Millions in gambling industry donations flow legally to both major parties, even as reform stalls and public concern grows.

Australia likes to think of itself as a robust democracy. Yet the latest publication of political donations by the Australian Electoral Commission should make us pause.

Over the past decade, gambling companies have quietly but consistently poured millions of dollars into the major federal political parties. These donations are legal. But legality is not the same as moral legitimacy or best-practice, particularly when these donations come from an industry that profits directly from social harm.

New research analysing federal political donations between 2014/15 and 2024/25 shows that gambling companies donated more than $6 million to Labor and the Coalition, split almost exactly down the middle. The pattern is bi-partisan and strategic – these companies hedge their bets. Donations tend to spike around federal elections and periods of regulatory debate, precisely when political access is most valuable.

The largest year-on-year increase occurred in the lead-up to the 2022 election and donations have remained elevated since, coinciding with intense public debate about gambling reform and the government’s inquiry into online gambling advertising.

The structure of these donations is also revealing. The vast majority are made by just four players: Tabcorp, Crown Resorts, Flutter Entertainment (owner of Sportsbet and Betfair), and Responsible Wagering Australia (the peak body representing major online betting companies). Together, these entities account for over 90 per cent of all gambling industry donations over the past decade. When you remove Crown from the figures, which has not donated since 2021/22 and would be least impacted by online gambling advertising reforms, the overall pattern is clear. This is not a scattergun approach – it is a coordinated and sustained investment in political access by the players with the most to lose.

Of course none of this proves that donations “buy” policy outcomes or are evidence of corruption. That claim is a convenient straw man, easily dismissed by politicians and industry alike. Influence rarely works so crudely. Donations instead sit alongside lobbying, relationship-building and the revolving door between politics and industry as part of a broader corporate influence strategy. They help secure meetings, maintain relationships, and ensure commercial interests are heard behind closed doors. Over time, this shapes which voices and issues are prioritised.

The stakes here are not abstract. Gambling causes well-documented harm to individuals, families and communities. Australians lose over $31 billion to gambling each year, more than we spend on aged care. Online gambling is aggressively marketed, normalised through sport, and increasingly accessible to young people. These companies profit from social harm and use donations as part of their strategy to protect their commercial interests at the expense of the public interest.

Public support for reform is strong. Large majorities back restrictions or bans on gambling advertising, including online and social media ads. Yet despite bipartisan recommendations from the parliamentary inquiry into online gambling, chaired by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy, reform has stalled.

This gap between public sentiment and policy action highlights a deeper integrity problem. When widely supported, evidence-based reforms fail to progress, Australians should reasonably ask why. The answer is not a single donation or a single meeting – it is a political system that privileges sustained commercial access over the public interest, and that operates largely out of sight.

Faster disclosure of political donations, commencing in July this year, are a welcome step and will improve upon the status quo (although loopholes remain). But more transparent donations data alone cannot tell the full story of influence. Without transparency over lobbying activity, Australians can see the money but not the access it helps unlock. This leaves a large blind spot at the heart of federal decision-making, and is why we need an overhaul of Australia’s federal lobbying rules.

Australia’s federal lobbying framework is amongst the weakest in the country. While some states have strengthened their lobbying laws and commissioned independent reviews, Commonwealth rules have barely changed since 2008. Rewriting them would be neither radical nor unprecedented. Comparable democracies such as Canada and the United States regulate both external and in-house lobbyists, require regular activity reporting, and back the rules with meaningful penalties for breaches. International bodies including the OECD have set out clear principles for transparency and integrity in lobbying. Even within Australia, state-based reforms provide workable models.

Achieving best-practice federal regulation is possible. Robust oversight and enforcement mechanisms must be established to guarantee compliance. This is contingent on strengthening ‘cooling-off’ periods for ex-ministers and senior public servants, thereby preventing industries from improperly capitalising on privileged political knowledge and networks. Moreover, greater transparency is non-negotiable: comprehensive public records detailing who is lobbying who, on what specific issues, and with what frequency are essential, alongside the real-time publication of ministerial diaries.

There is now a clear opportunity and evidence-base for the federal government to act. In 2024, a Senate committee recommended an independent review of the federal Lobbying Code of Conduct, supported by Labor, Liberal and Greens senators alike. A broad review considering lobbying regulation could lay the groundwork for legislation that strengthens transparency, extends lobbying rules to cover in-house lobbyists, strengthens cooling-off periods, and establishes proper oversight and enforcement.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese once argued that “the best antidote to corrupt decision-making that puts self-interest before people is a big dose of Australian sunshine.” The challenge now is to live up to that aspiration. More timely disclosure of political donations is a start, but restoring trust in democratic decision-making will require confronting the broader system of influence that allows powerful industries to operate in the shadows – legally, quietly, and often very effectively.

Democracy does not fail all at once. It erodes when access is unequal, transparency is partial, and reform is endlessly deferred. If public confidence is to be rebuilt, Australians must be able to see not just who donates to political parties, but who is shaping policy – and how.