Australian lawmakers call for inquiry into the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/06/09: Australian regulator warns betting companies over self-exclusion breaches 2025/07/28: Australian regulator issues remedial direction to ReadyBet for targeting self-excluded players 2025/10/17: Australian media regulator blocks seven illegal online gambling sites 2025/10/21: Massachusetts Gaming Commission considers new rules for sports betting VIP programs

The Backstory

Why the Northern Territory’s model is under the microscope

Calls for a parliamentary inquiry into the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission underscore a widening gap between how Australia’s biggest online betting markets are policed and how risks are evolving. The commission, a part-time body with no full-time staff, licenses more than 40 corporate bookmakers that together process most of the country’s online wagers. That structure was designed when the market was smaller and simpler. Today, it sits at the center of a national industry that is larger, faster and more complex than the framework built to oversee it.

Concerns over transparency, enforcement delays and potential conflicts are not abstract. They intersect with a national enforcement push led by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and an ongoing effort to tighten harm minimization. The tension is clear: the Northern Territory regime carries outsized influence over a nationwide market, while federal regulators and other states are increasingly active in pressing compliance, especially around marketing, data handling and protections for people who opt out of gambling.

This backdrop helps explain why lawmakers want the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to review the Racing and Wagering Act. The commission’s remit now touches systems that need fast, data-driven controls, routine disclosure and consistent penalties. Without that, operators can face uneven expectations, and consumers can face uneven protections.

The BetStop fault lines: a national yardstick emerges

A key test has been compliance with BetStop, Australia’s national self-exclusion registry. The ACMA has repeatedly signaled that self-exclusion violations are a bright red line. In one coordinated action, the regulator warned four betting companies over self-exclusion breaches after finding they sent marketing to people who had registered with the program and, in one case, failed to close accounts. The message was blunt: betting services must have reliable systems that recognize and respect exclusions.

The enforcement cadence has continued. The ACMA issued a remedial direction to ReadyBet for contacting self-excluded individuals and failing to promote BetStop in thousands of push notifications. The direction compels an external audit and staff training within defined timelines and sets the stage for civil penalties if the company falls short. These actions illustrate how federal oversight is now functioning as the practical standard-setter on consumer protections and data governance, regardless of where bookmakers are licensed.

The rising bar for compliance also raises questions about whether a part-time territorial commission with limited public reporting can keep pace. Enforcement requires high-quality data exchange, service-level expectations for shutting down prohibited accounts and coordinated penalties that are predictable across jurisdictions. That is the context fueling calls for a deeper review of the Northern Territory framework.

Marketing and VIP practices face a cross-border clampdown

Marketing consent and VIP targeting have become pressure points. The ACMA has not confined its actions to self-exclusion alone. It fined Betfair more than AU$871,000 after finding the company sent promotional messages to VIP customers who had not consented or had withdrawn consent, and some messages lacked an unsubscribe option. The agency also ordered a two-year enforceable undertaking that mandates independent reviews, audits and staff training. Read our Betfair enforcement coverage for details on the violations and remedial steps.

Those measures echo a broader skepticism about VIP programs and high-intensity marketing. In the United States, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission is weighing reforms to loyalty and VIP schemes after research tied those programs to heightened problem gambling risks. Chair Jordan Maynard has floated raising the VIP eligibility age to 25 and introducing affordability checks, among other steps. The debate is laid out in our report on how Massachusetts is considering new rules for sportsbook VIP programs.

The throughline is clear: marketing and VIP practices are moving from a commercial lever to a regulated risk category. For a licensing hub like the Northern Territory, that shift heightens the need for explicit standards on consent, data stewardship and interventions for high-risk cohorts. Without aligned rules, operators face fragmented compliance expectations while vulnerable customers face uneven protections.

Illegal sites and the enforcement perimeter

An effective regulatory regime also depends on securing the perimeter against offshore and unauthorized operators that lack basic safeguards. The ACMA regularly directs internet service providers to block unlicensed gambling platforms, a tool it has used since 2019. In its latest round, the regulator ordered blocks on seven illegal gambling sites operating in breach of the Interactive Gambling Act. The agency says hundreds of services have pulled out of Australia since enforcement ramped up in 2017, a sign that consistent blocking and public warnings have bite.

This matters for the Northern Territory debate because the presence of unlicensed competitors complicates risk management. If licensed operators face tough controls while illegal sites evade them, consumer harm can migrate to the shadows. A strong, trusted licensing and reporting framework helps keep play inside regulated channels, where protections apply. That, in turn, requires credible disclosure, timely enforcement and coordination with national authorities.

The commission’s long gap in annual reports and questions over enforcement follow-through make it harder to demonstrate that alignment. The ACMA’s visible actions have become the de facto benchmark, even when companies are licensed elsewhere. That dynamic invites closer scrutiny of the Northern Territory’s capacity to set and enforce standards that match federal expectations.

The stakes: transparency, consistency and national credibility

The immediate stakes are reputational and financial. The 2024–25 figures show massive turnover but limited tax revenue compared with the scale of wagers placed through Northern Territory licensees. In that environment, perceived leniency or opacity invites political pressure and public skepticism. Transparent reporting and consistent discipline are the clearest routes to rebuilding confidence.

There is also a competitive dimension. Operators want regulatory certainty across markets. With the ACMA striking remedial agreements and penalties for breaches spanning self-exclusion, spam and high-risk marketing, licensed bookmakers need a single playbook. A reviewed and modernized Northern Territory framework could reduce friction, improve consumer outcomes and lower the risk of abrupt federal actions that disrupt operations.

The alternative is a patchwork that increases compliance costs and erodes trust. As other jurisdictions evaluate VIP programs and affordability checks, and as Australia continues blocking illegal sites, the Northern Territory’s posture will influence how the industry calibrates conduct in its largest channel. The call for inquiry is less a rebuke than an acknowledgment that incremental tweaks are no longer enough.

The past year’s enforcement arc offers a preview of what modernization looks like: mandated audits after marketing breaches, time-bound remedial directions when firms contact self-excluded customers and a steady drumbeat against illegal operators. The question for lawmakers is how to embed those expectations into a territorial regime that now anchors a national market.