Parliamentary Inquiry into Gambling in Australia: Key Findings and Recommendations (2026 Update)

The 2023 parliamentary inquiry into online gambling in Australia, chaired by the late Peta Murphy MP, recommended a total ban on all gambling advertising and sponsorship within three years. However, as of April 2026, the Australian government has implemented only partial ad caps—limiting TV to three ads per hour and banning radio ads during school times—falling far short of the inquiry’s comprehensive blueprint for harm reduction.

The Parliamentary Inquiry’s Gambling Advertising Ban: A Four-Phase Plan

The Murphy report’s most ambitious proposal was a phased, comprehensive ban on all online gambling advertising, inducements, and sports sponsorship within three years of its June 2023 release. This four-phase timeline aimed to systematically dismantle the industry’s marketing reach, starting with the most harmful practices and escalating to a complete blanket ban by 2026. The plan recognized that gambling advertising normalizes risky behavior, particularly among young people, and that a gradual but firm elimination was necessary to allow the industry and broadcasters to adjust while prioritizing public health.

The Four-Phase Advertising Ban Timeline

Phase	Key Actions	Timeline
Phase 1	Immediate prohibition of online gambling inducements, social media advertising, and exemptions for news/current affairs.	Immediate (June 2023)
Phase 2	Banning ads and odds commentary one hour before/after sports broadcasts, and removing in-stadium and player uniform ads.	Within 1 year
Phase 3	A total ban on broadcast gambling ads between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM.	Within 2 years
Phase 4	A complete, blanket ban on all online gambling advertising and sponsorship within three years.	Within 3 years (by June 2026)

The three-year goal was to achieve a complete advertising blackout across all platforms, recognizing that incremental steps would build toward full elimination. Phase 1 should have commenced immediately upon the report’s release in June 2023, yet as of April 2026, none of these phases have been fully implemented. The timeline reflects a deliberate, stepped approach: first cutting off digital and social media channels where youth exposure is highest, then targeting sports broadcasting—the most visible and normalized advertising environment—before finally removing all remaining broadcast ads during daytime hours and ultimately ending all online and sponsorship advertising entirely.

Immediate Prohibitions: Inducements and Social Media Ads

• Inducements defined: Bonus bets, “refer a friend” schemes, deposit matches, and free bet offers designed to entice new and existing gamblers.
• Social media targeting: Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok were singled out for immediate ban due to their accessibility to minors and algorithmic targeting of vulnerable users.
• News/current affairs exemption: The report allowed gambling ads in news programs but prohibited exemptions for sports news, a compromise that remains controversial among advocates who argue any exposure normalizes gambling.
• Implementation status: These immediate prohibitions were never enacted, allowing inducements and social media advertising to continue unchecked through 2026.

The focus on inducements recognized that these tactics—offering “free” money to gamble—directly encourage risky behavior and are particularly effective at hooking young adults. Social media advertising was deemed especially dangerous because it bypasses traditional broadcast restrictions and can be precisely targeted based on user data, reaching problem gamblers and underage users with personalized promotions. The news exemption, while intended to preserve editorial independence, has been exploited by broadcasters to air gambling content within news bulletins, undermining the spirit of the ban.

Sports Broadcast and Stadium Ad Removal

Phase 2 targeted the most visible and normalized gambling advertising environment: sports broadcasting. The inquiry proposed banning all gambling advertisements and odds commentary for one hour before and after live sports broadcasts. This blackout period would prevent the constant integration of betting odds into sports commentary, which research shows increases gambling uptake and normalizes betting as part of the fan experience.

The phase also called for the removal of all in-stadium advertising and player uniform sponsorships—a direct challenge to the AFL, NRL, and other major sports leagues that rely heavily on gambling company funding. Stadium banners, player jersey logos, and naming rights deals would need to be phased out.

This measure aimed to reduce the visibility of gambling brands in family-friendly environments and break the association between sports heroes and betting companies. As of 2026, these sports marketing channels remain fully operational, with gambling companies continuing to sponsor teams and flood broadcasts with ads and odds commentary.

Beyond Advertising: The Inquiry’s Consumer Protection Framework

While advertising restrictions dominated public discussion, the Murphy report presented a holistic public health approach requiring systemic reforms beyond marketing. The inquiry understood that reducing exposure was necessary but insufficient without robust consumer protections and a regulatory framework capable of enforcing harm minimization. These recommendations drew on international best practices, particularly from the UK and Scandinavian models, to create a safety net for Australian gamblers.

National Regulator and Ombudsman

Australia’s current gambling regulation is fragmented across state and territory boundaries, creating loopholes and inconsistent enforcement. The Murphy report recommended establishing a dedicated national regulator for online gambling with explicit powers over licensing, compliance monitoring, and penalties.

This regulator would replace the patchwork of state-based bodies and provide a single point of accountability for the predominantly online industry. A core function of such a body would be setting and enforcing a national Gambling Advertising Standards Bill: Provisions and Implications to unify marketing rules across jurisdictions.

Complementing the regulator would be a national ombudsman—an independent office tasked with handling consumer complaints, mediating disputes between gamblers and operators, and identifying systemic issues requiring regulatory intervention. This dual structure mirrors the UK Gambling Commission, which has demonstrated greater effectiveness in consumer protection than Australia’s decentralized system.

Centralization would ensure uniform standards across all states and territories, preventing operators from shopping for favorable jurisdictions and creating a cohesive national approach to harm reduction. The proposed Gambling Advertising Authority Australia: Role and Responsibilities would be a key component of this centralized oversight.

Mandatory Pre-Commitment with Loss Limits

The report recommended implementing a national pre-commitment system where all gamblers must set mandatory maximum loss limits before they can place bets. Unlike current voluntary limit-setting tools—which problem gamblers often ignore or circumvent—this system would enforce hard caps that cannot be overridden without a cooling-off period and additional verification.

Evidence from Sweden, where mandatory pre-commitment with weekly loss limits reduced gambling expenditure by 15-20% among high-risk users, strongly supported this recommendation. The system would apply to all online gambling accounts, regardless of operator, creating a unified safety net.

Pre-commitment works by interrupting the impulsive, dissociative state that characterizes problem gambling; when a gambler hits their limit, they are automatically locked out, preventing “chasing losses” behavior that escalates harm. The Murphy report specifically called for these limits to be mandatory, not optional, recognizing that vulnerable users cannot be relied upon to self-regulate. Evidence from Sweden shows such systems are among the most effective gambling harm prevention programs: Effective Strategies in 2026, directly reducing expenditure among high-risk users.

Ban on Inducements and Other Harm Measures

Beyond advertising, the inquiry identified specific product features and marketing tactics that directly encourage harmful gambling:

• Inducements banned: Bonus bets, “refer a friend” schemes, deposit matches, and free bet offers designed to entice new and existing gamblers.
• Skin gambling: The practice of using virtual items (skins) from video games as de facto gambling currency, often traded on third-party platforms for real money. This targets youth and operates in a regulatory gray area.
• Loot boxes: Random in-game purchases that mimic slot machine mechanics, widely criticized for exploiting children and problem gamblers through variable ratio reinforcement schedules.

The report recommended tightening regulations around these features, effectively banning inducements across all platforms and bringing skin gambling and loot boxes under the same regulatory framework as traditional gambling products. These measures address the industry’s shift toward gamification and social media-friendly promotions that circumvent traditional advertising bans while still driving engagement and revenue.

Government Response to the Gambling Inquiry: Partial Measures and Ongoing Pressure

As of April 2026, the Australian government’s response to the Murphy report has been widely characterized as delayed and inadequate. Over 1000 days after the report’s June 2023 release, no formal government response was tabled in Parliament until expected May 2026. The reforms announced in early 2026 represent a fraction of the inquiry’s recommendations, focusing on narrow advertising restrictions while ignoring the core demands for a total ad ban and robust consumer protections.

TV and Radio Ad Caps and School-Time Bans

The government’s primary advertising reforms include:

• Television: A cap of three gambling advertisements per hour between 6:00 AM and 8:30 PM. This falls short of the inquiry’s Phase 3 recommendation for a total ban from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM.
• Radio: A complete ban on gambling advertisements during school pick-up (3:00–4:00 PM) and drop-off (8:00–9:00 AM) times on weekdays.

These measures allow gambling ads to continue dominating commercial television during prime time and weekends. The three-per-hour cap still permits up to 72 gambling ads per day on a single channel, compared to the inquiry’s vision of zero exposure.

This volume ensures marketing revenue for broadcasters remains largely intact, a point explored in the Economic Impact Gambling Restrictions: 2026 Analysis. The radio bans, while protecting children during school travel times, leave the rest of the broadcast day unrestricted.

The radio bans, while protecting children during school travel times, leave the rest of the broadcast day unrestricted. Health groups have pointed out that the government’s timeline extends to 2027 for full implementation of these modest caps, whereas the inquiry demanded immediate action starting in 2023.

Online Marketing Restrictions: No Celebrities and Opt-Out Tools

The government’s digital advertising reforms target two specific practices:

• Celebrity and athlete endorsements: Banning the use of celebrities and sports stars in online gambling advertisements, recognizing their influence on young audiences.
• Opt-out tools: Requiring gambling operators to provide accessible tools for users to opt out of targeted marketing and promotions.

These restrictions apply only to digital marketing channels and do not extend to broadcast television or radio, where gambling ads remain pervasive. Online advertising represents a massive and growing portion of gambling marketing spend, and the celebrity ban addresses a particularly insidious tactic that normalizes betting among fans.

However, the opt-out tools requirement is weak—existing voluntary opt-out mechanisms are often buried in settings and ineffective. The government’s measures lack enforcement mechanisms and penalties for non-compliance, and they do not address the fundamental issue of allowing gambling advertising to exist at all.

Criticism: Why Advocates Call It a ‘Watered-Down’ Response

The government’s partial reforms have drawn sharp criticism from public health groups, medical associations, independent MPs, and gambling harm advocates. The Australian Medical Association, Wesley Mission, and the Greens have all described the response as a “watered-down” version of the Murphy report that fails to address the scale of harm.

Key criticisms include:

• Missing total advertising ban: The inquiry’s centerpiece—a complete ban on all gambling advertising and sponsorship—was entirely rejected. Advocates argue that without a total ban, gambling remains normalized and accessible, with ads continuing to drive addiction.
• 1000+ day delay: The government took over 1000 days to respond to the report, during which time gambling harm continued unchecked. Advocacy groups like the Make It Count campaign have tracked this delay as evidence of political inertia and industry influence.
• Industry lobbying: The gambling industry spent millions on lobbying and political donations during the delay, successfully watering down reforms. Critics point to the narrow scope of the government’s proposals as proof of industry capture.
• Crossbench pressure: Independent MPs and the Greens have consistently pushed for stronger action, introducing their own bills to implement the Murphy report’s recommendations in full. Their efforts have been blocked by the major parties, highlighting the political difficulty of confronting the gambling lobby.

The government is expected to table its formal, detailed response to the Murphy report around May 12, 2026, coinciding with the federal budget. This timing suggests the government may link funding for harm reduction services to the implementation of its partial reforms, using the budget as leverage to secure parliamentary support. Advocacy groups are mobilizing to intensify pressure during the budget period, demanding that the formal response include a commitment to a total advertising ban and the other key recommendations.

The May deadline represents a critical juncture: if the government’s response remains limited to the already-announced caps, the gambling reform movement will likely escalate its campaign, including legal challenges and further legislative initiatives from the crossbench. The legacy of Peta Murphy—who died in 2023 before seeing her report’s fate—hangs over this deadline, making it a symbolic moment for whether Parliament will act on her vision or continue to prioritize industry interests over public health. For a breakdown of Gambling Reform Australia 2025: Key Changes and What They Mean, see the dedicated analysis page.

Advocacy groups are mobilizing to intensify pressure during the budget period, demanding that the formal response include a commitment to a total advertising ban and the other key recommendations. The May deadline represents a critical juncture: if the government’s response remains limited to the already-announced caps, the gambling reform movement will likely escalate its campaign, including legal challenges and further legislative initiatives from the crossbench. The legacy of Peta Murphy—who died in 2023 before seeing her report’s fate—hangs over this deadline, making it a symbolic moment for whether Parliament will act on her vision or continue to prioritize industry interests over public health.

The parliamentary inquiry achieved something remarkable: unanimous cross-party agreement on the need for drastic gambling reform. Yet over 1000 days later, the government’s half-measures reveal the industry’s enduring power. As the May 2026 deadline approaches, every voice matters.

Contact your MP today—use the Make It Count campaign’s email template—and demand full implementation of the inquiry’s 31 recommendations. The legacy of Peta Murphy depends on it. For more on the full gambling reform campaign, visit the gambling reform page.