Last updated: September 16, 2024
A Freshwater Strategy study shows 56% of Australians prefer moderate restrictions on online gambling ads, focusing on protecting children and vulnerable groups. The debate intensifies with high-profile calls for a total ban, while industry leaders argue against over-regulation, citing risks of illegal operators and lost tax revenue.
Freshwater Strategy’s current research shows that the majority of Australians prefer regulated restrictions on online gambling ads rather than a complete ban.
The survey also shows that 56% of visitors believe reasonable and proper restrictions must be placed on these ads, while 37% of the visitors believe no restrictions are necessary and that these ads should be banned completely.
The two top reasons for tap preference are 37% for minimising children’s access to gambling advertisements and 26% for protecting vulnerable groups.
These outcomes are similar to those of the AFR Freshwater Poll held before, where it was discovered that only 30% of Australian people supported a complete ban on gambling advertisements on TV, while 70% supported a restriction in the number and timing of the advertisements.
There is a growing debate on on-air and off-air advertising promotions that create awareness of gambling. Earlier this year, the Alliance for Gambling Reforms wrote an open letter to the country’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Opposition Leader Peter Dutton demanding the ban of gambling ads.
The letter was signed by 60 individuals, including former prime ministers and sports personalities, and it wanted the implementation of the 31 measures proposed in the Murphy Report.
The above recommendations are made to minimize the effects of gambling advertisements, particularly those specific to children and those encouraging pre-conditioned gamblers.
Kai Cantwell of Responsible Wagering Australia has now joined in the criticism of the campaign that is seeking to have all gambling commercials banned, online included, as a strategy. According to Cantwell, people tend to opt for a ban when they have only one option, either of the extremes.
Still, he opined that while sensible and evidenced-based approaches such as opt-out provisions and age-verification requirements are given to him, most people would rather go for these more reasonable solutions.
Cantwell pointed out that the absence of online gambling adverts does not eliminate betting but makes Australians turn to black markets. Such new entities tend to lure customers with big bonuses only to disappoint them when it comes to paying out wins or providing appropriate gambling tools.
He also added that over-regulation risks opening the door to the kind of commercials that exploitative operators will use to target children and vulnerable people.
Additionally, Cantwell highlighted the economic contribution of licensed gambling operators, noting that they provide significant tax revenue that supports vital services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. In contrast, illegal operators evade taxes, costing the Australian economy billions annually.
As the debate continues, the Australian Government faces the complex task of protecting vulnerable individuals while sustaining a regulated gambling industry contributing to the nation’s economy.
