Tasmania is in the middle of a slow, sometimes contested, period of gambling reform. The state government dropped a flagship harm-reduction measure that once got widespread attention: mandatory cashless gaming cards designed to cap how much people can lose on pokies. The proposal first emerged in 2022 and was touted as nation-leading, with potential loss limits such as $100 per day or $5,000 per year. By mid-2025, the scheme was paused indefinitely after ministers said they wanted a coordinated national approach rather than Tasmania acting alone. That decision frustrated public health advocates who saw it as a missed chance to reduce harm immediately.
The broader regulatory framework in Tasmania still prioritises licensed gambling and consumer protection. The Gaming Control Act 1993 sets out how casinos, electronic gaming machines (EGMs), sports betting and wagering are controlled in the state. The legislation emphasises fair and transparent conduct, and protecting people from exploitation and harm, especially those vulnerable or at risk. It also establishes the Tasmanian Liquor and Gaming Commission, which oversees compliance and enforcement.
Codes of practice, exclusion schemes and training
Tasmania has also developed a responsible gambling code that assists in the identification of problem gambling characteristics, thus providing an informed choice to gamblers. The Responsible Gambling Mandatory Code of Practice was revised in 2024 to require the provision of adequate staff training in harm minimisation. Customer risk behaviours are also being improved in training frequency to be more accurately identified.
Tasmania also runs an exclusion scheme, a registry of people who choose or are directed to ban themselves from gambling venues. That scheme aims to protect those who acknowledge they have a problem or are at risk. A data breach of the exclusion database in March 2025 highlighted the sensitivity and vulnerability of personal information tied to harm minimisation systems; the regulator responded by securing the system and launching an investigation.
Tasmanian officials also interact with national consumer protection initiatives. Tasmania participates in the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering, which sets minimum consumer protections for online betting and wagering providers across Australia. This framework mandates tools to help players take control of their activity and restricts conduct by providers that would otherwise fuel harm.
What Tasmanians think and what critics contest
Public health advocates and some community groups argue Tasmania’s reforms do not go far enough. Organisations like TasCOSS, a social services peak body, warned that delaying pre-commitment cards could lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional losses on pokies and harm to thousands of people and families. They have urged the introduction of other safer machine features, such as betting limits and slower spin speeds, to reduce harm while broader reforms are pursued.
Independent MPs have pushed for bans on gambling advertising and sponsorship across all state–owned or state-funded venues and events. They frame gambling promotion as a public health issue similar to tobacco marketing, urging tighter restrictions to prevent normalising gambling, especially among young people. Some surveys cited in proposals show strong public support for limits on gambling ads, particularly online ads.
Talk about gambling harm is not confined to Tasmania. Around Australia, reforms to marketing, loss limits and player protections remain contentious, and states differ widely in how much they regulate casinos, sports betting and pokies.
Licensing transparency and regulator roles
Across the world, gambling regulators and jurisdictions have taken different approaches to consumer protection and harm minimisation. In Europe, regulatory regimes often combine strong licensing standards with data protection and responsible gaming obligations. Under EU directives like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD), operators must protect customer data and implement robust anti-money-laundering measures. Each country’s gambling authority also enforces strict licensing conditions and player protections appropriate to that jurisdiction.
In the UK, gambling laws require operators to hold licences from the UK Gambling Commission, which enforces consumer protections such as mandatory self-exclusion schemes, deposit limits and coherent advertising rules. Recent reforms include tighter financial checks for high-spending players and consent requirements for marketing messages, implemented to curb excessive play and protect vulnerable gamblers.
When you look at licensing and safer play disclosures, there are resources that list how jurisdictions differ in regulatory expectations. Casino.org is one example of a site that comprehensively lists the best casino sites and bonuses in Australia and New Zealand, including details about where operators are licensed and what consumer protections they must meet under those licences. Its extensive guides cover recognised regulators and how they differ around the world, helping readers understand why some markets emphasise player safety more than others.
Consumer protection tools abroad
Many countries have built-in measures either in the gambling system or implemented by the operator. The self-exclusion program allows a player to exclude themselves from all operators in a particular region. Some accounts have mandatory limits for deposits and losses, which help a player control their spending. There are certain parts of Europe where reviews and academic literature suggest the need to set limits on responsible gambling practices, although this is subject to the discretion of member states.
The diverse approaches show a tension between consumer autonomy and regulatory oversight. Some markets favour stringent controls that proactively curb high-risk play. Others rely more on voluntary programs and consumer education.
Media responsibility and public debate
Media reporting and commentary influence how gambling issues are perceived. In Tasmania, critics of reform point to delayed harm-minimisation measures and rising calls for ad bans as evidence that more decisive action could protect communities. Internationally, coverage of gambling harm and regulatory change often frames gambling as a public health concern, emphasising stories of individuals affected by addiction alongside policy shifts. This framing can pressure governments to adopt stricter rules or enhance consumer safeguards.
How media outlets handle gambling stories matters. Balanced reporting on the experiences of those harmed, the economic interests involved, and regulatory detail gives communities context to judge reforms. Without that depth, debates can become polarised or shallow.
Where reforms might go next
Tasmania’s gambling reforms will likely continue to evolve. The state government has reaffirmed its commitment to harm minimisation, even as it shelved some measures. Ongoing proposals for advertising restrictions and improved exclusion schemes indicate that public pressure has not dissipated.
Comparing Tasmania with international examples reveals that consumer protection and media responsibility matter in shaping both policy and public understanding. The mix of local debate and global context suggests that Tasmanian reforms will stay in view long after current measures hit the headlines.
