how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading?

Gambling prevalence studies provide a snapshot of gambling behaviour, problems and harm in our communities. They are typically conducted about every five years.

In some Australian states and territories, four or five have been conducted over the past 20 or so years. These have provided a snapshot into how gambling has changed – and how it has not.

So, how has gambling in Australia changed in the past two decades or so, and where may we be heading?

The intensification of gambling

In 1997-98, the Productivity Commission found about 82% of Australians had gambled in the previous 12 months.

Almost all further prevalence studies show the proportion of adults gambling has declined substantially over time.

The 2024 NSW prevalence survey, for example, found 54% reported gambling in the previous 12 months, down from 69% in 2006.

While fewer people are gambling, the proportion of people experiencing problems has not changed much, nor has gambling turnover.

In some states, gambling turnover has increased, even when you take inflation into account.

So while a smaller proportion of people are gambling, those who do gamble are doing so more frequently, and spend more money – a phenomenon we have described as the “intensification” of the industry.

As figures from the Grattan Institute show, the vast majority of gambling spend comes from a very small proportion of people who gamble.

What’s the problem?

Typically, the focus in gambling studies has been on “problem gamblers”, a term we now avoid because it can be stigmatising.

This refers to those experiencing severe problems due to their gambling, which is typically about 1% of the adult population, and around 2% of people who gamble.

This doesn’t sound like much, until you remember 1% of adults in Australia is more than 200,000 people. That’s a lot of people struggling with severe problems.

Based on recent prevalence surveys in Australia, these gamblers spend about 60 times as much as people who do not experience problems.

However, that’s just the most severe cases.

How gambling harms people

When most people think of gambling harm, they think about financial harm. But gambling can cause problems with relationships, work and study, emotional and psychological harm, and even cause health issues.

Some degree of gambling harm is experienced by around 10-15% of people who gamble.

Some groups are overrepresented: young men typically experience very high levels of harm compared to others. Other overrepresented groups are:

• those who have not completed tertiary education
• people who speak a language other than English
• people who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

Harm isn’t just experienced by people who gamble, though – it impacts the people around them.

While young men are more likely to experience harm from their own gambling, women, particularly young women, are most likely to experience harm from someone else’s gambling.

When we take all of these sources of harm into account, we get a much better picture of gambling harm in our community: around 15-20% of all adults (not all gamblers) experience harm.

That’s very different to the figure of 1% we’ve focused on in the past.

We’re still missing some accounting, though: we don’t know how much harm is experienced by people under 18, for example, because prevalence studies typically only include adults.

Where does the harm come from?

The most problematic form in Australia is pokies, responsible for about 51-57% of problems.

Casinos are responsible for another 10-14%, although fewer people have been gambling in casino games in recent years.

Read more: Whatever happens to Star, the age of unfettered gambling revenue for casinos may have ended

Sports betting and race betting together account for about another 19-20% of harm.

Between them, pokies, casino games and sports and race betting account for about 90% of harm to Australian gamblers.

Availability is an issue

This widespread availability of pokies is the biggest single driver behind gambling harm in Australia.

In other countries, pokies are limited to venues that are specifically used for gambling, like casinos or betting shops.

We have pokies in a huge number of our pubs and clubs, except in Western Australia.

A couple of years ago, we used national prevalence data to compare gambling problems in WA to the rest of the country.

A higher percentage of adults in WA gamble, but mostly on the lotteries which are typically not associated with much harm.

Gambling on pokies is far less prevalent in WA because they’re only available in one casino. Gambling problems and harm are about one-third lower in WA, and our analysis shows this can be attributed to the limited access to pokies.

This also tells us something important. If pokies are not available, people will typically not substitute them with other harmful forms. It points to the role of the availability of dangerous gambling products in gambling harm, rather than personal characteristics.

Online gambling has also become a lot more available. Most of us now have a mobile phone almost surgically implanted onto our hand, making online gambling more accessible than ever. Not surprisingly, online gambling continues to increase.

An obvious solution to try

Governments have taken increasingly proactive measures to help address gambling harm, such as the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Gambling, strategies for minimising harm such as NSW’s investment into gambling harm minimisation, Victoria’s proposed reforms on pokies including mandatory precommitment limits, Queensland’s Gambling Harm Minimisation Plan and the ACT’s Strategy for Gambling Harm Prevention.

Voluntary limits have been trialled to help people keep their gambling under control, but have had virtually no uptake.

For example, the recent NSW Digital Gaming Wallet trial was conducted in 14 venues. Only 32 people were active users, and 14 of these were deemed genuine users. Another study found only 0.01% of all money put through machines in Victoria used the voluntary YourPlay scheme.

The problem with voluntary limits is, no one volunteers.

Mandatory limits though are almost certainly necessary, just like we have mandatory limits for how fast you can drive, or how much you can drink before the bartender puts you in a taxi.

There will almost certainly be push back against this, just like the introduction of mandatory seatbelts in the 1970s, or the introduction of random breath testing.

Now, we accept them as important public health measures.

History tells us the same will happen with mandatory gambling limits, even if we’re a bit uncomfortable about it at first.