Labor gambles on inducement concessions as gambling bill stalls and inquiry hears of drugs and sex workers offered to punters
The Albanese government is prepared to tighten rules on gambling inducements but is holding firm on its proposed advertising restrictions as it negotiates with the Coalition to rescue wagering legislation that lacks the numbers to pass parliament. Sources told The Guardian that Labor is open to amendments from the Coalition when MPs return to Canberra, but the carve-out is narrow: inducements are on the table, advertising frequency is not.
The legislation, championed by Communications Minister Anika Wells, has drawn opposition from the Coalition, the Greens and the crossbench in its current form. Independent MP Helen Haines has flagged that the government proposes capping gambling advertising at three ads per hour before 8:30 PM rather than pursuing an outright ban (Instagram, July 26). That approach falls well short of the total and immediate ban on gambling inducements and their advertising recommended in the late Labor MP Peta Murphy's reform report. The government is also targeting social media influencers and individuals who promote gambling on social platforms as part of the package (ABC News, August 6).
The wrangling over inducements and advertising caps has been overtaken, at least in the news cycle, by extraordinary evidence to Senate committee hearings. Upper house hearings aired allegations that wagering companies provided illegal drugs and access to sex workers to keep problem gamblers betting. Sportsbet and Tabcorp have responded that there is no evidence to substantiate those allegations.
Gambling inducements, the subject of Labor's most flexible negotiating ground, can include perks such as 'bonus bets', promotional odds, rebates, and VIP enticements like hospitality at events. The Coalition is likely to push the government into stricter regulation of these offers (SMH, August 5), and the government appears ready to accommodate that pressure. Government frontbencher Jenny McAllister confirmed Wells was in discussion with the Coalition and that Labor was open to 'sensible amendments'.
The Greens, meanwhile, want to go further. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said inducements 'should be gone' entirely and floated supporting a switch from the proposed 'opt-out' model for online advertising to an 'opt-in' regime. That puts the Greens to the left of both Labor and the Coalition on the question, which complicates any government attempt to find a landing zone that satisfies enough of the crossbench without alienating the Coalition.
The structural problem is straightforward. Labor needs Senate votes it does not have. The Coalition, the Greens and crossbenchers all oppose the bill as drafted, but for different reasons and in different directions. The Coalition wants tougher inducement rules. The Greens want inducements banned and advertising moved to opt-in. Crossbenchers like Haines regard an advertising cap as a retreat from what Murphy recommended. There is no obvious centre of gravity that gets Labor to a majority without yielding on its stated red line: the advertising frequency rules.
Labor's willingness to move on inducements while resisting advertising changes tracks a specific political calculation. Inducements are less visible to the public and carry lower media-revenue implications for broadcasters. Advertising restrictions, by contrast, touch the commercial interests of television networks and digital platforms, and any government contemplating an election cycle tends to be cautious about picking fights with media companies whose airtime it may need. That is not cynicism; it is the settled pattern of gambling reform in this country.
The Murphy report's call for a total ban on inducements and their advertising set a benchmark that any compromise measure will be measured against. A cap of three ads per hour before 8:30 PM is, by definition, not a ban. Tighter inducement rules, even if agreed with the Coalition, will fall short of the Murphy standard unless they prohibit the practice outright. Hanson-Young's framing captures the gap: if inducements 'should be gone', anything short of elimination is a partial measure.
The allegations of drugs and sex workers being offered to punters, if substantiated, would place wagering companies in breach of existing law regardless of what the new legislation says. The companies deny the claims. But the evidence to the Senate inquiry has already done political work: it has made the status quo harder to defend and put additional pressure on the government to produce a bill that looks serious, not merely incremental.
What remains is a bill that everyone wants amended in a different direction, a government willing to bend on inducements but not advertising, and a Senate where the numbers do not currently exist for passage. Wells is still talking to the Coalition. Whether those talks produce something that can also survive contact with the Greens and the crossbench is the question that will determine whether this legislation reaches a vote.
