To protect Australians, the federal parliament must push Albanese on gambling reforms

In early April, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced^[1] he was finally implementing several restrictions on gambling advertising.

The long-awaited announcement was unveiled – or perhaps buried – in Albanese’s National Press Club address on the fuel crisis, held on the eve of the Easter long weekend.

Hopefully the federal parliament was paying attention because it must push for stronger reforms to tackle Australia’s crippling gambling problems.

Read more: ‘Small and underwhelming’: Albanese’s gambling reforms won’t do much to reduce harm^[2]

Partial bans don’t work

Almost three years ago, a federal parliamentary inquiry into online gambling harm reached a rare multi-partisan consensus on all 31 recommendations^[3] – with the headline recommendation being a total ban on gambling advertising.

The Murphy inquiry report You win some, you lose more^[4] – led by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy – made a very clear case for a total ban, explaining why partial bans don’t work.

Yet the government has responded years later with a proposed partial ban.

Thankfully, this new plan is not a done deal.

There is an opportunity for another multi-partisan consensus to negotiate a full ban on gambling advertising, and a broader suite of reforms to tackle gambling harm in our communities.

At the very least, the government will need the support of either the Coalition or the Greens to pass their new legislation in the Senate.

Why firmer action is needed

Australia has historically taken a lax approach to gambling reform, and it shows. A 2024 Grattan Institute report^[5] shows we have the highest gambling losses in the world per capita.

Australians collectively lost more than $32 billion^[6] gambling in 2023-24, half of it on the pokies. And our losses per person have grown almost every year since reporting began in 1975.

Pokies and online betting are particularly addictive, leading to serious harm^[7] for hundreds of thousands of Australians.

The Murphy inquiry was focused on online gambling harm and identified gambling advertising as a major culprit. Gambling advertising exposes large numbers of Australians, including children, to a dangerous product and increases losses, with little corresponding economic or social benefit.

In the prime minister’s pre-Easter address^[8] he promised some important reforms, including “banning cross-promotion content that mixes commentary with odds” and “ending advertising on jerseys and jumpers and in stadiums”.

But the proposed daytime cap on gambling ads on TV doesn’t go far enough, with three advertisements still permitted every hour from 6am to 8.30pm.

A partial ban might seem like a step in the right direction, but it still allows widespread exposure to gambling advertising and will encourage advertisers to more aggressively market their products in other ways, such as through direct marketing and inducements, which are known to be high risk for people already suffering gambling harm.

This is why the Murphy inquiry called for a comprehensive ban on all gambling advertising on all media (broadcast and online), to be phased in over three years, and a ban on inducements “without delay”.

Parliament must push for more

A formal government response to the Murphy inquiry is expected when parliament returns next month. This will be the first time Australians get to see the details of what the government is proposing.

But the response may be tabled in budget week, while the parliament is looking elsewhere.

Regardless of the timing, the federal parliament should not miss the opportunity to strengthen these reforms.

Banning inducements, reducing the daytime cap (ideally to zero), and extending restrictions to all media would improve these reforms.

But preventing gambling harm must go further than restricting or banning advertising.

We also need a “seatbelt” for the most dangerous gambling products – pokies and online betting – to stop catastrophic losses when people lose control. No one should lose their house, or their life, on the pokies or on a betting app.

Mandatory pre-commitment^[9] with maximum loss limits would ensure Australians no longer lose more than they can afford. Under these systems, a gambler chooses their limits in advance – before they lose track of time or start chasing losses. The system would enforce these limits.

It needs to be mandatory to be effective but it should have very little impact on people who gamble in moderation.

The federal government should establish a national pre-commitment system for online gambling, and state governments should roll out state-wide pre-commitment schemes for pokies.

Protecting the public

Developing a national pre-commitment scheme and working with the states to improve regulation of pokies would lift the prime minister’s proposed plan from tinkering to game-changing.

Gambling regulation is one of the clearest examples of where the public interest and powerful vested interests don’t align.

Australians want to see our governments put the public interest first. And standing up to the vested interests is one of the clearest ways that politicians can demonstrate their value and build trust with the Australian people.

We lose more than anyone else but Australia needs a win on this.

References

1. ^{^} Anthony Albanese announced (www.pm.gov.au)
2. ^{^} ‘Small and underwhelming’: Albanese’s gambling reforms won’t do much to reduce harm (theconversation.com)
3. ^{^} multi-partisan consensus on all 31 recommendations (www.abc.net.au)
4. ^{^} You win some, you lose more (www.aph.gov.au)
5. ^{^} report (grattan.edu.au)
6. ^{^} $32 billion (www.qgso.qld.gov.au)
7. ^{^} serious harm (www.aihw.gov.au)
8. ^{^} address (www.pm.gov.au)
9. ^{^} pre-commitment (grattan.edu.au)