TOTALISATOR LICENSING AND REGULATION REGULATIONS 2000

Totalisator wagering is betting on a race or event where all wagers of a particular type are pooled, the operator deducts a commission, and the remainder is paid to winning bettors proportionally. The term is not defined in the Regulations themselves but is central to the Act. The Regulations assume the reader understands the difference between totalisator wagering and fixed-odds wagering; this instrument deals only with the former.

Commission is the deduction a licensee takes from the totalisator pool before paying out winners. Regulation 10 prescribes the commission for the purposes of section 31D(1) of the Act at 14.5%. This is a maximum or standard figure depending on the Act’s operation; the Regulations do not say whether it is a cap or a floor. The wagering tax under regulation 3 is calculated as a percentage of the licensee’s commission deducted for a month, not as a percentage of the total amount wagered. This means the tax base is narrower than gross turnover. The tax rate varies by event type and location. For thoroughbred, harness, and greyhound races , the core products , the rate is 40% of commission. For other Australian events it is 20%; for offshore events it is 10%. This creates a strong incentive for licensees to maximise offshore wagering volume relative to domestic and to emphasise non-greyhound/thoroughbred products. It also gives an advantage to operators who can book events as “occurring outside Australia” under the wording.

Revenue units are used to set the application fee in regulation 2A. The Northern Territory Interpretation Act defines a revenue unit as an indexed amount; the current value is published by the Treasurer. This means the fee increases automatically with inflation without requiring a regulation amendment, reducing the need for frequent legislative updates but imposing a predictable escalation on applicants.

Penalty units are used in regulations 4 and 9(2). The NT Penalties (Sentencing) Act sets the dollar value; currently $157 per unit. So 50 units equals $7,850 and 20 units equals $3,140. These are modest penalties by Australian white-collar regulatory standards, suggesting the Regulations treat breaches of premises-control directions and the Director’s fining power as lower-tier offences.

Associates are relevant to licence applications under regulation 2(n). The term is not defined in the Regulations but is likely defined in the Act. Applicants must list their associates, which typically includes shareholders, directors, and other entities connected with the applicant. This is a probity measure intended to allow the Director to assess the character and fitness of all persons with significant influence over the licensee.

The Regulations directly affect a small but commercially significant group: current and prospective totalisator licensees in the Northern Territory, their agents, operators, and associates. The NT is a major hub for Australian corporate bookmakers and totalisator operators due to its relatively light regulatory environment and low tax rates compared to states like Victoria or New South Wales. The wagering tax regime in regulation 3 is a key factor in that competitiveness. Licensees are the primary targets of the substantive obligations: they must pay wagering tax, comply with responsible wagering standards the Director sets under regulation 8, and ensure their agents and operators control conduct on premises under regulation 9.

Applicants for a licence (section 14 of the Act) must provide the information listed in regulation 2. This includes personal details for natural persons, corporate structure and director names for companies, club or body corporate officer details, business names, ABN, payroll tax status, contact addresses, associate lists, and technical details of proposed totalisator equipment and monitoring systems. The application fee under regulation 2A is 20,000 revenue units (approximately $26,000 as at 2024). This creates a high upfront barrier to entry, which limits the number of applicants to entities with substantial capital. It also gives an advantage to incumbents by raising the cost of challenging their licences.

The Director (a statutory office holder under the Act) is given powers to impose fines up to 50 penalty units (regulation 4), to disclose information to listed bodies (regulation 5), to promote responsible wagering through methods including making standards and imposing licence conditions (regulation 8), and to require licensee attendance at training courses. The Director does not directly handle wagering operations but exercises oversight.

NT TAB Pty Ltd, UNiTAB Limited, and Tattersall’s Limited are exempted from Part 10 of the Act, but only while UNiTAB holds a Queensland wagering licence (regulation 6). Part 10 is not reproduced in the Regulations, but the exemption suggests it imposes obligations that would otherwise apply to these entities. The condition linking exemption to a Queensland licence means the exemption expires if UNiTAB ceases to hold that licence, potentially importing Queensland regulatory decisions into NT law.

Problem gamblers are indirectly affected by regulation 8, which permits the Director to assist community welfare organisations to counsel problem gamblers, to encourage self-exclusion, and to require licensees to attend responsible wagering training. These measures impose costs on licensees (training, compliance with standards) but deliver diffuse benefits to gamblers and the community.

Persons causing disturbance on licensee or agent premises are subject to removal under regulation 9(1) and face a penalty of up to 20 penalty units for failing to leave when requested. This affects patrons and any individual on premises, not just gamblers.

Applicants must provide the information specified in regulation 2 in connection with their licence application. There is no discretion to omit any item; the Director cannot accept an incomplete application. This is a mandatory duty on the applicant, not just a guideline. Failure to provide accurate information could have consequences under the Act for false statements.

Licensees must pay wagering tax monthly at the rates in regulation 3. The tax is calculated on commission deducted, not on turnover. The rates vary: 40% on thoroughbred/harness/greyhound (all locations), 20% on other Australian events, 10% on other offshore events. The duty is to pay the correct percentage based on correct classification of each event. There is no stated exemption for small licensees or new entrants. The tax is not a flat percentage of all wagering; it depends on the mix of event types and jurisdictions. This creates a compliance burden to classify and record each event correctly.

The Director has the right, under regulation 8, to promote responsible wagering through eight listed methods. The Director may impose standards as licence conditions (paragraph (j)). This means a licensee’s obligations can be extended at the Director’s discretion without further legislative change. Licensees must comply with any such conditions. The Director also has the right to disclose information to auditors, revenue commissioners, police, and overseas regulators under regulation 5. This overrides any general confidentiality obligations the Director might otherwise have. There is no requirement to notify the licensee or affected person before disclosure.

Licensees, operators, and agents have the right under regulation 9(1) to request a person causing disturbance to leave premises and to use necessary assistance to remove them if they refuse. This is a private right of exclusion, not a police power, but the offence in regulation 9(2) backs it up: a person who fails to leave commits an offence. The licensee does not have to prove actual harm; only that the conduct caused disturbance, annoyance, or interference with the comfort of others. This is a broad discretion. It allows licensees to control their premises without resorting to criminal trespass laws.

Exempt entities (NT TAB, UNiTAB, Tattersall’s) have a right to be exempt from Part 10 of the Act, subject to the Queensland licence condition. This reduces their regulatory burden relative to other licensees. It also creates a potential inequality: two licensees offering the same services may face different regulatory requirements depending on corporate group structure.

Licensees must comply with any responsible wagering standards the Director establishes and imposes as a licence condition under regulation 8(h) and (j). The duty is ongoing; the Director can change standards over time. There is no limit on the scope of standards; they must merely be designed to ensure probity and protect bettors.

The Regulations create two penalty provisions. First, regulation 4 prescribes a maximum fine of 50 penalty units that the Director may impose under section 70(2)(d) of the Act. This is a civil or administrative penalty, not a criminal conviction. The Director can impose it without a court proceeding, subject to any procedural requirements in the Act. The amount is modest (about $7,850), so it functions as a low-level deterrent for compliance breaches rather than a serious financial sanction. The Director’s fining power is limited to this amount; more serious breaches would likely be prosecuted under the Act’s higher penalties or result in licence suspension or cancellation.

Second, regulation 9(2) creates an offence for a person who fails to comply with a request to leave premises under regulation 9(1). The maximum penalty is 20 penalty units (about $3,140). This is a criminal offence, though summary and low-level. The onus would be on the prosecution to prove the person was on the premises, was requested to leave, and failed to do so. The licensee or agent making the request does not need to show the person actually committed a crime; the threshold is “disturbance or annoyance” which is subjective and low. This gives significant control to licensees but could lead to disputes about reasonableness. There is no defence of lawful presence or that the request was unreasonable. The provision effectively delegates a form of ejectment power to private operators, backed by state criminal sanction.

Enforcement of the wagering tax (regulation 3) would likely be through the Act’s provisions for tax recovery, or through the Director’s powers. The Regulations do not specify interest, penalties for late payment, or audit rights for the tax. Those would be in the Act or other NT tax laws. The Director can also impose standards and licence conditions under regulation 8; non-compliance with a condition could lead to licence suspension or cancellation under the Act, which is a more severe enforcement tool than the 50-unit fine.

The maximum fine for failing to leave premises (20 units) is lower than the Director’s maximum fine (50 units). This suggests the drafters regarded non-compliance with a Director’s direction as more serious than disturbing patrons. However, the Director’s fine is administrative whereas the premises offence is criminal, so the latter carries reputational and procedural consequences.

The Regulations do not provide for any private right of action. Enforcement is solely by the Director or police. The Commissioner of Territory Revenue can access information under regulation 5 for tax purposes, but cannot directly enforce the wagering tax provisions themselves.

The Regulations sit entirely under the Totalisator Licensing and Regulation Act 2000 (NT). They are made pursuant to specific provisions of that Act (sections 14(2), 31D(1), 34, 70(2)(d), 101(1), 111(1), and others). The Act provides the substantive regulatory framework; the Regulations only fill in prescribed details. Any amendment to the Act would require consequential changes to the Regulations if the prescribed matters change.

Regulation 2(e) requires applicants to disclose registered business names under the Business Names Registration Act 2011 (Cth). This links the NT regulatory scheme to the Commonwealth business names register, ensuring that the Director can verify the trading names under which the applicant operates. It also means a change in Commonwealth registration would need to be notified.

Regulation 5 permits disclosure of information to the Commissioner of Territory Revenue as defined in section 3(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 2007 (NT). This allows the NT tax office to access wagering data for broader revenue purposes, including potential use in payroll tax or other assessments. It also permits disclosure to police forces of the Commonwealth, states, and territories, as well as foreign regulatory bodies with corresponding functions. This is a broad information-sharing power. There is no reciprocity requirement for foreign bodies; the Director only needs that the body has powers corresponding to his own under an Act of a foreign country. This could extend to agencies in jurisdictions with lower privacy standards.

Regulation 6 ties the exemption from Part 10 of the Act to the Queensland Wagering Act 1998. If Queensland amends or repeals that Act, or if UNiTAB loses its licence, the exemption ceases. This makes NT law contingent on Queensland regulatory decisions, an unusual interjurisdictional dependency. It likely reflects the historical corporate structure of UNiTAB and Tattersall’s, but it creates an ongoing risk for those entities.

Regulation 10 prescribes the commission under section 31D(1) of the Act, which was inserted by the Racing and Wagering Act 2024. That amending Act may have changed other parts of the Act that affect how commission is calculated or what a licensee can deduct. The Regulations alone do not reveal the full picture.

Regulation 9’s powers to remove persons from premises are similar to common law rights of licensees to evict trespassers, but here they are codified and backed by a criminal penalty. The provision may overlap with the NT Summary Offences Act or public order laws. A person removed could also be charged under other laws for the original disturbance.

The prescribed percentage in regulation 7 (5% under section 111(1)) is too cryptic to analyse without the Act. It may relate to gambling limits, deductions, or probity thresholds. Its interaction with other laws depends entirely on the Act.

The Regulations were originally notified on 16 June 2000 and commenced on the same day. They have been amended many times, mostly by subsequent Acts of the NT Parliament and by amending regulations. The key amendments are:

• Statute Law Revision Act 2002 (NT) amended regulation 4 (maximum fine) to update penalty unit references following generic penalty reforms.

• Totalisator Licensing and Regulation Amendment Regulations 2006 substituted a new regulation 6, which narrowed the exemption from Part 10 of the Act to three named entities and added the Queensland licence condition. Previously the exemption may have been broader.

• Revenue Law Reform (Budget Initiatives) Act 2008 amended regulation 5 to change the reference from the former Revenue Commissioner to the Commissioner of Territory Revenue under the new Taxation Administration Act 2007.

• Payroll Tax Act 2009 (NT) amended regulation 2 to include a question about whether the applicant pays payroll tax or other Territory taxes, reflecting the NT’s interest in collecting payroll tax from licensees operating in the Territory.

• Business Names (National Uniform Legislation) Implementation Act 2012 amended regulation 2 to replace references to the former NT business names register with the Commonwealth Business Names Registration Act 2011.

• Totalisator Licensing and Regulation Amendment Regulations 2013 inserted new regulation 2A setting the application fee at 20,000 revenue units. This was a significant increase from whatever the previous fee was.

• Licensing (Repeals and Consequential Amendments) Act 2014 amended regulations 4, 5, and 8 to update references following the abolition of the Racing Commission and transfer of functions to the Director.

• Penalties Amendment (Justice and Treasury Legislation) Act 2010 amended regulation 9 to update penalty unit references.

• Statute Law Revision Act 2017 made a minor amendment to regulation 9.

• Licensing (Director-General) Repeal Act 2020 amended regulations 4, 5, and 8 to remove references to the Director-General and substitute the Director, following a restructuring of NT licensing agencies.

• Racing and Wagering Act 2024 inserted new regulation 10 prescribing a 14.5% commission for section 31D(1). This is the most recent amendment, effective 1 July 2024.

The Regulations have been amended roughly every two to four years, mostly to update names of bodies and penalty units. Substantive changes to the tax rates, fee amounts, and exemptions have been rare. The wagering tax rates in regulation 3 have not been amended since the original 2000 version, despite significant changes in the gambling market.

The Regulations themselves have not been the subject of any reported litigation in the Northern Territory Supreme Court or High Court of Australia, based on the text provided. The source does not cite any cases. This is unsurprising given that regulations of this kind are typically administrative and rarely challenged directly. Any litigation would likely involve the Act rather than the Regulations. An applicant might challenge the Director’s refusal to grant a licence, but the Regulations only prescribe what must accompany the application; they do not set criteria for refusal. A licensee might dispute a wagering tax assessment, but that would turn on the Act’s tax provisions and the proper classification of events under regulation 3. The prescribed commission in regulation 10 could be challenged if it is alleged to exceed what the Act permits, though the Act’s section 31D(1) would need to be read.

The exemption in regulation 6 could theoretically be challenged by a non-exempt licensee arguing that it creates an unequal regulatory burden, but the NT Parliament has broad power to make exemptions. The disturbance offence in regulation 9(2) could be prosecuted in local court; any defence appeals would be at the magistrate level and unlikely to reach higher courts unless a constitutional issue arises (e.g., whether the offence is an invalid delegation of police powers to private operators). No such case is recorded in the source.

The absence of litigation history does not mean the Regulations are uncontroversial. It may indicate that disputes are resolved administratively or settled before reaching court. The wagering tax rates in regulation 3 are a material cost and could be the subject of informal lobbying or review, but the source does not show any court challenge.

Revenue unit indexing - The application fee in regulation 2A is 20,000 revenue units, not a fixed dollar amount. Applicants must check the current revenue unit value (published by the NT Treasurer) at the time of application. If they budget based on an outdated assumption, they may be short. The fee increases annually with CPI, so the real cost rises over time. This indexing also means the fee is the same regardless of the scale or profitability of the proposed operation.

Wagering tax rate variation by event location - Regulation 3 creates three tax tiers. The lowest rate (10%) applies only to “races other than those referred to in paragraph (a) and prescribed events, sports and activities occurring outside Australia.” That means any thoroughbred, harness, or greyhound race wherever it occurs attracts 40%. Non-purebred events (e.g., camel races, foot races, novelty events) that occur offshore attract 10%, but only if they are not “prescribed” by the Act. The definition of prescribed events is not in the Regulations; licensees must cross-reference the Act to know whether a given offshore event falls into the 10% or 20% bracket. Misclassification could lead to underpayment and penalties under the Act.

Exemption expiry - Regulation 6 exempts NT TAB, UNiTAB, and Tattersall’s from Part 10, but only while UNiTAB holds a Queensland wagering licence. If UNiTAB loses that licence (e.g., through a merger, cancellation, or regulatory change in Queensland), all three entities lose their exemption. Licensees cannot control this condition, as it depends on a regulatory decision in another jurisdiction. This creates a risk for those entities that is outside their direct control.

Prescribed commission of 14.5% - Regulation 10 sets the commission at 14.5% for the purposes of section 31D(1) of the Act. Without access to that section, it is unclear whether this is a maximum, a default, or a minimum. If it is a maximum, licensees cannot deduct more than 14.5% from the pool. That would reduce their gross revenue and increase the effective tax burden as a percentage of turnover. If it is a minimum, they must deduct at least that much, which could disadvantage bettors. Practitioners must read the Act to understand the effect.

Self-exclusion and premises control - Regulation 8(f) allows the Director to encourage self-exclusion and assist in excluding persons from premises. Regulation 9 gives licensees the right to remove persons causing disturbance. However, there is no obligation in the Regulations to exclude self-excluded persons. A licensee who knowingly lets a self-excluded person wager might breach a responsible wagering standard imposed under regulation 8, but there is no automatic duty. Bettors cannot rely on these regulations to force exclusion.

No statutory timeframes - The Regulations do not impose any deadlines on the Director for processing applications, imposing fines, or approving responsible wagering standards. This gives the Director significant discretion and could lead to delays. Applicants have no recourse under the Regulations for slow processing; they would need to rely on administrative law principles.

Associate disclosure - Regulation 2(n) requires a list of the applicant’s associates. The term is broad and could include passive shareholders, financiers, and even consultants. Failure to list all associates, even inadvertently, could be grounds to refuse or revoke a licence. Applicants should err on the side of over-disclosure.

Step 1: Prepare a complete licence application - Any entity applying for a totalisator licence under section 14 of the Act must gather all the information listed in regulation 2. This includes: full name and addresses for natural persons; corporate structure, directors, Public Officer, shareholding details for companies; officer names and head office address for clubs or bodies corporate; any registered business names under the Commonwealth Act; ABN; confirmation of payroll tax status in the Territory; a service address for documents; business phone, email, and website; a list of associates; and detailed technical specifications of the totalisator equipment and monitoring systems. The applicant must pay the prescribed fee of 20,000 revenue units (check current value) at the time of application. No application is valid without all items.

Step 2: Maintain accurate event classification records - Once licensed, the licensee must pay wagering tax monthly under regulation 3. Compliance requires a system that correctly classifies each race or event by type (thoroughbred/harness/greyhound vs. other) and by location (Australia vs. outside Australia). Records must show commission deducted for each category. The 40% rate applies to thoroughbred, harness, and greyhound races regardless of location. The 20% rate applies to other Australian events; the 10% rate applies to other offshore events. Licensees should cross-reference the Act to identify “prescribed events” that may alter the classification under paragraph (b) or (c).

Step 3: Respect information-sharing limits - The Director may disclose information or documents to auditors, the Commissioner of Territory Revenue, police, and foreign regulators under regulation 5. Licensees should be aware that information provided to the Director is not confidential from these bodies. No consent is required. If a licensee wants to protect commercial information, they should avoid including it in mandatory disclosures unless required by the Act. Once disclosed, the Director can pass it on.

Step 4: Monitor exemption conditions - If the licensee is NT TAB, UNiTAB, or Tattersall’s, it must ensure that UNiTAB continues to hold a wagering licence under the Wagering Act 1998 (Qld). If that licence is surrendered, suspended, or cancelled, the exemption under regulation 6 ceases. Legal counsel should monitor Queensland regulatory developments and be prepared to comply with Part 10 of the Act if needed.

Step 5: Comply with responsible wagering standards - The Director may establish standards under regulation 8 and impose them as licence conditions. Licensees must monitor any standards issued and ensure their operations comply. This may include staff training, self-exclusion programs, advertising restrictions, or probity measures. Licensees should designate a compliance officer to track Director communications.

Step 6: Control premises conduct - Licensees, operators, and agents may exercise the power under regulation 9 to request disruptive persons to leave and to remove them if they refuse. The power should be exercised reasonably; any use of force must be necessary and proportionate. Licensees should train staff not to escalate situations beyond the regulation’s scope. A person who fails to leave after a request commits an offence; licensees can call police to enforce the penalty. However, licensees are not required to call police; they can simply remove the person with assistance.

Step 7: Review commission deduction rate - Under regulation 10, the prescribed commission for the purposes of section 31D(1) is 14.5%. Licensees should ensure their totalisator system deducts no more (or no less, depending on the Act) than that percentage from each pool. Any deviation could breach the Act. Legal advice is needed to confirm whether 14.5% is a cap, a floor, or a mandatory rate.

Step 8: Stay updated on amendments - The Regulations are amended periodically, usually to update references to penalty units, revenue units, or names of bodies. Licensees should check the NT legislation register for the current version at least annually. The wagering tax rates have not changed since 2000, but any future amendment to regulation 3 would have a direct financial impact.