The Wood Review concluded that while Australia’s sports integrity environment compares favourably with many countries, the potential for serious integrity breaches in Australia, and for the intervention of organised crime by reason of available opportunities, remains real and is growing.The offences criminalise corrupting a sporting event, inducing or soliciting such corruption, concealing corrupt conduct information, and the misuse of inside or corrupt conduct information. These offences carry significant penalties, with maximum terms of imprisonment ranging from three to ten years. For bodies corporate, fines can reach 100,000 penalty units or three times the value of the benefit obtained. A key feature of the Bill is that it decouples match-fixing from wagering outcomes. The government argues that "sporting motivated match-fixing is an alternative to betting motivated match-fixing and involves the corruption of sporting events for sporting outcomes" [Explanatory Memo page 8]. By criminalising conduct regardless of the motive, the Bill seeks to preserve the "unpredictability of sport" which is central to its public interest value. Furthermore, the Bill provides for extended geographical jurisdiction, allowing for the prosecution of conduct occurring outside Australia where there is a sufficient nexus to Australian sporting events or citizens. This reflects the "transnational nature of match-fixing" [Explanatory Memo page 4] and aligns Australian law with the Macolin Convention.
The primary justification for this Bill is the protection of the immense social and economic value of sport in Australia. Sport contributes approximately 3 per cent of national GDP and provides billions in health and educational benefits [Judgment]. As the Wood Review highlighted, the growing threat of organised crime in the sporting sector necessitates a robust, national criminal framework that goes beyond the inconsistent and often inadequate state-based regulations.
By criminalising match-fixing independently of betting outcomes, the Bill addresses the "intelligence gap" regarding sporting-motivated corruption. This ensures that the integrity of competition is upheld as a value in itself, protecting the "unpredictability of sport" which is essential for spectator trust and commercial viability. Furthermore, the Bill enables Australia to fulfill its international obligations under the Macolin Convention, positioning the nation as a leader in the global fight against sports corruption.
While the goal of protecting sports integrity is laudable, this Bill introduces several concerning departures from standard criminal law principles. Specifically, the Bill "engages the right to be presumed innocent by reversing the evidentiary burden in relation to defences" [Explanatory Memo page 11]. Placing the burden on defendants to prove the non-existence of foreign laws or details of their residency is a significant encroachment on individual rights [Judgment].
Additionally, the high maximum penalties (up to 10 years) trigger invasive electronic surveillance powers under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.[1] There is a risk that these powers could be used disproportionately for conduct that might be better handled through sporting disciplinary bodies rather than the federal criminal justice system. The broad definition of "inside information" could also inadvertently criminalise routine sporting communications if they are later deemed to have been shared with "improper" intent, creating legal uncertainty for participants.
The Explanatory Memorandum confirms that the penalties are calibrated specifically to "enliven the possibility of using telecommunication intercept powers" (page 5).
2026-08-20
House of Representatives
Before Senate
Unspecified
Attorney-General
Anti-Corruption, Criminal Law Reform, Democratic Institutions