The Government's Gambling Ad Crackdown: Who's Fighting and What's at Stake

The Albanese government is trying to pass new laws to crack down on gambling, but it doesn't have the numbers in parliament to get them through. So it's negotiating with the Coalition. Sources told The Guardian that Labor is open to changes when MPs return to Canberra — but only on one thing. The government is willing to tighten rules on gambling 'inducements' (perks betting companies use to lure customers, like bonus bets and free offers). What it won't touch is its plan to limit how often gambling ads can appear on TV.

The bill, pushed by Communications Minister Anika Wells, is opposed by the Coalition, the Greens and independent MPs. Independent MP Helen Haines says the government wants to cap gambling ads at three per hour before 8:30 PM rather than ban them outright (Instagram, July 26). That's a long way from what the late Labor MP Peta Murphy recommended before she died — a total, immediate ban on gambling inducements and their advertising. The package also goes after social media influencers who promote gambling (ABC News, August 6).

The parliamentary fight has been overshadowed by explosive evidence at Senate hearings. Witnesses alleged that betting companies gave problem gamblers illegal drugs and access to sex workers to keep them gambling. Sportsbet and Tabcorp say there's no evidence for those claims.

Gambling inducements are the one area where Labor is willing to compromise. These are perks betting companies offer to get people betting — things like 'bonus bets', special odds, cash rebates, and VIP treatment such as free tickets to events. The Coalition is likely to push for stricter rules on these offers (SMH, August 5), and the government seems ready to agree. Government frontbencher Jenny McAllister confirmed Wells was talking to the Coalition and that Labor was open to 'sensible amendments'.

The Greens want to go much further. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said inducements 'should be gone' entirely. She also suggested switching from an 'opt-out' system for online gambling ads — where you see them unless you actively switch them off — to an 'opt-in' system, where you'd have to actively agree to see them. That puts the Greens to the left of both Labor and the Coalition.

The basic problem is this. Labor needs votes in the Senate it doesn't have. The Coalition, the Greens and independents all oppose the bill, but they all want different things. The Coalition wants tougher rules on inducements. The Greens want inducements banned and ads switched to opt-in. Independents like Haines think an ad cap is a retreat from what Murphy recommended. There's no obvious compromise that gets Labor enough votes without giving way on the one thing it says it won't change: the advertising rules.

In my view, there's a clear political logic behind what Labor will and won't trade. Inducements are mostly invisible to the public and don't cost broadcasters money. Advertising restrictions, on the other hand, hit the bottom line of TV networks and digital platforms. Any government thinking about an election tends to be careful about picking fights with media companies whose airtime it might need. That's not being cynical — it's how gambling reform has always worked in this country.

The Murphy report set the standard: a total ban on inducements and their advertising. A cap of three ads per hour before 8:30 PM is not a ban. Stricter inducement rules, even if Labor and the Coalition agree on them, won't meet that standard unless they ban the practice outright. As Hanson-Young puts it, if inducements 'should be gone', anything less than getting rid of them is only a partial fix.

If the allegations about drugs and sex workers are proven, the betting companies would be breaking existing law, regardless of any new legislation. They deny the claims. But the Senate inquiry evidence has already changed the political picture. It's made the current situation harder to defend and put more pressure on the government to come up with a bill that looks serious, not just a small step.

What's left is a bill that everyone wants changed in a different direction, a government willing to bend on inducements but not ads, and a Senate where the numbers aren't there yet. Wells is still talking to the Coalition. Whether those talks produce something that can also get past the Greens and the independents is the question that will decide whether this legislation ever gets to a vote.