Inducements are at the centre of the government’s long-awaited gambling reform. What actually are they?
- Written by: Weekend Times
The prolonged, contentious gambling reform process in Australia is set for some movement at last.
The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 is being negotiated by the federal Labor government
and Coalition opposition for re-presentation to parliament.
One of the main issues concerns inducements – the practice of betting companies offering special deals or gifts designed to keep people gambling.
These feature prominently in the so-called Murphy report, which more than three years ago sought to counteract online gambling harm.
The report recommends prohibiting all online gambling inducements and inducement advertising “without delay”.
Yet, to the consternation of many crossbenchers and some government and coalition politicians, the original bill did not mention inducements at all.
This month’s Senate inquiry into the government’s proposed changes brought inducements squarely back into view, after allegations some gamblers were provided with alcohol, illicit drugs and even sex workers.
What are inducements?
The Murphy report defined inducements as “a type of marketing used by online gambling operators to attract new customers or to encourage existing customers to gamble”.
Inducements can include deposit matches, bonus bets or money-back specials. They are often targeted at individual gamblers through direct messaging.
But this month, the gambling industry sought to twist this definition. In their Senate appearances, industry figures narrowly defined inducements as “things like sign-up offers and sign-up bonuses”.
These offers for new customers were banned in 2019 under the National Consumer Protection Framework.
Marketing to induce existing customers to gamble more, though, has remained legal. Rather than referring to these offers as inducements, the industry opted for neutral terms such as “promotions” in the Senate inquiry.
Aaron Morrison, CEO of Racing Victoria, even referred to offers like money-back specials and enhanced odds in the following terms:
We would talk about generosities as being different from inducements. Inducements, as we understand, have been banned in terms of inducements to sign up and open accounts […] If you’re talking about generosities, as we know them – money-back specials for second or third, or enhanced odds – we see those as being legitimate promotional tools that enhance the product offering.
Gambling industry terms such as “generosities” present their inducement tactics as legal and unproblematic.
But the evidence is clear: inducements, including those to existing customers, are harmful. They are also often aggressively promoted to those who lose the most on gambling.
This is why the Murphy report was so emphatic about banning them. It has taken some remarkable testimony to the Senate inquiry for inducements to take centre stage after being ignored in the draft bill.
Why did inducements become so prominent?
Clearly, inducements are a very important matter but this does not explain why they became so prominent so late in the day.
The Murphy report also recommended establishing “a national online gambling regulator”. Yet its omission from the draft bill attracted much less attention and objection.
The reason for this varying response tells us much about the nature of public culture in Australia. Dramatic, even lurid information is often needed to cut through rather dry, technical topics like online gambling regulation.
Read more: ‘What drugs do you want’? Senate inquiry allegations reveal the murky dangers of betting inducements
Heartfelt, personal accounts of experiencing gambling harm are effective ways of attracting intense interest. Even more so when a celebrity is involved. A salient example is the testimony to the Senate inquiry by Luke Bateman, a TikTok influencer, former National Rugby League footballer, and Bachelor Australia contestant.
Bateman’s televised testimony of betting company inducements of cocaine, free alcohol and food at the races gained enormous publicity. Others gave evidence at the Senate inquiry about sex workers being used to encourage high roller gamblers.
Sociologists view such instances as demonstrating the “tabloidisation” of culture, where rational debate and factual evidence are insufficient to effect significant change.
While most gambling inducements involve quite mundane offers like bonus bets, vivid, easily digested stories like Bateman’s often prove more effective in stimulating demands for action.
What comes next?
Inducements are now being urgently integrated into the imminent re-drafted legislation.
With the gambling industry treating most inducements as routine product promotion while critics regard them as “predatory”, the nature of the resultant legislative change hinges on which of these divergent perspectives will be favoured.
The Albanese government has been hesitant to take strong action on gambling. It has instead made misleading assertions about having already taken “more action on problem gambling than any government since Federation – in history”.
Read more: You spin some, you lose more: how Albanese’s gambling rhetoric falls short
The prime minister has also frequently made analogue-era references to the right of people to have “a punt on a Saturday at the races”.
But we live in an age of digital, networked media where punters can bet in virtually any place at any time. Meanwhile, sophisticated inducements from the online wagering industry have become increasingly effective in encouraging people to bet more than they can afford.
Legislation to mitigate gambling harm must deal with this present and future, not hark back to a mythical Australia having harmless days of fun at the racetrack and the pub.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
