Gambling companies Sportsbet and TAB flatly rejected allegations they'd funded illicit drugs and escorts for a high-spending customer during a Senate inquiry into federal gambling reforms. The denials came after Alliance for Gambling Reform chief advocate Reverend Tim Costello described a young man who received such inducements from the companies before being imprisoned for allegedly stealing $12.3 million.
Jules Norton Selzer, representing Sportsbet, said the company found "zero evidence" supporting what he called "deplorable" allegations and offered to investigate if given additional information. TAB similarly rejected the claims, stating that such inducements "do not in any way form part of TAB's customer offering" and that the company maintains "zero tolerance" for such behavior.
Former NRL player Luke Bateman testified Monday that betting company representatives offered to source him illicit drugs while he struggled with severe gambling addiction, though he didn't name which companies made the offer. Responsible Wagering Australia chief executive Kai Cantwell described the allegations as "egregious" but said the wagering industry "strongly refutes" the claims. "If these claims are true, we strongly recommend complaints are levelled with the individual operators as well as law enforcement and regulators, so that clearly illegal behaviours can be properly investigated," Cantwell said.
The Regulatory Fog
The inquiry exposed significant gaps in the proposed legislation. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) appeared before the Senate unable to answer fundamental questions about implementation. A tense exchange erupted between Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and ACMA officials over the bill's "notable person" provision, intended to regulate gambling promotion by public figures and influencers. When pressed repeatedly on who would qualify, an ACMA representative admitted the regulator "had not formed the precise definition" but was considering case studies.
Sportsbet criticized the vagueness, claiming that "anyone with an Instagram account" could fall within the current draft's definition. The regulator also confirmed it hadn't received additional funding to enforce the proposed advertising regime—a critical admission given the complexity of policing digital promotions across platforms.
The inquiry also revealed that neither Sportsbet nor TAB could specify how many account managers service their VIP customers. TAB spokesperson Julian Whealing said the operator maintains 800,000 active customers, including about 400 considered VIP, and emphasized stringent "know your customer" requirements. Sportsbet's Mr. Norton Selzer described "tailored offers" to selected customers based on "engagement" rather than betting volume, though he acknowledged engagement could mean various things including customers enjoying "different products."
The Advertising Question
Senator David Pocock presented screenshots from a Bet365 ad featuring young children in branded T-shirts competing in a race—an ad that has since been removed from Racing.com. He also cited gambling advertisements appearing between Disney songs on a Spotify playlist. Mr. Norton Selzer insisted it was "absolutely not" the company's intention to advertise to children and noted Sportsbet had reduced free-to-air TV advertising to limit exposure. He defended the Spotify placement, saying an adult had curated the playlist.
Senator Pocock wasn't convinced, responding with "BS" and asking if the company expected "every seven-year-old to have their own Spotify account." Kai Cantwell acknowledged the industry hadn't always performed perfectly. "Has the industry always got everything right? No. We are presented with cases where we may have got things wrong," he said.
The proposed legislation doesn't include a total advertising ban. Current rules impose partial restrictions on gambling advertising, and the bill would strengthen protections against children's exposure to branding and promotions. It remains legal for gambling ads to appear in the ways Senator Pocock described.
The Industry's Pushback
During a fiery Tuesday exchange, Senator Hanson-Young warned Sportsbet it was on "very thin ice" with the Australian public. "Your industry only gets to survive on the social licence you have," she said. Sportsbet countered that "most" customers gambled "responsibly and recreationally."
All three companies testified they broadly support the government's proposed changes but warned that more aggressive measures—particularly a complete gambling ad ban—would backfire. Mr. Norton Selzer described the current proposal as "substantial" and cautioned that additional advertising restrictions would create "significant funding issues" for sport, racing and broadcasting while having a "disproportionate impact relative to the policy objectives of the bill."
Kai Cantwell emphasized that licensed online wagering companies operate in "one of the most highly regulated gambling markets in the world" and contribute $6 billion in economic activity annually. "If the regulated market becomes less visible, harder to access or less competitive, consumers don't stop gambling," Cantwell said. "The evidence proves that they will move to illegal offshore operators."
Advocates are pushing for a total ban on inducements—a key recommendation from the 2023 You Win Some, You Lose More report by late Labor MP Peta Murphy—but this isn't included in the proposed legislation.
Why This Matters:
The Senate inquiry has exposed the regulatory challenges inherent in crafting gambling reform that actually works. The ACMA's admission that it lacks both precise definitions and adequate funding to enforce new rules raises serious questions about whether legislation will achieve its stated goals or simply create compliance theater. The industry's argument that excessive restrictions will push customers toward unregulated offshore operators isn't theoretical—it's supported by consumer behavior patterns globally. Meanwhile, the vagueness around what constitutes a "notable person" under the bill could create legal uncertainty for influencers and public figures while doing little to address actual harms. The $6 billion economic contribution and employment implications deserve consideration alongside reform objectives. Whether the proposed changes represent balanced policy or regulatory overreach depends largely on whether implementation mechanisms can actually work as intended.