The federal government is due to respond to a parliamentary inquiry into online gambling.

Last year the inquiry, led by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy, recommended phasing out gambling advertising over three years leading to a total ban.

But there are reports the government will stop at a partial ban. This could take gambling off social media and stop ads from airing within an hour (before and after) sporting matches.

How effective would a partial ban be? History shows it may not be enough.

Advertising normalises gambling

Advertising is one way industries normalise harmful commodities such as gambling. They also use marketing, such as sponsorships, celebrity endorsements and charitable donations.

These same tactics have been employed by alcohol, tobacco and gambling businesses.

The effect on young people can be profound. Numerous studies linked tobacco advertising with young people’s uptake of smoking. Similar research has shown young people exposed to gambling marketing are also more likely to take up gambling and experience harm from it.

Most parents are aware of this, which is why so many Australians – at least 70% – oppose gambling advertising.

The inquiry

Murphy launched the online gambling inquiry in September 2022. The committee expressed concern about the “increasing reach of online gambling platforms into Australians’ lives”, and especially the impact on children and young people.

When the report was published in June 2023, the committee – whose members represented every party and the crossbench – made 31 recommendations.

These included four steps to phase out gambling advertising altogether.

Limits on ads would increase over a three-year period, starting immediately. Online advertising restrictions would be introduced, alongside rules for radio and stadiums. For example, one phase could ban ads on commercial radio during school drop-off and pick-up times. Another phase could ban ads being shown one hour either side of sports coverage.

The Murphy reforms would also prohibit on-field gambling signage and logos on sporting uniforms.

There would be bans on inducements, such as offers of “free money” to encourage account holders to make bets.

The final phase is total: it bans all advertising and sponsorship by gambling organisations.

It is not yet clear which elements of the committee’s advertising recommendations the government will endorse. But if it chooses to only partially adopt some of the recommendation’s phases, it leaves major loopholes for continued gambling promotion.

Could a partial ban work? Lessons from tobacco

History shows wherever there is an opportunity to promote their product, harmful commodity industries will exploit it.

Tobacco companies employed this strategy until the government torpedoed it by introducing comprehensive bans on advertising, sponsorship and marketing.

Australia’s initial response to the recognition of tobacco’s harms focused on a concerted campaign to ban broadcast advertising. Between 1973 and 1976, tobacco advertising was phased out.

However, the tobacco industry continued to pursue incidental advertising – such as advertisements at sports grounds and on player’s uniforms.

Denormalisation was key to successful campaigns to reduce harm from tobacco. This involved restricting and then banning advertising, sponsorship and other marketing – along with restricting where tobacco could be consumed.

The lessons of tobacco make it clear that if the Murphy recommendations are only partially adopted, gambling businesses will increase spending on anything still allowed.

Do sporting codes need the money?

The pushback from sporting codes and broadcasters recalls the time when tobacco advertising was restricted.

Sporting codes including the AFL and NRL – alongside some media companies – argue the sky will fall in if gambling revenue declines.

Broadcasters sell premium advertising slots during popular sports coverage and pay a premium to sporting codes for the rights to do so.

But sporting codes and broadcasters didn’t collapse when tobacco advertising was restricted. They are unlikely to do so because of a gambling ad ban. And Murphy’s recommendations address these concerns through the proposed phase-in.

Advertising bans have been effective in other countries. In Spain, the gambling regulator reported no dire consequences for broadcasters and sports teams when ads were banned.

Gambling ads have also been banned in Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands. And broadcast ads have been banned in Germany. Celebrity endorsements have been prohibited in the Netherlands and Canada.

Where to from here

It’s possible reports of the government’s intentions are incorrect. The government says it is still consulting and will make an announcement in the coming weeks. Certainly, the Murphy report recommendations require serious consideration.

It’s not yet clear how the government proposes to deal with the 30 other recommendations contained in the report. These argue for:

• a national online gambling regulator
• more research funding and access to de-identified gambling data
• international agreements to regulate online gambling.

Action to reduce the “gamblification” of video games is also recommended.

Adopting only some of the recommendations doesn’t do enough to stop the promotion of gambling and will continue to expose young people to its life-destroying harms.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, visit https://gamblershelp.com.au/get-help/ or call 1800 858 858.