Australia’s flagship gambling advertising reform may prove far less transformative than its political branding suggests. According to the country’s Office of Impact Analysis (OIA), the government’s preferred package of advertising restrictions is expected to reduce annual gambling expenditure by AUD 62.7 million, equal to roughly 0.8% of the AUD 32.2 billion Australians lost on legal gambling in 2023–24.
The finding is notable because it comes from the government’s own assessment. It also highlights an uncomfortable comparison: a full ban on online gambling advertising, previously recommended by a parliamentary inquiry but ultimately rejected, would have delivered a meaningfully larger reduction in losses.
A compromise reform with modest projected results
The OIA published its 48-page assessment on April 7, almost three years after a parliamentary inquiry led by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy called for a comprehensive prohibition on online gambling advertising. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese instead unveiled a partial restriction package on April 2 at the National Press Club. The new regime is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027.
Under the OIA’s projections, the government’s chosen policy would trim wagering expenditure by AUD 62.7 million per year. While that is a substantial nominal figure, the report makes clear that it represents only a small dent in overall gambling losses. By contrast, the full ban favored by Murphy’s committee would have reduced losses by an additional 0.6 percentage points, implying a total reduction of around 1.4% annually.
The OIA acknowledged that the broader ban offered “a higher net benefit.” Even so, it said the more aggressive option would have imposed heavier financial costs on media companies and grassroots sports organizations that currently rely on gambling-related sponsorship and advertising income.
What the new Australian rules would do
The reform package stretches across broadcast, digital, and sports-related marketing channels. On television, gambling ads will be capped at three per hour between 6:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. During live sports broadcasts in that same window, they will be banned entirely. Radio advertising will also be prohibited during school drop-off and pick-up periods.
In addition, celebrities, athletes, and other public figures will no longer be allowed to appear in wagering promotions. Gambling branding is also set to disappear from sports venues and player uniforms, marking a broader attempt to reduce the normalization of betting within mainstream sports culture.
One of the most consequential changes applies to digital platforms. The new framework introduces what officials described as a “triple-lock” system for online gambling advertising. Ads must be blocked by default unless a user is logged in, verified to be over 18, and given the option to opt out. The OIA confirmed this requirement would extend beyond traditional websites to include streaming platforms, podcasts, social media, app stores, and even the official websites and apps of major sporting competitions such as the AFL and NRL.
Costs, stakeholders, and competing criticism
The OIA estimated that 2,461 stakeholders across the industry would be affected by the new regime, including wagering operators, broadcasters, digital platforms, and podcasters. The annual regulatory cost was placed at around AUD 10 million, roughly one-sixth of the projected reduction in gambling expenditure.
That cost-benefit profile has done little to quiet criticism. Instead, the proposal has drawn attacks from both sides of the policy debate.
Responsible Wagering Australia CEO Kai Cantwell called the announcement “a real kick in the guts for the industry” and warned that it sets “a dangerous precedent.” From the opposite direction, Alliance for Gambling Reform chief advocate Tim Costello dismissed the package as a “timid response,” arguing that an opt-out model leaves too much responsibility with parents and consumers rather than placing stronger obligations on operators and platforms.
The Australian Medical Association’s vice president, Julian Rait, said partial bans are insufficient, while independent MP Kate Chaney characterized the package as little more than “tinkering around the edges of meaningful reform.” In practical terms, the government appears to have landed on a compromise that may satisfy neither industry participants nor public health advocates.
New Zealand is watching, but not copying yet
The Australian debate is being closely monitored in New Zealand, where gambling regulation is also under political scrutiny and where the sports broadcasting environment is closely linked to Australia’s. Despite that overlap, New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) said on April 8 that it is not preparing to introduce similar ad restrictions immediately.
Instead, Wellington’s near-term focus remains the Online Casino Gambling Bill, which is expected to pass in May 2026. That legislation would bring New Zealand’s currently unregulated online casino market under local supervision through a licensing framework capped at 15 operators. A DIA spokesperson said the Minister for Racing plans to observe how Australia’s reforms work in practice before considering any additional harm-minimization measures in the advertising arena.
The wait-and-see approach suggests New Zealand sees Australia as a live policy test case. If the Australian restrictions materially reduce harm without causing major collateral damage to broadcasters, sports bodies, and digital businesses, they could still shape future reform across the Tasman. But for now, New Zealand is choosing regulatory sequencing over immediate imitation.
Rising gambling risk remains the larger backdrop
The OIA’s review also drew on data from the Australian Gambling Research Centre, which underscores why the issue remains politically charged. The share of Australians considered at risk of gambling harm rose from 11% in 2019 to 15% in 2024. Over a longer time frame, wagering losses increased from AUD 3 billion in 2010–11—about 16% of total gambling losses—to AUD 8.4 billion in 2023–24, or 26% of the total.
The broader social burden is also substantial. In Victoria alone, the social cost of gambling in the prior year was estimated at AUD 14.1 billion. These figures help explain why partial reforms are facing skepticism: the scale of the problem appears large, while the projected impact of the chosen ad restrictions remains comparatively modest.
Meanwhile, New Zealand is confronting its own pressure points. The country’s Advertising Standards Authority processed 955 gambling-related complaints in 2025 and is scheduled to review its code of conduct later this year. That suggests the issue is unlikely to remain dormant, even if lawmakers are not yet ready to mirror Australia’s latest moves.
What comes next
Prime Minister Albanese’s legislation is expected to be introduced to parliament in May. The central policy question is no longer whether Australia will tighten gambling advertising rules, but whether the chosen structure is strong enough to generate meaningful behavioral change.
For now, the government’s own analysis points to a narrow outcome: measurable but limited reductions in gambling expenditure, lower than what a full ban might have achieved, and delivered through a framework that still leaves significant room for gambling marketing to persist. That makes Australia’s reform politically important, but not yet a definitive model for others.
New Zealand, for its part, appears content to let Australia run the experiment first.