Sportsbet and Tabcorp have told a parliamentary inquiry there's no evidence behind claims that VIP account managers supplied drugs and sex workers to keep problem gamblers betting, and they want any such information handed to regulators rather than debated by politicians.

The companies fronted the inquiry on 4 August 2026, a day after anti-gambling campaigners Tim Costello and Luke Bateman alleged that problem gamblers had been given cocaine, alcohol and sex workers, and that betting companies showed no duty of care to their customers.

Bateman, now a TikTok personality and book influencer, told the hearing he'd been at a private Gold Coast event hosted by a gambling company where senior figures 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.

Jules Norton Selzer, Sportsbet's director of corporate affairs, said the company had "zero evidence of the allegations" and no tolerance for such conduct. She said no information had been provided beyond what came up the previous day. Both Sportsbet and Tabcorp called for any claims to be referred to regulators — the bodies that licence and oversee gambling operators.

The inquiry also heard about the scale of the VIP operations at the centre of the allegations. Tabcorp has roughly 800,000 active customers, of whom about 400 are classified as VIPs — the high-spending punters who generate a large share of revenue. The company estimated about 20 staff work as VIP account managers, whose job is to build relationships with those clients and keep them betting. Sportsbet said it employed similar numbers.

Independent senator David Pocock pressed the industry lobby group Responsible Wagering Australia about a Bet365 promotion in which children as young as 12 were dressed in the company's branding for a running race. RWA chief executive Kai Cantwell conceded the industry hadn't always got things right and said it was responding to community concerns around advertising and promotions.

Acting prime minister Richard Marles said the evidence so far had been "quite shocking" and told "an appalling story." Jane Hume, the deputy Liberal leader, called the allegations disturbing and said the Coalition would talk with Labor and the crossbench about the gambling bill but would wait for the committee's recommendations before committing.

The legislation in question is the government's gambling advertising bill, introduced in the House of Representatives on 2 July 2026, which aims to cut children's exposure to gambling ads and reduce the saturation of advertising. Labor senators' additional comments on a related communications bill state the goal is a platform-neutral approach — meaning the same rules apply whether the ad runs on TV, online, or anywhere else — to restricting gambling promotions during live sports coverage.

The parliamentary road to this point has been convoluted. The House Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs first opened an inquiry into online gambling and its effects on problem gamblers on 15 September 2022, after a ministerial referral. On 3 February 2026, the Senate referred a separate inquiry into gambling advertising in Australian society to the same committee, with a report due by 2 March 2026.

The broader context here is that the committee is weighing two competing stories. The industry says the allegations are unsubstantiated and should be dealt with by regulators, not by parliamentarians drafting advertising restrictions. The campaigners say the conduct they describe is proof the sector can't regulate itself. Neither argument splits neatly along party lines, and with the Coalition waiting for the committee's recommendations rather than committing early, the bill's passage depends on building support that includes senators like Pocock, who is clearly testing the industry's claims against its actual conduct.

The VIP-account-manager model is where the tension is sharpest. A workforce of roughly 20 per company, managing hundreds of high-value clients, is designed to maximise revenue from the small fraction of punters who generate the bulk of it. Whether that model also facilitated 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 will have to decide which version warrants legislative action, and whether the advertising bill before it is the right tool regardless.