David Pocock, independent Senator, former Australia national team rugby union player and vocal proponent of gambling reform, had earlier described the bill as a “betrayal” of the Australian public.
First and foremost, on the topic of advertising, gambling reform advocates are not happy with the bill falling short of a full ban on advertising – as recommended by the Murphy report three years ago.
Another key area is regulation. The ACMA is effectively the de facto national regulator of Australian gambling, but this is just one remit it carries as the wider authority for media and communications in the country.
Below the ACMA, regulation is carried out on a state-by-state basis. But the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission (NTRWC) is widely seen as a de facto regulator of online betting as well, and campaigners have long criticised the authority for being too close to the industry.
And while the opt-out advertising clause was agreed with the Liberal-National Coalition, some coalition MPs – chiefly those in the Liberals – weren’t entirely on board.
Two MPs actually crossed the floor to vote against the bill, and some like Simon Kennedy MP argued that an opt-in method for online advertising would be better. Kennedy still voted to support the bill, however, seeing it as better than nothing.
“This is not perfect but it’s much improved and much better,” he said, speaking to ABC News’ Afternoon Briefing. “And in politics, unfortunately, you often don’t get things all your own way. It has to sometimes involve compromise.”
And on the opposite side of the spectrum, what does the industry think?
Some in the industry were surprised when Albanese announced the reform package back in April, as many reform campaigners likely were as well given how long the government dragged its feet on the Murphy report.
The opt-out advertising option has caught particular industry criticism, however. Earlier this week, Responsible Wagering Australia (RWA), the trade body for regulated Australian betting, strongly criticised the amendments to Albanese’ bill.
RWA’s argument will be familiar to many, being very similar to those made in the UK, the Netherlands and elsewhere – that by preventing the regulated industry from promoting itself, the government is giving an advantage to the offshore, illegal one that it is simultaneously trying to roll back.
“These measures will significantly curtail our ability to advertise a legal product safely to adults” said Kai Cantwell, Chief Executive Officer of the RWA .
“This new global opt-out system, akin to BetStop, is proposed to be designed, developed and implemented in less than four months. Betstop, which is a simpler concept, took more than four years from inception to implementation”.
“If you push people away from the licensed, regulated market – by banning or limiting the promotions that let local operators compete, or by making Australian odds less competitive with new taxes and levies – you don’t stop them punting.
“You push them offshore, into products with no consumer protections, no support, no Betstop, and no contribution to Australian sport and racing. In fact, these sites actively undermine sports integrity and consumer protections.”
The vote may be over, but the debate is far from done. Industry pushback against the reforms will continue, although maybe not all of them, as it seems stakeholders may be more accepting that the times are changing on one or two fronts.
More significantly though, politicians and campaigners in favour of gambling reform are far from satisfied with Albanese’ legislation. A general sentiment is that the government has chickened out at best, and insulted Peta Murphy’s memory at worst.
Dingnews.com 21/08/2026