Former Victorian regulator says Australian national sports betting regulator unlikely to be effective

The former head of Victoria’s gambling regulator has questioned the wisdom of establishing a national regulator to oversee Australia’s sports betting industry, suggesting such a framework may in fact weaken the regulatory capacity of some states.

The issue of a national regulator was raised again on Wednesday during a Keynote Address by the Managing Director and CEO of Tabcorp, Adam Rytenskild, at the Regulating the Game conference in Sydney. While Rytenskild said he is not tied to the concept of a national regulator, he did reinforce his view that some sort of agreed framework is needed to standardize how operators are regulated across Australia’s states and territories.

But Peter Cohen, former Executive Commissioner and CEO of the Victorian Commission for Gambling Regulation, said there would likely be unintended consequences to such a move. He also cited his experience of Australia’s gun law debate while working with Victoria’s cabinet office in the 1990s, when there were calls for uniform gun laws in the wake of the 1996 Port Arthur tragedy.

“All of us working in governmental relations got together at the time and we were talking about what it would mean and if we were to achieve uniform gun standards,” Cohen recalled. “We found that at least two states would have to reduce their standards of control to get the other states to come up.

“If we had national standards here for gaming, whether that be for sports betting or other forms of gaming, would that mean we’d have a lessening of standards? That would trouble me whether it be for harm minimization or integrity or whatever. To get a uniform standard there might have to be a reduction in some jurisdictions’ areas of control.”

Cohen also noted that the implementation of national standards would make it incredibly difficult to make any updates or adjustments, given that these would require agreement from all member states and territories.

Instead, he prefers maintaining the status quo.

“Let each state do their own thing and you’ve got a competitive federalism where you get the tensions involved of the states and territories and you show each other that there are different and better ways to do things,” he said. “That brings everybody up – a rising tide lifts all boats. That’s why I think a national system doesn’t necessarily work.”

Cohen isn’t alone in that belief, with Julian Hoskins, founder and Principal at Australian gambling law specialists Senet, telling IAG last year that the current “patchwork quilt” model of state-based regulation would make it difficult for a national regulator or standard to be effective.

“You’ve got expertise that has been developed within each framework but also complex laws within each state and territory,” Hoskins said at the time. “To suggest a national regulator would solve all the problems that are associated with the industry would be wrong. It is no silver bullet.

“The better thing to focus on would be harmonization amongst laws throughout the states and territories so that you get them working together collaboratively to ensure there are no conflicts of laws like exists at the moment.”

Nevertheless, a national regulator remains very much on the cards and was in fact a key recommendation of a parliamentary inquiry into online gambling in Australia conducted last year. In a report, the inquiry stated, “We have recommended that a single Australian Government Minister be responsible for developing and implementing a comprehensive national strategy on online gambling harm reduction, supported by national regulation, an online gambling ombudsman, a harm reduction levy on online wagering service providers (WSPs), and a public education campaign.

“Under national regulation, the Australian Government would be responsible for all regulation and licensing of online gambling, although the states and territories would retain the capacity to levy point of consumption taxes on online gambling.”