Albanese’s gambling reforms won’t do much to reduce harm
- Written by: Samantha Thomas, Professor of Public Health, Deakin University
More than 1,000 days after the release of the Murphy report[1], Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has finally announced decisive action on tackling gambling advertising[2] in Australia.
In mid-2023, the late Labor MP Peta Murphy presented a report that recommended a ban on gambling advertising due to the harms caused by those ads on TV, at sports venues and online.
Despite widespread cross-party support for the recommendations, Albanese failed to commit to any action – until this week.
So, what are the changes, do they go far enough and will they work?
What did the Murphy report recommend?
Murphy made 31 recommendations in her 2023 report, You win some, you lose more[3].
Its terms of reference covered online gambling, with Murphy calling for a
phased, comprehensive ban on all gambling advertising on all media, broadcast and online, that leaves no room for circumvention.
The report was broadly supported by all sides of politics, but many were left frustrated[4] by Albanese’s delay in pushing tangible reforms.
What are the new reforms?
After almost three years, Albanese told the National Press Club in Canberra on Thursday he was implementing several restrictions[5] to “minimise children’s exposure to gambling harm”. These are
restricting gambling advertising on broadcast television to no more than three ads each hour between 6am-8:30pm, with a complete ban during live sport broadcasts within those hours
banning gambling ads on the radio during school drop-off and pick up times (8am-to 9am and 3pm-4pm)
banning gambling ads through online platforms, unless people have a logged-in account, are over 18 and have the option to opt out of gambling advertising
banning the use of celebrities and sports players in gambling ads, along with odds-style ads targeting sports fans
banning gambling ads in sports venues and on players’ and officials’ uniforms.
Albanese said:
We’re getting the balance right here, letting adults have a punt if they want to but also making sure Australian children don’t see betting ads everywhere they look. What we don’t want is kids growing up thinking that footy and gambling are the same thing.
The government will also look to crack down on online “pocket pokies[6]”, offshore gambling providers and also strengthen BetStop[7] – the national self-exclusion register.
He said his government would aim to enforce these changes from January 1, 2027.
So, will they work?
Australians gamble the highest amount per capita[8] globally: more than $30 billion annually[9].
But research[10] shows the majority of Australians wanted action on gambling ads: about 75% supported a total ban, while about 80% supported a ban on social media, online, in stadiums and on players’ uniforms.
The proposed measures fall well short of the comprehensive reforms recommended by Murphy.
Sure, this is a step in the right direction. But it’s a pretty small and underwhelming one – the government is offering a diluted package of gambling reforms.
Young people in Australia are growing up in environments saturated with betting promotions, normalised through sport, media and digital platforms. Our research[11] shows young people see gambling advertising “everywhere” and think it can be highly influential in shaping attitudes and encouraging gambling.
The proposed reforms do little to address this exposure in a meaningful way.
Limiting ads to three per hour during the day on television does little to reduce children’s exposure to gambling ads. It just regulates the pace of the exposure. A child watching afternoon or early evening programming will still be exposed to a steady stream of gambling messages.
Likewise, banning ads during live sport sounds significant but only applies within certain hours, leaving ample opportunity for exposure before and after games, and across other programming and media channels[12].
Perhaps most concerning is what these reforms do not include.
There is no comprehensive ban on gambling advertising, despite this being a central recommendation of the Murphy report. Without such a ban, the industry retains significant freedom to continue promoting its products – simply shifting strategies across platforms, time slots and formats to maintain reach.
And while the reforms focus on banning celebrities and athletes in gambling advertising, they miss how marketing is already evolving.
Young people consistently tell us that influencer content[13] embedded into their social media feeds can be even more powerful than traditional celebrity endorsements. They say influencer promotions feel more relatable, more authentic, and are often harder to recognise than advertising.
They are exactly the kinds of strategies the industry will continue to lean into.
The problem with partial regulation
The most fundamental problem with partial regulation is that industries adapt. Online gambling is a high-tech industry that has demonstrated on multiple occasions that when one channel is restricted, marketing spending flows into another.
Without a comprehensive approach, including a national regulator to set the rules, these reforms risk creating an illusion of action.
Research is already showing us how quickly these strategies shift. As traditional sports betting audiences become more regulated, our recent research[14] shows how the industry is increasingly targeting women through lifestyle branding, influencer marketing, and the integration of gambling into social and digital spaces.
The inconsistencies in the policy also raise an important question: if gambling promotions are deemed harmful enough to be removed from stadiums and player uniforms, why are they still acceptable across other forms of media that children consume daily?
What we are seeing is not a bold public health response but a cautious, politically palatable compromise. It allows the government to claim it is acting, while avoiding more substantive reforms that would likely face resistance from the gambling industry, sporting codes, and broadcasters.
Peta Murphy was serious about protecting young Australians from gambling industry harm. The government’s proposed reforms fail the Murphy test.
References
- ^ Murphy report (www.aph.gov.au)
- ^ decisive action on tackling gambling advertising (www.smh.com.au)
- ^ You win some, you lose more (parlinfo.aph.gov.au)
- ^ many were left frustrated (www.davidpocock.com.au)
- ^ several restrictions (www.pm.gov.au)
- ^ pocket pokies (gametyrant.com)
- ^ BetStop (www.betstop.gov.au)
- ^ highest amount per capita (www.abc.net.au)
- ^ $30 billion annually (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ research (australiainstitute.org.au)
- ^ Our research (www.sciencedirect.com)
- ^ across other programming and media channels (www.acma.gov.au)
- ^ tell us that influencer content (academic.oup.com)
- ^ our recent research (link.springer.com)
Authors: Samantha Thomas, Professor of Public Health, Deakin University
