Australia's Murphy Report: A Phased Ban on Gambling Ads, and the Law That Followed

Timeline

1. Jun 2023The House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs tables You win some, you lose more, with 31 recommendations including a phased, comprehensive ban on online gambling advertising (Recommendation 26).
2. Aug 21, 2023BetStop, the national gambling self-exclusion register, launches.
3. 2023–2025Private members' and senators' bills seeking stronger advertising bans are introduced; the government does not formally respond.
4. Feb 13, 2026A Parliamentary Library brief notes the government has neither responded nor committed to the ban.
5. Apr 2, 2026Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announces a partial package at the National Press Club.
6. May 12, 2026The government tables its formal response to the report.
7. Jul 2, 2026The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 is introduced.
8. Aug 19, 2026The bill, amended in the House, passes both houses.
9. Aug 26, 2026The bill receives Royal Assent; most advertising measures are set to start on January 1, 2027.

The ethical issues

• Public health versus commercial dependence: sporting codes and broadcasters earn substantial revenue from wagering advertising.
• Children's exposure: gambling ads during and around live sport reach large youth audiences, especially in evening games.
• Displacement: restricting ads in one place or time has historically pushed them elsewhere.
• Self-regulation versus law: much of the previous regime relied on industry codes.
• Political influence: critics accused the government of protecting powerful interests; the industry accused it of overreach.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
People experiencing gambling harm and their families	Less exposure to gambling marketing and better protection.
Children and young sports fans	Watching sport without constant gambling promotion.
Sporting codes and clubs, including grassroots clubs	Sponsorship and media-rights revenue.
Free-to-air broadcasters and streamers	Advertising revenue and the cost of complying with new rules.
Wagering companies	Marketing access to sports fans; the licensed market's competitiveness against offshore operators.
Federal, state and territory governments	Reducing harm while managing political, legal and fiscal pressures.
Public health bodies and crossbench MPs	Implementing the inquiry's recommendations in full.

The case

In Australia, betting and sport became tightly linked in the 2010s. Odds appeared in broadcasts, wagering brands sponsored teams and venues, and online betting companies advertised heavily around live games. In June 2023, a parliamentary committee concluded that the link should be broken almost completely. Three years later, the country passed a law that broke it only in part.^[2][4]

Background

The inquiry was run by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, chaired by Labor MP Peta Murphy, and examined online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm. Its report, You win some, you lose more, made 31 recommendations. The committee said its recommendations applied “a public health lens” to online gambling to reduce harm across the population, an approach that focuses on prevention rather than only on helping individuals once problems develop.^[1][4]

The evidence base the committee drew on was substantial. A 2023 systematic review cited by the Parliamentary Library found consistent support for a causal relationship between exposure to gambling advertising and more positive attitudes to gambling, greater intentions to gamble and more gambling, with a “dose-response” effect and stronger effects on children and those already at risk.^[2] The industry spent an estimated A$187.75 million on gambling advertising in 2024, according to Nielsen figures cited by the Library, excluding in-stadium advertising and sponsorship. In the year to April 2023, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) estimated more than a million gambling ads aired on free-to-air TV and metropolitan radio.^[2]

The rules and governance

Responsibility was split. The federal government regulates online gambling and broadcasting; states and territories regulate outdoor advertising, including billboards, stadiums and player jerseys. Restrictions on gambling ads during live sport broadcasts had been introduced in 2015 and tightened in 2018, mostly through industry codes of practice registered and enforced by ACMA. Ad content was governed largely by a self-regulatory, complaints-driven industry code.^[2]

The committee argued that partial rules did not work, because “the adoption of restrictions in one place or time results in an increase in advertising elsewhere.” ACMA’s own research supported this: after the 2018 restrictions, gambling ads during restricted hours of live sport fell but shifted to later times, and overall TV and radio gambling advertising increased.^[2]

Recommendation 26

The report’s central recommendation called for “a comprehensive ban on all forms of advertising for online gambling,” introduced in four phases over three years, “commencing immediately.” Phase one would ban inducements, online and social media gambling ads and radio ads at school drop-off and pick-up times. Phase two would ban online gambling advertising and odds commentary during, and for an hour either side of, sports broadcasts, along with all in-stadium advertising “including logos on players’ uniforms.” Phase three would ban broadcast gambling ads from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. By the end of year three, all online gambling advertising and sponsorship would be prohibited. Racing channels and programming would be exempt.^[2]

Three years of argument

The government did not formally respond for nearly three years. Private members’ and senators’ bills sought stronger bans in the meantime.^[2] The arguments were sharp. The chief executive of Responsible Wagering Australia, the online wagering industry body, argued in 2024 that “a blanket ban would drive Australian punters into the arms of illegal offshore providers.” A gambling researcher disputed this, pointing to evidence from Spain’s regulator that gamblers did not migrate to illegal operators after advertising restrictions. Broadcasters argued that losing gambling revenue would reduce their ability to provide free-to-air content, and some of the largest sporting codes said lower media-rights values would hurt their ability to fund teams, events and grassroots sport. Public health experts pointed to the tobacco precedent, when sport found new sponsors after advertising bans.^[2]

The government’s package

On April 2, 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a partial package at the National Press Club, calling it “the most significant reform on gambling that has ever been implemented.” He said the aim was “letting adults have a punt if they want to, but making sure that our children don’t see betting ads everywhere they look,” adding: “we don’t want kids growing up thinking that footy and gambling are inextricably linked.”^[3] The government tabled its formal response on May 12, 2026, budget day, which drew accusations that it was burying the response.^[4][6]

The bill introduced on July 2 set out the details. As introduced, it would cap wagering ads on TV at three per hour between 6 a.m. and 8:30 p.m.; ban wagering ads on radio during school drop-off and pick-up; ban wagering ads in conjunction with live sport coverage; ban odds promotion and the use of “notable persons,” including current and former athletes, in wagering ads; and ban wagering advertising on uniforms and at venues at all levels of sport, from professional to grassroots. Online, wagering ads would be allowed only to logged-in users verified as over 18 who could opt out. Uniform and venue deals arranged before the bill’s introduction would be allowed to continue until December 31, 2031. Racing was excluded from the definition of a sporting event.^[4]

Reaction came from both sides. Responsible Wagering Australia called the measures “draconian.” Independent MP Kate Chaney called them “tinkering around the edges,” Senator David Pocock said they would lead to more ads on social media and streaming, and the Australian Medical Association said anything less than a comprehensive ban would leave children exposed.^[3] The Parliamentary Library noted that the 8:30 p.m. cut-off for the TV cap would not cover peak gambling advertising times, and that research had found large numbers of children watch sport after 8:30 p.m.^[4]

Aftermath

The House passed the bill on August 18, 2026 with 26 government and 45 opposition amendments; the Senate passed it the next day, and it received Royal Assent on August 26. Most of its measures were scheduled to begin on January 1, 2027.^[4][5] How the amendments changed the details summarized above, and whether the law reduces children’s exposure, remain to be assessed.

The core dilemma

Sport in Australia earns real money from gambling advertising, and adults have a legal right to bet. Yet the evidence links advertising exposure to harm, and children watch sport in large numbers. A parliamentary committee concluded that only a near-total phase-out would work; the government chose targeted limits with long transitions. How far should government and sport go in separating the two?

Competing values

• Public health vs. commercial sustainability: fewer ads may mean less harm and less revenue for sport and broadcasters.
• Protection of children vs. adult autonomy: restrictions aimed at young viewers also limit what adults see and businesses can say.
• Comprehensive vs. incremental reform: a full ban avoids displacement, while partial limits are easier to pass.
• Licensed market vs. offshore market: the industry says restrictions push bettors offshore; researchers dispute it.

Strongest arguments

For the comprehensive phase-out: the evidence shows a dose-response link between advertising and harm, and partial rules have historically moved ads rather than reducing them. Only a full ban would break the link between sport and betting that young fans grow up with.

For the targeted package: adults can lawfully bet, and sport and broadcasters rely on the revenue. A staged approach focused on children, live sport, uniforms and celebrity endorsements targets the most harmful exposures while preserving some commercial activity.

Against restrictions: licensed operators offer consumer protections that offshore sites do not. Heavy restrictions could weaken the regulated market and hurt grassroots sport funding without clear evidence of benefit.

Applying the frameworks

Utilitarian

A utilitarian analysis would weigh the expected reduction in gambling harm against lost revenue for sport and media, and the risk of offshore displacement. Modeling cited by the Parliamentary Library found that stronger restrictions produced progressively larger socio-economic benefits, with a full ban yielding the largest. Industry stakeholders counter that the costs fall on sport and community programs. The lens leans on which evidence is more credible.

Care ethics

A care lens focuses on the vulnerable: children absorbing the message that sport and betting go together, and people at risk of or recovering from gambling harm. It asks what sports organizations, as trusted community institutions, owe those people, and whether relying on gambling money is consistent with that responsibility.

Rights-based

A rights lens weighs adults’ freedom to gamble and businesses’ freedom to advertise a legal product against children’s right to grow up without being targeted by gambling marketing. It also asks whether an opt-out model respects autonomy or places the burden on the very people the law aims to protect.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are the chief executive of a major Australian sporting code in 2023, asked to respond to the inquiry. Stakeholders include fans, children, clubs, players, broadcasters, sponsors, people harmed by gambling and governments. The codes in play are broadcasting codes of practice, state advertising laws and your own integrity and community policies.
2. Gather facts. How much of your revenue depends on gambling advertising and sponsorship? What does the evidence say about exposure and harm? Watch for the bias of overstating financial risk to protect existing deals.
3. Test options. Options: (a) oppose restrictions; (b) support targeted restrictions with a transition; (c) voluntarily phase out gambling sponsorship ahead of the law. Run each through consequences, duties and character.
4. Check codes and law. The law permitted the deals. Does the spirit of your code’s commitments to young fans and community health support continuing them?
5. Decide and document. Record the evidence, the financial trade-offs and your reasoning. Consult clubs, players, broadcasters, public health experts and fans.
6. Communicate and follow up. Explain your position publicly, set a timetable if you choose to phase out, and track where marketing shifts after new rules start.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the report and its recommendations, the timing of the government’s response, the passage of the 2026 legislation and its January 2027 start date.
• Contested: whether partial restrictions will reduce harm; whether a full ban was justified; the strength of the offshore displacement argument; and the length of the transition for uniform and venue deals.

Why this case matters

Australia’s experience shows how difficult it is to separate sport from gambling once the two are financially intertwined. It is a useful comparison with voluntary measures such as the Premier League’s shirt-front agreement, and it shows how evidence, lobbying and politics shape where the line ends up.

Key terms

Commercialization

The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.

Stakeholders

Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.

Paternalism (hard and soft)

Restricting someone’s choices for their own good. Hard paternalism overrides competent, informed adults; soft paternalism steps in when information or autonomy is compromised.

Prevent, minimize, mitigate, remedy

An order of priorities for harm: prevent it if possible, then minimize it, mitigate what remains, and remedy what has been done.

Codes and guardrails

Written rules of conduct, backed by real consequences, that turn values into expected behavior. Without enforcement they are decoration.

Consent and autonomy

Whether people have agreed freely and with full information, and whether their right to make their own choices is respected.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. The inquiry recommended a complete phase-out; the law adopted partial limits. Which approach better balances harm reduction and the interests of sport?
2. Should sports organizations voluntarily refuse gambling sponsorship even when the law allows it?
3. Is an online opt-out system an adequate protection for children? Who carries the burden under opt-out compared with opt-in?
4. How much weight should be given to the industry's argument that restrictions drive bettors to offshore operators?
5. Uniform and venue deals arranged before the bill was introduced can continue until the end of 2031 under the bill as introduced. Is that a fair transition or an unjustified delay?

Sources

1. You win some, you lose more: Online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm — Parliament of Australia, House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs
2. Gambling advertising (Policy Brief, Feb. 13, 2026) — Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia
3. Albanese unveils long-awaited response to landmark gambling reform report — ABC News (Australia)
4. Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 [and related Bill], Bills Digest — Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia
5. Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026: bill homepage and progress — Parliament of Australia
6. Government accused of 'burying' response to landmark gambling report with budget day release — ABC News (Australia)