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

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (after line 18), after subparagraph 378-25(7)(c)(i), insert:

(ia) a game that contains, or allows access to, a digital container of randomised virtual items that can be obtained for consideration (commonly known as a loot box);

In essence, the amendment excludes games containing so-called 'loot boxes' from accessing the 30 per cent tax offset for eligible companies making digital games. This would have the effect of clustering games with loot boxes with games comprising gambling or gambling-like practices. I note that the explanatory memorandum makes some reference to loot boxes, but it's clear that the intention of this bill is not to deny the 30 per cent tax offset to all games containing loot boxes. This amendment would rectify that deficiency in the bill.

I probably should again explain to honourable members what loot boxes are because, although our children seem to know all about them, we parents have been a bit slow in learning what they are. In essence, loot boxes are a video game feature where players pay to chance their luck at winning additional virtual assets to use during the game—pay money, game of chance, might win something. This is gambling by any definition, and it is routinely being experienced by children and adolescents right around Australia. it's no wonder that gambling companies are buying up online gaming companies and no wonder that research has warned that these craftily created but apparently innocent features, these loot boxes, are 'structurally and psychologically akin to gambling'.

My intervention this evening follows my tabling of a private member's bill on Monday. This bill sought to have the classification board classify video games with loot boxes as R18-plus or RC. The reason for that private member's bill is that we don't let children gamble, so why do we let them use games with loot boxes? We don't let a child or an adolescent go into a pub and play the poker machines or go to the casino and play roulette or blackjack or whatever else, but we have this curious deficiency in our laws in this country where those very same children are legally allowed to play a game of chance with these so-called loot boxes. I am hoping that the government and the opposition will eventually back my private member's bill. But here we have right in front of us a very, very easy chance to take strong action to rein in these loot boxes to some degree by at least denying the 30 per cent tax offset for those games. We certainly shouldn't be subsidising those companies in that way.

I spoke at some length on Monday about the effect of loot boxes and this sort of gambling, and I will repeat some of Monday's speech which I think is interesting, and that's research by the Australian Gaming Council within the last 12 months. That research revealed that young people who had used loot boxes were more likely to have gambled in the last 12 months, gambled more frequently, spent more money gambling and suffered more gambling problems. I gave the example of a mother who told me how her 17-year-old son was spending 3½ thousand dollars in just eight weeks on loot boxes and how he now can't hold down a job because of his gambling addiction. Now her son is almost 24 and still spends money on the online gambling platform Steam, at times haemorrhaging hundreds of dollars a day. I think that story just says it all. It says that loot boxes are a form of gambling that so far is unregulated in this country.

These games are leading to addiction among a great many Australians and, alarmingly, younger Australians, so I'll continue to pursue having games with loot boxes categorised as adult games, only available to people over 18, which is entirely consistent with the push. By the way, I know former communications minister Paul Fletcher and our current communications minister, Michelle Rowland, are both favourably disposed towards reform in this space, so it seems to be entirely consistent that tonight I've moved my amendment to at least deny that tax offset to the manufacturers of games using this method.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Denison for his contribution. I just want to acknowledge at the outset his long-held and deeply held views on this issue, most of which I share. We have over many, many years worked cooperatively in the area of gaming and particularly gaming advertising. I've just received the amendment. My initial advice is that it may be otiose because it's already covered for that, so I've informed the member for Denison that the government won't be supporting this amendment. But I do give the commitment that, in the committee in the other place, this measure may be considered. Either through his own good graces or at the government's initiative, we'll ensure that this matter is considered upstairs.

I just want to explain why. The amendment goes to gaming or gaming-like provisions inside games. It's important to understand that this bill itself and this provision within this bill are not regulating the operation of games and gaming. It's a tax bill which provides a tax incentive in certain circumstances. The majority of the work for dealing with the concerns that the member for Denison raised and which, frankly, I share—it's not a government position, but I share those concerns around gambling-like initiatives included in children's games. But this is a bill about tax and tax treatment of games development.

I want to be very clear that, under the bill being moved forward by the government, a game is not eligible for the offset if it is a gambling service within the meaning of the Interactive Gambling Act or it substantially comprises gambling or gambling-like practices. That includes games that substantially comprise, have reliance on or give prominence to certain types of loot boxes—those that can be purchased directly or indirectly with real currency and that allow, within the game, for those items to be transferred or cashed out for real currency. So, if that is the member for Denison's concern, it is dealt with under the provision. Those sorts of games would be excluded from the tax offset. If I've misconstrued the member for Denison's concern, I'm offering a pathway to have that issue dealt with in more detail at the committee stage in the other place. For those reasons, we won't be supporting the amendment at this stage.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call for the member for Denison.

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

The member for Clark, Deputy Speaker.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, sorry, Chair.

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

No, it's a mistake easily made. I was the member for Denison for many years, until it was decided to rename it after Andrew Inglis Clark—of course, the architect of the Hare-Clark electoral system and a co-author of the Australian Constitution, so a very, very fine Tasmanian judge and politician.

I thank the minister for that contribution, and I'm heartened by what the minister has had to say. I would add, though, that I don't believe the current reference to loot boxes in the bill and in the EM covers all categories or all types of loot boxes. So I would ask that the government—as they've committed to do—look further at that. I think that, even if you can't cash out, just the fact that you are winning a virtual gun or a virtual faster car or virtual superpowers in a game is still a reward as much as cash, so you still pay the money and it's a game of chance, where you don't know what you're going to win—'Oh, wow! I've won this gun that lets me go to the next level of the game, because I'm more dangerous and deadly.' It is still gambling by any definition.

I am heartened by the minister's contribution. I won't be seeking a division this evening, for the convenience of members and on the commitment from the minister that the government will look further at this. So, through you: thank you, Minister.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Clark for that contribution. That being the case, I'll put the question that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill agreed to.