Former rugby league player turned BookTok influencer Luke Bateman has told a parliamentary inquiry that gambling company promoters supplied him with illicit drugs and alcohol at the height of his betting addiction, which cost him approximately A$1 million (The Guardian).

Bateman gave evidence to the parliamentary Inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm. He described what he called a systematic effort by gambling industry employees to build relationships with high-value punters using drugs and hospitality (The Guardian).

He told the inquiry he was flown interstate and taken to race days, seated in marquees with alcohol and food provided. In that setting, Bateman said, his VIP manager asked what drugs he wanted and whether he wanted "a couple of bags for the weekend" (The Guardian).

Bateman also recalled senior managers and founders of a betting company taking drugs with punters at an event on the Gold Coast. He alleged that gambling company employees unofficially offered him illicit drugs as a means of cultivating a relationship with him (ABC News; The Guardian).

The scale of Bateman's losses is stark. He gambled away his last A$80,000 in a single month (ABC News). He has previously said books helped him survive what he called a "shameful" gambling addiction (ABC News).

The inquiry itself has a long history. Formally titled the Inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm, it has held multiple public hearings since December 2022, including sessions in Committee Rooms 1R3 and 2R1 at Parliament House (aph.gov.au; aph.gov.au; aph.gov.au; aph.gov.au). The hearings have spanned from 5 December 2022 through to at least 5 April 2023, with additional sessions on 7 February, 28 February and 1 March 2023.

Bateman's evidence matters because it puts specific, named conduct in front of a parliamentary committee. The allegations are not abstract policy complaints about advertising density or venue density. They describe a VIP management culture in which illicit drugs allegedly functioned as a customer-retention tool. If a committee member wanted to test whether existing regulatory frameworks capture this kind of conduct, the answer is fairly plainly no. Liquor licensing and racing industry integrity bodies regulate hospitality at licensed venues, but the nexus between a wagering operator's staff allegedly supplying prohibited drugs to a punter and any current regulatory regime is not obvious.

The conduct Bateman describes also sits awkwardly alongside the responsible gambling obligations that licensed wagering operators are required to meet under state and territory frameworks. Those frameworks impose duties around customer welfare, identification of problem gambling behaviour and intervention. Allegations that staff at the opposite end of the operator's business were actively fuelling a punter's engagement through drugs and alcohol are, at minimum, in serious tension with those obligations. Whether any regulator picks this up as a referral matter is the question worth watching.

For the committee, Bateman's testimony adds a first-person account of industry conduct that sits beyond the usual policy debate territory of advertising bans, inducements and self-exclusion registers. It is one thing to argue about whether a bet-back promo constitutes harm. It is quite another to hear evidence that a VIP manager allegedly offered a punter drugs on a marquee at a race meeting.

Bateman's profile, as a former NRL player with a substantial BookTok following, gives his evidence reach beyond the committee room. The fact that he has spoken publicly about the role of books in his recovery, and that he blew his last $80,000 in a month, gives the committee a concrete narrative arc to work with if it chooses to feature his evidence in any findings or recommendations.

What remains untested is whether the specific companies and individuals Bateman referenced in his evidence attract separate regulatory or law-enforcement attention. Parliamentary privilege protects witnesses giving evidence to inquiries, but it does not insulate the conduct described from investigation by police or integrity bodies. The committee can make findings and recommendations. It cannot compel a criminal investigation, though a well-framed referral from a parliamentary committee has historically been hard for agencies to ignore entirely.

The broader question for the parliament is whether the existing patchwork of state-based wagering regulation, consumer protection law and criminal law is adequate to deal with the kind of conduct Bateman has described, or whether the evidence presented to this inquiry builds a case for a stronger national mechanism. That is the policy terrain the committee will need to navigate when it reports.