Gambling Administration Regulations 2020

The regulations operationalise several key concepts from the Gambling Administration Act 2019. The central concept is the “barring order”, which is an order prohibiting a person from entering a gambling premises or participating in specified gambling activities. The regulations prescribe the particulars that must appear in a notice of such an order (regulation 7), as well as the contents of the register of barring orders (regulation 9). A barring order can be made by the Commissioner or by a gambling provider, though the regulations focus on the notice content rather than the grounds for making the order.

“Authorised persons” are another key concept. Under section 49 of the Act, authorised persons (including gambling providers, their employees, and others designated) have powers to remove barred persons from premises. Regulation 8 prescribes the procedures they must follow when using force to effect removal. These procedures distinguish between authorised persons who are police officers (exempted from the prescribed procedures) and non-police authorised persons. The regulation imposes duties on both the authorised person and the gambling provider to report and record incidents involving force.

“Inspectors” are appointed under Part 4 of the Act and have powers of entry, inspection, and seizure. Regulation 5 lists the documents an inspector may require as evidence of age, and regulation 6 governs the post-seizure handling of material or things. The concept of “seizure” under these regulations is broad: it covers anything seized under Part 4, and the Commissioner has wide discretion over its disposal, with no compensation payable. The concept of “costs recoverable as a debt” is important: the person from whom the item is seized may be billed for storage, testing, or destruction, even if the item is ultimately returned.

“Prescribed persons” under regulation 10 are a subset of Public Service employees whose positions are determined by the Commissioner by Gazette notice. These persons are prohibited from participating in gambling activities. The rationale is presumably to prevent conflicts of interest for those involved in gambling regulation or administration, but the regulation does not limit that class to such roles. The Commissioner could, in theory, determine any class of Public Service employee, regardless of their connection to gambling. This is a delegation that expands executive power to restrict lawful behaviour without further parliamentary scrutiny.

“Gambling provider” is not defined in the regulations but is a term used in the Act. Regulation 8 places direct obligations on gambling providers to maintain incident registers for at least one year. The concept of “gaming manager” appears in the required details for the incident record - the name of the gaming manager on licensed premises at the time of the incident. This implies that the regulations assume certain premises hold a licence under the Gaming Machines Act 1992 and have a designated manager.

The concept of “statistical information” in regulation 4 is straightforward: it prescribes five categories of data that the Commissioner must publish. This includes numbers of licences, net wagering revenue, gaming machine entitlements, number of licensed premises, and total licences under the Lotteries Act 2019. These data points provide transparency but also require the Commissioner to maintain accurate counts across multiple regulatory regimes.

The concept of “evidence of age” is narrowly defined in regulation 5. The closed list of four document types means that an inspector cannot accept other forms of identification, such as a digital ID or a foreign national identity card without a photograph. This may create practical issues for tourists or residents without a driver’s licence, passport, or Keypass. The regulation does not require the inspector to accept a document that is expired but still bears a photograph, which could cause friction if the person presents an old passport.

The regulations affect several distinct groups. The primary target is gambling providers, including licensed venues under the Gaming Machines Act 1992, casino operators under the Casino Act 1997, betting operators under the Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000, and lottery operators under the Lotteries Act 2019. These entities must comply with record-keeping obligations under regulation 8 regarding incidents of force used to remove barred persons, and must ensure that their authorised employees follow the prescribed procedures. Gambling providers also have a role in issuing barring orders and must ensure that notices contain the particulars prescribed in regulation 7. Furthermore, they may be required to provide information to the Commissioner for the register under regulation 9, particularly if the notice of a barring order is returned undelivered.

Inspectors, who are persons appointed under the Act, are directly affected by regulation 5 (they must require age evidence only in the specified forms) and regulation 6 (they must follow the seizure procedures). An inspector who seizes material must make a record and give a receipt, and then the Commissioner decides the fate of the item. Inspectors are also potentially subject to the reporting requirements of regulation 8 if they act as authorised persons for removal, though the regulation specifically addresses authorised persons who are not police officers, and inspectors may fall into that category depending on their appointment.

Barred persons are affected by the notice content requirements of regulation 7 and the register details of regulation 9. They have a right to receive a notice with specific particulars, including the date on which the barring order may be revoked. However, they may also choose to waive receipt of the scope details of the barring order (subregulation 7(2)). This is a curious provision: it allows a person to be less informed about the exact boundaries of the restriction placed on them. Barred persons who are forcibly removed under regulation 8 are entitled to have force used only in accordance with the prescribed procedures, including the prohibition against neck holds or positional asphyxia unless in self-defence. They also have the right to have incidents recorded and reported.

Persons from whom material or things are seized under regulation 6 are affected by the cost recovery provision. They may be liable for the Commissioner’s reasonable costs of dealing with the seized items, and they have no right to compensation for any loss or damage arising from the seizure or disposal. This creates a significant potential financial burden for individuals whose property is taken, even if the seizure is later found to have been unlawful or unnecessary.

Public Service employees holding positions of a class determined by the Commissioner are prohibited from participating in gambling activities by regulation 10. The regulation does not specify which classes of employees are covered; it delegates that to the Commissioner to determine by Gazette notice. This means the affected class can expand over time without amending the regulations. Public Service employees in gambling regulatory roles, licensing departments, or policy areas are the most likely targets, but the potential scope is broad and uncertain until the Commissioner issues a notice.

The Commissioner for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (or the relevant official) is affected as the administrative authority. The regulations impose duties on the Commissioner: to publish statistical information (regulation 4), to determine the manner of recording seized items (regulation 6(2)(a)), to decide the place for storage or disposal of seized items (regulation 6(3),(4)), to enter into agreements about seized items (regulation 6(4)(d)), to recover costs (regulation 6(5)), to maintain the barred persons register (regulation 9), and to determine classes of prohibited public servants (regulation 10). The Commissioner also has the power to waive the inclusion of scope details in barring order notices (regulation 7(2)). These powers and duties give the Commissioner significant administrative discretion, particularly around seizure and cost recovery, which could be exercised in ways that impose costs on individuals.

Persons who provide statistical information or cooperate with inspectors are indirectly affected, though the regulations do not directly impose obligations on them beyond those already in the Act.

The regulations impose several specific duties and create corresponding rights. Under regulation 6, an inspector who seizes material or things has a duty to make a record and give a receipt as soon as practicable. This duty protects the person from whom the item is seized by ensuring there is documentation of what was taken and by whom. The person from whom the item is seized has a right to receive that receipt. However, the person has no right to immediate return of the item; the Commissioner may retain it for evidence, and may even destroy or dispose of it without compensation. The person also has no right to contest the seizure before it occurs; the regulation does not require a warrant or court order for seizure under Part 4 of the Act. The regulation does provide that if the reason for seizure no longer exists, the Commissioner must take reasonable steps to release or return the item, but this is a duty owed to the person, not a right enforceable by the person directly. The absence of any compensation right (subregulation 6(6)) means the person bears the risk of loss or damage.

Under regulation 7, a gambling provider or the Commissioner who makes a barring order has a duty to include the prescribed particulars in the notice. The barred person has a right to receive that notice containing those details, including the date on which the order may be revoked (which cannot be earlier than the prescribed minimum period defined in section 45(4) of the Act). However, the right to receive details of the activities or premises from which the person is barred can be waived by the person (regulation 7(2)). This creates an unusual situation where a person can choose to be less informed, which may undermine the effectiveness of the barring order. The regulation also requires that a barring order notice state the effect of section 53 of the Act (which deals with offences for non-compliance) and warn that contravention is an offence. This ensures the person is on notice of the legal consequences.

Under regulation 8, authorised persons (other than police officers) have duties when using force to remove barred persons: they must give a verbal warning, explain that force will be used if the person does not comply, and avoid neck holds or actions that restrict breathing unless in self-defence. The person being removed has a right not to be subjected to force in a manner that violates these procedures. An authorised person who uses force must, if not a gambling provider, report the incident in writing to the gambling provider. The gambling provider has a duty to maintain a register of each incident, including detailed information, and retain it for at least one year. These reporting duties create transparency but also impose a compliance burden on venues. The person removed may have an interest in the accuracy of the record, though the regulation does not give them a right to access the register.

Under regulation 9, the Commissioner has a duty to maintain a register of barring orders containing the prescribed particulars. The barred person does not have a right to access the register, but they are likely to be aware of its existence because their personal details will be recorded. The inclusion of “gender identity” as a data point raises privacy considerations, though the Act’s privacy protections may apply separately.

Under regulation 10, the Commissioner has the power to determine by Gazette notice which classes of Public Service employees are prohibited from gambling. The duty of the affected employees is to refrain from participating in gambling. The regulation does not impose a duty on the Commissioner to notify individual employees directly; the only notice is by Gazette publication. This places a burden on public servants to monitor the Gazette for changes to the prohibition.

Under regulation 4, the Commissioner has a duty to publish prescribed statistical information. The public has a right to access that information once published, which aids transparency about the gambling industry.

The regulations themselves do not create penalties; they are subsidiary legislation. Penalties for contravention of the Act or the regulations are found in the Gambling Administration Act 2019. However, the regulations facilitate enforcement by prescribing procedures. For example, regulation 6 gives the Commissioner broad powers to dispose of seized material, destroy it, or recover costs as a debt. The absence of a compensation right (subregulation 6(6)) effectively penalises the person from whom the item is seized by removing any recourse for loss, even if the seizure is wrongful. This is a strict liability outcome: the person bears the cost regardless of fault. The Commissioner’s power to recover costs as a debt due to the Crown means the person can be sued in a court of competent jurisdiction for storage, testing, destruction, or disposal costs. This enforcement mechanism is directly in the regulations, not just the Act.

Regulation 8 prescribes procedures for authorised persons. If an authorised person uses force in a manner that does not comply with the regulation, they may face disciplinary action or potentially criminal charges under the Act for unlawful removal, but the regulation does not itself create a penalty. However, the record-keeping duty on gambling providers to maintain incident registers for one year is enforceable because failure to do so would likely be a breach of the Act or a condition of licence. The detailed reporting requirements (identifying the gaming manager, grounds for force, injuries, police attendance) create a paper trail that can be used in subsequent prosecutions or licence revocation proceedings.

Regulation 10 prohibits certain public servants from participating in gambling. Contravention of that prohibition would be an offence under section 62 of the Act. The regulations do not specify the penalty for that offence; that is left to the Act. However, the fact that the prohibition is prescribed by regulation means that the offence may apply without the need for further legislative action. The Commissioner’s determination by Gazette notice is an executive act with legislative effect, so enforcement depends on the Commissioner keeping the determination current and accessible.

The transitional provisions in Schedule 1 ensure that existing notices under repealed Acts are treated as if issued under the new Act, so that existing barring orders and similar instruments are enforceable from commencement. This avoids a gap where notices would otherwise lapse.

Enforcement of the barring order register under regulation 9 is tied to the Commissioner’s duties. If the Commissioner fails to keep a register with accurate and complete particulars, that may be a breach of duty, but it is not directly penalised. However, the Act likely sets out offences for giving false or misleading information to the Commissioner, which would indirectly enforce the accuracy of information provided for the register.

Overall, the enforcement framework relies heavily on the Commissioner’s discretion. The cost recovery provision (regulation 6(5)) is a particularly sharp enforcement tool: it allows the Commissioner to use debt recovery proceedings to extract money from persons whose property was seized. This could be used coercively, even if the original seizure was of low value. The absence of any right to compensation means the only check on abuse is administrative law or potential civil action for trespass or conversion, but those are not provided for in the regulations.

The regulations sit under the Gambling Administration Act 2019, which is the primary legislation. They are expressly made under that Act, and provisions in the regulations refer to specific sections of the Act (for example, regulation 4 refers to section 20(2)(c), regulation 5 to section 29(1), regulation 6 to section 32, regulation 7 to section 46(2), regulation 8 to section 49(3), regulation 9 to section 52(a), and regulation 10 to section 62(1)). The regulations flesh out the Act’s administrative machinery and do not conflict with the Act; they operate within its bounds.

The regulations explicitly cross-reference several other South Australian Acts. Regulation 4(c) and (d) refer to the Gaming Machines Act 1992 for gaming machine entitlements and licensed premises. Regulation 4(a) and (b) refer to the Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000 for licences and net State wagering revenue. Regulation 4(e) refers to the Lotteries Act 2019 for the number of licences under Parts 3 and 4 of that Act. This means the regulations are dependent on the definitions and data structures of those Acts. If those Acts are amended, the prescribed statistical information may change or become unclear. The regulations do not contain a mechanism to automatically update the references; they would need to be amended.

Regulation 5 cross-references the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 for the definition of “current photographic driver’s licence”, and the Australian Postal Corporation Act (Commonwealth) for the Keypass document. It also refers to “corresponding law of another State or a Territory” for driver’s licences and Proof of Age documents. This incorporates interstate and Commonwealth laws by reference. The regulations do not define what constitutes a “corresponding public authority” for the Proof of Age document, which could lead to uncertainty if an interstate authority issues a card that does not precisely match the South Australian model.

Regulation 8(e) requires that the incident record include the name of the gaming manager if the incident occurred on premises the subject of a licence under the Gaming Machines Act 1992. This specifically ties the regulation to that Act. Similarly, the transitional provisions in Schedule 1 reference the Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000, the Casino Act 1997, and the Gaming Machines Act 1992, preserving notices issued under specific sections of those Acts. This ensures continuity between the old and new regulatory regimes.

The regulations also interact with the common law regarding use of force. Regulation 8(c) prohibits an authorised person from holding a person “above the person’s shoulders” or in a way that restricts breathing, unless necessary in self-defence. This parallels the common law’s prohibition on dangerous neck holds and may be influenced by police procedure standards. The regulation effectively imports those standards into the gambling context.

The cost recovery provision (regulation 6(5)) interacts with the law of debt. The Commissioner can recover costs as a debt due to the Crown in a court of competent jurisdiction. This means ordinary debt recovery procedures apply, including potential garnishment or enforcement against property. The person cannot claim compensation for loss, but they may have a defence if the seizure was unlawful, though the regulation does not provide for that.

The prohibition on public servants under regulation 10 interacts with public sector employment law and codes of conduct. The Commissioner’s determination of the class by Gazette notice means the prohibition is a legislative instrument, not a term of employment. However, breach may also be a breach of the public sector code of conduct, leading to disciplinary action independent of any gambling offence.

The revocation of the Gambling Administration Regulations 2013 by Schedule 2 means any subordinate legislation made under that older instrument is also revoked, unless saved by the transitional provisions. The transitional provisions specifically save notices under the three industry Acts, but other instruments under the 2013 regulations that are not covered by Schedule 1 may lapse.

The Gambling Administration Regulations 2020 are the principal regulations. They were made on 30 July 2020 (Gazette notice p4141) and came into operation on 3 December 2020. They revoke the Gambling Administration Regulations 2013. There is no indication in the source text of any amendments to the 2020 regulations after commencement. The source includes only the original regulations as made. The legislative history notes that for further information, one may consult the Index of South Australian Statutes or the legislation website, but the document provided does not list any amending acts or regulations.

The regulations include transitional provisions in Schedule 1 that are not expressed as amendments but rather as savings provisions. They preserve the effectiveness of notices issued under earlier Acts as if issued under the new Act. This is a transitional mechanism, not an amendment to the regulations themselves.

The principal regulations themselves have a legislative history reference: Year 2020, No. 250, Gazette 30.7.2020 p4141, commencement 3.12.2020 per regulation 2. This indicates the regulations were gazetted mid-2020 but had a delayed commencement of about four months. This delay likely allowed stakeholders to prepare for the new requirements.

The source provided contains no reference to any litigation history. The regulations are relatively new (commenced 3 December 2020) and are administrative in nature. There are no cases mentioned in the text. However, certain provisions in the regulations are susceptible to legal challenge. The broad powers under regulation 6 regarding seizure and disposal, coupled with the exclusion of compensation, may be challenged as ultra vires the Act or as an infringement of the implied right to compensation under the Australian Constitution for acquisition of property (just terms). Regulation 6(6) denies compensation, but if the Act itself does not authorise such a denial, it could be argued that the regulation exceeds the regulation-making power. Section 32 of the Act (which is not in the source) would need to be examined to determine if it permits the regulation to exclude compensation.

The procedures for removal in regulation 8 could give rise to civil claims for assault or battery if force is used outside the prescribed procedures. An authorised person who uses excessive force could be sued in tort, and the regulation does not provide immunity. The regulation only prescribes procedures; it does not create a statutory defence. A person removed in violation of the procedures could also seek judicial review of the removal action.

The barring order notice requirements in regulation 7 could be challenged if a notice is defective. A barred person who receives an incomplete notice might argue that the barring order is unenforceable. However, the regulations do not specify that a defective notice invalidates the order.

The prohibition on public servants in regulation 10 could be challenged for vagueness if the Commissioner fails to issue a Gazette notice clearly defining the class, or if the determination is not made at all. The regulation is conditional upon the Commissioner making a determination; without it, no one is prohibited. This could be a source of uncertainty.

There is no recorded litigation in the source text, so any discussion of litigation history is speculative. The deep dive must not invent cases, so I will not name any court decisions. The analysis above identifies potential areas of legal contest, but they are hypothetical.

There are several potentially surprising or counterintuitive aspects of the regulations. First, the exclusion of compensation for seizure actions (regulation 6(6)) is a very harsh provision. A person whose property is wrongfully seized and destroyed by the Commissioner has no right to compensation, even if the seizure was unauthorised. The Commissioner can also recover costs from that person for dealing with the seized item. This means a person could be out of pocket for both the loss of their property and for the Commissioner’s costs of destroying it. The only check is that the Commissioner must release the item if the reason for seizure no longer exists, but the regulation does not require the Commissioner to consider the person’s interests in that decision.

Second, the cost recovery provision (regulation 6(5)) allows the Commissioner to recover “any reasonable costs” as a debt. There is no upper limit specified, and no requirement that costs be capped or that the person be given an opportunity to avoid costs by surrendering the item promptly. The Commissioner could accumulate storage costs over a long period and then seek recovery.

Third, the barring order notice may omit details of the barred activities or premises if the person nominates not to receive them (regulation 7(2)). This is unusual because it allows the barred person to remain ignorant of the precise scope of the restriction. This could lead to inadvertent breach because the person may not know which premises or activities are off-limits. The gambling provider or Commissioner may argue that the person waived their right to know, but that would not necessarily be a defence to a contravention charge under section 53 of the Act.

Fourth, the list of acceptable age evidence in regulation 5 is narrow and does not include digital IDs, interstate proof-of-age cards without a photograph, or foreign identity documents (other than passports). This could catch out tourists or young people who do not have one of the four listed documents. An inspector cannot accept an alternative, even if it clearly shows the person’s age. This rigidity increases the risk of denied entry or service based on a lack of accepted documentation.

Fifth, the record-keeping requirements for use of force (regulation 8(e)) require the gambling provider to retain incident records for at least one year. However, the regulation does not specify how long after that they must be kept, nor does it address destruction or privacy. The records contain personal information of multiple individuals (barred person, witnesses, police officer). There is no requirement for the provider to keep them secure or limit access. This could lead to data breaches or misuse of information.

Sixth, regulation 10 prohibits public servants holding a position of a class determined by the Commissioner by Gazette notice. The determination may not be widely published beyond the Gazette, and individual public servants may not be aware of the prohibition. There is no requirement for the Commissioner to notify affected employees personally or for employers to advise their staff. An employee could unknowingly commit an offence by placing a small wager at a TAB or playing the pokies, not knowing their position class was listed.

Seventh, the transitional provisions in Schedule 1 only preserve notices under specific sections of three Acts. Notices under other regulatory instruments may not be saved, leaving potential gaps. The Commissioner may need to reissue some notices.

Eighth, the register of barring orders under regulation 9 must include the gender identity of the barred person. This is sensitive personal data. The regulation does not provide for correction of errors, access by the subject, or limitation on retention. The register could contain old or incorrect gender identity information.

Ninth, the incident register under regulation 8(e)(iii)(C) must be retained for at least one year following the incident. However, if the incident leads to a legal proceeding, the regulation does not require retention beyond that period, potentially destroying evidence.

Tenth, the Commissioner’s power to “deal with the seized material or thing as the Commissioner thinks appropriate in the circumstances” (regulation 6(4)(c)) is extraordinarily broad. It could include selling the item, donating it, or transferring it to a third party, with no proceeds going to the original owner. Combined with the no-compensation rule, this is a very wide power.

Compliance obligations under the regulations fall into several categories: obligations of gambling providers, obligations of inspectors, obligations of the Commissioner, and obligations of individuals subject to barring orders.

For gambling providers, the main compliance tasks are under regulation 8. A gambling provider must ensure that its staff (authorised persons who are not police officers) are trained in the prescribed removal procedures. Those procedures require a verbal warning, an explanation, and a prohibition on using neck holds or restricting breathing unless in self-defence. Staff must be aware that they need to use reasonable force only. Any incident of force must be reported to the provider in writing by the authorised person (if that person is not the provider). The provider must then maintain a register of each incident. The register must contain the specific details listed in regulation 8(e)(iii)(A): date and time, the gaming manager’s name (if on licensed premises under the Gaming Machines Act), whether it was prevention of entry or removal, the authorised person’s name or ID number, grounds for force, names and addresses of the person removed and any witnesses, description of injuries, whether police attended, and a description of the incident and preceding events. The record must be dated and signed by the gambling provider and retained for at least one year. This means providers should have a standardised incident report form that captures all these fields, and a filing system to store the records for the required period. They should also have a policy for producing the records to the Commissioner upon request, though the regulations do not explicitly require that.

Gambling providers that issue barring orders must ensure that the notice given to the barred person contains all prescribed particulars under regulation 7. This includes the person’s name and address, date of birth, date and duration of the order, first date for revocation, details of the barred activities/premises, a statement about section 53, and a warning of offence. If the Commissioner makes the order, the provider may need to assist in delivering the notice. Providers should have templates for barring notices that match the regulation, and should be cautious about the provision allowing the person to nominate not to receive the scope details. The provider should document that nomination clearly to avoid later disputes.

For inspectors (and potentially other authorised persons who seize material under Part 4 of the Act), compliance under regulation 6 requires making a record of the seized item in the manner determined by the Commissioner, and giving a receipt to the person from whom it was seized immediately or as soon as practicable. The receipt must identify the item and state the inspector’s name. The inspector may then take the item to a place determined by the Commissioner for examination or storage. Inspectors should be aware that they have no authority to release or return the item; that is solely the Commissioner’s function.

For the Commissioner, compliance involves several duties: publishing prescribed statistical information (regulation 4), determining the manner of recording seized items (regulation 6(2)(a)), making decisions about retention, return, disposal, or destruction of seized items (regulation 6(4)), maintaining the barring order register with the prescribed particulars (regulation 9), and determining by Gazette notice which classes of Public Service employees are prohibited (regulation 10). The Commissioner should also ensure that barring order notices include the prescribed particulars and that the register is accurate and up to date.

For public servants who may be affected by regulation 10, the only practical step is to monitor the Gazette for any determination by the Commissioner that lists their position class. If a determination is made, they must refrain from participating in gambling activities. Employers with public service employees in the affected class may wish to notify staff directly, though the regulation does not require this.

For individuals who are subject to barring orders, they should read the notice carefully to understand the scope and duration of the bar. They should note the date on which the order may be revoked (typically after the minimum period). If they receive a notice that omits the scope details because they nominated not to receive them, they should be aware that they may not know exactly what is barred. They should contact the gambling provider or Commissioner for clarification. They must comply with the order to avoid committing an offence.

For persons from whom property is seized under regulation 6, the immediate step is to ensure they receive a receipt from the inspector. They should keep that receipt and any correspondence from the Commissioner. If they believe the seizure was improper, they should seek legal advice promptly, as the regulation excludes compensation. They should also be aware that they may be billed for costs, and should not assume the property will be returned.

Overall, the regulations impose a moderate compliance burden on gambling providers and the Commissioner, with a particular focus on record-keeping and procedural documentation. The most notable compliance traps are the no-compensation rule for seizure, the narrow age evidence list, and the opaque prohibition on public servants. Entities should review their internal policies to ensure alignment with the specific prescribed forms and procedures.