Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to comment on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report Regulation of the use of financial services such as credit cards and digital wallets for online gambling in Australia. I think this was good work by the committee and I fully support the three recommendations from the report. The first recommendation, which I support, recommends:

… the Australian Government prioritise the collection of data on online gambling in Australia, including the size and growth of the online gambling market, online gambling with credit, and the extent and nature of the associated harms.

The second recommendation, which I also support, recommends:

… the Australian Government develop and implement legislation to ban online gambling service providers of wagering, gaming and other gambling services (but not lotteries) from accepting payment by credit cards, including via digital wallets.

The third recommendation, which I support, recommends:

… Australian Government ensure that, in designing and implementing recommendation 2, these measures have no adverse consequences for lotteries, including the activities of not-for-profits, charities and newsagents.

As good as all that is, regrettably, it doesn't go nearly far enough. We have had an explosion of online and sports betting in this country, requiring the most conscientious attention by the federal government and the implementation of a raft of harm-minimisation measures, because we don't want online and sports betting to become like poker machines. While it has been out there for some years now, it's a relatively emerging form of gambling. There has been a rapid uptake of this form of gambling, particularly by younger people and younger men, and we have an opportunity to intervene reasonably early in the evolution of this form of gambling to make sure that the most effective harm-minimisation measures are in place.

The obvious thing to regulate is to require the Australian online gambling companies to link their precommitment arrangements in real time so that when any gambler reaches their daily limit on one platform they are shut out of all platforms provided by Australian online gambling companies. We need to do that because at the moment we have a ludicrous situation where someone who in good faith has set a daily limit with one gambling company can, when they reach that gambling limit, close that app and open the app of another Australian gambling provider. They can gamble away and maybe reach the limit on that one, and then close that app and go to the next app—and, before you know it, a gambler, particularly a gambling addict, can have maxed out on all of the Australian companies and have lost much more than they can possibly afford. If the companies were to link their lockout arrangements in real time then that would go a very long way towards protecting Australian gamblers.

I've discussed this—I won't name names or identify the company—with leaders in the industry, and they tell me that the technology exists, that it could be done quickly and that it would cost very little money. So here we have an initiative which I urge the government to embrace. The industry can do it. The public wants it. It won't cost much money, and it will protect gamblers, particularly problem gamblers. Remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that gambling addicts, when asked to set a daily limit when they're not in the zone, will normally set a sensible limit. When they're not in the zone, gambling addicts often know that they have an addiction, want to do everything possible to deal with that addiction, and will set sensible limits. It was the same way back in 2010, 2011 and 2012, when I was campaigning for mandatory precommitment on poker machines—the knowledge that gambling addicts in their lucid moments set sensible limits. If they're going to set a sensible limit then we need to ensure that the industry implements that limit across all of the platforms.

Also, we really need to ban, or at least rein in, the advertising of these online gambling companies. Frankly, the community is sick to death of being bombarded with ads, particularly at either end of a sporting game on a Sunday night, a Saturday afternoon or whatever. We have the ridiculous situation in Australia where gambling advertising is banned during G-rated television times but there's an exemption—a carve-out, if you will—for gambling advertising either side of sports events, which of course is when an enormous number of children are actually watching the telly. They've turned it on, they're sitting down, they've got a bag of crisps and the game's about to start, and then those little children are bombarded with gambling ads. And they're gambling ads that are associated with their sporting heroes and the code of sport they love. It's obviously unacceptable.

We've also got to stop predatory behaviour by these companies. I am aware of gambling addicts who have shut down accounts with one online gambling company, only to be cold-called by an industry insider who encourages them to set up an account with another gambling company. They eventually close down that account, only to be cold-called by someone within the industry who encourages them to open another account with another company. There is clearly mischief going on within the online and sports betting sector. I don't know what it is, but somehow people are collecting lists of names and they are using them quite mischievously to pray on gambling addicts. We need to clamp down on that somehow.

We also need online gambling companies to be alert to gamblers gambling with the proceeds of crime. When it is discovered that an online gambler is gambling with the proceeds of crime, the gambling companies need to be required to pay that money back to the victims of that crime. Not that long ago, in fact, I moved a private member's bill in this place that would have required gambling companies to repay the proceeds of crime. Regrettably, it received no support from the government and no support from the opposition. For the life of me I can't understand why that would be the case. We appreciate more broadly that proceeds of crime should be repaid but not when it comes to the gambling industry, it seems—they're different; they shouldn't have that obligation. I strongly disagree with that and condemn the government and the opposition for not supporting that private member's bill.

Another bill that I tried to progress in this place—again, it has lapsed, having received no support from the government or the opposition—was for a ban on social casinos, those ridiculous games where people pay online to gamble but can't win anything in return. It is just bizarre. People are playing gambling type games online, paying money to participate in the game, but at the other end there is no tangible winning to withdraw. We might all think: 'That's just ridiculous. Who on earth would gamble like that?' The fact is a lot of people gamble like that. Surely we should ban social casinos? I make the point again—I labour the point—that this was another private member's bill I introduced into this place that received no support from the government or the opposition. It's another example of how the gambling industry seems to have special status in this place and is treated absurdly favourably by governments and politicians.

I'm not going to give up, though. I have prepared a private member's bill, which I will introduce in this place when I get an opportunity, to ban loot boxes. Now, loot boxes are when you pay money to win something to use in an online game, but you don't know what you've won until you've paid your money for your virtual box. You open your loot box to see what you have won, or that you have won nothing, to use as part of an online game. I would have said that, when you pay money to participate in a game of chance from which you may or may not get a positive outcome, that's gambling by any definition. Yet loot boxes are legal in this country. So it'll be another test of the government and another test of the opposition, when I move that private member's bill, whether or not they will support it, and I hope it's a test that they pass.

I would add that there are other good members of the Australian parliament who are trying to do good things. For example, Stirling Griff currently has a private member's bill in the Senate that would basically do what the committee has recommended here. So why doesn't the government, supported by the opposition, get behind Senator Griff's private senator's bill that would basically prohibit credit card use? The work is done. All the government and the opposition have got to do is line up on the day.

It was good work by the committee, as far as they went, but, heavens, there's still a long way to go. Again I urge the government and the opposition to do the hard work and to help protect gambling addicts.

See this speech in context