"I have never seen such rage from parents on an issue," the World Vision CEO and anti-gambling campaigner says. "Sports betting has entered that sacred zone of parents feeling like they can't protect their kids. This is something insidious."

As a spokesperson for the Alliance for Gambling Reform, Costello is familiar with the dubious commercials shown during AFL games. You know the ones: deliberately lowbrow, usually sexist, often featuring a man having a so-called harmless flutter on a match surrounded by all of his mates.

Gambling giants Sportsbet, Ladbrokes and William Hill have led the charge on this modern wave of gambling available to Australians from the comfort of their own home, often with dire consequences.

Australians spend more per person on gambling than any other country in the world.

Parents are angry their children are sitting down to betting commercials at dinnertime and on weekend afternoons. They are concerned kids are now parroting the odds of a game better than the game itself.

But here's the thing: it's perfectly legal. Television networks are allowed to show gambling ads at any time of the day, as long as they're broadcast during the news or a sporting match.

Betting or gambling ads are prohibited from being shown in any G-rated program between 6am and 8.30am, and 4pm and 7pm, according to the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice.

But sports programs are still on the table, which is why the SBS was broadcasting Sportsbet ads at 6.30pm on weekdays (5.30pm on Sundays) during the recent UEFA Cup competition.

Independents Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilkie held a press conference last week calling for changes to gambling advertising. Xenophon said the exemption given to sports programs was "an anomaly that needs to be shut down".

"So many parents have approached us to say they're appalled with their kids talking about the odds of a game rather than the game itself," he said.

"That loophole needs to be shut down in accordance with overwhelming community sentiment."

The networks were quick to lash out at the proposal, calling it draconian. In a statement, Seven CEO Tim Worner said the measures in place were enough.

"We feel like we are in Groundhog Day. Seven and the other networks are already heavily regulated and we are very serious about our compliance."

"We already have extensive restrictions in place to ensure community standards are met. I have children myself and I am not blind to the concerns."

Costello said it was ridiculous to expect the networks to regulate themselves, comparing it to when tobacco advertising was legal and plastered over the AFL.

"The networks have completely blown self regulation. What we've got is an industry – the television industry – taking so much money from this that they are Dracula in charge of the blood bank."

"The networks will cry 'nanny state', 'red tape', but it's exactly the same arguments they argued with tobacco advertising."

Wilkie also said the stakeholders couldn't be trusted, and called for federal intervention and changes to the Code of Practice.

"This first and foremost is a human story," he said. "Every one of those problem gamblers that the government should help is a mum or a dad, or a brother or sister or a daughter or son or a friend or a work colleague."

There's also the issue of betting ads being shown on public broadcaster, SBS. The network, which has a hybrid funding model, boasts a captive sports audience with the rights to the Tour de France and EUFA Euro 2016 soccer championship.

An SBS spokesperson said the network adhered to industry practices, but key stakeholders are still disappointed.

"I think part of being a public broadcaster means being socially and morally responsible," Save Our SBS president Steve Aujard says. "Part of that means sometimes you need to say no to chasing dollars; in this case advertising dollars."

The head of the not-for-profit, which defends the broadcaster through public campaigns, says gambling dollars compromise SBS's charter.

"A private commercial broadcaster is obviously thinking of shareholders, but in the case of SBS it's really responsible to taxpayers who are funding it. I don't think taxpayers would support the idea of SBS chasing money that we know is harming people's lives."

SBS obviously relies on advertisers such as Sportsbet for revenue, but Aujard says this could work against the public broadcaster in the future.

"The irony is this: the more successful they are at advertising, the more inclined future governments will be to say 'you're doing so well - why would we fund you at all?'"

"It's a pretty sad state of affairs."

Costello also called it "a fatal compromise" for the network.

"I think this is a cheapening of the brand of SBS and a breach of faith with their viewers. I challenge SBS to do one very simple thing: ask their viewers who are loyal to them if they want sports betting advertisements and I know what the answer would be."

Xenophon maintained his fight was not with the networks and suggested a lobby on the gambling industry could result in more government funding for SBS.

"I get it. The networks are doing it tough and they have been doing it tough in terms of dropping advertising revenue and I know they've become more reliant on gambling revenue.

"But maybe there's a way through this in terms of the enormous profit that the gambling industry is making, to wean off the networks in a transitional way to make sure that the networks aren't punished.

"I don't want to pick a fight with the networks. It's about the industry because of the damage they do to people."