Inducements are at the centre of the government’s long-awaited gambling reform. What actually are they?

The Australian government's long-awaited gambling reform has placed inducements at the heart of the debate. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, currently under negotiation between the federal Labor government and the Coalition opposition, seeks to address the harms associated with online gambling. Central to this discussion are inducements, practices by betting companies that offer special deals or incentives to entice individuals to gamble. These inducements have gained renewed prominence following recent allegations that some gamblers were offered alcohol, illicit drugs, and even access to sex workers as part of promotional strategies. The issue of inducements has been a focal point since the release of the Murphy report over three years ago. This comprehensive review highlighted the risks posed by online gambling and called for immediate action to ban all forms of inducement and inducement-related advertising. Despite these recommendations, the initial version of the bill failed to include provisions addressing inducements, prompting criticism from crossbenchers and members of both major political parties. The absence of such measures in the original proposal led to widespread concern among stakeholders, particularly those advocating for stronger consumer protections. Recent developments have shifted the focus back onto inducements. During a Senate inquiry, allegations emerged that certain inducements extended beyond simple sign-up bonuses to include more controversial elements. These claims have reignited discussions around the broader implications of inducements, especially their potential to target vulnerable individuals. According to the Murphy report, inducements encompass a range of marketing techniques used by online gambling operators to attract new customers or encourage existing ones to gamble more frequently. Examples include deposit matches, bonus bets, and money-back specials, which are often delivered directly to users via messaging platforms. In response to the Senate inquiry, representatives from the gambling industry attempted to narrow the definition of inducements. Industry figures, during their testimonies, described inducements primarily as sign-up offers and bonuses aimed at new customers. They argued that such practices had already been regulated under the National Consumer Protection Framework, enacted in 2019. However, they avoided using the term "inducements" when discussing promotions intended for existing customers. Instead, they employed alternative terminology such as "promotions" or "generosities," framing these as legitimate marketing strategies that enhance the value proposition for consumers. Aaron Morrison, CEO of Racing Victoria, exemplified this approach by distinguishing between inducements and other promotional activities. He stated that while sign-up bonuses were considered inducements and thus subject to restrictions, other offerings such as money-back specials and enhanced odds were viewed as acceptable promotional tools. This distinction highlights the industry's attempt to redefine the scope of inducements in a manner that minimizes regulatory oversight. The prominence of inducements in current discussions reflects broader challenges in regulating online gambling. While the Murphy report advocated for a comprehensive ban on all forms of inducement, the lack of inclusion in the original bill underscores the complexities of legislative reform. The delayed focus on inducements may also be attributed to the need for compelling narratives to engage the public on otherwise technical policy matters. Personal stories, such as those shared by Luke Bateman, a former athlete and social media personality, have played a crucial role in drawing attention to the issue. His testimony before the Senate inquiry illustrated the real-world consequences of inducements, emphasizing the human impact of these practices.