Labor's Gambling Ad Reforms Pass — But Peta Murphy's Husband Says They Don't Go Far Enough

Rod Glover, husband of the late Labor MP Peta Murphy, says the government's gambling advertising reforms "fall well short" of what his wife called for nearly three years ago. He puts the gap down to the "considerable lobbying power" of the wagering, sporting and media industries. (The Guardian)

Labor's package was expected to pass the Senate on Wednesday night or Thursday morning with Coalition support. That marks nearly 1,150 days since Murphy handed down the bipartisan committee report You win some, you lose more in June 2023. The report, from the House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, recommended a phased, comprehensive ban on all online gambling advertising within three years. It also wanted gambling ads and odds commentary banned during sports broadcasts and for an hour either side. Neither recommendation has been met.

The legislation that will pass restricts TV gambling ads to three per hour between 5am and 8.30pm, bans gambling advertising on player jerseys and in stadiums, and stops celebrities and players from promoting gambling. Online advertising will be governed by a "triple lock" system: users must be over 18, logged in, and offered an opt-out. A one-stop opt-out register will let Australians choose to stop receiving gambling ads across online platforms, though the government hasn't yet detailed how it will work. The opt-out model falls short of what Murphy and public health advocates wanted — either an opt-in system or an outright ban.

The difference between opt-out and opt-in is where the fight was won and lost. An opt-out register puts the onus on the individual to act — you have to sign up to stop the ads. An opt-in model would have flipped that: the industry would need your consent before sending you anything. The wagering lobby fought that distinction hard, and it won.

Glover described having "mixed emotions" about the reforms. He praised Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells for changes he said would reduce harm, particularly for young people and those most vulnerable to sophisticated gambling marketing. He called the package "a breakthrough of sorts" that "feels like progress." But he said the reforms had taken too long and could have gone further in meeting Murphy's recommendations, and praised backbenchers in both Labor and the Coalition for pushing for stronger action.

Murphy died in late 2023. Her inquiry's central recommendation was unambiguous: a phased, comprehensive ban on online gambling advertising within three years, giving major sports and broadcasters time to adjust. Phase One of the government's reforms, as set out in the legislation, prohibits all online gambling inducements and inducement advertising, and all advertising of online gambling on social media. The Senate Legislation Committee endorsed the package on August 18. Labor and the Coalition had agreed to the opt-out register two days earlier, on August 17.

The government has branded the package the "most significant reform on gambling" Australia has seen. Albanese framed the reforms as focused on "problem gambling." Wells said the measures target where Australians need protection most while ensuring the rules are practical, enforceable and capable of delivering real change. Labor senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah conceded the changes were "not going to please everyone" and credited Murphy's "seminal work" for kicking off the response.

The distance between the government's framing and Murphy's recommendations is where the political tension sits. Murphy wanted all online gambling ads gone. The government is capping, not banning, broadcast advertising and substituting an opt-out register for the comprehensive prohibition Murphy's committee envisioned.

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young was ruled out of order in question time on Tuesday when she asked Foreign Minister Penny Wong: "what would Peta Murphy think?" The Speaker's ruling was procedurally correct, but the question captured the central political problem for the government. Murphy was a Labor MP. Her report was bipartisan. Her recommendations were clear. The legislation that bears her name does not implement them.

The Coalition's decision to support the package, despite the gap from Murphy's recommendations, reflects a calculation that half a loaf on gambling reform is better than none, and that blocking reform entirely would hand the government a political weapon. It also means the crossbench had no leverage. The Greens and independent senators who wanted a total ban had nowhere to go once both major parties settled on the opt-out compromise.

The broader context here is one Canberra knows well. Gambling reform in this country has a consistent pattern: a moment of momentum, a bipartisan committee producing sensible recommendations, an industry backlash conducted through sporting codes and broadcasters who depend on wagering revenue, and a government that lands on something less than what was recommended but more than the status quo. Murphy's report was the momentum. The industry response was the backlash. What is heading to passage this week is the landing.