict's brain when they were gambling in an MRI machine. As soon as the addict hit the bet, even before the outcome was known, their brain lit up like a Christmas tree. It lit up like a Christmas tree.

Then, when they had the win, it lit up as a Christmas tree. That is the biology that is being exploited by gambling companies with their inducements and with their advertising. That is the reality.

People can talk about responsible gambling all they want, but gambling disorder is a recognised psychiatric disorder, and it's a real thing. The tactics the gambling companies use mean that people are spending money they can't afford, potentially not feeding their family and kids, and suffering devastating mental health consequences as a result of their gambling.

Today, I will be crossing the floor for only the second time I've done so in this place in seven years. I do not do so lightly. I'll be crossing the floor to support a number of Senator Pocock's amendments, including his amendments for there to be a true independent statutory review in relation to the operation of these provisions.

I commend Senator Pocock in relation to that amendment, which calls for—and I wouldn't have thought this to be a novel idea—actual experts in relation to gambling harm and its impact on the young and the vulnerable to be the ones who actually engage in the review in three years time. I have no confidence whatsoever, given what we've seen in this legislation with respect to any review that is orchestrated by the Labor government.

I have no confidence at all. Any review must be open, it must be transparent, and it must be presided over by experts. So, today, I'll be voting with St Vincent de Paul, who helps people who have suffered from gambling harm and their families.

I'll be voting with the Salvation Army. I'll be voting with Anglicare. I'll be voting with Suicide Prevention Australia, who have talked about the impact of gambling in terms of rates of attempted suicide and suicide.

I'll be voting with Relationships Australia, which has to deal with the consequences of relationships falling apart as a result of gambling. I'll be voting with Financial Counselling Australia as well, because they've also got to try and put the pieces back together. I'll be voting with the legion—and there is a legion—of experts in relation to gambling.

There's a legion of them who have provided the evidence, which is not reflected in this bill. It's not reflected in this bill. This isn't an evidence based bill.

It's some sort of awful compromise which doesn't achieve any substantial change. I'll be voting with those experts. I'll be voting with the psychiatrists and the medical practitioners and the addiction treatment specialists who all wrote to the inquiry.

I'll be voting with them. Most of all, I'll be voting for those people with lived experience of gambling harm, who have been the prey of these predatory companies. I'll be voting for them and I'll be voting for their families.