Jesse Murphy received $43,700 in bonus bets from one gambling company in just over two years before he eventually quit. He says the Albanese government's reforms to gambling inducements will not stop others from being drawn into addiction.
VIP managers and free bets
Between 2019 and 2024, Murphy's VIP gambling manager regularly offered him free tickets to AFL and horse racing, along with free food and alcohol. Text messages over five years show VIP managers would routinely place bonus bets into his account without asking. When Murphy was running out of money and asked for free bets or for bookies to match his deposits, he would get the same answer: "sorted mate."
When Murphy texted saying he'd "had another shit week" gambling and "might have to give it up soon," his minder sent him a link to a responsible gambling tool but immediately supplied him with more bonus bets. "Just added some love for you mate," one VIP manager said.
Murphy shared his experience of placing more than 15,000 bets worth nearly $1 million with a parliamentary inquiry led by the late Labor MP Peta Murphy. Its bipartisan recommendation in June 2023 was a total ban on inducements "without delay."
Government's limited restrictions
This week, the Albanese government ignored that recommendation, instead placing limited restrictions on the marketing of inducements. The final form of the bill, which passed the Senate on Wednesday night, will not include a ban on VIP managers rewarding gamblers with free gifts that disappear when their bets do.
Communications minister Anika Wells says the government will stop "the most toxic" form of inducements. But critics say the changes are just "window dressing," "minor tweaks" and "piecemeal amendments." Murphy is also unconvinced. "If these laws were in place at the start of my journey, I have no confidence they would have made my experience any different or any easier," he says.
One of the government's changes requires gambling companies to identify "high risk" customers and bans them from being pushed inducements. The industry will be consulted on what "high risk" means and monitor this themselves. Liberal MP Andrew Wallace, who crossed the floor to vote against the bill, says this is like putting "Dracula in charge of the blood bank."
Criticism from experts and families
Associate professor Sean Cowlishaw, an expert in gambling harm who gave evidence at a coronial inquest into the death of Kyle Hudson, said the government's changes were a small improvement but ultimately weak. "I don't think the changes are going to make any substantive difference to most people in terms of reducing harms, including suicide risks," Cowlishaw says. "I just can't believe they haven't gone harder on inducements, it was such low hanging fruit for them."
Kate, whose 24-year-old brother ended his life in the middle of a gambling addiction, says her brother complained about receiving inducements that encouraged him to keep gambling. His suicide note, tendered to parliament, said he was "pathologically addicted to gambling and cannot get myself to stop." Kate says: "This bill doesn't touch the surface."
Reformed gambler Mark Kempster, who works for the Alliance for Gambling Reform, says the change stopping gambling companies from sending inducements within 14 days of an account being created or within 90 days of coming off BetStop "will do absolutely nothing to stop the companies from preying on people." "Why are these inducements suddenly safe for people to receive on day 15?" says Kempster.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the changes would "meaningfully increase protections for those who most need it" and "make an enormous difference."
Murphy worries the government's changes won't stop another generation of young men falling into addiction. He says inducements should have been banned, as recommended by the bipartisan inquiry. "It would take away the shiny, dangling carrot that lures us in beyond our control," Murphy says. "For me, that would have been a real sign that people were being put first."
Those pushing for tougher laws fear the government's appetite for further reforms will be nonexistent once these changes pass the Senate. Cowlishaw agrees: "If this is the response, it's going to delay significant reforms for potentially another generation. This was the opportunity to do something proportional to the risk."
