Australia is moving to tighten its grip on gambling ads, but the plan is already dividing opinion. The Albanese government is presenting the changes as “strong action” to curb harm, while critics argue the policy has been watered down and delayed to the point where its impact may be limited.
Set to take effect on January 1, 2027, the reforms aim to cut back the sheer volume of betting promotions across television, radio, online platforms and live sport. They also bring in new rules targeting illegal operators and evolving betting products that have slipped through older regulatory frameworks.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the government was “taking decisive action to tackle the community and public health concerns associated with gambling,” adding that the intent was to ensure “Australian children don’t see betting ads everywhere they look” while still allowing adults to gamble legally. Communications Minister Anika Wells said the changes are designed to “break the connection between wagering and sport” and “minimise children’s exposure to wagering advertising.”
Why Australia says gambling ads reform is necessary
Officials are leaning heavily on evidence that gambling harm is widespread and costly. The Office of Impact analysis frames the issue as a “significant public health concern,” pointing to more than $32 billion in annual losses across Australia, but it argues that the figures only tell part of the story.
The same assessment links gambling to a range of social and personal harms, including mental health challenges, family strain and wider community impacts. When the effects are included, the estimated cost of wagering harm alone rises to $26.8 billion each year.
Advertising is treated as a central driver. According to the report, “wagering advertising is a key influence in initiating wagering” and contributes to the “normalisation of gambling,” particularly among young people and those already vulnerable. Evidence cited in the analysis suggests exposure to ads can encourage people to bet more often, try new products and make impulsive decisions. It also finds that children can recall betting brands and language in detail.
Existing rules are described as lagging behind how people actually consume media. The analysis states they “have not kept pace with community expectations,” pointing out that children still encounter gambling ads during family viewing hours. Earlier restrictions created shifts rather than reductions, with fewer ads during live sport but more appearing later in the evening, including after the 8:30pm watershed.
What the new restrictions will and will not do
The updated framework focuses on limiting exposure rather than eliminating it. Ads will be banned during live sports broadcasts, and television will be restricted to three gambling ads per hour between 6am and 8:30pm. Radio advertising will face limits during school commute periods.
Digital platforms are being pulled further into the regulatory net. They will be required to introduce age verification systems and give users the ability to opt out of gambling advertising. The rules also extend into sport itself, removing betting promotions from stadiums and player uniforms.
Endorsements are another target. High-profile figures, including Shaquille O’Neal, Mark Wahlberg and influencer group The Inspired Unemployed, will no longer be allowed to promote wagering services. Promotions built around odds and inducements are also being restricted.
Despite the measures, a full advertising ban was ruled out. The government’s own analysis acknowledges that such a move would deliver “a higher net benefit,” but concludes it would place “a significant financial burden on industry” and disrupt sectors like media and sport. Instead, the plan is framed as a “comprehensive package of reforms” aimed at achieving “a meaningful reduction in the volume of wagering advertising.”
The expected impact reflects that compromise. Wagering activity is projected to fall by about 0.8%, a modest shift that has been criticized. Even so, the reforms are estimated to produce a net benefit of $107.1 million annually through reduced harm.
The analysis also urges caution when interpreting those projections. It states that “it is not possible to draw causal conclusions” between reduced advertising and lower gambling spending. It adds there is “no available evidence to reliably estimate a time frame to see a noticeable change in attitudes,” particularly among younger people.
There is also concern that any early reductions in advertising could prove temporary. The report points out that companies have already scaled back promotions ahead of regulation but warns there are “concerns that this reduction in wagering advertising could be reversed” once the new rules are fully in place.
Criticism grows over gambling ad reforms delays and scaled back ambition
Outside government, the response has been far less measured. Advocacy groups and some observers say the policy reflects delay, compromise and a retreat from earlier expectations of a stronger crackdown, including a full ban.
The Alliance for Gambling Reform has been one of the most vocal critics, particularly on the question of online advertising controls. Tim Costello said that “not a single parent in this country would opt in to their kids seeing gambling ads,” arguing that “the onus should be squarely on the gambling companies and the platforms.”
Tim Costello, Chief Advocate of the Alliance, speaking to Ros Childs on the ABC about Labor’s newly announced gambling reforms. pic.twitter.com/B632ToHm9e
— Alliance for Gambling Reform (@ReformGambling) April 2, 2026
Concerns also extend to how much advertising will remain visible. Costello said the proposed live sport ban “does nothing to break the nexus between gambling and sport” because ads can still run before and after games. He described the framework as “a piece-meal approach [that] fails our children,” and called for a full ban in line with earlier parliamentary recommendations.
Some of the criticism has focused on timing and political decision-making. Coverage of the policy rollout has pointed to delays and a perceived shift away from tougher options that had been under consideration. This has fueled claims the government has tried to balance competing pressures rather than pursue the strongest possible harm reduction strategy.
Australians, especially children and young people, deserve nothing less than full protection from the harms of gambling advertising. What the govt has announced falls tragically short.
Partial bans don’t work, that why we got rid of cigarette advertising rather than just…
— David Pocock (@DavidPocock) April 5, 2026
The pressures are reflected in the government’s own analysis. The report stresses the need to “minimise the saturation and targeting of wagering advertising,” particularly for children and young people, while acknowledging that existing systems have struggled to keep pace with streaming and online platforms.
Economic considerations also shape the policy. Advertising revenue from gambling supports broadcasters, news production and sporting organizations. The analysis warns reforms must not “jeopardise the continued provision of public interest journalism and grassroots sports,” despite previous condemnation over several government officials allegedly scoring tickets to sports events.
On the other hand, the government describes its approach as balancing “community protection,” “commercial viability,” and “consumer freedom.”
The Office of Impact Analysis has given the proposal an “Adequate” rating, while noting it “would have benefitted from further analysis of the likely impacts” and a more detailed evaluation plan. The assessment allows the reforms to proceed, but it also draws attention to the uncertainty surrounding their effectiveness.
With the start date still some distance away, the government appears to have chosen incremental change over a sweeping ban for now.
Featured image: Canva
