Local Government Gambling Approvals: Process, Challenges, and Reform

Local government gambling approvals in Australia involve a complex state-regulated process where local councils assess the social and economic impact of gambling venues before state regulators make final decisions. As of 2026, this process requires councils to balance economic development with harm minimization, often under significant pressure from well-resourced applicants. Understanding the approval steps, challenges, and potential reforms is essential for communities affected by Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs) and other gambling facilities.

Local Council Gambling Approval Process: 2026 Step-by-Step Guide

Planning Permit Application: Social and Economic Impact Assessment

The first step in any local government gambling approval is the planning permit application submitted to the relevant municipal council. Applicants must provide a detailed Social and Economic Impact Assessment that demonstrates how the proposed gambling venue will affect the surrounding community. This assessment is critical because councils use it to evaluate potential increases in problem gambling rates, financial hardship, and social disruption.

Councils require these assessments to address specific local factors such as existing concentrations of EGMs, socio-economic disadvantage, proximity to schools and community centers, and public health data. The assessment must typically include community consultation results, traffic studies, and economic projections.

Without a comprehensive impact assessment, an application will not proceed to the state regulator. The burden of proof rests with the applicant to show the proposal will not cause net harm, though councils often struggle to verify claims due to limited resources.

Council Submission Window: 37-60 Days to Assess Community Impact

Once an application is lodged with the local council, a strict timeline begins for council review and submission to the state regulator. The Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) requires councils to complete their assessment within a defined period, typically 37 to 60 days depending on the application complexity.

• 37 days: Standard timeframe for councils to prepare and lodge their submission with the VGCCC for most EGM applications.

• 60 days: Extended timeframe allowed for more complex applications involving multiple venues or significant community opposition.

• Within 3 days: Applicants must file their application with the state regulator after lodging with the local council, triggering the official review process.

This submission window is crucial for community input. Councils must gather public feedback, consult with local service providers (like problem gambling support services), and coordinate with other government agencies within this tight timeframe. Many councils report that the deadline is insufficient for thorough analysis, especially when developers submit extensive technical reports that require expert review.

VGCCC Hearings: How Councils Present Evidence

After the council submission period closes, the VGCCC conducts a hearing to evaluate the application. These hearings can be public or private, depending on the applicant’s request and the commission’s determination. Councils participate by presenting their assessment findings, highlighting community concerns, and formally recommending approval or refusal.

During the hearing, council representatives may call expert witnesses, present data on local gambling harm, and cross-examine the applicant’s evidence. Public hearings allow community members to voice opposition or support, creating a transparent record. However, private hearings limit public participation, which advocacy groups argue reduces accountability.

The VGCCC weighs all evidence before granting or denying the license. While councils’ recommendations carry weight, the state commission has final authority and can approve applications despite council objections if it believes the legal tests are met. This dynamic creates tension between local knowledge and centralized decision-making.

2026 Process Updates: VGCCC’s Harm Reduction Enhancements

In 2026, the VGCCC implemented process updates aimed at strengthening harm reduction through effective gambling harm prevention programs while streamlining administrative requirements. These changes reflect lessons from years of community feedback and align partially with the Murphy Report’s spirit, though not its full recommendations.

Traditional Process	2026 Updated Process
Standard 37-60 day council submission period without formal harm mitigation requirements	Enhanced guidance for councils on identifying “high-risk” locations based on problem gambling prevalence and socio-economic indicators
Limited requirements for applicant-provided harm minimization plans	Mandatory consideration of proposed harm reduction measures (e.g., pre-commitment limits, staff training) in the assessment framework
Public hearings optional based on applicant preference	Stronger presumption for public hearings when significant community opposition exists
No explicit weighting given to community impact vs. economic benefits	Clarified factors that VGCCC must consider, including cumulative impact of existing EGMs in the area

These updates represent incremental progress, but critics argue they fall short of the systemic changes needed to empower councils. The core power imbalance remains: councils can advise but not veto applications that they believe will cause community harm.

Key Challenges Councils Face When Assessing Gambling Applications

Proving No Negative Impact: The Burden of Evidence on Councils

Councils bear the difficult burden of proving that a gambling venue proposal will not have a negative impact on their community. This requires demonstrating the absence of harm—a challenging evidentiary standard that often puts councils on the defensive. Key factors councils must examine include:

• Problem gambling rates: Councils must show whether the area already has above-average rates of gambling addiction, which would suggest heightened risk from additional EGMs.

• Socio-economic status: Low-income areas are more vulnerable to gambling harm, so councils need data on household income, unemployment, and financial distress indicators.

• Proximity to sensitive locations: Schools, community centers, and social service agencies within a certain radius strengthen arguments against approval.

• Existing EGM density: Councils must assess cumulative impact, as adding machines to already saturated areas compounds harm.

Gathering this evidence requires statistical analysis, health data access, and community surveying—resources that many councils lack. Meanwhile, applicants hire consultants to produce glossy reports downplaying risks. The evidentiary playing field is not level.

Net Impact Calculations: Community Contributions vs. Gambling Losses

The most contested aspect of council assessments is the “net impact” calculation: weighing potential community benefits (venue donations, jobs, tax revenue) against estimated gambling losses and social harms, a process requiring thorough economic impact analysis. This comparison is inherently problematic because benefits are tangible and immediate while harms are diffuse, long-term, and difficult to quantify.

On the benefit side, applicants point to:

• Direct employment at the venue

• Community contributions (e.g., venue-sponsored local events, donations to charities)

• Increased municipal revenue from planning permits and rates

On the harm side, councils must estimate:

• Projected player losses based on machine numbers and location demographics

• Increased demand for social services, family violence interventions, and mental health support

• Broader economic drag from reduced discretionary spending in local businesses

The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation estimates that for every dollar lost on EGMs, society bears $2–$3 in external costs (healthcare, lost productivity, legal issues). Yet these externalities rarely appear in formal net impact assessments because they are not required and are hard to attribute to a single venue. The result is a systematically skewed analysis that favors approval.

Resource Imbalance: When Developers Outspend Council Assessments

A fundamental challenge is the resource disparity between gambling venue applicants and local councils. Applicants—often large hospitality groups or specialized gambling venue operators—have substantial financial resources to commission detailed impact assessments, legal advice, and expert testimony. They can afford to hire planning consultants, economists, and social impact specialists to build a comprehensive case for approval.

Councils, by contrast, operate with constrained budgets and limited specialist staff. A typical council planning department may have one or two officers handling all development applications, not just gambling venues.

They must review complex technical reports, consult with internal experts (public health, community services), and sometimes engage external consultants at additional cost. The time pressure of the 37-60 day window exacerbates this imbalance.

This asymmetry means councils may be unable to fully test the assumptions and methodologies in applicant reports. Even when councils identify flaws or omissions, they may lack the resources to commission independent studies to rebut them. The process effectively rewards well-funded proponents and disadvantages communities that cannot afford to fight.

Economic Development vs. Harm Minimization: The Core Tension

Local councils operate under a statutory framework that requires them to consider both economic development objectives and harm minimization. This creates an inherent tension that councils must navigate in every gambling application.

Economic development arguments emphasize:

• Job creation, particularly in areas with high unemployment

• Revenue for the venue owner and associated supply chains

• Potential community contributions through voluntary agreements

• Increased activity in the local economy from venue patrons

Harm minimization imperatives require councils to consider:

• Prevention of problem gambling and its ripple effects on families

• Protection of vulnerable populations (low-income, youth, those with existing gambling issues)

• Long-term community health and social cohesion

• Cumulative impact of multiple venues in the same area

Councils must attempt to reconcile these competing priorities, often with little guidance on how to weight them. The law does not clearly establish that harm minimization should override economic benefits, leaving councils in a difficult position when they believe a venue will cause significant harm but also promise economic upside. This ambiguity is a key reason why some councils approve venues they privately oppose.

Reforming Local Control: What the Murphy Report Means for Councils

Stricter Community Impact Assessments: A Key Local Reform

The Murphy Report’s 31 recommendations, released in June 2023, include several measures that would directly strengthen councils’ ability to reject harmful gambling applications. While most attention has focused on advertising bans, the report’s recommendations on venue licensing, as part of broader gambling reform, could profoundly change local approval processes.

Key among these is the recommendation for stricter community impact assessment requirements that would mandate more rigorous, standardized analysis of harm. This could include:

• Prescribed methodologies for calculating net social impact, forcing applicants to use government-approved models

• Mandatory consultation with local health services and community organizations

• Requirements to consider cumulative impact of existing EGMs within a defined radius

• Public disclosure of all impact assessment data for independent review

Such reforms would level the resource imbalance by setting clear evidentiary standards that all applicants must meet, reducing the advantage of those who can afford elaborate custom studies. They would also give councils stronger grounds to reject applications that fail to demonstrate minimal harm, shifting the burden of proof more squarely onto applicants.

National Regulator vs. Local Councils: Shifting Power Dynamics

The Murphy Report’s recommendation to create a national gambling regulator represents a major structural shift from the current state-based system. Under the existing model, bodies like the VGCCC operate under state legislation with varying approaches across jurisdictions. A national regulator would centralize licensing and compliance functions, potentially altering the role of local councils.

Current state-based model:

• State regulators (e.g., VGCCC) hold final licensing authority

• Local councils provide input through submissions and hearings

• State-specific rules and assessment criteria create variation

Proposed national regulator model:

• Single federal agency would set national licensing standards

• Local council submissions would feed into a uniform national process

• Potential for standardized community impact assessment frameworks

The impact on councils is ambiguous. On one hand, a national regulator could establish consistent, higher standards that benefit all communities. On the other, it could further marginalize local input by centralizing decision-making in Canberra.

Much depends on whether the national framework explicitly requires regulators to give weight to council assessments and local knowledge. Without such protections, councils risk becoming advisory bodies with little real influence.

Advertising Ban Gap: Why the 2026 Reforms Leave Councils Exposed

The April 2026 reforms announced by the Albanese government fall significantly short of the Murphy Report’s recommendation for a comprehensive ban on online gambling advertising. Instead, the government implemented a partial regime that limits but does not eliminate exposure to gambling promotions.

The reforms, as detailed in the Gambling Advertising Standards Bill, include:

• Cap of three gambling ads per hour on television between 6 a.m. and 8:30 p.m.
• Complete ban on gambling advertising during live sports broadcasts
• Ban on gambling ads inside sports venues and on players’ uniforms
• Online restrictions requiring users to be logged in, over 18, and opted-in to see ads

• Cap of three gambling ads per hour on television between 6 a.m. and 8:30 p.m.

• Complete ban on gambling advertising during live sports broadcasts

• Ban on gambling ads inside sports venues and on players’ uniforms

• Online restrictions requiring users to be logged in, over 18, and opted-in to see ads

What is missing:

• No total ban on online gambling advertising as recommended
• No ban on radio ads during high-audience periods beyond school hours
• No restrictions on social media and influencer marketing
• No national gambling advertising authority to enforce the rules

• No total ban on online gambling advertising as recommended

• No ban on radio ads during high-audience periods beyond school hours

• No restrictions on social media and influencer marketing

• No national regulator to enforce the rules

This partial approach leaves councils exposed to ongoing harm. Even with reduced advertising, gambling remains normalized in Australian culture, driving demand that local venues serve.

Councils will continue to face pressure to approve new or expanded gambling facilities to meet that demand, while dealing with the social consequences. The advertising ban gap means councils cannot address the root cause of harm—the pervasive marketing that encourages gambling participation—they can only manage its symptoms at the local level.

1000 Days of Inaction: The Ongoing Delay and Its Impact on Communities

As of April 2026, it has been 1000 days since the Murphy Report was tabled in Parliament (979 days since its delivery in June 2023). During this period, the federal government has failed to implement the majority of the report’s 31 recommendations, leaving communities without the reforms needed to curb gambling harm.

This delay has real consequences for local councils and the communities they serve:

• Councils continue to operate under an outdated framework that favors industry interests over community protection

• New gambling venues are approved using weak assessment criteria that underestimate harm

• Existing venues expand without meaningful constraints, increasing EGM density in vulnerable areas

• Councils lack the legislative backing to refuse applications on public health grounds

The 1000-day milestone underscores a pattern of political inaction despite overwhelming evidence of gambling harm. Australians lost a record A$32 billion in 2024, with problem gambling rates climbing, particularly among young people exposed to aggressive advertising. Every day of delay means more venues approved, more machines installed, and more harm inflicted on families and communities that councils are tasked with protecting.

Surprising finding: Despite their critical role in assessing gambling applications, local councils have no power to veto venues they deem harmful—the final decision always rests with state regulators who may prioritize different considerations. This leaves councils bearing political pressure from communities while lacking ultimate authority.

Action step: Contact your local council to ask what policies they have adopted to assess gambling venue applications, and advocate for them to adopt stricter community impact assessment guidelines that go beyond minimum legal requirements. You can also support the full implementation of the Murphy Report’s 31 recommendations by contacting your federal MP and referencing the ongoing 1000-day delay.

gambling reform