Send the gambling reform bill to a committee for five weeks of public scrutiny — back it or block it?

Independent Kate Chaney moved to refer the government's Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 to a House committee for a short inquiry and advisory report by 11 August 2026. She and Monique Ryan argued the bill falls short of the 2023 Murphy report — no comprehensive ad ban, no national regulator, no limits on inducements — and that affected families, clinicians and researchers were shut out while the gambling industry got access. They said a five-week inquiry would delay nothing, since parliament does not sit again until 11 August.

The government moved to end the debate (carried 72–12) and then voted the referral down 78–13.

🗳 A public mood-check, not a scientific poll. Vote to reveal how the chamber voted.

🗳 be the first to weigh in🏛 29m debated

📄 House Hansard, 2 Jul 2026 — Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee; Reference

drill in ▸close ▾

The strongest case each way

For · Kate Chaney (Ind)Says the bill only partly reflects the Murphy report's 31 recommendations — the ad measure allows three TV ads an hour and unlimited advertising after 8.30pm, and the online 'opt-out' is used by almost nobody. Argues stakeholders got a single 45-minute session while the gambling lobby had ample access, and a short inquiry would test the bill against evidence without delaying reform by a single sitting day.

For · Monique Ryan (Ind)Seconding the motion, argues that after more than three years of inaction since the Murphy report, families, clinicians and researchers deserve a proper public process. Says the reforms won't adequately protect children and vulnerable people, and that parliament can afford a few weeks to get legislation of this significance right.

Against · Government (Labor)Made no argument on the substance during the debate. The government moved to shut down discussion and then voted to defeat the referral, keeping the bill out of the committee inquiry the crossbench sought.