Nationals MP Conaghan Demands Action on Gambling Reform After Inquiry Revelations
Nationals MP Pat Conaghan used a speech in the House of Representatives on 13 August 2026 to demand movement on gambling reform, citing findings from a parliamentary inquiry that heard evidence earlier this month of betting industry practices targeting vulnerable clients. The Guardian
Conaghan's address to the chamber referenced inquiry testimony from former rugby league player Luke Bateman, who alleged that gambling company promoters supplied him with cocaine and alcohol. Bateman told the inquiry the betting industry exercised no duty of care toward him. The allegations, drawn from an inquiry that reported its findings in August 2026, formed the evidentiary backbone of Conaghan's speech.
The bill at the centre of Conaghan's advocacy is the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, a private member's bill he sponsored. Hansard records from 2 July 2026 list the bill as before the House of Representatives, with a reporting date in August following a three-month inquiry. The bill's progress through the parliament has been deliberate, shaped by the committee process rather than government imprimatur, which is the standard trajectory for a backbench bill without executive backing.
Hansard, the official report of proceedings of the Australian parliament and its committees, documents the bill's status and the inquiry timeline. The parliamentary Hansard office publishes transcripts and operates an X account, @AUS_Hansard, that sends direct notifications when transcripts are published.
The mechanics here matter for anyone tracking the bill's prospects. A private member's bill in the House of Reps needs not just a majority vote but a government willing to spare the legislative time for it. The Coalition opposition has no control over the notice paper. Labor determines what gets listed for debate. Conaghan can agitate, and clearly intends to, but the substantive question of whether the bill reaches a second reading vote rests with the government of the day.
The substance of Bateman's allegations gives Conaghan's speech its sharpest edge. The claim that betting industry promoters facilitated a client's substance use while operating without any enforceable duty of care is the kind of evidence that puts pressure on MPs who might otherwise prefer the file stays in the committee system. It also gives the crossbench and any sympathetic government backbenchers a concrete case to point to when arguing for the consumer protection provisions the bill presumably contains.
The question Conaghan posed in the chamber, as captured in the Guardian's footage, amounts to a direct challenge to the parliament's willingness to act on its own inquiry findings. An MP asking "what's the point" of an inquiry process that produces evidence of industry misconduct without legislative consequence is a pointed critique of the committee system itself, not just of gambling policy. It is the kind of argument that resonates with colleagues who have sat through inquiries whose recommendations were quietly shelved.
For the political operatives and advisers watching this unfold, the key dynamic is a Nationals MP publicly pushing a reform agenda that puts him at odds with the more libertarian instincts of parts of the Coalition base. Gambling reform has historically been a conscience-issue zone where major parties have been reluctant to bind their members. Conaghan's decision to sponsor the bill and then use inquiry testimony as a public lever signals he intends to keep the pressure on through the August reporting period and beyond.
