There is an ideological battle taking place in Australia right now over whether the best way to combat a “saturation” of sports betting ads is to limit how and when gambling advertising is delivered, or to ban such advertising completely.
It’s a battle founded on good intentions but disconnected from reality, because when it comes to protecting vulnerable people, blanket bans almost always do more harm than good.
The debate around Australia’s gambling advertising rules is nothing new but has gathered real steam in the three years since a House inquiry into the issue produced a report titled “You Win Some, You Lose More.” The recommendations of this report, authored by the late Peta Murphy, included a comprehensive ban on all online gambling advertising (to be phased in over three years), a total ban on gambling inducements, and the establishment of a national regulator.
Exactly how these recommendations were determined has never been made clear, with only broad reference made to the need for reform, but they have naturally been adopted by anti-gambling popularists as a settled course of action.
That’s despite industry experts immediately warning that some recommendations, such as the establishment of a national gambling regulator, would be unworkable due to the complexity of existing legislation governing the sector within each state and territory and the unique path each state and territory has travelled to establish their vastly contrasting frameworks.
In late March of this year, and amid growing pressure to address the “You Win Some, You Lose More” report, Australia’s federal government unveiled reforms that might best be described as “middle ground.” That is, while they fall well short of a comprehensive ban, they do acknowledge concerns over exposing children to gambling by restricting gambling advertising on broadcast television to no more than three ads each hour between 6am and 8.30pm and imposing a complete ban during live sport broadcasts within those hours.
Gambling ads will also be banned on the radio during school drop off and pick up times – 8am to 9am and 3pm to 4pm – and via online platforms unless people have a logged in account, are over 18 and have the option to opt-out of gambling advertising. Celebrity promotion of gambling brands has been added to the banned list.
Naturally, this “middle ground” reform is still nowhere near acceptable to those pursuing a total advertising ban, who have successfully lobbied to further scrutinize the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 by way of another eight-week Senate inquiry. The cynic in me might describe “inquiry” as a fanciful word, if those following the complete ban route already have a pre-determined outcome in mind. But I digress.
There are two fundamental problems with banning all gambling advertising. One, it opens the door for illegal operators to claim market share, because while licensed operators would be bound by the new law, black market sites would face no such restrictions – they simply don’t care. That means the only ads citizens would see are for illegal sites.
And two, the ability to market to (and acquire) customers via mainstream and social media is one of the most important advantages a gaming license affords operators. Withholding this advantage provides one less reason – and a significant one – for operators to pursue a license in the first place. It is inevitable that some existing licensees will ask themselves whether sticking to the regulated route is worth the time and investment (another win for the black market).
Ultimately, Australia’s gambling ad debate reveals a basic misconception among supporters of a total ban: that their end game is stopping Australians from gambling altogether. This conveniently ignores the reason people gamble in the first place – because they want to. Just like the rest of the world, most Australians count gambling as an important part of their weekly entertainment schedule, and they will seek out the path of least resistance to achieve satisfaction – even if that means moving away from the legal market to the black market.
If we’re truly serious about protecting them, that leaves only one viable option: giving them a safe (regulated) place to gamble and ensuring they know how to find it.
