An Indigenous leader and independent MP has accused the Northern Territory government of having “a clear conflict of interest” with the $50bn online gambling industry and of ignoring First Nations health and advocacy groups.
Yingiya Mark Guyula, a Liya-dhälinymirr Djambarrpuyngu man, said online gambling was an increasing problem in remote areas. He accused some companies of “making big money off some of the poorest people in our communities”.
On Wednesday, Guardian Australia revealed the NT government – which regulates almost all online gambling companies operating in Australia – consulted just one harm reduction group before introducing laws welcomed by wagering giants whose advice was sought during their drafting.
The Racing and Wagering Act 2024, which was tabled last month and could be voted on in coming weeks, increases fines in line with other jurisdictions and would allow the chief minister to direct the NT gambling regulator and its director in “the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions”.
The government sought feedback on its draft bill from all 28 online gambling companies licensed in the NT, including international giants Bet365 and Sportsbet. It did not approach anyone based outside the NT, including regulators, gambling researchers, academics, treatment centres or financial counsellors.
“I am concerned that broad consultation hasn’t been done,” Guyula said. “The NT government has mainly consulted the gambling industry about what regulations they think will be best to regulate themselves and this is a clear conflict of interest.”
“Community members are telling me that lots of people are gambling – and I can see it around me. If elders and leaders in communities were consulted we would say that we don’t want to see these widespread online gambling problems in our communities.”
Almost all online gambling companies are licensed in the NT, due to historically low tax rates, but operate nationally. The territory receives tax revenue from gambling giants, which generate an annual turnover around $50bn. Freedom of information documents show companies have previously threatened to leave the NT if taxes were raised.
Independent federal MP Kate Chaney, who was a member of a federal parliamentary inquiry into online gambling harm, said the NT government’s bill was “mad” and that a lack of broad consultation demonstrated why a national regulator was necessary.
“The power to direct what is effectively the national gambling regulator should not lie in the hands of the NT chief minister,” Chaney said. “It’s mad.”
“The whole $50bn online gambling industry is based in the Northern Territory because it has the lowest taxes and fees and a ‘light touch’ regulatory regime – it’s a race to the bottom.”
An NT government spokesperson did not directly address criticism from Chaney and Guyula but said broader consultation would occur once the bill passed parliament.
“The bill will allow for the development of standards, including codes of practice, rules and guidelines,” the spokesperson said. “These standards will define compliance requirements and licence conditions.
“The bill includes a provision that requires consultation to occur with the development of any code of practice. This means additional organisations and stakeholders, such as gambling support organisations outside of the territory and other health and advocacy groups, will be able to provide feedback.”
The NT government has rejected claims it was seeking to undermine the independence of the regulator.
The territory sought feedback on the bill from all licensed gambling companies, the racing commission, the racing appeals tribunal, the NT civil and administrative tribunal, government agencies, lawyers for the gambling industry, and one gambling support group – Amity Services.
Amity Services was contacted for comment but did not respond. The organisation’s former chief executive, Nicola Coalter, who spent 13 years with the organisation, also criticised the government’s approach.
“I strongly believe that the NT government should have engaged in a much more comprehensive consultation than it did. The government had the means to reach out directly to key stakeholders in the field.”
“[It is] impractical to believe that a process allowing industry submissions to policy will result in the rigorous scrutiny necessary to protect public welfare.”
