Australia takes aim at gambling ads – but at what cost?

More than three years after the Murphy Review urged a sweeping clampdown on gambling advertising in Australia, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labour government has finally unveiled a package of reforms that is at the same time far-reaching, but also incomplete: a partial advertising ban designed to curb exposure, especially among children, while stopping short of the comprehensive prohibition many campaigners had demanded. 

The result, as Jamie Nettleton, partner at Addisons law firm, puts it “goes a long way towards achieving its objective but in a way that no one is happy”. That compromise – between public health ambition and political caution, between industry viability and moral pressure – defines both the reform itself and the reaction to it. 

A diluted outcome? 

The Murphy Review, delivered in 2023, set out a clear path: a phased-in blanket ban on online gambling advertising. It attracted broad public support and cross-party backing. Yet the government hesitated. Consultations stretched on, proposals shifted and deadlines slipped. In the intervening years, as Nettleton notes, “there hasn’t been a ban of any sort … there’s still been a lot of [gambling] promotion.” 

That delay has become part of the story. The Australian Greens have criticised the government for failing to go far enough, while reporting from ABC News highlights frustration among independents who had pushed for the Murphy recommendations to be fully implemented. In a commentary piece, The Conversation has branded the reforms “small and underwhelming”. 

Labour’s defence is that the measures are substantial, if not maximalist: broadcast restrictions at key hours, caps during others, tighter rules for digital marketing and limits on sponsorship and influencer promotion. The Australian Labour Party suggests the aim is to reduce harm without destabilising industries that depend on wagering revenue. 

Even so, the sense lingers that time has been lost. Rather than a decisive break, the reforms feel like a negotiated settlement reached after prolonged hesitation. At least that seems to be the common interpreation.  

Customers will still be customers 

Despite political debate, the impact is expected to be modest. Government analysis reported by The Guardian suggests the reforms may reduce gambling expenditure by just 0.8% – far below what a full ban might have achieved. 

Nettleton is cautious about taking that figure at face value but acknowledges the broader point: the reforms target visibility rather than behaviour. “The customers will still be customers. The harm minimisation measures have not changed at all. It’s only in respect of the visibility in respect of advertising.” 

That distinction is crucial. Advertising restrictions may reduce exposure – particularly among minors – but they do not directly address the structural drivers of gambling harm. As such, success may be defined less by reduced consumption than by reduced presence. 

Nettleton describes the package as “a very political reform”, one that allows the government to demonstrate action – especially in shielding children from saturation advertising – without fundamentally reshaping the market. Whether it materially reduces harm, he suggests, “only time will tell.” 

A reshaped ecosystem following Australia’s gambling reforms

Where the impact will be felt more immediately is in the broader ecosystem around gambling. The biggest losers may not be operators but broadcasters and sports organisations. “There isn’t going to be nearly as much spent on free-to-air or on streaming or even on social media,” Nettleton notes. He estimates losses in the “tens of millions” for both media and sport.  

Reporting from The Age points to growing concern among major sports leagues, including the AFL and NRL, which have become increasingly reliant on wagering-related income. The reforms cut across multiple revenue streams at once: broadcast advertising, stadium signage, team sponsorships and affiliate marketing. The cumulative effect is to weaken a commercial model that has, over time, become deeply intertwined with betting. 

For operators, the picture is more complex. Marketing functions will be constrained, but core operations are likely to remain intact. “Compliance is such a core part of their business that’s not going to be affected,” says Nettleton. Nor will supply: licensed operators can still offer services to Australian consumers. What changes is their ability to promote those services, particularly to new customers. This may favour established brands with strong recognition while making it harder for smaller or newer entrants to compete.  

Offshore dilemma 

If there is one issue that unites industry voices, it is concern about the black market. Industry experts warn that overly restrictive measures risk pushing consumers towards unregulated offshore operators. CEO of  Responsible Wagering Australia, Kai Cantwell, is explicit: “If restrictions go too far without strong enforcement against illegal offshore operators, there is a real risk of pushing Australians towards unregulated sites.” He points to a rapidly expanding offshore market that is “costing Australians almost $4 billion a year and growing at 2.5x the rate of the legal, licensed market.” 

These operators, he argues, offer “no consumer protections, no oversight and make no contribution to the Australian economy or sporting ecosystem.” The priority, therefore, should be enforcement – particularly blocking payments – rather than further restrictions on licensed firms. 

Nettleton shares that scepticism. Offshore providers, he notes, are often more attractive and easily accessible via VPNs, while enforcement efforts have so far been “not overly effective”. The new reforms promise stronger powers, but the detail remains unclear. “Is it going to dry up the black market? No,” he says. 

This tension – between restricting the legal market and sustaining channelisation – is at the heart of the policy challenge. Go too far towards restriction and consumers may drift into less regulated environments; and harm reduction goals are not achieved. 

Compromise reflects the influence of stakeholders 

The gap between the Murphy Review and the final reforms reflects this balancing act. The original recommendation – a comprehensive Australian gambling advertising ban – has been softened to allow limited advertising in certain contexts, including some sporting broadcasts. 

“There will still be advertisement in some sporting events,” Nettleton notes, although at much lower volumes. That compromise reflects the influence of stakeholders, particularly media and sport, whose business models depend heavily on wagering revenue. 

Cantwell argues that such pragmatism is necessary. A full ban, he says, would have had “significant unintended consequences across the entire ecosystem”. 

“Blanket bans don’t stop people from gambling, they push them offshore to unregulated operators,” he warns, adding that such sites can pose risks to both consumers and the integrity of sport. 

From this perspective, the reforms represent a “middle ground” – reducing exposure, especially for children, while avoiding the destabilising effects of overregulation. Even so, Cantwell cautions that “the current package still goes too far in parts”. Critics, by contrast, see dilution. The reforms fall short of the Murphy Review’s ambition and, in doing so, risk achieving neither decisive harm reduction nor regulatory clarity. 

Gambling has no friends in Australia

Part of the government’s thinking lies in the political reality that gambling has few defenders. “It has no friends, essentially,” Nettleton observes. Media coverage, political rhetoric and public sentiment have increasingly turned against the industry, driven mainly by the sense that advertising is everywhere. 

Unlike lotteries in some jurisdictions, Australian wagering has not been framed as a contributor to social good, explains Nettleton. “Revenues flow into general taxation rather than being earmarked for specific causes, making it harder to justify politically despite its economic significance and support for sport.”

Cantwell warns of broader implications: “Today it’s gambling advertising, tomorrow it’s alcohol, then sugary drinks,” he says, arguing that once governments begin restricting the promotion of legal products, the boundaries become difficult to define. The risk is a piecemeal approach driven more by political pressure than by coherent policy design. 

What comes next for Australia’s gambling ad ban? 

For now, much depends on the detail. Legislation is expected in the coming months, and with it clarity on enforcement, exemptions and implementation. As Nettleton puts it, the current framework remains “a bit woolly – a lot of political announcements”. 

There are already signs of further change, he says. Certain lottery-style products may be prohibited altogether, forcing some operators out of the market, albeit with limited employment impact. More broadly, the reforms may establish a precedent for future intervention, even if they stop short of a full ban. 

Cantwell argues that the next phase should focus on enforcement rather than further restriction. “The next step should focus on stronger action against the illegal offshore market,” he says, emphasising the need to keep consumers within a regulated system where safeguards such as deposit limits and identity checks apply. 

Policymakers, in other words, face a familiar dilemma: how to reduce harm without undermining the regulated market that enables oversight in the first place. As it stands, the government has cautiously moved ahead with the long-awaited gambling advertising reforms. It has restricted, but not prohibited. It has responded to the Murphy Review, but not fully embraced it. For now, it represents a recalibration of the relationship between gambling, media and sport, and the beginning of a new phase in Australia’s regulatory debate. 

The argument is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.