David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Liberal Democratic Party amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8054 together:

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

casino -style poker or blackjack gambling service has the meaning given by section 8BC.

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

23B Before paragraph 5(3)(c)

Insert:

(bc) a casino-style poker or blackjack gambling service (see section 8BC);

(3) Schedule 1, item 27, page 13 (after line 15), after section 8BB, insert:

8BC Casino -style poker or blackjack gambling service

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a casino-style poker or blackjack gambling service is a service for the conduct of a game covered by paragraph (e) of the definition of gambling service in section 4:

(a) to the extent to which the game is poker or blackjack; and

(b) to the extent to which the game is conducted in a manner substantially similar to the manner in which it would be conducted at a casino;

so long as the other conditions (if any) determined under subsection (2) have been satisfied.

(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine one or more conditions for the purposes of subsection (1).

(4) Schedule 1, item 28, page 13 (after line 29), after paragraph 8E(1)(g), insert:

(ga) a casino-style poker or blackjack gambling service (see section 8BC); or

Items 1 and 3 on sheet 8054 define casino-style poker and blackjack as poker or blackjack conducted in a manner substantially similar to the manner in which it would be conducted at a casino so long as any other conditions determined by the minister, by legislative instrument, are satisfied. Item 2 excludes casino-style poker and blackjack services from the definition of prohibited interactive gambling services. Item 4 includes online casino-style poker and blackjack services in the definition of regulated interactive gambling services.

If these amendments are passed, the person who is licensed to provide an online casino-style poker or blackjack services under a law of the state or territory would face no criminal or civil penalty under Commonwealth law. This would only be a first step towards legalising online casino-style poker and blackjack services. State and territory licensing would still be required, but it is a necessary step.

Despite the current prohibition in the existing law, online poker and blackjack are enjoyed by many Australians. They are entertaining games of chance and considerable skill. And despite the current lack of regulation—or, should I say, loophole of regulation?—there is no evidence that online poker and blackjack causes more harm than the other services this bill seeks to regulate rather than prohibit, like online sports betting. I commend the amendments to the Senate.