A Nationals MP Wants Gambling Reform. The Government Decides If It Happens.
Nationals MP Pat Conaghan used a speech in the House of Representatives on 13 August 2026 to push for action on gambling reform, pointing to findings from a parliamentary inquiry that heard evidence this month of betting industry practices targeting vulnerable clients. The Guardian
Conaghan's speech drew on 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 had no duty of care toward him. These allegations, from an inquiry that reported its findings in August 2026, formed the backbone of Conaghan's case to the chamber.
The bill at the centre of Conaghan's push is the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, a private member's bill he sponsored. Private member's bills are legislation introduced by individual MPs rather than by the government of the day, and they rarely become law without broad cross-party support. 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 has moved through the committee process rather than with government backing, which is the usual path for a backbench bill without executive support.
Hansard is the official report of proceedings of the Australian parliament and its committees. The parliamentary Hansard office publishes transcripts and runs an X account, @AUS_Hansard, that posts 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 set aside legislative time for it. The Coalition opposition has no control over the notice paper, the parliament's agenda of scheduled business. Labor decides what gets listed for debate. Conaghan can agitate, and clearly intends to, but whether the bill reaches a second reading vote, the stage where MPs vote on whether a bill should proceed to detailed scrutiny, rests with the government.
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 stronger consumer protections.
The broader context here is that Conaghan's question, as captured in the Guardian's footage, amounts to a direct challenge to parliament's willingness to act on its own inquiry findings. An MP asking what the point is 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 lands with colleagues who have sat through inquiries whose recommendations were quietly shelved.
The key dynamic for the political operatives watching this unfold 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.
