Casino (Electronic Gaming) Regulation 2018

The regulation is compact and built around a small set of legal and evidentiary concepts; those concepts structure what an applicant must produce and how decision-makers can evaluate applications.

Relevant casino electronic gaming application (s 4). The regulation applies to applications for a casino gaming machine authorisation certificate or a casino FATG authorisation certificate. Those terms are defined in the Act (the dictionary note confirms defined terms in the Act apply,Dictionary note 3).

Casino electronic gaming proposal (s 5(2)). For the purpose of a social impact assessment the subject of analysis is the “casino electronic gaming proposal,” meaning the likely operation of the gaming machines or FATG terminals if the authorisation certificate is issued (s 5(2)). The assessment must be an objective analysis of the likely economic and social impact of that operation (s 5(2)).

Local community (s 4; dictionary). The regulation fixes the “local community” as the community within 3 km of the casino (s 4). The document requires applicants to separate impacts on that local community from impacts on the “broader Canberra community” (s 5(6)(c); s 6). The 3 km radius is an explicit statutory threshold used throughout the assessment obligations.

Objectivity and factual basis (s 5(4)-(5)). The assessment must be objective rather than subjective or speculative and based on identifiable factual information; sources must be clearly and specifically identified (s 5(4)-(5)). The regulation gives examples of acceptable sources (for example, Australian Bureau of Statistics publication, commission report) but notes examples are non‑exhaustive (s 5(5) and note to example).

Identification and mapping of affected entities and institutions (s 5(6)). The assessment must identify affected entities and institutions in both the local community and broader Canberra community, and show locations on a map of the local community (s 5(6)(a)-(b)). The regulation lists examples of entities and institutions (residences, shops, other gambling venues, schools, sporting and community facilities, places of worship) but treats the list as illustrative (s 5(6) examples).

Matters to be addressed (s 6). The assessment must consider existing levels of gaming activity, population profile (including age, average income, projected population and growth rate), information about patrons (where they live, spending patterns, time spent at premises, current and anticipated patronage), positive and negative aspects for both local and Canberra communities, gambling harm minimisation measures proposed, and the likely overall net economic and social impact (s 6(1)(a)-(g)).

Required information (s 7). To the extent information is available to the applicant, the assessment must give number and location of existing gambling outlets, population details (number of adults and average incomes), expected casino machine or FATG terminal revenue for the next 3 years, expected table gaming revenue for the next 3 years, expected community benefit for next 3 years, expected contributions to assist in gambling harm prevention for next 3 years, and details of proposed redevelopment of the casino and precinct (s 7(1)(a)-(g)).

Exclusions from “casino gaming machine” (s 8). The regulation excludes from the Act’s definition of casino gaming machine devices for playing skill-only games, amusement devices that involve skill and are played for entertainment only (example: pinball), and devices ordinarily at fairs, fetes or shows where the device usually involves an element of skill and is played mainly for entertainment, whether or not a prize is offered (example: ‘laughing clowns’) (s 8).

Interpretive notes. The regulation expressly signals that examples are illustrative and not exhaustive (multiple notes and examples across ss 5 and 8), and that definitions in the Casino (Electronic Gaming) Act 2017 apply (Dictionary note 3). The regulation also uses the legal qualifier “to the extent that the information is available to the applicant” for certain required information (s 7(1)), which affects the applicant’s disclosure obligations.

The regulation allocates duties and obligations primarily to two groups: applicants seeking specified casino electronic gaming authorisations, and, secondarily, interested persons (local community and broader Canberra community) and regulatory decision-makers who will use the submitted assessments.

Applicants (s 4; ss 5-7). The principal person who must comply is any applicant for a “relevant casino electronic gaming application,” that is, for a casino gaming machine authorisation certificate or a casino FATG authorisation certificate (s 4). The regulation requires the applicant to prepare and supply a social impact assessment satisfying the content, form and evidentiary requirements in ss 5-7. Practically, this requires applicants to gather demographic and economic data, map affected entities within 3 km, project revenues and contributions for three years, describe harm minimisation measures and redevelopment plans, and clearly identify information sources (ss 5(5)-(6); 6; 7).

Owners and operators proposing redevelopment (s 7(1)(g)). The applicant must provide details of proposed redevelopment of the casino and its precinct (s 7(1)(g)). Developers and investors involved in capital works will therefore be implicated, as redevelopment plans will be scrutinised and must be included in the assessment.

Local and broader Canberra communities (ss 4, 5(6), 6). The regulation defines the local community as the community within 3 km of the casino (s 4). The local community and the broader Canberra community are both subject-matter of the assessment; the applicant must identify affected entities and institutions in both areas and address positive and negative impacts for each (s 5(6)(a), s 6(1)(d)-(e)). Those communities thus become the object of the applicant’s evidence and the locus for any public consultation and administrative evaluation.

Affected entities and institutions (s 5(6) examples). The regulation calls for identification of entities likely to be affected, with examples including residences, shops, other gambling venues, schools, sporting and community facilities, and places of worship (s 5(6) examples). Owners and operators of those places should expect to be listed and mapped in assessments, and to be referenced in impact analyses.

Regulatory decision-makers (Act and this regulation). While the regulation does not itself set the decision-making threshold, it structures the material decision-makers will use to evaluate applications under the Casino (Electronic Gaming) Act 2017. The regulation’s specific content requirements reduce informational asymmetry by standardising the data and analysis applicants must provide (ss 5-7).

Third parties and researchers. Because the regulation requires clear source identification and mapping, third parties , including local councils, community groups, compliance officers, researchers and journalists , can use the published or provided assessments to identify concentrations of gaming, demographic exposure, and proposed mitigations (s 5(5); s 5(6)(b)).

Excluded device manufacturers/operators (s 8). Manufacturers or operators of devices expressly excluded from the definition of casino gaming machines (for example, pinball manufacturers or suppliers of fairground skill devices) are affected in the sense that their devices fall outside the casino-gaming-machine regulatory requirements imposed by the Act to which this regulation relates (s 8).

Penalties and corporate liability context. The republication front material records the penalty unit value applicable to offences against the law at the republication date ($150 for an individual, $750 for a corporation). Even though the regulation itself does not specify particular offences, applicants and affected businesses should be aware of the general penalty-unit context described in the republication notes.

The regulation imposes specific duties on applicants and establishes evidentiary constraints that function as rights for decision-makers and as disclosure obligations for applicants.

Mandatory duty to prepare a social impact assessment (s 5(1)). A social impact assessment prepared for a relevant application must satisfy the regulation’s requirements (s 5(1)). That is a non-discretionary duty of content and form: failure to meet these requirements will leave an application incomplete against the statutory benchmark set by the Act and regulation (s 5).

Duty of objectivity and factual basis (s 5(2)-(5)). Applicants must produce an objective analysis (not subjective or speculative) and base it on identifiable factual information. The duty includes specific source identification; the regulation gives examples of acceptable source types but treats examples as non-exhaustive (s 5(4)-(5)).

Duty to identify affected entities and map them (s 5(6)). Applicants must identify entities and institutions likely to be affected both locally and across the broader Canberra community, and must include a map of affected entities in the local community (s 5(6)(a)-(b)).

Duty to address specified matters (s 6). The assessment must address enumerated matters, including levels of gaming activity, population profile (age, average income, projected population/growth), patron data where available, positive and negative aspects for local and broader communities, gambling harm minimisation measures proposed, and overall net impact (s 6(1)(a)-(g)).

Duty to provide specified information to the extent available (s 7(1)). Applicants must provide specific factual data to the extent it is available to them: number and location of existing gambling outlets, population details (number of adults, average incomes), expected revenue streams (casino gaming machine/FATG terminal revenue and table gaming revenue) for the next three years, expected community benefits and expected contributions to gambling harm prevention for the next three years, and redevelopment details (s 7(1)(a)-(g)). The “to the extent available” qualifier is explicitly stated and therefore is part of the duty’s scope.

Right of decision-makers to rely on standardised evidence. By prescribing content and form, the regulation grants decision-makers the practical right to expect a consistent package of evidence. That standardisation reduces ambiguity about what constitutes adequate supporting material for applications (s 5-7). The regulation also obliges applicants to state their sources, enabling verification.

Right to interpret examples as non‑exhaustive (notes). The regulation’s examples (s 5(5) and ss 5(6) examples; s 8 examples) are expressly non‑exhaustive; this both constrains and preserves discretion. Applicants cannot treat the listed examples as mandatory limits; decision-makers retain the right to require additional relevant information beyond the illustrative lists (s 5(5) note).

Duty to exclude certain devices from the casino gaming machine definition is not incumbent on applicants but is a legal clarification (s 8). This shifts regulatory reach: devices that plainly fall into the exclusions are not subject to the casino gaming machine authorisation framework in the Act (s 8). Operators of such devices therefore do not have the duties that follow from being a “casino gaming machine” as defined in the Act.

Disclosure burden versus evidentiary protections. The regulation’s insistence on objective, sourced material (s 5(4)-(5)) functions as a disclosure duty but also as an evidentiary protection for applicants: an applicant may rely on clearly identified authoritative sources to satisfy the requirement. Conversely, decision-makers gain the right to challenge unsupported or speculative assertions.

Penalty context (prefatory material). The republication notes the penalty unit amount for offences against the law as at the republication date. While the regulation does not specify particular penalties, the general penalty framework (Legislation Act s 133 as cited in the republication) applies to offences against this law. Applicants should therefore treat compliance as legal and administrative necessity.

The regulation itself does not create detailed offence provisions or bespoke enforcement mechanisms; its operative thrust is prescriptive , it specifies what must be included in a social impact assessment and clarifies certain definitions. Enforcement and penalties, therefore, will be found principally in the parent Act and general administrative law rather than in this regulation. The republication material provides contextual penalty information and commencement details.

Penalty unit context (preface). The republication front matter states that at the republication date the value of a penalty unit for an offence against this law is $150 for an individual and $750 for a corporation (see Legislation Act 2001, s 133). That gives a monetary scale for penalties that apply to offences under the Casino (Electronic Gaming) Act 2017 and its subordinate instruments. The regulation itself does not list specific offences tied to the social impact assessment content requirements, but any offence under the Act to which the regulation contributes will be assessed against these penalty unit values at the republication date.

Enforcement pathway falls to the Act. The regulation repeatedly links its requirements to the Act (see headings Act, s 8(2)(a)-(c) in the regulation text). This indicates social impact assessment obligations are a step in the Act’s administrative decision-making process. Enforcement of compliance with the Act (including whether an application is valid or may be acted upon) and any sanctions for non‑compliance will be governed by the Act’s enforcement provisions and general principles of administrative law.

Administrative review and evidentiary challenge. Because the regulation requires objective, sourced material (s 5(4)-(5)) and map-based identification of affected entities (s 5(6)(b)), a regulator or another party assessing the application has discrete grounds to challenge assessments that are speculative or unsupported. Administrative decisions to accept or reject an application will turn in part on whether the prescribed information was provided. Judicial review or merits review rules under the Act and general administrative law may apply if those decision-making processes are amenable to review; the regulation does not itself create or exclude review rights.

Compliance reporting as condition of authorisation. The requirement to provide revenue and contribution projections for three years (s 7(1)(c)-(f)) means that, in practice, regulators will have baseline expectations against which to assess ongoing compliance post-licence. The regulation itself does not specify monitoring or audit mechanisms, but providing explicit projections is an evidentiary input that can be relied upon by decision-makers and by enforcement agencies for subsequent compliance checks under the Act.

No criminal offences specified in regulation. The regulation does not specify criminal offences or express civil penalties within its text for failure to supply required information. Therefore, whether non‑compliance attracts a criminal, civil or administrative response depends on provisions in the Act and other applicable instruments. The regulation’s requirements will inform enforcement action under the act but do not themselves set out penalty types or enforcement procedures.

Examples and interpretation affect enforceability. The regulation emphasises that examples are illustrative and not exhaustive (see notes accompanying examples). That interpretive rule affects enforcement: regulators retain discretion to require information beyond the listed examples where justified by the specific proposal (s 5(5) note; s 8 note).

Commencement and legislative history relevant to enforcement timing. The endnotes show commencement dates: s 1 commenced on 14 June 2018 and the remainder taken to have commenced on 15 June 2018 (endnotes 3). Enforcement expectations should be interpreted in light of those commencement dates and the applicable operative versions of the Act and this regulation at those times.

The regulation is a subordinate instrument to the Casino (Electronic Gaming) Act 2017 and is expressly framed to implement that Act’s requirements for social impact assessments. It also interacts with general interpretive and administrative provisions in the Legislation Act 2001.

Derivative operation under the Act (Dictionary note 3; headings). The regulation repeatedly cross‑references the Act (for example, headings referencing “Act, s 8(2)(a)”). Several terms used in the regulation are defined in the Casino (Electronic Gaming) Act 2017 and the regulation’s dictionary states that terms have the same meaning as in the Act (Dictionary notes 2-3). Therefore, the regulation cannot be read in isolation; it supplements the Act by specifying what the Act requires in terms of content and evidentiary standard for social impact assessments.

Interpretive rules from the Legislation Act (multiple notes). The regulation relies on interpretive rules in the Legislation Act 2001. For example, it states that a note is explanatory and not part of the regulation (s 3), and that examples are part of the regulation and may extend but do not limit meaning (see s 5(5) example and notes). The republication front matter references the Legislation Act provisions governing editorial amendments and penalty unit valuation (Legislation Act, s 115, s 117, s 127 and s 133 cited in the preface). These references mean ordinary statutory interpretive practices and penalty-unit calculations under the Legislation Act apply.

Administrative law and review. The regulation prescribes the material that must be provided in an application. Decisions under the Act that rely on those materials will be made by public authorities and therefore are likely subject to administrative law principles (natural justice, reasoned decision-making, relevant material). The regulation does not alter administrative law rights; it provides the evidentiary framework that decision‑makers will use.

Data protection, privacy and other sectoral laws. The regulation requires certain patron information where available (s 6(1)(c) and s 7(1) examples). Where personal data are collected, applicable privacy laws and data-protection obligations will apply to the collection, use and disclosure of patron data. The regulation does not displace those laws; it operates alongside them. Applicants must therefore ensure that information provided is consistent with privacy and data-protection requirements.

Planning and redevelopment law link (s 7(1)(g)). The requirement to supply details of proposed redevelopment of the casino and precinct (s 7(1)(g)) creates an intersection with planning and development approval regimes. Any redevelopment described in the social impact assessment will still be subject to the planning and building law processes applicable in the ACT. The regulation does not supplant those regimes; it requires that redevelopment details be included as part of the assessment.

Gambling and consumer protection statutes. The regulation clarifies which devices are excluded from the casino gaming machine definition (s 8). Those exclusions will interact with other gambling legislation and consumer-protection laws: devices falling outside the Act’s casino definition may still be regulated under other gambling or consumer statutes, or by local bylaws. The regulation’s exclusions therefore allocate regulatory scope between the Casino (Electronic Gaming) Act and other possible regulators.

Procurement, taxation and corporate law. The requirement to supply revenue projections and community benefits for three years (s 7(1)(c)-(f)) will intersect with corporate disclosure practices, tax reporting and any contractual obligations. The regulation does not make revenue projections binding for taxation or financial-reporting purposes but requires them as part of the administrative record.

No apparent conflict with Commonwealth law; subordinate instrument. The regulation is a territory subordinate instrument and applies to applications under the Territory Act. It does not purport to override federal statutes. Any conflict would be resolved under constitutional and intergovernmental law principles, but the document contains no provisions that suggest a federal inconsistency.

The regulation’s republication details provide a concise legislative history and amendment status.

Origin (endnote 3). The Casino (Electronic Gaming) Regulation 2018 was made as part of the Casino and Other Gaming Legislation Amendment Act 2018 (A2018-21) and is taken to have been made under the Casino (Electronic Gaming) Act 2017 (see endnote 3). That shows the regulation was created to implement amendments made by A2018-21 to the parent Act.

Commencement dates (endnote 3). The republication records that s 1 of the regulation commenced on 14 June 2018 and the remainder was taken to have commenced on 15 June 2018 (endnote 3). Those are the operative dates for the requirements and the beginning of their legal effect.

Republication status and editorial amendments (preface). The republication notes that editorial amendments authorised by the Legislation Act 2001, part 11.3 may be made and that this republication does not include amendments made under part 11.3 (preface). The republished law includes any commencement, repeal or expiry affecting the regulation and documents legislation and amendment history in the endnotes (preface and endnotes).

Amendment history note in contents. The front matter states “Regulation not amended” near the top of the document, indicating that, as at the republication date (15 June 2018), the regulation had not been further amended since being made (top of the republication).

Legislative references. The republished law contains citations to the Legislation Act 2001 for interpretive and editorial matters and for penalty-unit valuation (preface and dictionary notes). Any amendments to those statutory frameworks could change interpretation or penalty-calculation without changing the regulation’s text.

No later amending instruments recorded in this republication. The document’s endnotes provide the legislation history and amendment history fields; the republication indicates the regulation was made under the specified Act and, at the republication date, had not been amended (endnote 3). Practitioners should check the ACT legislation register for any subsequent amendments not captured in this republication.

Practical implication for counsel and clients. Counsel advising applicants should confirm the current status of the regulation on the legislation register because the document flags that uncommenced amendments and modifications, if any, are accessible on the register and that the Parliamentary Counsel may make editorial amendments consistent with the Legislation Act (preface and endnotes).

The republished regulation contains no citations to any judicial decisions or litigation history. The document’s endnotes and text do not record any cases or judicial review associated with the regulation itself.

What the republished law evidences.

• No recorded litigation in the republication. The republication does not list or reference any court decisions, appeals, or administrative review outcomes related to the regulation. The legislative history in the endnotes describes only the statutory pathway of the instrument (endnote 3).

• No caselaw cited or incorporated. The text contains no references to case law or precedent; the interpretive aids are statutory references to the Legislation Act and the parent Act (dictionary notes and preface).

What this means for practitioners.

• Absence of reported litigation in the text does not guarantee none exists. The republication’s omission of litigation history means users must search court databases, tribunal records and administrative review records to determine if decisions have arisen from applications under the Act using assessments prepared according to this regulation.

• Key points likely to be disputed in litigation. Based on the regulation’s content, areas potentially susceptible to judicial or merits review (if disputes arise) include whether an assessment is sufficiently objective and factual (s 5(4)-(5)), sufficiency of source identification, adequacy of mapping of affected entities (s 5(6)(b)), and whether the “to the extent available” qualification in s 7(1) was properly applied. The regulation itself does not record outcomes on these issues.

• Administrative decisions under the Act could be subject to review. Decisions to grant or refuse authorisations that rely on material prepared under these rules may attract administrative and judicial review. Practitioners should therefore monitor tribunal and court decisions on similar statutory assessment regimes and on interpretation of “objective” and “based on identifiable factual information” requirements in comparable contexts.

Recommendation. Because the republication contains no litigation history, counsel should undertake targeted searches of ACT judicial and review databases for any post-2018 decisions that consider social impact assessments, the operation of s 8 of the Act, or challenges to the substance of applications under the Casino (Electronic Gaming) Act 2017 using this regulation as a framework.

The regulation is short but contains several drafting choices that create practical risks and traps for applicants and advisers. The following are concrete, source-grounded points to watch.

Local community fixed at 3 km (s 4). The regulation fixes the “local community” for assessments as the community within 3 km of the casino (s 4). That is an explicit, non-negotiable spatial metric. Applicants cannot substitute a different radius without explaining why additional or alternative geographies are relevant; however, the regulation also requires separate consideration of the “broader Canberra community” (s 5(6)(c) and s 6), so applicants must do both. Failure to produce an accurate map of affected entities within that 3 km radius (s 5(6)(b)) will leave the assessment non-compliant.

“Objective” and “identifiable factual information” standard (s 5(4)-(5)). The regulation requires assessments to be objective rather than subjective or speculative and based on identifiable factual information (s 5(4)). Material unsupported by clear sources is not compliant. Applicants who rely on internal, unverified assertions or opaque methodologies risk their assessment being rejected or discounted.

Sources must be “clearly and specifically identified” (s 5(5)). Generic or vague source citations will not satisfy s 5(5). The regulation gives examples (ABS publications, commission reports) but warns examples are not exhaustive. Practitioners must use precise citations, dates, data sets and, where appropriate, methodology notes.

Map requirement (s 5(6)(b)). The regulation requires a map of the local community showing affected entities. A mere list will not suffice. The map must show locations and be incorporated into the assessment. Inaccurate mapping (for example, incomplete mapping of other gambling venues) will be an identifiable compliance failure.

“To the extent that the information is available to the applicant” qualifier (s 7(1)). Several required data items are qualified by availability (s 7(1) preface). Applicants should document why certain data are not available rather than omitting them without explanation. The safe practice is to attempt to obtain the data and, if unavailable, to explain search steps and constraints in the assessment.

Three‑year projection horizon (s 7(1)(c)-(f)). Revenue, community benefit and harm-prevention contribution projections must be given for the next three years (s 7(1)(c)-(f)). Shorter or longer projection horizons are non-compliant. Applicants must therefore prepare three-year forecasts and document assumptions and methodologies transparently.

Examples are not exhaustive (multiple notes). The regulation repeatedly notes that examples are illustrative and not limiting (s 5(5) note; s 8 note). Relying solely on the listed examples (for example, listing only “schools” and ignoring other institutions) could expose an assessment to criticism for incompleteness.

Excluded devices may still be regulated elsewhere (s 8). The regulation excludes devices that are games of skill or amusement devices primarily for entertainment (s 8). However, that exclusion applies to the definition of “casino gaming machine” in the Act; excluded devices might still be subject to other laws or local rules. Operators assuming a complete regulatory safe harbour from the Act should verify other regulatory obligations.

Redevelopment detail required (s 7(1)(g)). The regulation requires detail of proposed casino and precinct redevelopment. Failure to integrate planning and redevelopment approvals and timetables into the assessment risks presenting an assessment that is speculative about future structural changes.

Patron data and privacy constraints (s 6(1)(c)). The assessment must address available patron information (s 6(1)(c)). Collecting and reporting patron data may engage privacy laws. Applicants must ensure that gathering and disclosing patron information complies with privacy and data-protection obligations; the regulation does not provide a privacy exemption.

Interplay between positive and negative aspects (s 5(3), s 6(1)(d)-(e)). The assessment must identify both positive and negative aspects for local and broader communities. Overemphasis on benefits without rigorous treatment of detriments may render an assessment inconsistent with the regulation’s balance requirement (s 5(3); s 6(1)(d)-(e)).

No specific enforcement mechanism in regulation. The absence of specific penalty provisions in this regulation means enforcement will be determined under the Act. Applicants should not assume procedural leniency because the regulation lacks explicit sanctions; compliance obligations remain material to application validity.

Compliance requires a deliberate, documentable process that aligns the assessment with the regulation’s mandatory content, quality standards and mapping requirements. The required elements are set out in ss 5-7; the following is a practical compliance checklist tied to those sections.

1. Confirm applicability and definitions

• Confirm the application is a “relevant casino electronic gaming application” (application for a casino gaming machine authorisation certificate or a casino FATG authorisation certificate) (s 4). If not, the regulation’s social impact assessment rules will not apply.
• Note that defined terms in the Casino (Electronic Gaming) Act 2017 apply; cross-check the Act’s dictionary for terms such as “casino FATG terminal,” “authorisation certificate,” and “casino gaming machine” (Dictionary note 3).

2. Structure the assessment to meet the objectivity test

• Draft an objective analysis of the “casino electronic gaming proposal” (the likely operation under the proposed authorisation certificate) (s 5(2)). Avoid subjective language and unsupported assertions; where judgement is used, base it on explicitly cited data and methodology.
• Ensure the assessment identifies both positive and negative aspects (s 5(3)) and that all statements are objective and fact-based (s 5(4)(a)-(b)).

3. Identify and record sources precisely

• For every factual statement, add a precise source citation: document title, author/agency, date, page/table identifier, and, where relevant, data set version (s 5(5)). Examples include ABS publications and commission reports (s 5(5) example).
• Keep a sources appendix listing datasets, access dates, and any proprietary data subject to confidentiality.

4. Map the local community and affected entities

• Produce a map of the community within 3 km of the casino marking the location of affected entities and institutions (s 4; s 5(6)(b)). Use GIS or mapping software, include legend, scale, and coordinate references.
• Identify and annotate the map with entities listed in the regulation’s examples (residences, shops, other gambling venues, schools, sporting/community facilities, places of worship) and any other nearby institutions relevant to impact (s 5(6) examples).

5. Address the matters listed in s 6

• Existing level of gaming activity: provide counts, locations and capacity of existing gambling outlets in the local and broader Canberra communities (s 6(1)(a)).
• Population profile: present current age distribution, average incomes, projected population and growth rates for both the 3 km local area and the broader Canberra community (s 6(1)(b)(i)-(ii)).
• Patron information: include where patrons live, spending patterns, time spent at premises, current and anticipated patronage where available (s 6(1)(c); examples).
• Positive and negative aspects: analyse benefits and detriments separately for local and broader communities (s 6(1)(d)-(e)).
• Harm minimisation: set out proposed gambling harm minimisation measures in reasonable operational detail (s 6(1)(f)).
• Net impact: provide a concluding assessment of the likely overall net economic and social impact (s 6(1)(g)).

6. Supply required quantitative information (s 7(1))

• Number and location of existing gambling outlets in local and broader Canberra communities (s 7(1)(a)).
• Population details including number of adults and average incomes (s 7(1)(b)).
• Expected casino gaming machine or FATG terminal revenue for the next 3 years, with methodology and assumptions (s 7(1)(c)).
• Expected table gaming revenue for the next 3 years (s 7(1)(d)).
• Expected community benefit for the next 3 years, quantified and explained (s 7(1)(e)).
• Expected contributions to gambling harm prevention for the next 3 years (s 7(1)(f)).
• Details of proposed redevelopment of the casino and precinct, with staging and approvals timetable where available (s 7(1)(g)).
• Where information is not available, document steps taken to obtain it and explain why it cannot be provided (s 7(1) qualifier).

7. Maintain transparency on assumptions and methodologies

• For all projections and forecasts, state methodologies, baseline data, sensitivity analyses and confidence ranges. This supports the regulation’s requirement that statements be objective and based on identifiable factual information (s 5(4)-(5)).

8. Ensure privacy and legal compliance in data collection

• Patron and other personal data must be gathered and disclosed consistent with privacy laws. Where raw personal data are used, provide anonymised aggregates in the public assessment and retain provenance in a confidential appendix if necessary (s 6(1)(c)).

9. Prepare appendices and supporting documents

• Include a sources appendix (s 5(5)), map files, raw data tables, projection spreadsheets, redevelopment plans or planning approvals, and a clear statement of any data gaps and steps taken to find data (s 7(1) qualifier).

10. Quality control and sign-off

• Have the assessment independently reviewed for objectivity, factual support and mapping accuracy. The regulation emphasises objective, factual material and clear sourcing (s 5(4)-(5)).

11. Submission Good Practice

• Submit the assessment with a covering statement referencing the regulation’s sections (ss 5-7) and indicating how each prescribed item has been addressed.
• Retain working files and data provenance in case the regulator requests verification or in case of challenges under the Act.

12. Post-submission monitoring

• Be prepared to provide further information if requested by decision-makers. Because examples in the regulation are non‑exhaustive, decision-makers may require supplementary material beyond the enumerated items (s 5(5) note).

Meeting the regulation’s requirements is a matter of assembling objective, sourced, map‑based evidence and clear three‑year projections, documenting unavailable information, and ensuring compliance with related privacy and planning laws. Following the checklist tied to ss 5-7 will materially reduce the risk of an administrative finding of non-compliance and will produce a defensible evidentiary record for decision-makers under the Casino (Electronic Gaming) Act 2017.