Labor is trying to please everyone with its proposed gambling reforms. But the government’s middle path approach, giving all parties at least some of what they want – as is so often Anthony Albanese’s preferred route – is not working at the moment, and the government is pleasing no one.
The blockage to more sweeping reforms to gambling advertising, as recommended in the committee report You win some, you lose more led by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy, starts right at the top of government.
The gambling industry, sporting codes and broadcast networks are all dependent on revenue from gambling and, mindful of this, the government did not respond to the 31 unanimous recommendations in the Murphy report for nearly three years as it grappled with how to please all sides of this debate.
At the halfway point of 2026, the prime minister should be quietly pleased that the government’s changes to capital gains tax and negative gearing have been passed – despite the furore in parliament and warnings of doom for the property market. The Coalition’s ongoing dire position in the polls would be welcome too.
But with Coalition and Greens MPs poised to team up and trigger another inquiry into the proposed laws, and with crossbench MPs screaming blue murder, gambling advertising has been thrust back into the centre of public debate, reminding ordinary voters – who generally hate gambling advertising – that the prime minister may be out of step with their views.
There are plenty of Labor MPs who want the government to go further than it has outlined: caucus is restive over the issue too. This is a growing blot on Albanese’s copybook.
It’s also a challenge for Communications and Sport Minister Anika Wells, who has only recently started attending larger sporting events after excruciating details about her use of travel entitlements emerged late last year. How she handles the issue could decide whether her next move in the ministerial wing is up or out.
At this point, it’s worth considering what Labor is proposing versus what Murphy recommended in 2023 to really understand what all the fuss is about.
The government wants to limit gambling ads to three per hour between 6am and 8.30pm, ban online and social media ads for under 18s, ban gambling logos on sports jumpers and in grounds, and ban influencers from promoting gambling.
Sounds great, right? As anyone who has seen a gambling ad pop up umpteen times during a footy match, for example, would know, the metronomic bombardment of gambling promos can be infuriating, if not overwhelming to someone struggling with addiction. Surely, a reduction in that saturation advertising is to be welcomed, right?
But Murphy’s parliamentary committee recommended going much further: a blanket ban on all gambling advertising brought in over three years, a total ban on ads online (rather than just under 18s), a national gambling regulator (which the government has rejected) and a complete ban on so-called bonus and sign-up bets.
Compared side by side, Albanese and Wells’ package of gambling reforms pales in comparison to what the Murphy report recommended.
In April, when the formal response to the Murphy report was delivered and the government announced its plans, Albanese claimed that the measures were “the most significant reform on gambling that has ever been implemented”.
He acknowledged at the time, too, the competing demands of public sentiment and the needs of the gaming companies, sporting codes and broadcasters.
“One of the things that sporting codes need, or dare I say it, here at the National Press Club, TV channels that have broadcasting deals – all of that is tied up with certainty going forward” and “we think we have got the balance right”.
In this case, the desired “certainty” concerns the future of revenues flowing to sporting codes and TV networks from gambling.
A report by the progressive Australia Institute, citing Queensland government data on Australians’ total gambling outlay in 2022-23, puts the figure at $244.3 billion. Net losses for Australians – that is, revenue that flowed to the gambling industry – was $31.5 billion, a staggering sum.
As Murphy’s report noted at the time, “gambling advertising is a significant revenue stream for Australian commercial television and radio, however neither Free TV nor Commercial Radio and Audio (CRA) were willing to provide figures publicly to support their claims”.
The CRA warned that radio stations, particularly in rural and regional areas, could be under threat if gambling revenue were reduced. And, much like the TV and radio industry bodies, the AFL and NRL were also reluctant to provide estimates of their dependence on online gambling revenue.
“The committee heard that both sports are significantly leveraged by gambling interests and that a loss of gambling revenue would affect their operations,” Murphy’s report said. “The codes do not just receive sponsorship payments from online WSPs [wagering service providers], but also receive a percentage of income from bets placed on their matches.”
That nexus between gambling, commercial broadcasters (including Nine, publisher of this masthead) and major sporting codes is a powerful one to confront, and a difficult one to break.
The likelihood of another inquiry into gambling advertising will ensure the government remains under pressure to go further.
And there’s one more thing that Albanese and Wells should keep in mind. Way back in the 1970s, when cigarette advertising first came under the microscope, the proposal adopted was not to limit cigarette advertising to three ads per hour. It was a total ban on TV advertising, and while that was controversial in some quarters at the time, the sky did not fall in. (It took years for tobacco ads to be banned from international sporting events such as Formula 1, but that came too.) With the benefit of hindsight, anything other than a total ban looks absurd.
Albanese and Wells are out of step with public expectations on gambling advertising, and the Coalition, Greens and teals know it.
Time to spend a bit more of that political capital, PM.
James Massola is chief political commentator.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.
More:
James Massolais chief political commentator. He was previously national affairs editor and South-East Asia correspondent. He has won Quill and Kennedy awards and been a Walkley finalist. Connect securely on Signal @jamesmassola.01Connect viaXoremail.
