Two of Australia's biggest betting companies, Sportsbet and Tabcorp, have told a parliamentary inquiry there's no evidence behind claims that staff looked after big-spending gamblers by supplying them with drugs and sex workers.

The companies appeared before the inquiry on 4 August 2026. The day before, anti-gambling campaigners Tim Costello and Luke Bateman had told the same hearing that problem gamblers were given cocaine, alcohol and sex workers, and that the betting companies didn't seem to care about the harm they were causing.

Bateman, who's now a TikTok personality and book influencer, said he'd been at a private Gold Coast event run by a gambling company where senior staff took illicit drugs with clients. Costello said he was helping a gambling addict who was about to plead guilty to stealing millions of dollars, and who had been offered drugs, escorts and free accommodation by the company.

Sportsbet's director of corporate affairs, Jules Norton Selzer, said the company had "zero evidence of the allegations" and wouldn't tolerate that kind of conduct. She said no one had given them any information beyond what came up at the hearing the day before. Both Sportsbet and Tabcorp said any claims should be passed on to regulators — the government bodies that licence and oversee betting companies.

So what are VIP account managers? They're staff whose job is to build a personal relationship with the biggest-spending gamblers and keep them betting. Tabcorp has about 800,000 customers in total, but only about 400 are classified as VIPs. The company said about 20 staff work as VIP account managers. Sportsbet said it had similar numbers. In other words, a small team looks after a small group of customers who spend a lot of money.

Independent senator David Pocock also questioned the industry's lobby group, Responsible Wagering Australia, about a Bet365 promotion where children as young as 12 wore the company's branding for a running race. The lobby group's chief executive, Kai Cantwell, admitted the industry hadn't always got things right and said it was listening to community concerns about gambling ads.

Acting prime minister Richard Marles said the evidence heard so far was "quite shocking" and told "an appalling story." Jane Hume, the deputy Liberal leader, called the allegations disturbing. She said the Coalition would talk with Labor and the crossbench — the independent and minor-party senators who hold the balance of power — about the government's gambling bill, but would wait for the committee's recommendations first.

The bill in question was introduced in the House of Representatives on 2 July 2026. It's designed to reduce how many gambling ads children see and to cut back on the sheer volume of gambling advertising. Labor senators have said the goal is to apply the same rules to gambling promotions during live sport whether they appear on TV or online.

Getting to this point has been a long process. A parliamentary committee first started looking into online gambling and its effects on problem gamblers back in September 2022. Then in February 2026, the Senate asked the same committee to look specifically at gambling advertising in Australian society, with a report due by 2 March 2026.

The real question here is who to believe. The betting companies say these are serious claims that should be handled by regulators, not by politicians writing advertising rules. The campaigners say the alleged behaviour shows the industry can't be trusted to police itself. Those arguments don't split neatly along party lines. With the Coalition waiting to see what the committee recommends before committing, the bill can only pass if the government wins over crossbench senators like Pocock, who is clearly checking whether the industry's words match its actions.

The VIP account manager setup is where it gets most uncomfortable. Roughly 20 staff per company, each managing a book of high-value clients, is a model built to get the most money out of the small number of punters who bet the most. Whether that setup also enabled the conduct Costello and Bateman describe is now a question for the committee — and possibly for regulators, if the companies get their way. The industry says it has zero evidence. The campaigners say they have firsthand accounts. Parliament has to decide which version is credible, and whether the advertising bill in front of it is the right response either way.