The bill amends the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 by altering the wording of subsection 8A(1) and repealing paragraph 8A(1)(c). The act also sets the whole bill to commence the day after the end of a two‑year period beginning on the day it receives Royal Assent.
On its face the text is short and technical: replace the phrase “any or all” with “either or both” in s8A(1), and remove paragraph (c) of that subsection. The bill’s title signals an intended policy outcome — to end online wagering on greyhound racing — but the precise legal effect depends on how current s8A(1) and paragraph (c) operate within the Interactive Gambling Act and associated regulations.
The two‑year delay gives operators and regulators time to adjust, but raises practical questions about enforcement, offshore offerings, revenue impacts for racing bodies, and the need for accompanying regulatory instruments.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill substitutes “either or both” for “any or all” in subsection 8A(1) of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 and repeals paragraph 8A(1)(c). It sets the entire Act to commence the day after two years from Royal Assent. The changes are narrowly drafted; whether they accomplish a legal ban on online wagering for greyhound racing depends on the current wording and role of s8A(1)(c) in the Act.
Who It Affects
Primary stakeholders include licensed online betting operators, greyhound racing clubs and participants, integrity bodies and state racing regulators, and punters who bet online. Secondary impacts will fall on advertising platforms, racing-related service providers, and regulators tasked with enforcing the Interactive Gambling Act.
Why It Matters
A targeted amendment to a single subsection can produce outsized market and regulatory effects if that paragraph supplies the legal basis for online wagering on a specific racing code. The two‑year commencement creates a predictable transition window but also pushes implementation work — regulatory guidance, licence adjustments and enforcement planning — into the medium term.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This draft law makes two surgical edits to the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 and sets a fixed two‑year delay before those edits take effect. One edit tightens the language in subsection 8A(1) by replacing the phrase “any or all” with “either or both.” The other removes paragraph 8A(1)(c) in full.
The bill’s title explicitly links these edits to ending online wagering on greyhound racing, but the text itself amends only that subsection; the practical effect therefore depends on how that subsection currently structures allowed or prohibited interactive gambling services.
Because the bill does not reproduce the current text of s8A or add new definitions, compliance officers and counsel will need to read the existing Act side‑by‑side with these amendments to determine which services become illegal, which licences must be varied or revoked, and whether any regulatory instruments or guidance must follow. The two‑year delay provides breathing room to redesign products, update platforms, wind down markets or seek legislative fixes, but the delay also creates a planning horizon for revenue forecasting and stakeholder consultation.The bill is silent on enforcement mechanics, penalties, transitional arrangements for existing bets or promotions, and interactions with state laws that currently underpin racing regulation and funding.
That silence means practical implementation will fall to regulators (and possibly further legislative or regulatory amendments) to clarify whether authorised in‑venue or tote betting, offshore operator offers to Australians, and advertising rules are affected. The change is therefore a starting point, not a turnkey enforcement regime.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces “any or all” with “either or both” in subsection 8A(1) of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001.
It repeals paragraph 8A(1)(c) of the same subsection in its entirety.
The whole Act is set to commence the day after the end of a two‑year period beginning on the day it receives Royal Assent.
The bill contains no transitional provisions, enforcement details, or amended regulatory instruments — it effects only textual changes to the Act.
Determining the operational impact (including whether the changes ban online wagering on greyhound racing) requires comparing these amendments to the existing text and regulations that interpret s8A(1).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This section gives the Act its formal name: Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ending Online Wagering on Greyhound Racing) Act 2025. The title signals the sponsor’s policy objective and will frame stakeholder interpretation of the limited amendments that follow, but the title itself has no operative legal effect.
Commencement — two‑year delayed start
The Act does not commence immediately; it comes into force the day after the end of a two‑year period beginning on the day of Royal Assent. Practically, that creates a fixed transition window for affected parties: operators can plan product withdrawal or modification, regulators can draft guidance, and governments can model fiscal impacts. The delayed start also raises timing questions for regulatory amendments that will be needed to operationalise any ban.
Text change — 'any or all' becomes 'either or both'
This amendment swaps two coordinating phrases. In statutory drafting, “any or all” can be read as allowing a decision to affect none, one, several or all of listed items, whereas “either or both” usually refers to precisely two alternatives and emphasises a choice between them or both together. The practical result depends on the structure of s8A(1): the substitution may narrow or clarify application where the subsection addresses two distinct elements, but it could also introduce ambiguity if drafters intended broader coverage. Expect legal advisers to test interpretive outcomes and for regulators to issue guidance explaining how the phrasing applies.
Repeal of paragraph (c)
Removing paragraph 8A(1)(c) eliminates whatever category, exemption or rule that paragraph currently supplies. If that paragraph is the statutory basis that allows interactive wagering on greyhound racing or a specific form of betting, its removal would withdraw that legal basis. But because the bill does not insert replacement text or transition rules, repeal creates gaps that must be resolved by regulators, further legislation, or judicial interpretation — for example, whether existing licences are immediately affected on commencement or whether current operations require bespoke transitional treatment.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Animal welfare and advocacy organisations — ending online wagering on a specific animal‑based sport may reduce financial incentives tied to that code and aligns with advocacy goals aimed at limiting demand for greyhound racing.
- Competing racing codes and associated businesses — removal of online greyhound markets could shift a portion of betting turnover to horse and harness racing, benefitting those codes and their commercial partners.
- Regulators focused on gambling harm reduction — a targeted removal of a wagering product can be framed as a harm‑reduction step and provide a case study for future code‑specific restrictions.
- Public relations interests in communities opposed to greyhound racing — local councils and community groups seeking to distance themselves from the sport may gain political and reputational benefit.
Who Bears the Cost
- Greyhound racing industry participants (clubs, trainers, owners, breeders) — removal of an online channel risks a significant revenue decline, threatening prize money, employment and business viability.
- Licensed wagering operators and betting platforms — they will face revenue loss from greyhound product lines, plus compliance and product reconfiguration costs during the two‑year transition.
- State racing bodies and integrity services — many state funding models rely on wagering turnover; a drop in online turnover may reduce funds available for integrity services and industry support unless alternative arrangements are made.
- Regulators and enforcement agencies (including federal agencies administering the Interactive Gambling Act) — they will need to design and resource new compliance frameworks, guidance and monitoring to implement the change.
- Consumers and recreational punters who prefer greyhound betting — loss of a product means reduced consumer choice and potential migration to informal or offshore markets.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is a classic regulatory trade‑off: a narrowly targeted federal amendment can stop or reduce a particular activity (online wagering on greyhound racing) quickly and with political clarity, but doing so by excising a paragraph from an existing statute without parallel regulatory scaffolding shifts the burden to enforcement and to affected communities; it reduces one set of harms while creating economic displacement, enforcement complexity, and legal uncertainty.
The bill’s brevity is both its strength and its core practical problem. It makes surgical textual edits without reproducing the surrounding statutory context or supplying transitional, enforcement, or definitional detail.
That drafting approach forces a dependence on the existing Act and on secondary legislation or administrative guidance to fill gaps. For operators and regulators, the immediate task is interpretive: map how these two changes alter the legal status of existing licences, bets in play at commencement, promotional liabilities, and advertising permissions.
Implementation raises enforcement trade‑offs. A federal statutory change affecting online offers to Australians will push activity to channels that the Interactive Gambling Act already struggles to reach — offshore operators, informal markets, and grey markets — unless accompanied by stronger monitoring, blocking or advertising controls.
Removing paragraph 8A(1)(c) without explicitly addressing related regulatory instruments risks legal challenges based on ambiguity, inconsistency with existing licences, or unintended impacts on permitted betting arrangements (for example pools/tote systems or in‑venue authorised betting) that may depend on the same statutory provision. Finally, because greyhound racing funding is interwoven with state‑level arrangements, the federal move could create fiscal shortfalls for state integrity regimes unless governments coordinate replacement funding or adjustment mechanisms.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.