For several months now, the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission (NTRWC), the main authority responsible for regulating online betting in Australia, has been at the centre of worrying accusations of weak oversight, conflicts of interest and close links with the operators it is supposed to supervise.
Disturbing personal and professional links
The NTRWC issues licences to more than 40 online operators, including Sportsbet, Ladbrokes and Bet365, and is the de facto national regulator of online betting.
However, an investigation carried out by ABC’s Four Corners programme has brought to light hitherto less visible behaviour: NTRWC commissioners own or co-own racehorses, an act initially prohibited by the law creating the commission, but made possible after legislative amendments.
Alastair Shields, chairman of the commission since 2018, has not been spared. He has admitted to accepting forms of hospitality offered by bookmakers and maintaining a personal betting account on Sportsbet. When journalists try to find out how he manages his working hours or why certain complaints take so long to be dealt with, he remains mute.
Another area of concern is transparency. Despite its size and increased role in a fast-growing sector, the NTRWC has not published an annual report since 1993.
When criticism is mounting
As the damage caused by gambling in Australia reaches record levels, criticism is mounting. The country has one of the highest per capita gambling loss rates in the world.
Political voices such as that of independent MP Andrew Wilkie are denouncing an unnecessary regulator. For their part, user defence associations are questioning how a country facing a compulsive gambling crisis can rely on a partial, undersized body that is sometimes intertwined with the industry it is supposed to control. Lauren Levin, a leading figure in the campaign for reform, points out that the Commission’s initial objective was not so much consumer protection as the development of the betting and racing industry.
The figures are alarming: according to the ABC, in around two-thirds of the 170 decisions handed down since 2017, no breach has been found against the operators. No bookmaker has ever had its licence suspended or withdrawn.
Defence and justification: the camp of those opposed to change
The criticisms are not going unanswered. Some industry organisations believe that the regulator is fulfilling its obligations. Kai Cantwell, director of Responsible Wagering Australia, asserts that the commission offers solid consumer protections and has a thorough understanding of the online environment in which bookmakers operate.
The Northern Territory has confirmed that it is looking into allegations of conflicts of interest within the commission, although it declined to comment in more detail.
What reforms are needed to restore confidence?
As the pressure mounts, several avenues of reform are being mooted. One of the first would be to strengthen the institutional independence of the NTRWC, perhaps by imposing stricter incompatibilities: no more direct or indirect financial links with operators, abolition of part-time posts for certain commissioners, regular publication of public reports. Transparency and accountability appear to be essential levers.
Another proposal is to strengthen sanctions: so far, not a single operator has had its licence suspended or withdrawn, which confuses those who believe that regulation should include real consequences for non-compliance. The use of independent investigations could also be considered to restore public confidence.
The fundamental dilemma
The central question remains: can a regulator remain credible if it is so close to those it regulates? When commissioners own horses, when a chairman accepts privileges or takes bets himself, the risk is twofold: that of excessive tolerance towards the industry, and that of a weakening of the protective role towards the most vulnerable citizens.
The debate is not just about institutional issues: it is about values, about the balance between economic development and social responsibility, between freedom of gambling and protection of the individual.