Race and Sports Bookmaking Regulation 2001

Register particulars. The regulation distinguishes between three categories of licence: race bookmaking licences (section 2), sports bookmaking licences (section 3), and agent licences for both race and sports bookmakers (section 4). For each, the commission must enter the name and address (or business address for a corporation), licence number, date of issue, period of issue, and any conditions. Agent licences also require the name and address of the person who nominated the agent. When a licence is suspended or cancelled, the commission must enter the details and the period of suspension. These entries are the public record of who is authorised to operate and under what conditions.

Disclosure to racing bodies. Section 5 requires the commission to notify five named entities whenever it issues, suspends, cancels, or ends the suspension of a licence. The entities are the ACT Racing Club Inc, the Canberra Harness Racing Club Inc, Greyhound Racing New South Wales, Harness Racing New South Wales, and Racing NSW. This ensures that peak industry bodies are aware of the status of licence holders operating within their racing codes.

Telephone betting procedure. Section 6 codifies a detailed protocol that applies when a race bookmaker or a race bookmaker’s agent accepts a bet by telephone. It is the only section that imposes direct obligations on private licensees (as opposed to the commission). The key steps are: (a) the bookmaker must use equipment approved in writing by the commission; (b) the bookmaker must tell the backer the call is being recorded; (c) the bookmaker must record the backer’s name or account number in accordance with commission directions under section 62 of the Act; (d) the bookmaker must read back the name or account number and the particulars of the bet; (e) the bookmaker must receive confirmation from the backer that those details are correct; (f) if confirmation is received, the bookmaker must give the backer the betting ticket number; (g) if confirmation is not received, the bookmaker must inform the backer the bet cannot be accepted. This creates a clear chain of verification designed to reduce disputes about what was bet and by whom.

Corresponding laws. Section 7 specifies which interstate laws are treated as corresponding laws under section 92(1)(d) of the Act. The list covers New South Wales (Betting Tax Act 2001, Betting and Racing Act 1998), Victoria (Racing Act 1958), Queensland (Racing Act 2002, Wagering Act 1998), Western Australia (Betting Control Act 1954), South Australia (Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000), Tasmania (Gaming Control Act 1993, Racing Regulation Act 2004), and the Northern Territory (Racing and Betting Act 1983). The effect is that interstate bookmakers licenced under those laws may be recognised in the ACT under the Act’s mutual recognition framework, avoiding the need for a separate ACT licence.

Prohibition on telephonic supply of pricing service information. Section 8 creates an offence: a race bookmaker engaging in race bookmaking must not supply by telephone information about betting fluctuations of the Bookmakers Pricing Service. The maximum penalty is 10 penalty units. This prevents real-time dissemination of market movements via voice calls, presumably to preserve the integrity of pricing and to prevent collusive or unfair practices. Note that the prohibition only applies to telephone supply, not to other methods such as electronic data feeds or in-person disclosure.

The ACT Gambling and Racing Commission. The commission bears the primary administrative burden under sections 2, 3, 4 and 5. It must maintain registers with the prescribed particulars, update them when licences change status, and proactively notify five racing bodies of each licence event. Failure to do so could expose the commission to judicial review or complaint, though no specific penalty is attached to the commission’s duties in the regulation itself.

Race bookmakers and their agents. Those holding a race bookmaking licence under the Act are directly affected by sections 6 and 8. They must ensure their telephone betting operations use commission-approved recording equipment, implement the read-back and confirmation procedure, and refrain from telephonically supplying Bookmakers Pricing Service fluctuations. Agents of race bookmakers are also subject to the telephone betting rules (the section refers to “a race bookmaker or a race bookmaker’s agent”). The penalty under section 8 applies only to the bookmaker, but the agent could be affected by directions or licence conditions.

Sports bookmakers and their agents. The regulation affects them principally through the register provisions (section 3 and section 4 for agent licences). The telephone betting rules in section 6 apply only to “a race bookmaker or a race bookmaker’s agent”, so sports bookmakers are not directly subject to that procedure under this regulation. However, the commission may impose similar conditions under its general powers.

Backers (persons placing bets by telephone). Backers are affected indirectly: they must hear a recording warning, must confirm their details and bet particulars, and may be refused the bet if they do not provide confirmation. The regulation gives them no private right of action if the procedure is not followed, but non-compliance could affect the validity or enforceability of the bet under the Act.

Racing bodies listed in section 5. The five entities receive notifications about licence events. This allows them to monitor which bookmakers are authorised to bet on their races and to potentially take their own disciplinary action if a bookmaker’s licence is suspended or cancelled.

Interstate bookmakers and regulators. Those operating under the corresponding laws listed in section 7 are affected because the ACT recognises those laws for mutual recognition purposes. This may reduce duplication for interstate bookmakers wishing to accept bets from ACT residents, but they must still satisfy the Act’s requirements.

Entities subject to corresponding laws. The listed Acts from NSW, Vic, Qld, WA, SA, Tas and NT are identified as corresponding laws, which means the ACT’s mutual recognition provisions treat holders of licences under those Acts as authorised in the ACT to some extent (the exact scope depends on the Act, not this regulation).

Commission’s duty to enter prescribed particulars. Under sections 2, 3 and 4, the commission “must enter” the specified particulars in the register when issuing a licence, and “must enter details” of a suspension or cancellation. This is a mandatory duty, not discretionary. The particulars include the name, address, licence number, date of issue, period, and any conditions. For agent licences, the nominator’s name and address are also required.

Commission’s duty to notify racing bodies. Section 5 requires that whenever the commission issues, suspends or cancels a licence, or ends a suspension, it “must tell” the five listed entities about the matter. The regulation does not prescribe a time frame but the language (“must tell”) implies prompt notification.

Bookmaker’s and agent’s duties regarding telephone bets. Section 6 imposes seven specific obligations (a to g) when accepting a bet by telephone. These are: (a) use commission-approved recording equipment; (b) tell the backer the conversation is being recorded; (c) record the backer’s name or account number per commission directions; (d) read back the person’s name or account number and the particulars of the bet; (e) receive confirmation from the backer; (f) if confirmed, tell the backer the betting ticket number; (g) if not confirmed, tell the backer the bet cannot be accepted. The duties apply to both the bookmaker and the agent. The regulation does not specify who bears the cost of the approved recording equipment, but it will fall on the licensee.

Bookmaker’s duty not to supply pricing service information by telephone. Section 8 imposes a prohibition: “A race bookmaker engaging in race bookmaking must not supply by telephone information about betting fluctuations of the Bookmakers Pricing Service.” The maximum penalty is 10 penalty units. This duty applies only to race bookmakers, not sports bookmakers, and only to telephone supply.

Rights. The regulation does not confer any rights on individuals. It creates duties for the commission and licensees, but no private cause of action is established. A backer who suffers loss because a bookmaker failed to follow the telephone betting procedure would need to rely on other legal avenues (contract law, the Act, or consumer protection). The regulation is purely administrative and penal.

Right of the backer to be told if bet cannot be accepted. Under section 6(g), if the backer does not confirm the read-back details, the bookmaker or agent must tell the backer that the bet cannot be accepted. This is the backer’s only explicit entitlement under the regulation.

The regulation contains only one penalty provision: section 8. The maximum penalty is 10 penalty units. Under the Legislation Act 2001, section 133, the value of a penalty unit at the republication date (12 May 2022) is $160 for an individual and $810 for a corporation. Therefore, the maximum fine under section 8 is $1,600 for an individual and $8,100 for a corporation. The offence is not a strict liability offence on its face, but no defence or excuse is specified in the regulation. The prohibition is on “supply by telephone information about betting fluctuations of the Bookmakers Pricing Service”. This is a narrow offence: it only covers telephone communication, only covers race bookmakers, and only covers fluctuations of the Bookmakers Pricing Service (not other pricing information). The commission would need to prove the elements: that the person was a race bookmaker engaged in race bookmaking, that they supplied the information by telephone, and that the information was about betting fluctuations of that specific service.

The remaining sections impose duties on the commission (sections 2-5) and on bookmakers and agents (section 6), but do not attach a penalty for non-compliance. The commission’s failure to enter particulars or notify racing bodies may be grounds for administrative review or a complaint to the Ombudsman, but is not an offence under the regulation. Similarly, a bookmaker who fails to follow the telephone betting procedure (e.g., does not use approved equipment or does not read back the bet) may be in breach of a licence condition or a commission direction, but the regulation itself does not prescribe a penalty. The Act may provide penalties for non-compliance with licence conditions or directions under section 62 of the Act, but the regulation is silent on that.

Enforcement is likely undertaken by the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission. The commission can investigate suspected breaches and prosecute offences under section 8 before the ACT Magistrates Court. It can also impose administrative sanctions under the Act, such as suspending or cancelling licences for non-compliance with this regulation (since compliance with the regulation is part of the conduct of licensed operations).

The penalty for supplying pricing service information by telephone is modest compared to potential profits from such disclosure, suggesting the provision is more of a deterrent than a revenue measure. The real enforcement threat is likely the loss of the licence for systemic breaches of the telephone betting procedure or the pricing information ban.

Race and Sports Bookmaking Act 2001 (the Act). This regulation is made under the Act, and every provision references a specific section of the Act: section 9(a) (register for race bookmaking licences), section 28(a) (register for sports bookmaking licences), sections 15(a) and 37(a) (register for agent licences), section 46(3) (disclosure of information), section 75(a) and (b) (telephone bets), and section 92(1)(d) (corresponding laws). The regulation does not duplicate the Act; it supplies the particulars and details that the Act left prescribed. Where the regulation is silent (e.g., the consequences of failing to read back a bet), the Act’s provisions on licence conditions, directions, and penalties will apply. The Act also contains general provisions about the licensing regime, duties of licensees, and commission powers.

Corresponding laws listed in section 7. Section 7 identifies which interstate laws are corresponding laws for the purposes of section 92 of the Act. This affects mutual recognition: a person licenced under one of those interstate laws may be treated as authorised in the ACT without obtaining a separate ACT licence, subject to the Act’s limitations. The list includes older Acts (e.g., Betting Control Act 1954 (WA), Racing Act 1958 (Vic)) which have likely been amended or replaced, but the regulation still prescribes them. The list has been updated by amendments: the 2016 amendment (A2016-45) and the 2022 amendment (A2022-8) modified the list, adding and removing certain laws. For example, the 2016 amendment likely removed or updated references to NSW bodies (see amendment history: s 5 was amended, s 7 amended). The current list includes nine laws from six states and one territory. Note that the ACT’s own laws are not listed because they are the source.

Legislation Act 2001 (ACT). This Act provides the framework for subordinate legislation and republication. It sets penalty unit values (used in section 8), governs the making and commencement of regulations, and authorises editorial changes. The regulation has been republished under the Legislation Act, and its amendment history shows that sections were inserted, substituted or omitted under that Act’s provisions.

Betting Tax Act 2001 (NSW) and other taxing Acts. The corresponding laws list includes a tax statute (Betting Tax Act 2001 (NSW)). This means that mutual recognition under the Act may take into account tax obligations under the corresponding law. However, the regulation does not impose any tax obligations itself.

State and territory racing legislation. The regulation’s list of corresponding laws means that the ACT will recognise licences issued under those Acts. This may create a regime where a bookmaker can operate across borders with reduced regulatory duplication. However, differences in the substantive requirements (e.g., the prohibition on telephonic supply of pricing information under section 8) still apply to anyone accepting bets from ACT residents, even if they are licenced under a corresponding law.

Fair Trading and Other Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2022 (A2022-8). This ACT amending Act substituted and inserted provisions in the regulation, notably the current sections 2 and 3. It also amended section 7. The interaction is that this regulation must be read as amended by that Act.

The regulation was originally made as the Race and Sports Bookmaking Regulations 2001 (subsequently renamed under the Legislation Act 2001). It was notified on 7 September 2001 and commenced the same day.

First republication (R1, 12 September 2001). This was the original version as notified.

Second republication (R2, 1 November 2004). The regulation was republished with editorial amendments under the Legislation Act 2001. No substantive amendments had been made by that date.

Third republication (R3, 1 September 2016). This republication incorporated amendments made by the Gaming and Racing (Red Tape Reduction) Legislation Amendment Act 2016 (A2016-45), part 5 of which commenced on 1 September 2016. That amending Act modified section 5 (disclosure of information) and section 7 (corresponding laws). The amendment to section 5 changed the list of entities to be notified; the amendment to section 7 updated the list of corresponding laws.

Fourth republication (R4, 30 April 2018). This incorporated amendments from the Racing (Greyhounds) Amendment Act 2017 (A2017-43), schedule 1 part 1.2, which commenced on 30 April 2018. The amendment to section 5 further modified the list of entities, likely replacing references to greyhound racing bodies (the Act’s name suggests it related to greyhounds). The amendment history note shows that s 5 was amended by A2017-43 amendment 1.3 and that paragraphs were renumbered by editorial changes.

Fifth republication (R5, 12 May 2022). This is the current version. It incorporates amendments from the Fair Trading and Other Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2022 (A2022-8), part 7, which commenced on 12 May 2022. That Act inserted a new section 2 (prescribed particulars for race bookmaking licence register), substituted a new section 3 (prescribed particulars for sports bookmaking licence register), and amended section 7 (corresponding laws) by two amendments (sections 214 and 215). It also resulted in the omission of the former section 9 (which had earlier been omitted by the Legislation Act itself - see amendment history: s 9 om LA s 89(3)). The current sections 2 and 3 thus date from 2022 and replaced earlier versions that had been omitted or substituted.

Omission of section 9. The regulation originally had a section 9 dealing with modification of Act, part 12 under section 100(3) of the Act. That section was omitted by the Legislation Act 2001 itself (section 89(3)), which is a standard provision that removes spent or unnecessary provisions. The exact date of that omission is unclear from the amendment history, but it was already omitted by the time of R2 (2004).

The amendment history shows that the regulation was not amended between 2004 and 2016, and then was amended three times in six years. The trend has been to update the lists of entities and corresponding laws to reflect changes in interstate legislation and administrative restructuring. The 2022 amendments (inserting sections 2 and 3) appear to have split the former single provision for register particulars into separate provisions for race and sports bookmaking licences, possibly to align with changes in the Act.

The source material , the regulation text and its endnotes , contains no reference to any litigation history. The regulation is a procedural instrument that has been amended several times without apparent court challenge. This is not surprising: subordinate legislation dealing with administrative registers, telephone betting procedures, and lists of corresponding laws rarely becomes the subject of litigation. Disputes are more likely to arise under the Act itself, concerning licence decisions or bet disputes, rather than under the specific prescriptions of this regulation.

If litigation were to occur, it might involve the interpretation of section 6 (what constitutes “approved in writing by the commission” for recording equipment), or whether a bookmaker complied with the read-back requirement. A backer who lost a bet might argue that the bookmaker’s failure to follow the telephone betting procedure invalidated the bet. However, the regulation does not expressly state that failure to comply renders the bet void; it only imposes a duty and a separate offence (section 8). The interaction with contract law and the Act’s provisions on betting contracts would be complex.

The corresponding laws list (section 7) might be litigated if a person claimed mutual recognition under the Act and the commission argued the interstate law was not a corresponding law because it had been amended or replaced. The regulation’s list is fixed but can be updated by amendment. A court would likely interpret the list as prescribing the specific Acts as they exist from time to time, but the issue could arise.

Section 8’s prohibition on telephonic supply of Bookmakers Pricing Service fluctuations could be challenged on the basis of whether the information was “about betting fluctuations” or whether the service referred to was still operating. Again, no case law is recorded.

The lack of litigation history may indicate that the regulation is well understood and uncontroversial, or that disputes are resolved administratively. It could also mean that the regulation imposes low compliance burdens relative to the stakes, so licence holders do not find it worthwhile to challenge its validity.

Recording equipment must be approved in writing. Section 6(a) requires that a bookmaker or agent “record the bet using equipment approved in writing by the commission.” This is not a generic requirement to record; it requires specific pre-approval. A bookmaker who uses a standard telephone recording system without the commission’s written approval violates the procedure, potentially affecting the validity of the bet record. The approval must be in writing; verbal or implicit approval is insufficient.

No exception for overseas backers. The telephone betting procedure applies whenever “a race bookmaker or a race bookmaker’s agent is to accept a bet from a person (the backer) by telephone.” There is no exemption for backers calling from outside the ACT or Australia. The requirement to use commission-approved equipment and to give a recording warning applies even if the backer is in a jurisdiction where such recording is illegal or if the backer objects.

Consequences of failed confirmation. Section 6(e) requires the bookmaker to “receive confirmation from the backer that the details mentioned in paragraph (d) are correct.” If the backer does not confirm, section 6(g) says the bookmaker “must tell the backer that the bet cannot be accepted.” There is no discretion: the bet must be rejected. A bookmaker who proceeds with the bet despite lack of confirmation would be in breach of the regulation, even if later the backer confirms by another means. The regulation does not allow for alternative verification methods.

Prohibition on pricing service information is absolute. Section 8 says a race bookmaker “must not supply by telephone information about betting fluctuations of the Bookmakers Pricing Service.” The prohibition applies regardless of whether the information is already public, whether the recipient is also a bookmaker, and whether the call is recorded. It is an absolute prohibition with no exceptions for emergency or for internal business purposes. The term “betting fluctuations” is not defined; it could include any movement in odds, prices, or market percentages.

Corresponding laws may be outdated. Section 7 lists several Acts that may have been repealed or renamed. For example, the Betting Tax Act 2001 (NSW) was repealed in 2017 and its provisions moved to other legislation. The Racing Act 1958 (Vic) has been heavily amended. The regulation still prescribes these as corresponding laws, which could create uncertainty about mutual recognition. The commission would need to interpret the reference to include successor Acts, but the text is static.

Agent licences require nominator details. Section 4(1)(b) requires the commission to enter “the name and address of the person who nominated the person for the licence.” This means an agent cannot hold a licence in their own right; they must be nominated by a licensed bookmaker. The commission must record the nominator’s details, which become public information on the register.

No time limit for commission notification. Section 5 requires the commission to tell the racing bodies about licence events, but does not specify a time frame. A delay in notification could prejudice the racing bodies’ ability to act. The commission could be subject to criticism for delay but no penalty applies.

Penalty for section 8 is on the bookmaker only. The offence only applies to “a race bookmaker engaging in race bookmaking.” An agent who supplies pricing information by telephone is not caught by section 8, though they may be in breach of licence conditions or a commission direction. Similarly, a sports bookmaker is not covered by the section.

For the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission, compliance involves maintaining accurate registers under sections 2, 3 and 4. When a licence is issued, the commission should immediately create an entry containing all prescribed particulars. When a licence is suspended or cancelled, the commission should update the register with details including the period of suspension. The commission should also ensure that, whenever any licence event occurs, it promptly notifies each of the five entities listed in section 5: ACT Racing Club Inc, Canberra Harness Racing Club Inc, Greyhound Racing New South Wales, Harness Racing New South Wales, and Racing NSW. A standardised notification form should be used, and proof of delivery should be kept.

For race bookmakers and their agents, compliance with section 6 requires a systematic approach. First, obtain written approval from the commission for the telephone recording equipment to be used; do not assume that any commercially available recording system will suffice. The equipment must be configured to capture the entire conversation, including the warning and the read-back. Second, train all staff who take bets by telephone on the mandatory steps: they must begin each call by telling the caller the call is being recorded; they must ask for and record the caller’s name or account number (following any commission directions); they must read back the caller’s name or account number and the full particulars of the bet (e.g., event, selection, stake, odds); they must obtain a clear verbal confirmation from the caller; if confirmed, they must provide the betting ticket number; if not confirmed, they must inform the caller the bet cannot be accepted and not process it. All recordings should be retained in accordance with any applicable data retention laws and commission directions.

Third, for section 8, ensure that no employee or agent of the bookmaker telephonically communicates any information about the betting fluctuations of the Bookmakers Pricing Service. This includes not only odds changes but any discussion of market movement. Staff should be instructed to direct all such queries to in-person or electronic channels if permitted by other laws. A robust training program and periodic audits are advisable.

For sports bookmakers and their agents, the regulatory obligations are lighter: they need not comply with section 6 (which applies only to race bookmakers) but must ensure their particulars are entered in the register under section 3 (for corporations) and section 4 (for agents). They should verify with the commission that the register entries are accurate.

All licensees should regularly review the corresponding laws list in section 7 to understand the interstate recognition framework, and should monitor amendments to the regulation (the ACT legislation register is the official source). Any change to the list could affect their ability to rely on mutual recognition.

Finally, maintain a compliance log documenting commission approvals for recording equipment, training records for telephone betting staff, and internal audits of telephone bet handling. While the regulation does not explicitly require such logs, they will be useful in defending against any allegation of non-compliance.