Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:

(1)   Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 7), omit the definition of place-based betting service in section 4.

(2)   Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (lines 6 to 8), omit the item.

(3)   Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (lines 11 to 35), omit section 8BA.

(4)   Schedule 1, item 28, page 13 (line 24), omit paragraph 8E(1)(d).

I have already spoken at some length about the bill in its entirety and I will speak only briefly about these amendments. I would like to take the opportunity to say to the minister again: I applaud the government for moving on reform of online gambling. It is way over time—it should have been done before this by previous governments—but the main thing is that it is being done now, so that is good.

I find this bill broadly appealing. There is one deficiency in it, which is the substantive nature of the amendments and which I will speak to. I am sure the minister is already aware of it. I have already, in my speech earlier today, acknowledged the fact that the government—again, to be commended—is intending to move another bill later in the year to provide consumer protection measures. I just hope that that is not very far away and I hope it covers all of the things that we are not covering today.

I agree with the Labor opposition that really, by today, we should be talking about a permanent ban on the advertising of gambling during any G-rated television time—including sports broadcasts, when so many children are watching a great clash, watching their sporting heroes do battle on the field. It is a time when children are very, very vulnerable to watching and learning from this sort of advertising, so it is a missed opportunity not to do that.

Mr Speaker, through you, I say to the minister: when you do get to the next bill, please take every opportunity to address a whole range of things. I know the member for Mayo, in moving her amendments, shortly will talk about the need for a national exclusion database. The minister and I have already spoken about the need to go much further on giving credit during gambling. It is one thing to say that service providers should not provide credit to gamblers, yet we still allow the use of credit cards for online gambling, which means effectively that everyone is enjoying credit when they are gambling online.

I am very impressed by the initiative from some in the finance and banking sector that debit cards only be allowed for online gambling, and I note that at least one Australian bank has already introduced a prohibition on the use of their credit cards for online gambling. So there is a long way to go, but I do not want that to detract from the fact that the government is to be applauded for taking this step.

To the substantive nature of the amendments: the minister would already be aware that I am concerned, and many people are concerned, that there is a possibility of the bill, unamended, liberalising in-house in-play betting. Currently places like TABs or casinos can have hardwired devices on which people can gamble in-play during a sporting event. I am concerned that the current wording of the bill would allow such places of gambling to introduce wireless devices such as iPads, and I am worried that that would be a slippery slope; that it would be only a matter of time before Crown Casino, for example, might say, 'If you are going to come into our casino and gamble in-play in-house then it may be easier if you just download our Crown app.' Then, after a little bit longer, they might say, 'Well, if you want to go outside onto the footpath and have a cigarette, it might be more convenient if you were allowed to at least go outside the door onto the footpath.' Then—a slippery slope—a little bit further on, 'Well, if you're going out onto the footpath and having a cigarette while you have in-play betting on your own device, maybe you can just do it at home.' Before we know it we will have completely liberalised in-house in-play betting, which, at the moment, is pretty tightly held by those places.

That is my amendment, which I hope the government will embrace. I note the government has not had any appetite for this change so far, but I see great merit in this. I am sure it would be a very popular amendment in the community.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this amendment, but let me just make a couple of brief comments. Firstly, I thank the member for Denison for the constructive way in which he has engaged with me and the government in relation to this bill as a whole. I hope that he thinks that we, likewise, have been open, up-front and constructive in the way that we have engaged with him.

I understand his concerns in relation to in-play betting at place-based locations, and I say to the member for Denison—and I have said this to him privately—that our intent in this bill is to ensure that the original intent of the Interactive Gambling Act remains in place and is adhered to. Consequently, we are making those amendments to the click-to-call issue, because we felt that people were getting around the original intent of the act to be able to do click-to-call in-play betting. But, in relation to this, our intent is to keep in place what currently exists, which is that you can do an in-play bet at a terminal in a licensed venue, and we are not proposing to go any further than that.

In relation to his concerns about the slippery slope, I make a commitment to the member for Denison and to the House that we will keep an eye on this in order to monitor it. We do not believe that those things that he has raised will eventuate. You cannot, under the act, download an app onto your own device. It does need to be a venue's device on which you do the in-play betting. That is what the current law is and we are not proposing to change the current law.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my speech in the second reading debate on this bill I did talk about Labor's concerns in relation to these terminals in licensed venues. We also had some concerns in that we wanted to make sure that there was no proliferation of mobile devices, and I am glad that the government has also made the commitment that they will act if there is a proliferation, because I do not think that that is the intent of the way it is worded at the moment. Certainly, from the wording of the explanatory memorandum, it appears that the government wants to maintain the status quo, and that is what Labor would expect. So, at this time, we are not supporting the amendment, but I just wanted to put on record that we have raised our concerns, because we share the concerns about the proliferation of mobile devices.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Franklin for that contribution. Through you, Mr Speaker, to the minister: I do not doubt the government's intention here and I do not doubt that they intend that there be no liberalisation. But I just offer one final comment: I do believe that when we make a law in this place it cannot rest on the goodwill of a particular minister or on the intentions of a particular government. I think we should write laws that almost assume some minister or government in the future will have a completely different point of view and perhaps no sense of the public interest. So I do find the current wording too loose. I do think that my very simple amendment would tighten that up and ensure that any future minister or any future government would be very tightly required in law to follow the intention of this minister and this government.

We need to be ever so careful to not rely on the goodwill of any one person. We might have a good minister now but, who knows, while the next minister might be the member for Franklin, we have no idea what the position of the minister after that might be or whether he or she might have an equally admirable understanding of this issue, and we do not in any way want to allow for the liberalisation of in-play betting. There is an abundance of evidence to say that it is problematic, an abundance of evidence from other countries to say it can allow for the corruption of sport. We must be very careful about ensuring we do not create the environment for that in the future. I will leave it at that.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Denison be agreed to.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill be agreed to.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (19) and (21) together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 8), at the end of section 3, add:

•   This Act also regulates the conduct of restricted wagering services by imposing restrictions on these sports betting services in relation to various practices such as offering micro-betting, credit or inducements.

•   The Interactive Gambling Regulator has a variety of functions in relation to enforcing compliance of this conduct, as well as providing advice and information.

•   A person may also regulate their own interactions with restricted wagering services by applying to be included on the National Self-exclusion Register which is kept under this Act. Restricted wagering services must check the Register, which is kept and administered by the Regulator, before creating accounts for individuals to place bets using their services.

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 12), after the definition of ACMA official, insert:

betting limit, in relation to a period, means the total maximum amount nominated by an individual that he or she may bet using a restricted wagering service during the period.

(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 14), after the definition of carriage service, insert:

category A document, in relation to an individual, means any of the following:

(a) a licence or permit issued in the name of the individual;

(b) a passport issued in the name of the individual;

(c) a birth certificate in the name of the individual;

(d) any other document in relation to the individual that is recognised as proof of identity under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

category B document, in relation to an individual, means any of the following:

(a) a credit card, debit card or other automatic teller machine card that has the name and signature of the individual;

(b) a Medicare card issued in the name of the individual;

(c) a passbook issued in the name of the individual by an ADI (within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959);

(d) a statement of account issued for a utilities or rates account that:

(i) was issued in the previous 12 months; and

(ii) includes the name and address given by the individual.

(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 18), after the definition of civil penalty provision, insert:

credit has the meaning given by section 11A.

(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 22), omit the definition of electronic equipment, substitute:

electronic betting terminals means electronic equipment that is:

(a) installed on a permanent or fixed basis at a place where gambling services are provided; and

(b) located in an area that is set aside for gambling services and under the continual supervision of the provider; and

(c) unable to connect to the internet; and

(d) available for use only by customers using cash or a card issued by the provider.

(6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 24), before the definition of Federal Circuit Court, insert:

G classified, in relation to a television program, means classified G in accordance with whichever of the following industry codes of practice included in the register under section 123 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is relevant:

(a) the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice;

(b) the Subscription Broadcast Television Codes of Practice;

(c) the Subscription Narrowcast Television Codes of Practice.

(7) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (after line 4), before the definition of personal information, insert:

micro betting means betting that relates to a horse race, a harness race, a greyhound race or a sporting event and either:

(a) the bet is:

(i) on the outcome of the race or event; and

(ii) placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the race or event; or

(b) the bet is on a contingency that may or may not happen in the course of the race or event.

personal details, in relation to an individual, means:

(a) the individual's name, residential address, telephone number, email address, date of birth and gender; and

(b) any other information of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition that identifies the individual.

(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 21), before the definition of regulated interactive gambling service, insert:

protected information means personal details or other personal information to the extent that this information:

(a) is obtained under, or in accordance with, this Act; or

(b) is derived from a record of information that was made under, or in accordance with, this Act; or

(c) is derived from a disclosure or use of information that was made under, or in accordance with, this Act.

Register means the National Self-exclusion Register kept under section 61HA.

(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 23), after the definition of regulated interactive gambling service, insert:

Regulator means the Interactive Gambling Regulator established under section 61JA.

(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 25), after the definition of Regulatory Powers Act, insert:

restricted wagering service means a gambling service that:

(a) is provided to customers using any of the following:

(i) an internet carriage service;

(ii) any other listed carriage service;

(iii) a broadcasting service;

(iv) any other content service;

(v) a datacasting service; and

(b) relates to the placing, making, receiving or acceptance of bets on, or on a series of, any or all of the following:

(i) a horse race;

(ii) a harness race;

(iii) a greyhound race;

(iv) a sporting event.

(11) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (after line 15), after the definition of unlicensed regulated interactive gambling service, insert:

verified has the meaning given by section 11B.

(12) Schedule 1, item 27, page 11 (lines 32 and 33), omit "electronic equipment", substitute "electronic betting terminals".

(13) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (line 1), omit "electronic equipment", substitute "electronic betting terminals".

(14) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (lines 19 and 20), omit "electronic equipment", substitute "electronic betting terminals".

(15) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (line 22), omit "electronic equipment", substitute "electronic betting terminals".

(16) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (line 24), omit "electronic equipment", substitute "electronic betting terminals".

(17) Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 12), after item 32, insert:

32A After section 11

Insert:

11A Meaning of credit

For the purposes of this Act, credit is provided by a restricted wagering service if under a contract or other arrangement:

(a) payment of a debt owed by one person to another is deferred; or

(b) one person incurs a deferred debt to another.

11B Meaning of verified

For the purposes of this Act, an individual's identity is verified for the purposes of creating an account, or otherwise facilitating the placing of bets, with a restricted wagering service, if:

(a) the service is given the originals or certified copies of either:

(i) 2 category A documents, each of a different kind, identifying the individual; or

(ii) one category A document and 2 category B documents, each of a different kind, identifying the individual; and

(b) the personal details contained in those documents correspond to the personal details provided by the individual for the purposes of creating the account, or otherwise facilitating the placing of bets.

32B After Part 1

Insert:

Part 1A—Offence of failing to train gambling service employees

14A Offence of failing to train gambling service employees

(1) If:

(a) a person provides a gambling service; and

(b) either:

(i) the person is a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies; or

(ii) the service is provided to customers using an internet carriage service; and

(c) the person has employees who have direct contact in the course of their employment with individuals who use the service;

the person must ensure that each such employee is provided with the information, training or instruction prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is subject to a requirement under subsection (1); and

(b) the person fails to comply with the requirement.

Penalty:   120 penalty units.

Regulations

(3) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may include:

(a) information, training or instruction relating to the following:

(i) recognising problem gambling behaviour;

(ii) assisting individuals to access information regarding the Register and other services or programs to deal with problem gambling;

(iii) dealing with individuals who have identified themselves as having a gambling problem; and

(b) when such information, training or instruction must be provided.

(18) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 24), after item 66, insert:

66A At the end of Part 3

Add:

Division 4—Injunctions

31A Injunctions

(1) The Federal Circuit Court of Australia may, on application by the Regulator, grant an injunction referred to in subsection (2) if the Court is satisfied that:

(a) an ADI (within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959) facilitates transactions in relation to a gambling service; and

(b) the gambling service is a prohibited internet gambling service.

(2) The injunction is to require the ADI to take reasonable steps to prohibit transactions in relation to the prohibited internet gambling service.

Parties

(3) The parties to an action under subsection (1) are:

(a) the Regulator; and

(b) the ADI; and

(c) the prohibited internet gambling service.

Service

(4) The Regulator must notify the:

(a) the ADI; and

(b) the prohibited internet gambling service;

of the making of an application under subsection (1).

Matters to be taken into account

(5) In determining whether to grant the injunction, the Court may take into account the following matters:

(a) whether prohibiting transactions in relation to the prohibited internet gambling service is a proportionate response in the circumstances;

(b) whether it is in the public interest to prohibit transactions in relation to the prohibited internet gambling service;

(c) whether access to, or transactions in relation to, the prohibited internet gambling service has been disabled or prohibited by orders from any court of another country or territory;

(d) any other matter prescribed by the regulations;

(e) any other relevant matter.

Rescinding and varying injunctions

(6) The Court may:

(a) limit the duration of; or

(b) upon application, rescind or vary;

an injunction granted under this section.

(7) An application under subsection (6) may be made by:

(a) any of the persons referred to in subsection (3); or

(b) any other person prescribed by the regulations.

Costs

(8) The ADI is not liable for any costs in relation to the proceedings unless the ADI enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings.

(19) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 19), after item 138, insert:

138A After Part 7A

Insert:

Part 7B—Restricted wagering services

Division 1—Simplified outline of this Part

61G Simplified outline of this Part

This Part sets out a number of restrictions on the conduct of restricted wagering services in relation to sports betting. These restrictions aim to ensure that such services do not engage in certain predatory practices, particularly in relation to problem gamblers, and that sports betting services are provided in a responsible manner.

These restrictions include bans on offering micro-betting, credit or inducements, as well as requirements for the restricted wagering service to check that individuals are not included on the National Self-exclusion Register before creating new accounts.

Restricted wagering services that contravene these restrictions may commit an offence or a contravention of a civil penalty provision.

Division 2—Offences and civil penalty provisions

61GA Restricted wagering service must not offer credit

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the service provides, or offers to provide, credit to individuals to use the service.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   500penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   500 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GB Restricted wagering service must not induce a person to use the service

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service; and

(b) the person:

(i) induces, or attempts to induce, another individual to use the service; or

(ii) causes another person to induce, or attempt to induce, another individual to use the service.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   500penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   500 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GC Restricted wagering service must not offer or accept micro betting

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the service offers or accepts micro betting.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   2,000penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   2,000 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GD Restricted wagering service must require certain details be provided to establish account

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the person creates an account, or otherwise facilitates the placing of bets, for an individual; and

(c) the individual has not provided his or her personal details.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   120 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   120 penalty units.

61GE Restricted wagering service must verify identity of account -holder before creating account etc.

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the service creates an account, or otherwise facilitates the placing of bets, for an individual; and

(c) the person has not verified the individual's identity.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   300 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   300 penalty units.

61GF Restricted wagering service must check the National Self -exclusion Register before creating account

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the service creates an account, or otherwise facilitates the placing of bets, for an individual; and

(c) the person has not submitted the individual's personal details to the National Self-exclusion Register to check whether the individual's personal details are included on the Register.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   300penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   300 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GG Restricted wagering service must include pre -commitment options when creating account

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service; and

(b) the person does not require each individual who creates an account with the service to register and set annual and monthly maximum betting limits.

Note: The service must not permit these limits to be exceeded (see section 61GK, and may only increase the limits if notice is provided (see section 61GI).

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   200 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   200 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GH Restricted wagering service must not create accounts etc. for individuals on the National Self -exclusion Register

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the service creates an account, or otherwise facilitates the placing of bets, for an individual whose personal details are included on the National Self-exclusion Register; and

(c) the person either:

(i) knew that the individual's personal details were included on the National Self-exclusion Register; or

(ii) was reckless as to whether the individual's personal details were included on the National Self-exclusion Register.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   500penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   500 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GI Restricted wagering service must not increase individual ' s betting limit

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the person increases, or causes to be increased, the monthly or annual betting limit set by the individual.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the individual has:

(a) requested that the person increase the monthly or annual betting limit; and

(b) either:

(i) in relation to the monthly betting limit—the individual requested the increase at least 7 days before the limit was increased; or

(ii) in relation to the annual betting limit—the individual requested the increase at least 14 days before the limit was increased; and

(c) the individual has not made more than one other such request in the previous 12-month period.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2).

Fault -based offence

(3) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   300 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   300 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GJ Restricted wagering service must not induce a person to increase betting limit

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service; and

(b) the person:

(i) induces, or attempts to induce, an individual to increase his or her monthly or annual betting limit; or

(ii) causes another person to induce, or attempt to induce, an individual to increase his or her monthly or annual betting limit.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   300penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   300 penalty units.

61GK Restricted wagering service must not permit account -holder to exceed betting limit

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the service accepts a bet from an individual that exceeds the monthly or annual betting limit nominated by the individual for the service.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   200 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   200 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GL Restricted wagering service must provide statement

(1) A person who provides a restricted wagering service must provide each individual who uses the service with a statement of the individual's transaction history that complies with regulations made for the purposes of this subsection.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is required to provide a statement under subsection (1); and

(b) the person fails to provide the statement as required.

Penalty:   120 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if:

(a) the person is required to provide a statement under subsection (1); and

(b) the person fails to provide the statement as required.

Penalty:   120 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the contravention of the civil penalty provision, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

Regulations

(5) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) must prescribe:

(a) the period which the statement must cover; and

(b) how frequently the statement must be provided (which must not be less than once a month); and

(c) the manner and form in which the statement is to be provided.

61GM Restricted wagering service must not disclose information for marketing purposes

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person provides a restricted wagering service; and

(b) the person discloses personal information of an individual who uses the service to another person or entity; and

(c) the information is disclosed for use by the other person or entity in relation to marketing of a good or service.

Fault -based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   300 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   300 penalty units.

61GN Restricted wageri

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mayo for her contribution to this debate. As she knows, we had a considerable number of consultations with members of the Nick Xenophon Team in putting together this bill. I said to the Nick Xenophon Team that we are very serious about the National Consumer Protection Framework, some of the elements of which are contained within their amendments. For example, one of the key things in their amendments is prohibiting gambling companies from offering lines of credit to their customers. We fully support that. It is in fact one of the key elements of our National Consumer Protection Framework, and we made the commitment that we would work with the states and territories on the best way of introducing that particular measure. I have been on the record since my first year in parliament as arguing against lines of credit being offered to consumers. I think it is wrong. People should bet with the money which they have, not with the money which they do not have.

The other key thing is the national self-exclusion register which is contained within this series of amendments. Again, that is one of the central things of our National Consumer Protection Framework. Again, we made the commitment that we would properly consult with the states and territories in relation to this, but with a very firm commitment that we want to introduce it—and we will introduce it. There are some complexities in relation to a national self-exclusion register which we need to work through with the sector, and we are doing just that.

We will not be supporting these amendments, despite the fact that we support the intent of them. I did ask the leader of the Nick Xenophon Team, Nick Xenophon, to give us time to properly introduce the National Consumer Protection Framework and to properly go through a consultation process. We think that is what a responsible government should do. We have got good in-principle support from the state and territory ministers, and we are very confident that we will be introducing all of those measures in the near future.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that Labor agrees with the intent of some of these amendments, as I have indicated to the member for Mayo. In my speech in the second reading debate I indicated that Labor does support a ban on credit betting—or lines of credit, as the minister referred to them. I have indicated that if the Nick Xenophon Team were to move that part of these amendments in the other place then we would look to supporting them.

Labor is certainly concerned about the intentions around some of the other amendments. We did say that we want to see the consumer protection framework sooner rather than later, and I appreciate that the minister has said it is his intention to get that happening as quickly as possible. Labor want to see the full consumer protection framework before we make a decision to support the types of amendments that are contained with those other amendments.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a question for the minister: are you able to give us a time line for the subsequent bill? I think the community will be very interested to have some sense of that.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We had our initial gambling ministers meeting late last year, and at that meeting there was in-principle support provided for the 11 points of the National Consumer Protection Framework, of which the prohibition of lines of credit as well as the national self-exclusion register are the two central features. We have another meeting scheduled in early March—if my memory serves me correctly; it may even be later this month—where we will be moving forward again on that. One of the questions which we are discussing cooperatively amongst the ministers is: what is the best way of implementing the National Consumer Protection Framework? At the moment, most of these measures are contained within state and territory based legislation, so one way that it could be done is that we all agree that these have to be introduced, and states and territories will be responsible for implementing those measures. Another way that it could be done is that the federal parliament could introduce such measures in national legislation as well, at least setting a strong minimum benchmark, and then the states and territories would still have those regulatory powers. A further option would be for there to be a national regulator. All those three things have been discussed. It has not been settled upon yet, but there is an absolutely firm determination from this government that we will be introducing those measures and that we will do so as quickly as possible but going through a proper consultation process. We think that is the responsible course of action.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answer. An interesting part of that answer was an acknowledgement that some of these measures which will be in the consumer protection bill, the forthcoming bill, are state and territory responsibilities, and consequently we see that the Commonwealth is prepared to work in that space. That is good. I am happy with that. The contradiction that drops out of that is that, when I asked the Prime Minister last year—the current Prime Minister—whether or not he was prepared to act on poker machine reform, his answer was: 'No, because that is entirely a matter for the states and territories.' So we seem to have a contradiction here—that the government is prepared to work in the states and territories space on some gambling issues but use it as an excuse not to act on other issues. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to challenge the minister now to make some sort of commitment to be more open about poker machine problem gambling, which, as the minister would well know, accounts for about 100,000 gambling addicts in this country, who between them—this is just the gambling addicts—are losing between $4,000 million and $5,000 million a year. How about it, Minister? Why are you saying it is okay in one gambling case but not in the other gambling case?

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have had this discussion with the member for Denison in private, but, since he has asked me in this parliament, let me articulate why we see a key difference here between the online environment and the pokies environment. You get problems in both of those, and we are addressing the online gambling problems through the National Consumer Protection Framework. Indeed there are problems in relation to problem gamblers in the pokies area. The difference is that the online environment, by definition, cuts across jurisdictional boundaries. A provider can be licensed in the Northern Territory, for example—as indeed many of the providers are—but their services go throughout Australia. So the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory licences those providers, and Northern Territory residents might gamble with those providers, but so do New South Wales residents, Victorian residents, South Australian residents et cetera. By definition this cuts across jurisdictional boundaries, and consequently you need more of a national approach. I think most states and territories recognise that, because they do not have full control over what occurs in their own jurisdiction. Compare that with poker machines. Poker machines are contained within the one jurisdiction. The licences are issued by the single state government, the revenue is collected by that same state government and the problems which arise also occur within that same jurisdiction. Consequently you do not have those cross-jurisdictional issues.

The view of the federal government therefore is that, because they are licensed at the state level, the revenue is collected at the state level and the problems arise at the state level—all within the single jurisdiction—it makes sense that that state or territory government deal with the issues associated with the poker machines, whereas, as I said, the online environment, by definition, crosses jurisdictional boundaries, and consequently you do need more of a national approach, which is why we have taken such a great interest in this. There is also an international dimension with the online environment, which is where the Interactive Gambling Act comes into play, because that deals with those international illegal providers. Indeed most of this act is trying to crack down on them.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Within that answer another problem arises. Because the state and territory governments are entirely responsible, at the moment, for the regulation of poker machines and poker machine venues, they are also the sole beneficiary of the taxation that is collected, which gives them a fundamental conflict of interest. That goes to the point that my colleague Senator Xenophon and I have made—and I am sure the member for Mayo has made it repeatedly as well—that state and territory governments have shown that they cannot be trusted, because there is a fundamental conflict of interest there because they are the regulator of something from which they are a financial beneficiary, even though the research shows that that apparent windfall for them is actually a false windfall. I recall there was some very good research commissioned by the Tasmanian government that showed that the cost to the community of problem gambling is between two and three times the value of the revenue that is raised. So I make the point—through you, Deputy Speaker—to the minister that, because it is entirely their business, dropping out of that is one of the good reasons why we here should address the issue and why this government, this minister, should address this issue.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia is a federation. The Federation came about in 1901 and the Constitution outlines powers for the Commonwealth; all other powers reside with the state and territory governments. Some people do not believe we should have a federal structure anymore, but we do have a federal structure. The states and territories have very significant responsibilities, and they need to be accountable for those responsibilities, one of which is the regulation of poker-machine venues. They are responsible for the licensing of poker machines and the collection of revenues that come from those poker machines—and they are largely responsible for the problems that emanate from those poker machines. It is completely contained within their jurisdictional boundaries.

We might disagree with the policy approach a state or territory government takes, and frequently we do. I am a proud Victorian, but I have great issue with the Andrews government, at the moment, in how they are conducting their business. We will fight tooth and nail against some of the things they are doing, particularly the way that they approach or do not approach the issue of crime in Victoria. Many people are greatly concerned about the weakness of the bail laws, the way the Victorian government has not strengthened the police forces—to give them sufficient powers—and some of the other issues that Matthew Guy has been referring to. But, at the end of the day, they are a sovereign jurisdiction, and they are responsible for those things.

If you want the Tasmanian government, for example, to change the way they go about their regulation of the poker machines then I encourage you to lobby the Tasmanian government, just as, in relation to the crime issues in Victoria, we are lobbying and making a case to the Victorian government.

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suggest the minister is grossly oversimplifying this. The fact is that there are any number of ways in which the operation of poker-machine venues is a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. For example, in Tasmania, there are dozens of poker-machine venues operated by ALH, Australian Leisure and Hospitality Group, which is a company owned by the Woolworths corporation—Australia's biggest operator of poker machines. The conduct of the companies that own the dozens of hotels where poker machines are is the responsibility of the federal government through the Corporations Act. So I think it is oversimplifying things, and the Commonwealth is discarding a moralresponsibility to act to right a wrong wherever it sees there is a wrong and wherever it has the power to somehow right that wrong. Taxation is another way in which the federal government has the power to right a wrong.

If the minister is so concerned about the behaviour of the Victorian state government and if the minister feels that they are acting improperly or unethically, this government has, at least through its tax powers and corporation powers, ways to intervene and remedy the situation. Yes, we are a federation of states and territories, but all of us, at all levels of government, have a moral responsibility to try to right a wrong whenever we see it and whenever we have the ability to remedy it.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (19) and (21), moved by the member for Mayo, be agreed to.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (20), as circulated in my name:

(20) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 19), after item 143, insert:

143A After section 69A

Insert:

69B Minister must mandate blocking illegal overseas gambling websites

The Minister must, within 6 months after the commencement of this section, make a legislative instrument requiring internet service providers to block access to illegal overseas gambling websites.

This amendment goes to recognising the difficulty of enforcing penalties against international gambling operations and also recognises the harm they do to everyday Australians. This final amendment of mine will compel the minister to make a legislative instrument within six months of the bill's assent, requiring internet service providers to block illegal overseas gambling websites. This will protect Australians from being solicited by these sites.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Mayo probably knows, the intent of this recommendation came up in the O'Farrell review. We have adopted the recommendation of the O'Farrell review, which was to consult with the internet service providers in relation to the feasibility of blocking illegal offshore gambling websites. We are undertaking that; we are in the process of that. I think the recommendation from Mr O'Farrell was to consult and test, in part because the jury is out a little bit in terms of what the feasibility actually is of doing such internet blocking. But we are committed to doing that, committed to taking that consultation and to determining whether or not it is indeed feasible to do, as another disruptive mechanism to try and prevent the money going to those illegal offshore gambling sites. We are determined to do whatever we can to disrupt and to crack down on those illegal offshore gambling providers. Most of this bill is aimed at exactly that purpose, along with some of the other disruptive mechanisms. But one of those additional disruptive mechanisms is to engage with internet service providers, and we will be undertaking that.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate to the member for Mayo that we support the intent of her amendment; we do want to make sure that it is workable. We are concerned about who would make the decision about what sites are blocked, and when and how that would actually work. I look forward to seeing some detail from the government but at this time we are not supporting the amendment.

Question negatived.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 12), after item 23A, insert:

23B At the end of section 5

  Add:

(4) Despite subsection (3), a gambling service covered by subsection (1) is a prohibited interactive gambling service if the service is provided by a person who is:

  (a) an individual not resident in Australia; or

  (b) a corporation that is majority foreign-owned.

My unfortunate fate is to be able to have seen how a country should be run—I go back to a period of great prosperity and great growth, a period in which we had a current account surplus in this country, with two per cent unemployment. In fact, Mr McMahon lost the election because he allowed unemployment to grow over two per cent. The real, comparable figures today are about 18 per cent; one in five people in this country cannot find a job, and one in four cannot find a full-time job—not a very happy state of affairs. And if people in this place want to know why Australians are voting for us Independents over here, it is because we do not want to continue running Australia the way it is being run.

I am going to be very specific on this bill; very specific on what I am proposing here in this amendment. At the present moment, if you look at the graphs, most of the money from gambling in Australia will go overseas. Most of the profits from gambling will actually go overseas. I lived in an era where every single dollar—except if you went to a racecourse and bet with the bookmakers—every single cent, went into health services for the people—and now most of it is going overseas! And yet I am regarded as a minority group. If the proposition was put to the people in this country: 'Do you want the money to go overseas, or do you want it to go into health services for Australians? Or to help our struggling retirees, or our single mothers trying to make ends meet with three children? Where do you want the money to go?'—I would think that something like 80 or 90 per cent of Australians would vote with me. But when I come into this place, I am a minority. Today it appears I am a minority of one. I wrote a moderately successful history book, and it is rather interesting that history does not ask you who was successful in elections. A lot of our greatest heroes were not successful in elections. There are the great examples of Theodore, Chifley and Curtin, who all lost their seats trying to fight for some sort of logic in money supply.

I take great pleasure in moving this amendment today, an amendment that will see all the money at least being circulated in the Australian economy instead of being taken out of Australia. If I could use an example—which is a very good example—our candidate in the recent federal election in Leichhardt said: 'What does Australian ownership mean?' I said, 'The taxis in Cairns bring in $40 million a year to the economy of Cairns. When Uber takes over, they will bring in $30 million and $10 million will go overseas. That is what it means.' Well, we keep voting for that outcome. We keep voting again and again in this place for that outcome—until there is no money going in. Yesterday I had the pleasure of having dinner with some of the leading business figures in this country—in one of those exclusive clubs which they would never let me into in normal circumstances! One of them raised the issue of the coal-seam gas industry, which is bringing in $25 billion a year to Australia. Gambling brings into the economy—I do not know; it is transfer money, it is not made money. But this is made money. We make $25 billion a year out of it, but it is all foreign-owned—there is no employment. So the 25 billion comes in to pay for the resource that we Australians are supposed to own, and then it just boomerangs back out again. Is it any wonder that in the last three years the debt of this country has gone up by 30 per cent? How much longer do you think that that is going to go on for?

I take great pleasure being in a minority of one and moving this amendment.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just very briefly, the government will not be supporting this amendment. We understand the intent of the member for Kennedy in pushing this amendment. Obviously, most of his discussion is in relation to the merits or otherwise of foreign investments in this country. Foreign investment is something that we do welcome, but this bill is predominantly about cracking down on illegal offshore gambling companies. That is what the bill is about and we will not be supporting the amendment.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have a look at the minister's proposition. His proposition is that we need foreign investment in this country, so we need more foreign investment in gambling in this country. Does he seriously reflect upon what he has just said: 'We want more gambling'? The whole issue is to restrain gambling and control it and regulate it, and now he wants a free-fire zone so that they can develop more gambling in this country. Minister, think about what you just said.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Remainder of bill—by leave—taken as a whole and agreed to.