When the Odds Take Over the Game: The Public Health Case for Sports Betting Reform

Australia is a country whose love for sport is only rivalled, if the ads are to be believed, by its love of a punt. The season return of the nation’s largest sporting codes, the AFL and NRL, has seen a return to form for gambling companies, seeking to remind viewers that watching their favourite team is best enjoyed with a cold beer and same-game multi in the tank. Yet, shiny LED screens emblazoned with gambling company logos hide the immense toll gambling, and sports betting in particular, has taken on a nation that has earned the moniker of the biggest gambling losers in the world.[1]

What Gambling is Really Costing Us: The Murphy Report and Gambling Harm as a Public Health Emergency

In the 2022–23 financial year alone, total gambling losses in Australia reached $31.5 billion.[2] In 2022, two-thirds of individuals who placed bets on sporting and racing events were classified as being at risk of gambling-related harm.[3] This harm exists on a spectrum, ranging from feelings of guilt and regret to severe consequences such as bankruptcy, relationship breakdown, and poor mental health.[4] Critically, individuals who gamble face a risk of suicide four times higher than the general population.[5]  The broader social impact is also substantial. In 2023, the social cost of gambling harm in Victoria alone was estimated at $14.1 billion, reflecting not only the effects on individuals who gamble, but also the significant consequences for their families, friends and the wider community. [6]

The 2023 You Win Some, You Lose More report (‘the Murphy report’) examined the regulatory framework for online gambling and gambling advertising, finding that the current model, framed around individual responsibility for “gambling responsibly,” fails to address the major public health consequences of gambling harm.[7] This emphasis on individual responsibility sits uneasily within a system described by the report as poorly and inconsistently regulated, largely supervised by state regulators, and in which, despite purported efforts to enforce stricter controls, gambling ads have become ubiquitous across both sports media and the wider Australian media landscape. Within such a framework, the only real beneficiaries are wagering service providers (WSPs), the sports controlling bodies (SCBs), with whom WSPs enter into lucrative agreements, and the media, who profit from gambling advertising. Applying a public health lens, the report’s authors, the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, put forward 31 recommendations to address gambling harm including a phased-in total ban on online gambling ads, the introduction of a customer duty of care for online WSPs, and, most importantly, a standardised national strategy.

A New National Standard for Minimising Gambling Harm

The Murphy report envisions a national standard for online gambling enacted through federal legislation and overseen by a single regulator whose sole mandate is to reduce gambling harm and manage the licensing and regulation of all online gambling providers.[8] This regulation would be grounded in a public health approach to minimising gambling harm, placing greater responsibility on gambling providers and prioritising prevention and early intervention, bringing much needed consistency to the ‘fragmented’ regulatory landscape. 

Currently, states and territories issue licences to WSPs and collect tax revenue and licensing fees, while regulation is shared between federal and state frameworks. At the national level, the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth), enforced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), imposes a blanket prohibition on unlicensed providers and restricts certain forms of betting, such as in-play wagering and credit betting.[9] Additionally, all online WSPs must comply with the National Consumer Protection Framework (NCPF), a set of baseline standard protections covering WSP conduct, staff training, and advertising practices.[10]

In practice, primary regulatory responsibility lies with state and territory bodies, which enforce their own legislation and codes of practice alongside the NCPF.[11] This fragmented approach has enabled bookmakers to obtain licences in jurisdictions with more favourable regulatory and tax conditions.[12] This is demonstrated by the Northern Territory’s near monopoly on the licenses of online sports bookmakers with over 40 major bookmakers, including Sportsbet, Bet365, and Ladbrokes, being licensed in the Northern Territory.[13] This has positioned the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission (NTRWC), established under the Racing and Wagering Act 2024, as the nation’s “de facto online gambling regulator,” the primary body responsible for investigating conduct and handling complaints against multibillion-dollar online bookmakers.[14] However, the NTRWC’s capacity to handle its status as the nation’s ‘de facto online gambling regulator’ is less than clear, with the 6 member panel meeting only once a month and employing no full time staff.[15] Additional criticisms have been levied at the regulator’s impartiality and effectiveness due to the disclosure of current sports betting interests, the receipt of gifts from bookmakers and lengthy delays in decision making processes.[16] Ultimately, these shortcomings demonstrate a regulator that was never intended to oversee the national online gambling industry, highlighting the need for new, purpose built regulatory system for the world’s most prolific gambling nation.

Proposed Legislative Change

Nearly three years since the release of the Murphy report, no formal response has been provided by the government. In response to this stagnation, in early March, Independent MP Dr Monique Ryan introduced a Private Member’s Bill to amend the Australian Centre for Disease Control Act, broadening the definition of “public health matters” to explicitly include the health impacts of gambling harm and addiction.[17] In her second reading speech, Ryan argued that broadening the definition would enable public health experts to produce evidence-based reports and data on the harms of gambling, marking a critical first step in reframing gambling harm as a matter of community rather than individual responsibility.[18] The Bill, currently being considered before the House of Representatives, offers Parliament an opportunity to lay the groundwork for the legislative and regulatory reform envisaged by the tripartisan authors of the Murphy report.

Conclusion

According to inquiry submissions, studies in Australia and the United Kingdom have found 75% of young people view gambling as a normal or common part of sport.[19] This “gamblification of sport” has woven betting deeply into the experience of watching and enjoying Australia’s favourite codes, embedding wagering within the nation’s sporting culture in a way that seems almost inseparable. Legislative and regulatory reform, grounded in public health principles and backed by a national framework, offers the opportunity to interrupt this cycle and protect future generations from the harms now endemic in Australia’s sporting landscape.

References

[1] Skye Predavec, ‘Most Gambling Losses Are from At-Risk Gamblers’ (Web Page, 22 July 2025) The Australia Institute https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/most-gambling-losses-are-from-at-risk-gamblers/.

[2] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, ‘Gambling’ (Web Page, 16 October 2025) https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/gambling

[3] House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, Parliament of Australia, You win some, you lose more, (Report, 2023) iii (‘The Murphy Report’).

[4] Queensland Government, ‘Signs of Gambling Harm’ (Web Page, 9 July 2025) https://www.qld.gov.au/community/getting-support-health-social-issue/gambling-harm-support/gambling-harm-signs

[5] Murphy Report (n 3) [1.12].

[6] Department of Justice and Community Safety (Vic), The Social Costs of Gambling to Victoria, 2023 (Web Page, June 2025). https://www.justice.vic.gov.au/safer-communities/gambling/social-costs-of-gambling-to-victoria-2023

[7] ‘Murphy Report (n 3).

[8] ‘Murphy Report (n 3) Recommendation 3.

[9] Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth).

[10] Department of Social Services (Cth), National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering in Australia – National Policy Statement (30 November 2018).

[11] Murphy Report (n 3) [2.4].

[12] Ibid [2.8].

[13] Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Sports bookmakers and betting exchange operators (Web Page, 1 October 2025) https://dth.nt.gov.au/boards-and-committees/racing-commission/sports-bookmakers-and-betting-exchange-operators

[14] Murphy Report (n 3) [2.125].

[15] Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ‘NT betting regulator accused of being too close to industry, Four Corners investigation reveals’ (Web Page, 6 October 2025) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-06/nt-betting-regulator-accused-close-industry-four-corners/105848692

[16] Ibid.

[17] Australian Centre for Disease Control Amendment (Gambling as a Public Health Issue) Bill 2026 (Cth).

[18] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates,  House of Representatives, 2 March 2026 (Monique Ryan, MP).

[19] Murphy Report (no 3) [5.18].