This bill became law on Aug 26th, 2026.
Budget, tax & economy
Providers of licensed interactive wagering services must pay the levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. if they offer those services during any part of a levy periodThe period for which the charge is calculated..
The government said licensed wagering providers, rather than taxpayers, should pay ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority.'s costs of administering and enforcing new protections against harmful gambling marketing and of establishing and running the wagering-advertising opt-out register. It said the levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. is only for recovering those costs, not raising general revenue. The government also pointed to the broader harm-reduction need: gambling losses were about $36 billion in the previous year, or nearly $100 million a day.
Australia already regulated licensed online wagering under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, but by August 2026 MPs described gambling advertising as pervasive and gambling harm as affecting individuals, families and communities. The government responded with an opt-out register and tighter controls on inducements and advertising, then proposed this levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. so licensed wagering providers would fund ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority.’s eligible administration and enforcement costs; Parliament passed the reforms and levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. bill on 19 August, and Royal AssentFormal approval that makes a bill law. followed on 26 August.
Larissa Waters (Australian Greens) argued that the wider reform package remained too weak because it did not ban all gambling advertising and still allowed three ads an hour. She said requiring people to opt out of online gambling ads would be costly and ineffective, and that people should instead have to choose to opt in.
The government introduced this bill. It passed with support from Labor, One Nation, Nationals; opposed by Greens, some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 26 Aug 2026
Final passage
Recorded final vote
1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.
Passage speed
9 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Providers of licensed interactive wagering services must pay the levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. if they offer those services during any part of a levy periodThe period for which the charge is calculated.. The first period runs from the day after Royal AssentFormal approval that makes a bill law. to the next 30 June; later periods are financial years.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority.) will set how each provider's levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. is calculated. It must consult the minister first. The Act does not set a dollar amount because ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority.'s costs were not yet fully known.
The total collected for each period cannot exceed ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority.'s eligible costs. These include running and regulating the wagering-advertising opt-out register, investigating breaches, enforcing restrictions on gambling inducements and paying the register operator.
The levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. can also recover costs of procuring and building the opt-out register, even if ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority. ultimately does not enter an operating agreement. Upfront costs generally run from commencement until the day before the register's proclaimed start date; monitoring, investigation and enforcement costs are excluded from this upfront category.
ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority. may spread the register's upfront costs across two or more consecutive levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. periods instead of recovering them at once. The shares allocated across those periods cannot add up to more than 100%, and ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority. must consult the minister before setting them. These decisions must be publicly registered and Parliament can disallow them.
The Act starts the day after Royal AssentFormal approval that makes a bill law. and applies to conduct both inside and outside Australia, including every external territory. It binds state and territory governments but not the Commonwealth government.
7 Imposition of levy Levy is imposed on a person for a levy period if the person provided licensed interactive wagering services during the whole or a part of the levy period. 8 By whom is levy payable Levy imposed on a person for a levy period is payable by the person.Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Act 2026
9 Amount of levy (1) The amount of levy imposed on a person for a levy period is the amount worked out in accordance with a method determined by the ACMA by legislative instrument. (2) Before making a determination under subsection (1), the ACMA must consult the Minister.Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Act 2026
10 Limit on total amount of levies (1) The total amount of the levies imposed on persons for a levy period must not exceed the sum of: (a) the cost of the Opt‑out Register, during the levy period, set out in subsection (2), other than the ACMA’s upfront Opt‑out Register costs; and (b) the costs incurred, during the levy period, by the ACMA in relation to the performance of its functions, or the exercise of its powers, under a Part 7D provision; and (c) if the levy period is a designated levy period—the applicable percentage of the ACMA’s upfront Opt‑out Register costs (see subsection (3)).Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Act 2026
(e) the costs incurred by the ACMA in relation to a procurement process that resulted in, or was intended to result in, the ACMA entering into an Opt‑out Register arrangement; (f) any other costs incurred by the ACMA in relation to: (i) preparing to establish, or the development of, the Wagering Advertising Opt‑out Register; or (ii) the operation of the Wagering Advertising Opt‑out Register; including any such costs incurred by the ACMA if there is no Opt‑out Register arrangement. (3) The ACMA’s upfront Opt‑out Register costs are the costs set out in subsection (2), except paragraph (2)(cInteractive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Act 2026
This clause enables ACMA, by legislative instrument, to designate two or more consecutive levy periods as designated levy periods and to specify an applicable percentage for each designated levy period. The applicable percentage for a designated levy period determines the proportion of ACMA’s upfront Register costs that is included in the total amount of levies that may be imposed for that levy period under paragraph 10(1)(c). Different applicable percentages may be specified for different designated levy periods. However, the total of all applicable percentages must not exceed 100 per cent.Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) explanatory memorandum
2 Commencement (1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms. Commencement information Commencement Date/Details 1. The whole of this Act The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.Interactive Gambling (Cost Recovery Levy) Act 2026
Context
Australia already regulated licensed online wagering under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, but by August 2026 MPs described gambling advertising as pervasive and gambling harm as affecting individuals, families and communities. The government responded with an opt-out register and tighter controls on inducements and advertising, then proposed this levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. so licensed wagering providers would fund ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority.’s eligible administration and enforcement costs; Parliament passed the reforms and levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. bill on 19 August, and Royal AssentFormal approval that makes a bill law. followed on 26 August.
The government introduces the levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. bill for gambling reforms
The government introduced the bill in the House to let ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority. recover the costs of administering and enforcing new wagering-advertising protections and establishing the opt-out register.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Parliament highlights gambling harm behind the reforms
Speakers said around one in 10 Australians experience gambling harm, with effects spreading to family finances, businesses and housing.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the gambling reforms
The companion reforms passed Parliament with restrictions on wagering advertising, direct inducements, illegal gambling services and stronger operation of BetStop.
Department of Infrastructure ↗Parliament passes the cost-recovery levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. bill
Both houses passed the levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. bill in the same form, completing the parliamentary approval needed for licensed wagering providers to fund the specified ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority. costs.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentFormal approval that makes a bill law. creates the levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. Act
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentFormal approval that makes a bill law., and the Act starts the following day so ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority. can recover eligible costs under the new levyA compulsory charge on regulated wagering providers. arrangements.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 29 to 13.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Recorded vote: 37 to 13.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentFormal approval that makes a bill law., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
Larissa Waters (Australian Greens) argued that the wider reform package remained too weak because it did not ban all gambling advertising and still allowed three ads an hour. She said requiring people to opt out of online gambling ads would be costly and ineffective, and that people should instead have to choose to opt in.
The government said the register would give people one place to stop wagering ads across participating online services. It argued that the wagering industry should pay the register's administration, operation and enforcement costs, and the Act caps collections at eligible ACMAThe Australian Communications and Media Authority. costs.
Further sources
Votes
The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Passed 37 to 13. Support came from Labor, One Nation, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents. 3 cross-floor votes were recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal), Andrew McLachlan Csc (Liberal), and Paul Scarr (Liberal). Liberal had split recorded votes.
Earlier bill-stage votes
Passed 29 to 13. Support came from Labor, One Nation, and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. 2 cross-floor votes were recorded: Andrew McLachlan Csc (Liberal) and Paul Scarr (Liberal). Liberal had split recorded votes.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
Senate
Defeated 11 to 24. Support came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal.
Defeated 11 to 24. Support came from Greens, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal.
Defeated 12 to 32. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals. 2 cross-floor votes were recorded: Andrew McLachlan Csc (Liberal) and Paul Scarr (Liberal). Liberal had split recorded votes.
Passed 32 to 9. Support came from Labor, Liberal, Nationals, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Greens.
Passed 39 to 21. Support came from Labor, Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Liberal, Nationals, and Liberal Party.
Defeated 21 to 39. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, and Liberal Party. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, One Nation, and minor parties and independents.
Passed 31 to 12. Support came from Labor and Nationals. Opposition came from Greens and minor parties and independents. 2 cross-floor votes were recorded: Andrew McLachlan Csc (Liberal) and Paul Scarr (Liberal). Liberal had split recorded votes.
Defeated 12 to 28. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. 2 cross-floor votes were recorded: Andrew McLachlan Csc (Liberal) and Paul Scarr (Liberal). Liberal had split recorded votes.
Defeated 10 to 30. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and Nationals.
The Senate rejected an amendment to the package on the voices. The evidence pack does not identify this amendment's narrower subject.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate rejected amendments to the package on the voices. The evidence pack does not identify their narrower subject.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Pocock opposed the bill at the second-reading vote, although his speech focused on the companion gambling reform bill, which he condemned as too weak to protect children and curb gambling harm.
Read in Hansard ↗Walker supports the bill because it makes the gambling industry fund the advertising opt-out register rather than shifting the cost of protections onto taxpayers.
Read in Hansard ↗Michelle Ananda-Rajah supports the bill as part of a significant package to reduce gambling harm, including an industry-funded approach backed by stronger enforcement.
Read in Hansard ↗Henderson supports the bill as part of an amended gambling reform package, saying it now provides stronger safeguards against gambling harm while preserving personal choice and recognising the wagering industry's economic importance.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
4 speakers · 4 support
“Following the introduction of the bill, concerns raised through the Senate inquiry and by parliamentarians have resulted in further changes to strengthen these reforms. That is how this process should work. These amendments give us stronger protections around inducements. They extend the live sport blackout. They strengthen protections for children watching streaming services. They give Australians a clearer and more comprehensive way to opt out of wagering advertising. They strengthen action against illegal operators and they made the gambling industry contribute to the cost of the protections we're putting in place. These are worthwhile reforms, and I support the bills.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I will go through, broadly speaking, what this package entails. It involves shielding children from gambling ad exposure; creating one set of rules for every screen, whether you're watching it on free-to-air or online through TV in an app, for example; giving people control over what they see through the triple-lock function, which gives them an opt out if they're an adult and they're logged in; closing off inducements at vulnerable pressure points and banning commissions which have driven predatory marketing behaviour; and having an industry-pays approach and enforcement with teeth, bearing in mind that this package of reforms is complementary to what we introduced in our first term.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The Albanese Labor government will also impose a levy on gambling companies to cover the cost of this register and other measures on inducements, because if companies are ready to make a profit from gambling, they should also be ready to pay for the measures that keep people safe from gambling related harm.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This Bill enables the ACMA to recover the costs of those activities through a levy imposed on licensed interactive wagering service providers. It is appropriate that the wagering industry, rather than taxpayers, bears the costs of regulating these activities.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 3 support · 1 oppose
“Australians lost approximately $32 billion on legal forms of gambling in 2023-24, and 25 per cent of those losses were as a result of wagering. The consequences extend well beyond financial loss. Gambling addiction can contribute to psychological distress, relationship breakdown, financial hardship and workplace impacts. Families often bear the consequences alongside the individual gambler. We also recognise that we've got to get the balance right. This is a very important industry, including, of course, the racing industry. We think that, in bringing forward these amendments, which have now been passed in the House, we have a much better bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government took more than three years to bring forward serious reforms in this space. It is because of the coalition—because we referred this bill to scrutiny, because we listened to the evidence and because we held firm until real changes were made—that this bill is now one we can responsibly pass and support. Protect children, protect vulnerable Australians, respect the choices of adults who gamble responsibly and protect the jobs of tens of thousands that depend on lawful, properly regulated industry. That's what this is. This is the balance this parliament should and must get right. Will Labor govern with balance, or will they continue to fail to govern with balance and respect for our most vulnerable people? This is a better bill because the coalition did the hard work, which Labor should have done from the very beginning, to protect Australian families and also protect the industry.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I think this compromise goes a long way to getting that personal responsibility and putting that into the bill. I think it is a good thing that we have done that. Of course, there will always be horror stories, as there are with any product or anything in the world. People can abuse many things, and hearing them was average. So overall that is all I will say on the substantive motion, the bill, given the time. I know I have about 30 seconds to go before we go into continuation.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“This bill has become so convoluted it looks less like gambling reform and much more like a protection racket for the gambling industry. It's full of loopholes, delays, complexities, carve-outs. It is designed to not work. There was a very simple proposition put to this parliament, and put to the government, off the back of the Murphy review. That report recommended the ban of gambling advertising. It said clearly: 'Halfway measures do not work.' It said there needed to be a ban on inducements because of their 'predatory and harmful' nature. It said there must be a national regulator because the gambling industry has proven itself 'incapable' of doing the right thing. This bill fails on all three of those points. There is no ban on gambling advertising across any medium, there is no ban on inducements, and there is no national regulator to ensure gambling companies—who have shown themselves to be immoral, to be improper and to be corrupt—do the right thing. They have proven themselves unfit to be an industry, and yet the key recommendation, to have a watchdog to hold them to account, is missing from this entire bill and entire conversation, from both Labor and the Liberal Party.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, a bill that the Greens have opposed from the moment it was introduced by Labor.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“I urge senators and colleagues: we have an opportunity to protect Australian children here today in this place. I really commend the courage of colleagues who crossed the floor in the other place and others who may be contemplating crossing the floor on amendments and, potentially, on the bill. Today is a historic day, but I think it'll go down in history for all the wrong reasons. We will look back in time and say: 'There was a prime minister who squibbed it. There was a prime minister who had the opportunity to leave a legacy for this country, and instead we got the talking points from industry and we saw the effect and impact of lobbying and of vested interests on public policy.'”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 29 to 13.
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Recorded vote: 37 to 13.
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentFormal approval that makes a bill law., turning the bill into an Act.
