Australia’s proposed gambling advertising reforms are facing pressure from multiple directions as a Senate inquiry reviews legislation that supporters say will reduce exposure to betting promotions while critics argue it either falls short of meaningful change or places unnecessary burdens on broadcasters.
The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee is currently examining the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 and the National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026. Both measures were introduced to Parliament on July 2, with submissions closing on July 24. The committee is expected to deliver its findings on August 17. If approved, the reforms would take effect on January 1, 2027.
The proposed framework would limit gambling advertisements on free-to-air television to three per hour between 6 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. Betting advertisements would be prohibited during live sports broadcasts within those hours. The legislation would also ban gambling promotions at sporting venues, remove such advertising from athletes’ and officials’ uniforms, prevent celebrities and influencers from appearing in gambling marketing campaigns, and restrict radio gambling advertisements during school drop-off and pick-up periods.
Online wagering advertisements would remain permitted for logged-in users aged over 18, while consumers would also be given an option to opt out of receiving such promotions.
Advocacy Groups Call for Stronger Restrictions
Several organizations and campaigners told the inquiry that the government’s package does not go far enough when measured against recommendations made in the 2023 parliamentary report “You Win Some, You Lose More,” chaired by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy.
That report proposed a gradual three-year phase-out of all online gambling advertising and also recommended banning inducements, creating a national gambling regulator and introducing a national public education campaign. A number of those recommendations were not included in the government’s final package, which was first announced in April.
Among the strongest critics was Anglican Dean of Sydney Sandy Grant, who questioned the government’s position on protecting children while still permitting some gambling advertising linked to sports broadcasts.
In his submission cited by The Sidney Morning Herald, Grant wrote: “How can it be that the prime minister, who says he is ‘making sure Australian children don’t see betting ads everywhere they look’, still considers it appropriate for children to see three gambling adverts every hour on TV, including during pre-game and half-time broadcasting associated with live sporting matches?”
Grant supported measures banning gambling advertising on sports uniforms, at sporting grounds and through celebrity endorsements. However, he urged lawmakers to adopt all 31 recommendations from the Murphy report, including a phased ban on online gambling advertising and restrictions on betting inducements.
“The parliament should never put the vested interests of big-business gambling and broadcast companies and big sporting codes over the public health and welfare of ordinary Aussies, especially our children, youth and young adults,” he said.
Grant also repeated comments previously made by anti-gambling advocate Tim Costello.
“As the Reverend Tim Costello said, we wouldn’t accept capping cigarette ads shown to children to three per hour so why would we say it’s OK for gambling ads?” he said.
Children and Media Australia also submitted concerns to the inquiry, describing the proposed reforms as only “a first step.” The organization argued that children would continue to encounter gambling advertising under the new framework and maintained that only a complete prohibition would adequately address the issue.
The group pointed to research linking childhood exposure to gambling advertising with a higher likelihood of gambling-related problems later in life. It also highlighted how smartphones and online wagering platforms have increased the presence of gambling content within family environments. In its submission, the organization raised concerns that online inducements would remain legal and that young men using sports and gaming applications would continue receiving betting promotions. It also questioned why the planned public education campaign would focus on young men, First Nations Australians and culturally diverse communities while excluding children, parents and carers.
Broadcasters Warn of Financial and Technical Challenges
While health and child welfare advocates argued the bill does not go far enough, broadcasters told the inquiry that some provisions may create unintended difficulties.
SBS supported tighter controls on gambling advertising but argued that the legislation could effectively eliminate wagering advertising across its digital services because it would be unable to implement the required age-verification systems before the proposed start date.
The broadcaster stated that its current self-declared age process on SBS On Demand should satisfy regulatory requirements. SBS also warned that more advanced identity-verification systems would involve significant costs, operational complexity and privacy concerns.
According to the broadcaster, reduced advertising revenue could affect funding for news, current affairs programming and Australian-produced content. SBS further argued that domestic media companies could face disadvantages compared with global digital platforms that already operate account-based systems. Among its recommendations were an 18-month implementation period, exemptions for free news websites and protection from liability for gambling-related content produced by wagering operators.
Free TV, representing commercial broadcasters including Nine Entertainment, also expressed concerns. The industry body said the measures could have a “material impact” on advertising revenue that helps support free-to-air services while generating substantial compliance costs for online platforms.
Government Defends Current Approach
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has maintained that the government’s proposal strikes an appropriate balance between reducing gambling harm and preserving personal choice.
Speaking last month, Albanese said he was “not against someone having a punt on a Saturday” and argued that poker machines remain the primary source of gambling harm in Australia, an area regulated by state governments.
“I think we have gone far enough,” he said, adding that the reforms represented the right balance between taking no action and implementing a complete advertising ban.
The debate comes as Australia continues to record the highest gambling losses per capita globally. National losses were forecast to reach approximately AU$34 billion (US$22.4 billion) last year.
The legislation has already attracted criticism from the Coalition, the Greens and several crossbench senators, many of whom believe the reforms do not fully reflect the Murphy inquiry’s recommendations. As a result, the Senate committee’s report could play a significant role in determining whether the bill proceeds unchanged, faces amendments or encounters further delays in Parliament.