The Government and Opposition Are Trying to Cut a Deal on Gambling Ads
The prime minister and the opposition leader have been meeting to work out a deal on new gambling laws, with parliament possibly debating the bill as soon as Wednesday 12 August 2026. Anthony Albanese (Labor) and Angus Taylor (the Coalition) held several meetings on Tuesday 11 August. Albanese had said on Monday 10 August that he would have progress on gambling rules "later this week." He has already agreed to limit gambling inducements — the free bets, bonuses and other perks betting companies use to attract and keep customers (The Guardian).
The changes being discussed cover three main areas: cutting back on betting inducements, reducing the hours gambling ads can appear on TV, and adjusting rules for streaming platforms. These negotiations are happening amid some shocking allegations. A parliamentary inquiry heard that alcohol and cocaine were offered to punters as gambling inducements. A Guardian podcast published on 12 August reports that some betting companies allegedly gave gamblers drugs and sex workers to keep them betting (The Guardian).
That podcast, hosted by Rafqa Touma with political editor Tom McIllroy, reports that Albanese is getting closer to a deal with the Coalition to pass new restrictions on gambling advertising and inducements. But backbenchers — the MPs not in leadership roles — and advocates want stronger measures than what is currently on the table. Labor has been criticised for not matching the ambition of a parliamentary inquiry led by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy three years ago. Murphy's 2023 committee recommended the government "prohibit all online gambling inducements and inducement advertising, and that it do so without delay" (The Guardian).
The Coalition is openly split on the issue. Gambling dominated a joint party room meeting in Canberra on Tuesday 11 August, with nine Liberal and Nationals MPs speaking up. Five wanted tougher gambling restrictions. Four argued the Coalition should not go too far in limiting ads. Some Coalition MPs warned that strict rules on Australian gambling companies could push punters to illegal overseas operators, pointing to what has happened with illegal tobacco as government taxes on cigarettes have risen. Coalition MPs also raised concerns about gambling "preying on the vulnerable." Angus Taylor raised the question of personal responsibility at a media conference on Monday 10 August (The Guardian).
The gambling industry has largely accepted that inducements will be cut back, but says restrictions could send gamblers to unregulated offshore operators and hurt smaller betting companies. Industry sources said they were trying to warn Coalition MPs about the impact of further changes, but rejected Greens claims that the industry was deeply involved in the negotiations. The Greens were still talking with the government, which means a deal between Labor and the Coalition was not yet finalised.
This legislation has had a long and bumpy ride. Albanese first announced the gambling advertising reforms at the National Press Club in early April 2026, including restrictions on ads and a crackdown on dodgy operators. The prime minister's office published a media release titled "Strong action to tackle gambling harms" (PM.gov.au). Reuters reported at the time that the new rules capped gambling ads at three per hour between 6 a.m. and 8:30 p.m., with a complete ban during live sports broadcasts. Advocates said the restrictions did not go far enough (Reuters).
Government figures showed the plan would reduce Australia's annual gambling spending by $62.7m a year, or about 0.8%. Documents released under freedom of information laws in February 2026 showed the department of Labor MP Wells worried about how gambling reforms would affect sporting codes and media companies. Labor faced fierce backlash from gambling giants over the bill, and Albanese faced internal revolt within his own party in early August (The Guardian). By 5 August, the bill had no support, as the Coalition withheld its backing amid the drug and sex worker allegations (The Guardian).
The reality is that these negotiations have been driven more by political pressure than by a genuine desire to fix the problem. Murphy's inquiry recommended a total ban on online inducements three years ago. The government's own numbers say its plan would cut gambling spending by less than 1%. The deal now taking shape looks like a compromise to get something through both houses of parliament, not a serious attempt to match the scale of harm the inquiry identified.
The Coalition's internal split tells a story of its own. Five MPs wanting tougher rules, four warning against going too far, and a leader talking about personal responsibility suggests Taylor is managing a party room that is not fully convinced the regulations are needed. The comparison to illegal tobacco is doing real work in the Coalition's arguments, whether or not comparing cigarette addiction to betting actually makes sense. For the industry, the argument about offshore operators is a familiar one, rolled out against every regulatory change in living memory. What is different now is that the allegations of drugs and sex workers being used as inducements have given advocates and backbenchers ammunition the industry cannot easily brush aside with talk of personal responsibility.
If a deal lands for Wednesday's debate, it will be because both major parties have decided that the political cost of doing nothing, given the allegations now on the public record, outweighs the discomfort of compromise. Whether it meets the standard Murphy set three years ago is another question. The answer, on the evidence so far, is no.
