Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a number of questions for the minister before amendments are dealt with. I make reference, perhaps as a reference point, to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee's report on this bill. The minister's second reading speech on the bill explained:

The review—

the O'Farrell review, as it is known, into the Interactive Gambling Act—

found that the amount of money being spent on illegal wagering services could be as high as $400 million annually with a further $100 million in lost taxation revenue and product fees.

There does not seem to be any firm view on the amount of money actually lost. Some figures you hear are $500 million and other figures go much higher than that. Does the Commonwealth have the ability to be more specific about these figures? For instance, if it obtained the cooperation of banks in terms of other mechanisms of measuring the amount that goes offshore—because presumably most of these transactions are occurring using credit cards and other discernible transactions—surely there ought to be some way of measuring more accurately the extent of the problem of these illegal offshore gambling sites.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have indicated the sorts of ranges that are spoken of when talking about these dollar amounts. Obviously, there is always a capacity for greater specificity in these things, but you raise some potential avenues for that.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least you did not talk about programmatic specificity!

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

Senator Dastyari is familiar with who I am referring to. Has the government considered measures to more accurately measure the amount of money that goes to illegal wagering services? For instance, has the government inquired of the banks or financial institutions to determine by virtue of the merchant numbers for these illegal, overseas, online gambling operations, to determine the amount lost in that way? Has an effort been made? Has anyone in the Commonwealth, whether it be ACMA or the AFP, gone to the banks to say, 'Please cooperate with us. Here are the merchant numbers of Casino.com and Lottoland.com'—well, presumably Lottoland.com operates under a licence from the Northern Territory—'and those that are clearly unauthorised illegal transactions under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001'?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, we are looking to reduce illegal activity and thereby reduce whatever the dollar figure may be. I can indicate to you that the Commonwealth is looking at commissioning further research to quantify it.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Interactive Gambling Act has been in force since 2001. I remember it well, having lobbied for its passage all those years ago as a state member of parliament, walking up and down the corridors talking to crossbenchers and to Senator Alston as the minister. Are you saying that, in the 16 years this bill has been enforced, including its prohibition of illegal, overseas online gambling operations, there has been no attempt to determine with some degree of specificity and some degree of rigor the amount of money actually lost to these online sites? If so, why not? If the government is planning to do it now, what actual measures will it take to do so? For instance, will it require cooperation from the banks and financial institutions to determine this once and for all?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The O'Farrell review reflects the best available information at that time. As I have indicated, we are looking at commissioning further research, but, obviously, our objective and purpose with this legislation is to drive down that number, whatever it may be.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not trying to be difficult on this; I just think it is important the people of Australia know what the extent is of the offshore, illegal sites problem. The government says it is considering further research. Reference was made to it in the O'Farrell review, and I was fortunate enough to sit down with Mr O'Farrell as part of that review and give him my views and that was fed into the report, but it does not seem to be the case that there are any measures to deal with this. My colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore refers to page 150 of the O'Farrell review which says:

Commonwealth, State and Territory governments should recommit to Gambling Research Australia to ensure that research funds are directed towards maximising the information available to policy makers, academics, the community and industry about the nature, prevalence and impact of gambling across Australia.

That is a very broad recommendation, but what concrete, practical, rigorous measures is the government proposing to determine the level of offshore gambling?

There is an estimate of $500 million. For all we know, it could be $1 billion. It could be $200 million or any figure that you could pluck out of thin air. Surely, if it is expected that the vast majority of these transactions occur with credit cards or can be discernible and traceable through banks and financial institutions and credit card providers, then surely we should—I am just trying to understand if the government is prepared to commit to going down that path. Presumably there might be some people using bitcoins. We can probably guess or estimate how many people would be using bitcoins, but I imagine it would be a very small part of it. I think it is not unreasonable to ask, after 16 years of the operation of this act, to understand where that figure of $400 million comes from. What rigor would be employed to determine once and for all, with some degree of specificity, how much is actually being lost to these offshore sites?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The first point to make is that this is not a measurement bill. This is a bill about acting on the problem, which it does. The O'Farrell review indicated that losses are between the range of $64 million and $400 million. I have already indicated that the Commonwealth will be looking to commission further research. Senator Xenophon, your propositions as to how to help achieve the most accurate figure are, of course, ones that are very welcome.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am from the crossbench and I am here to help. I will not pursue that any further and I will engage with the minister genuinely in relation to that. It will not just be media reforms we will be talking about; it will be these issues as well.

Can I just go to a point raised in 1.4 of the Senate committee's report in terms of this bill:

… there is uncertainty around the legality of services under the IGA and enforcement has been minimal, with no prosecutions since the legislation was enacted in 2001 'despite a considerable number of complaints made by Australians in relation to illegal online gambling services'.

That is something that the Hon. Alan Tudge, a minister in the other place, made reference to in the Hansard on 10 November 2016. Can the minister advise how many complaints have been made since the inception of the act? And can he advise that there have not been any prosecutions under the Interactive Gambling Act at all after 16 years of operation?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There have been no prosecutions under the IGA since its inception, despite a significant number of complaints referred to the AFP—some 140 complaints since 2007-08.

Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in relation to the 140-odd complaints that have been referred by ACMA to the AFP, what happens to those complaints now that ACMA has greater enforcement and compliance powers? Are they able to revisit those complaints themselves, or will a separate mechanism need to be employed in order for those complaints to be assessed by ACMA in light of their new powers?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would think that this would be a matter that is prospective.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to Senator Kakoschke-Moore's question: even if a matter is still within time, could it be revisited? Subsequent to that, what does the government say is the time limit for these complaints? In other words: will this legislation only apply to offences from the date it is enacted? What happens to those offences that occurred before the passage of this bill, before the royal assent for this bill?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess civil provisions, which the legislation seeks to put in place, cannot apply until they are legislated, and it is not usual for legislation introducing new penalties and provisions to reach back.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, could the minister explain that? Is he saying that the old penalties will be gone and the new penalties would apply—is that right? This is not a trick question. I am just trying to understand how it would work.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The existing criminal provisions remain, but there will be new civil penalties that will be available.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the new penalties will be available for events that occurred prior to the royal assent of this bill—is that right?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Laws come into effect when laws come into effect. It is not a retrospective provision.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That should be on a fridge magnet, Minister! I know laws come into effect when laws come into effect, but are you saying that for matters that occurred prior to the passage of this bill, the royal assent of this bill, the existing penalty provisions are extant? Or does it mean that it is not retrospective in the sense that the offence is still there, but there is a different penalty regime that applies at the time you make the complaint? I am just trying to understand how that would work. I do not want to labour the point any more than this, but it is important to make that clear for the constituents that we have that approach us about these problems.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that the penalties and the regime that were in effect at the time that an alleged contravention occurred would be the ones that apply.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a bit rusty on my criminal procedure—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not evident up to this point, Senator Xenophon, but it might become so.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I think I did criminal procedure in 1981. Minister Tudge, in his contribution in the House of Representatives, said on 10 November 2016:

Criminal prosecution is considered likely to be unsuccessful or ineffective due to the competing priorities of the Australian Federal Police, uncertainty around the legality of services under the—

IGA—

evidence requirements and the offshore location of gambling operators.

That was in the context of why there had not been any prosecutions for those offshore gambling operators.

Minister, given the track record of zero prosecutions since 2001, how can we be confident that what is proposed here will actually lead to prosecutions? Given the occasions that I and my colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore have made complaints to ACMA and to the AFP, they just seem to be either gathering dust or not a priority for them even though we have instances where people have been devastated financially. We have heard from the Financial Counselling Australia report that I referred to, that Senator Roberts very articulately referred to, about the devastating effects on people's lives as a result of the enormous losses they have sustained. What assurances do we have that we are not going to be revisiting this bill in 16 years time, when I am long gone from this place, when the minister may still be here as the grey eminence of the Senate—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am grey already!

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or greyer eminence of the Senate, to tell us that—

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Papa Smurf!

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Dastyari said, 'Papa Smurf', which is very unkind to smurfs. Can the minister advise us: how can we be assured that this is not just another piece of legislation that will sit there and be pretty much ineffective?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation introduces a simple test—that is, an operator is illegal if they are not licensed in an Australian state or territory.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But how different is that from the existing test? Is the minister saying that the evidentiary requirements are somehow lessened or somehow eased? There seems to be a big issue here about the willingness of ACMA, and particularly the AFP, to tackle these issues because they have other priorities. They deal with many, many other issues. I am not being critical of the AFP per se, but it seems that this has not been a priority for them, particularly when you consider that lives have been ruined because of these offshore illegal sites. Of course, they have been by the legal sites as well, but it is the illegal sites that we are looking at now.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The evidentiary requirements for civil prosecutions are lower. In ACMA, we would have an active regulator. I think it is well known to colleagues that the AFP has competing priorities. The fact that there is an active regulator focused on this and with the greater ease of the application of civil penalties the government is confident that this will be a framework that will work.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the minister's response, is the minister therefore saying that the burden of proof for their penalties is one of a balance of probabilities rather than a higher evidentiary burden? Can he confirm what is the actual evidentiary burden for this penalty regime?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a balance of probabilities.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the minister saying that under the current legislation, which has been in force since 2001, it was beyond reasonable doubt or it was a balance of probabilities?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Beyond reasonable doubt.

Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We understand that the bill currently before the Senate deals with online and, in particular, offshore gaming. A couple of weeks ago, a bill introduced by my colleague Senator Xenophon, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Sports Betting Reform) Bill 2015, was the subject of a public hearing in Melbourne. Evidence during that committee by Tabcorp showed that they are in fact rolling out land-based electronic betting terminals to spring and autumn racing carnivals and that those terminals, in fact, already exist in some sports stadiums across Australia.

The Nick Xenophon Team has some serious concerns in relation to these terminals. I understand it is separate to the bill being considered here to a certain degree; but given the harm that we know is caused by online sports betting and online gambling, can you advise whether or not the government is looking at incorporating the consideration of harm minimisation measures relating to land-based gambling as part of the national consumer protection framework that is currently under discussion?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that that is not currently in contemplation.

Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that the harms caused by gambling, whether pokies or online gambling, are largely the same—in that there are devastating consequences for a person's finances, possibly for their marriage and for their ability to pay their mortgage—and that the government is in active consideration of a national consumer protection framework, why then aren't land-based betting services and harm minimisation techniques applicable to those services currently under consideration?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The harm minimisation framework being worked on with the states and territories relates to online, not land-based, services. These place-based elements are matters that fall under state and territory jurisdiction, but the framework is focused on online. That is the reason.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just go back to the issue of the new burden of proof. It will be a balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, and it will be dealt with by ACMA. Given that there could well be a flood of complaints if it seems that there is more of a prospect that there will be action taken, what additional resources are being provided to ACMA to deal with what could be a significant number of complaints? If there is an actual flood of complaints, given the number of people who are hurt by these illegal offshore gambling sites, will the government undertake to make sure that these matters are dealt with and that complaints are not abandoned by virtue of a lack of resources on the part of ACMA?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All agencies make submissions to government in the budget process, in terms of their needs to the fill their duties.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure what that answer means, but presumably if ACMA—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot tell you what is in the budget is what it means.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, you cannot tell me what is the budget. Do you know what is in the budget? In relation to these matters, if you are looking at fining an offshore gambling operation—if it is Malta, Gibraltar, somewhere in the Caribbean or wherever they may be; I am not sure of this Uzbekistan is big on online gambling, and I apologise to the Uzbekistan if they are not—does the government say that they have the ability to pursue those companies and to obtain any monetary penalties from them given that they are based overseas? What undertakings will the government be able to obtain from those countries where these online gambling operations are based?

In some cases they may have an office in a place like the United Kingdom or a European country, but they are based in another jurisdiction. Trying to obtain a prosecution fine from these companies that have all sorts of complex and labyrinthine arrangements—has that been factored into the sorts of resources that ACMA will use? And is it expected that ACMA will prosecute these companies that may have operations in Gibraltar but a head office in London? How will it actually work? Or will they target any other operations they have in other countries—and I am talking about the illegal operations at this stage?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are relationships between Australian agencies and counterpart agencies in overseas jurisdictions.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not all, though!

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, there are many countries in the world. There will probably be the need to go through what the individual relationships are between Australia and each jurisdiction. I should also mention that we do have—as you know, Senator—as part of this legislation the capacity to notify the Department of Immigration and Border Protection of people who may be directors in these foreign countries, to place them on an alert list. There are also other disruptive measures. The amendments also extend the ambit of enforcement to affiliates and agents. Someone illegal operators engage a network of Australian-based agents and affiliates to recruit customers, so there is a greater capacity to deal with these individuals.

But you are right: the fact that some activities take place in foreign countries where there might not necessarily be those sorts of relationships with other agencies can prove to be an issue. But Australia is always working on ensuring that we have those good relationships where we can with partner agencies overseas.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the minister for that. I just wanted to ask if there is an arrangement with Gibraltar and Malta, for instance? They are two hot spots for these offshore sites.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that those relationships will be something that ACMA will use the provisions of the bill to establish.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that my colleague, Senator Kakoschke-Moore, will move an amendment in due course in relation to what many consider to be a loophole in the bill—scope for it to be strengthened in relation to the whole issue of in-play betting. Does the government concede that it would be easy to circumvent the proposed ban on in-play betting by the exemptions that the government itself has, in effect, facilitated in this bill?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in response to one of our questions on notice during the Senate committee's inquiry into this bill, concerning availability of in-play betting—those questions that we asked in relation to those concerns about the availability of in-play betting—the department responded:

The 'place-based betting service' exemption in proposed section 8BA is intended to permit betting services, including potentially in-play betting services, to be provided on electronic equipment (which may include easy betting terminals and/or tablets) made available to customers in places such as TABs, casinos and clubs.

Will the government undertake to conduct modelling or any other monitoring or review of whether this provision leads to an uptake in betting activity and problem gambling behaviour due to the increased availability of these electronic devices in TABs, casinos and clubs?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I need to emphasise, again, that this legislation is not creating a new circumstance. It is simply maintaining the status quo in relation to these matters. But it is certainly something that we can monitor. I guess that in this area we are always monitoring.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, I think that you and the minister may be pleased to know that this is my final line of questioning before I seek to move amendments on the running sheet!

The minister made reference in his closing remarks on the bill that there is going to be a national consumer protection framework in respect of online gambling. There were many recommendations made in the O'Farrell review and the minister is no doubt aware of Financial Counselling Australia's recommendations in relation to dealing with these issues. I know that Senator Roberts did outline a number of cases from that report that were quite horrendous stories of people who had lost life savings, who had been devastated financially and who had their lives ruined by sports betting. And this was legal sports betting.

In terms of the framework, the processes and the time line for this to be dealt with, could the minister elaborate on when that will take place? Will it be a case of Commonwealth legislation or will it be a case of state-based template legislation with other Commonwealth legislation? I think the concern is that the O'Farrell review did do some genuinely good work—I think it should have gone further, but it did do some good work to deal with these issues—you have had the report of Financial Counselling Australia and you are aware of the previous reports that the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform did back in the time of the Gillard government. What does the minister say will be the progress of that national consumer protection framework that so many in the community are so anxious to be progressed and implemented?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a meeting of gaming ministers on 31 March in Melbourne—I think it is—and the aim is to reach agreement at that meeting on a national framework. It will then be for the Commonwealth and the states and territories to finalise the details of that for a final decision later in the year. The time frame will depend on the implementation model that is chosen, so I cannot give you a definitive date at this time, but I can tell you that the intention and the objective is to reach agreement on 31 March on the national framework. The implementation and what legislation may be required and in which parliaments are matters to be determined.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do I take it from those comments that this is going to be done by state? Will it be state legislation or Commonwealth legislation? I am not sure whether it will be a combination of state and Commonwealth legislation. If it is going to be a combination of state and Commonwealth legislation, does the government concede that it clearly has the constitutional power, using corporations power, external affairs powers or banking and telecommunications powers to regulate this at a Commonwealth level, effectively, rather than what could be a lowest common denominator with the approach that we are now seeing?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is very much being approached as a cooperative and collective endeavour between the Commonwealth, states and territories, who are working together. As I say, 31 March is when gaming ministers meet, and the aim is to reach agreement on the national framework. I cannot pre-empt what the model will be and which legislative avenues will be pursued in which parliaments. Let me reassure you that Minister Tudge, who will be at that meeting, is extremely focused from the Commonwealth's point of view, as am I, in bringing this framework to fruition.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does that mean that if one jurisdiction—for instance, the Northern Territory, which makes a bit of money out of this; it seems to be the main place where online bookmakers are licensed because of a very, very—I will not say liberal—laissez-faire licensing regime and very low tax rates so it is a magnet for these overseas online illegal bookmakers—says, 'No, we don't want to go ahead with this', that is the end of the matter? I am concerned that the many good recommendations in the O'Farrell review can easily be stymied if just one jurisdiction that says: 'We do not want to go down this path. We are not prepared to cop it.' Is it the case that just one state or territory can effectively veto the consumer protection framework reform process?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me cite something that might give you cause for optimism. That is the communique of ministers who met on 25 November last year where state and territory ministers met for the first time to discuss their responses to the review of illegal offshore wagering. Ministers did commit, in principle, to bringing a national consumer protection framework into being.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The communique makes reference to a national consumer protection framework but did it say what the substance or content of that national consumer framework would be? You could call it a national consumer framework but it could have very little of substance or teeth. Was there a commitment, for instance, to implement, at the very least, the recommendations of the O'Farrell review?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was. As I said before, when gaming ministers meet on 31 March the objective is to reach agreement on a national framework. The implementation of that, the model that will give effect to it, is something that will need to be worked through.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For instance, recommendation 6 of the O'Farrell review at page 154 states:

Operators should be required to apply additional consumer protections where ‘credit’ or deferred settlement betting is available.

It does not say what those additional measures are. This is one example. Could the minister comment on that? Recommendation 7 states:

Links between online wagering operators and payday and other lenders should be discouraged.

'Discouraged' does not sound like a legislative enforcement, so I query that as well. Recommendation 4 states:

A national self-exclusion register that applies across all online operators should be developed, either by an expansion of the Northern Territory register or through a new national system. The costs associated with such a register should be borne by online operators.

With recommendation 4, through you Chairman, I think many would consider the Northern Territory register largely ineffective. 'Developing a self-exclusion register' does not mean it will be implemented. I am worried that the wording of the O'Farrell review, whilst well intended, is quite vague. If it is only going as far as that, it could be that we get recommendations to discourage something but that it does not actually have any legislative teeth to do some good in terms of reducing consumer harm.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Commonwealth and the state ministers have actually gone further than the O'Farrell review recommendation in relation to the prohibition of lines of credit being offered. The prohibition of lines of credit being offered by online wagering providers is in the communique of 25 November 2016. The communique also commits to a national self-exclusion register for online wagering and goes to the discouraging of links between online wagering operators and payday lenders.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Recommendation 11 says that the national policy framework should include consistent, enforceable rules about advertising of online gambling. Recommendation 12 says the national policy framework should ensure that advertising of online services using social digital media platforms is subject to similar regulatory controls as other media. Does that mean that there will actually be prohibitions in relation to that? There is a certain vagueness there. Has the ministerial council determined something more stringent than what was recommended in the O'Farrell review?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Options to implement recommendations 11 and 12 are one of the things that state ministers are conferring with the Commonwealth on.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Recommendation 18 says that Treasury and other relevant agencies should work with banks and credit card providers to identify potential payment-blocking strategies to disrupt illegal offshore wagering. Additionally, the recommendation from the 2012 DBCDE review of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 relating to safe harbour provisions should be adopted to support these efforts. Has Treasury undertaken any work to date with banks and credit card providers to identify potential payment-blocking strategies? That is something recommended in the O'Farrell review. Is that something that Treasury has actually done work on?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks for the opportunity to give an update on that. The Commonwealth Treasury is indeed leading the implementation of the response to recommendation 18 of the O'Farrell review, which, as you pointed out, committed to consult with banks and credit card providers to assess the potential options and practicality of payment-blocking strategies to address illegal offshore wagering. That is certainly something that is happening. Let me point out that, during the October 2016 consultation period, Treasury consulted with 10 external stakeholders, including the Australian Bankers' Association, MasterCard, Visa and the Australian Payments Clearing Association as well as government agencies.

Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I return to our earlier line of questioning about complaints referred by ACMA to the AFP that have not been acted on. I am curious to know whether once this bill passes ACMA has increased enforcement and compliance powers for those complaints they had previously referred to the AFP. Does ACMA have an own-motion power to revisit those complaints and determine whether or not they are in breach of the new law, or will it require fresh complaints from the public about websites in order for ACMA to take action under its new powers?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is open to ACMA to look at those, but it is a matter for them.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 8709:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 26 and 27), omit paragraph (e), substitute:

(e) unlicensed regulated interactive gambling services must not be advertised;

(f) a restricted wagering service must not offer credit to use the service.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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

Division 2—Prohibition of credit betting

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: 500 penalty 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 day the relevant civil penalty order is made, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

(6) Schedule 1, item 139, page 33 (line 13), at the end of subsection 64C(1), add:

; (j) section 61GA.

(7) Schedule 1, item 139, page 34 (line 18), at the end of subsection 64D(1), add:

; (j) section 61GA.

These amendments are being moved separately. My colleagues in the Senate will note that I have a number of amendments moved that mirror in many respects the legislation I previously moved in this place as a private senator's bill that my colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore has co-sponsored. These amendments relate to the provision of credit. They relate to the banning of the provision of credit. The reason I am moving them separately is that, in the context of the debate in the House of Representatives, the Hon. Julie Collins when addressing the amendments moved by my colleague the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie MP, said:

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.

So that is why I have moved them. I think the ALP, the opposition, is not minded to support other amendments. We can debate that later. But, in terms of these amendments in respect of credit betting, there seems to be an indication from the opposition and, I hope, others, including my colleagues the Australian Greens, with whom we have done a lot of work together on online gambling. In fact, with One Nation back in 2001 I remember sitting in the offices of Senator Len Harris and talking to him about those issues. I think I asked Senator Hanson questions when she went to the South Australian Press Club. She may not remember my very forgettable question—what was she going to do on online gambling—but that opened a dialogue which led to a very helpful outcome, at least, to put this on the agenda.

This amendments means that credit should not be provided by wagering services, and 'credit' is defined in 11A of the amendment as:

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

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

Credit betting is banned. In many jurisdictions in respect of poker machines, the rationale is quite simple: if you give someone credit while they are chasing their losses, that can feed gambling addiction, and that is something that ought to be prohibited. It is a basic and fundamental consumer protection measure. It is a basic and fundamental measure to tackle gambling addiction, and that is why this amendment has been moved—and I am grateful for the indication of support from the opposition, the Australian Labor Party, in relation to this. I believe we need to go much further, but this is a good start, because banning credit betting will go some way towards preventing those operators from offering credit betting, which can fuel gambling addiction.

I was involved in a matter in Victoria where I had to appear pro bono as a lawyer several years ago for a person who did credit betting. The betting agency involved eventually did the right thing. The person had lost their home, and they were declared bankrupt, as I recollect. We ended up getting the bankruptcy reversed and the person's home returned, including stamp duty being paid. But that was driven by credit betting. There were real questions there about the capacity of that person to make those bets, and that was why we were able to reverse that transaction, that very traumatic set of circumstances. I still get Christmas cards all these years later from the mother of the person involved, who lives in Melbourne. This is a live issue. It is a big issue, and I would urge all my colleagues to support this.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, we are with you in spirit; but, as I have indicated, this is something that we are pursuing through the consumer protection framework. It is important that there is consultation so that there are not any unintended consequences. As I say, we are with you in spirit, but we have a process that we are working through, and we are making good progress with the states.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is concerned about unintended consequences. I will tell you what the consequences will be. Fewer people will go broke, fewer people will go bankrupt and fewer people will lose their homes. Credit betting should not be allowed under any circumstances. What is there to consider or consult about? It is rapacious conduct on the part of gambling operators to offer credit betting, particularly to people who have no prospect of paying it back unless they end up selling their assets. I would urge the government to reconsider its position. I know that my colleague Senator O'Neill wishes to contribute to the debate.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are as opposed to the practice as you are, Senator Xenophon—

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Except you voted for it!

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sam, just grow up, for once in your life!

Senator Dastyari interjecting—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't stand up and lie.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Dastyari! Resume your seat, Minister. Senator Dastyari, can I invite you to withdraw that imputation, please.

I withdraw the imputation.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, this is not a contest as to who is more opposed to this particular practice; we all are. We have a process in place that we are pursuing to address this.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As indicated in my speech, Labor will support this amendment, and my colleague in the other place the member for Franklin, who was referred to in the comments, indicated that. We are committed to harm minimisation measures that are effective as strategies to prevent problem gambling.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 8079 be agreed to.