Tasmania knew it was licensing a business it was not yet prepared to regulate
In the quiet administrative corridors of Hobart, a decision has been made that illuminates something uncomfortable about how modern democracies govern industries they do not fully understand. Tasmania has granted a five-year operating licence to online bookmaker Betr — even as its own Treasurer acknowledged the state's laws are ill-equipped to oversee it. The move is less a story about one company changing addresses than it is about the structural vacuum at the centre of Australian gambling regulation, where states compete not on the strength of their oversight but on the softness of it.
- Tasmania licensed Betr while openly admitting its regulatory framework cannot adequately govern modern online wagering — a contradiction the state's own Treasurer put on the record.
- Federal and state independent MPs responded with fury, accusing the Tasmanian government of courting a predatory industry with weaker oversight and lower tax demands than rival jurisdictions.
- The Northern Territory's recent push to tighten its own gambling rules and raise taxes appears to have driven Betr's search for a more accommodating home — a textbook case of regulatory arbitrage playing out in real time.
- Promises of future legislative reform ring hollow to critics who point to Tasmania's earlier retreat on a mandatory cashless card for poker machines as evidence the state will not hold firm against industry pressure.
- The episode renews calls for a national gambling regulator, a reform the Albanese government has so far declined to pursue, leaving the door open for states to keep undercutting each other in pursuit of modest revenue and a handful of jobs.
On Monday, online bookmaker Betr announced it was leaving the Northern Territory for Tasmania, having secured a five-year licence from the state's Liquor and Gaming Commission. The company plans to move its headquarters to Hobart by year's end and expects to create eight jobs — a modest return for a decision that has exposed a striking contradiction at the heart of Australian gambling regulation.
Tasmanian Treasurer Eric Abetz acknowledged plainly that the state's existing laws do not adequately account for the technology, operating models, or governance structures of modern online wagering. Tasmania, in other words, licensed a business it was not yet prepared to regulate, with vague assurances that legislation would eventually be updated — though no timeline or specifics were offered.
The response from independent MPs was sharp. Federal MP Andrew Wilkie accused the government of rolling out the red carpet to a predatory industry and doubted reform promises would materialise. Tasmanian MP Meg Webb called the decision reckless, arguing Betr had simply identified Tasmania as a jurisdiction with weaker oversight and lower taxes. Mark Kempster of the Alliance for Gambling Reform pointed to the state's earlier retreat on a mandatory cashless card for poker machines as evidence of its unwillingness to stand up to the gambling industry.
The broader picture deepens the concern. Most major Australian betting operators are licensed in the Northern Territory, which has faced serious questions about regulatory integrity following a Four Corners investigation into conflicts of interest. The NT's subsequent move to tighten rules and raise taxes appears to have prompted Betr's search for a softer landing — and Tasmania obliged. The state's Treasury declined to publish the specific licence conditions imposed on Betr.
Reform advocates have long argued that only a national gambling regulator can prevent this kind of jurisdiction-shopping. The Albanese government has not included one in its proposed reforms, leaving states free to compete for betting company headquarters by offering lighter oversight. Premier Jeremy Rockliff defended the decision, citing around one million dollars in initial revenue and rejecting suggestions it undermined the state's commitment to reducing gambling harm — even as the pokies pre-commitment card plan remained shelved. Adding a further layer of complexity, Betr's registered Tasmanian lobbyist is a polling firm owned by a former Liberal strategist currently nominated for a Senate seat.
Betr becomes Tasmania's second online betting licence holder. Whether it proves a more permanent resident than Betfair — which left for the NT in 2016 — and whether Tasmania's promised regulatory updates arrive before the licence expires, remain open questions.
On Monday, the online bookmaker Betr announced it was leaving the Northern Territory for Tasmania, having secured a five-year operating licence from the state's Liquor and Gaming Commission. The move takes effect immediately, and the company plans to shift its headquarters to Hobart by the end of the year. It is a decision that has exposed a peculiar contradiction at the heart of Australian gambling regulation: Tasmania granted the licence while openly admitting its own laws are not equipped to oversee it.
Tasmanian Treasurer Eric Abetz made this admission plainly. The state's existing regulatory framework, he said, does not adequately account for the technology, operating models, and governance structures that define modern online wagering. In other words, Tasmania knew it was licensing a business it was not yet prepared to regulate. Betr's chief executive, Andrew Menz, framed the relocation as the culmination of a multi-year search for the right regulatory home, promising the company would work with stakeholders to create a safe and responsible betting environment. The state government, for its part, suggested it would update its legislation to close the gaps—though it has not yet specified which requirements need changing or when those changes will arrive.
Federal Independent MP Andrew Wilkie responded with undisguised anger. He accused the Tasmanian government of rolling out the red carpet to what he called a predatory industry, and he expressed deep skepticism that promised regulatory reforms would materialise. Independent Tasmanian MP Meg Webb called the decision reckless and irresponsible, arguing that Betr had simply identified Tasmania as a jurisdiction with weaker oversight and lower tax demands than its competitors. Mark Kempster of the Alliance for Gambling Reform echoed the concern, noting that Tasmania had previously backed down from plans to introduce a mandatory cashless card for poker machine players—a sign, he suggested, that the state was unwilling to stand up to the gambling industry when it mattered.
The broader context sharpens the criticism. Most of Australia's major betting operators—Sportsbet, Bet365, Ladbrokes—are licensed in the Northern Territory, a jurisdiction that has faced serious questions about regulatory integrity. A Four Corners investigation last year documented conflicts of interest within the NT Racing and Wagering Commission. The NT government has since moved to reform its system and increase tax rates on bookmakers, which may have prompted Betr to look elsewhere. Tasmania, by contrast, appears to offer a softer landing. The state's Treasury department declined to detail the specific licence conditions it has imposed on Betr, saying such information is not routinely published.
Kempster and other reform advocates have long called for a national gambling regulator to prevent exactly this kind of regulatory arbitrage—where operators shop between states for the most lenient framework. The Albanese government has not included a national regulator in its proposed reforms, leaving the field open for states to compete for betting company headquarters by offering lighter oversight. Betr's move to Tasmania is, in this sense, a perfect illustration of why that competition is problematic.
The financial case for Tasmania is modest. Premier Jeremy Rockliff said the relocation would generate around one million dollars in revenue initially, with potential for growth, though he did not specify whether this came from licence fees, payroll tax, or other sources. The company is expected to create eight jobs. Rockliff rejected suggestions that approving the licence sent the wrong signal about the government's commitment to reducing gambling harm, particularly after the state shelved its pokies pre-commitment card plan. Notably, the registered lobbyist for Betr in Tasmania is EMRS, a polling firm owned by Brad Stansfield, a former Liberal strategist and nominee for an upcoming Senate seat—a detail that adds another layer of complexity to how the decision came about.
Betr is now Tasmania's second online betting licence holder, following UBET, which operates across most Australian jurisdictions. Tasmania previously licensed Betfair's Australian operations in 2005, but that company departed for the Northern Territory in 2016. Whether Betr will prove a more stable long-term resident remains to be seen, as does the question of whether Tasmania's promised regulatory updates will arrive before the company's five-year licence comes up for renewal.
Citações Notáveis
A number of existing Tasmanian regulatory requirements do not appropriately reflect the technology, operating models and governance arrangements of modern online wagering businesses— Tasmanian Treasurer Eric Abetz
Sure, the Tasmanian government says they'll update the regulations, but I'll believe that when I see it— Federal Independent MP Andrew Wilkie
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would a state knowingly license a business it admits it can't properly regulate?
Because the alternative, from Tasmania's perspective, is watching the jobs and tax revenue go to another state. It's a race to the bottom dressed up as economic development.
But doesn't that create real risks for gamblers?
Absolutely. If the regulator doesn't have the tools or the laws to oversee how the company operates—what protections it offers problem gamblers, how it handles customer funds, what data it collects—then there's no meaningful oversight at all. The company can essentially set its own rules.
The treasurer said they'd update the regulations. Why doesn't Wilkie believe that?
Because Tasmania has a track record of backing down. They abandoned a mandatory cashless card for poker machines after the industry pushed back. Words about future reform are cheap when you've already handed over the licence.
Is this unique to Tasmania?
No. It's happening everywhere. The NT has the same problem, which is why Betr left in the first place. Without a national regulator, states will keep undercutting each other to attract betting operators. It's a structural flaw in how Australia regulates gambling.
What does Betr get out of moving?
Lower taxes, weaker oversight, and a fresh regulatory environment. They get to operate with fewer constraints than they would elsewhere. That's the whole point of the move.
And the eight jobs—is that significant?
It's real money for Tasmania, but it's also the justification the government uses to avoid harder questions about whether this is actually good policy. Eight jobs and a million dollars in revenue sound better than admitting you've licensed a company you can't regulate.