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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (23) and (25) on sheet 8038:

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

(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 (after line 26), after 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.

(6) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (before line 5), 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.

(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (before line 22), 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.

(8) 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.

(9) 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.

(10) 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.

(11) 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.

(12) 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 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 interactive gambling service.

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

Parties

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

(a) the Regulator; and

(b) the ADI; and

(c) the provider of the prohibited interactive gambling service.

Service

(4) The Regulator must notify the:

(a) the ADI; and

(b) the provider of the prohibited interactive 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 interactive 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 interactive gambling service;

(c) whether access to, or transactions in relation to, the prohibited interactive 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.

(13) 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 contravene 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:   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.

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:   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.

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:   2,000 penalty 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 day the relevant civil penalty order is made, 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:   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.

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.

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 day the relevant civil penalty order is made, 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:   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.

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 day the relevant civil penalty order is made, 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:   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.

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 day the relevant civil penalty order is made, 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.

Civil 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 day the relevant civil penalty order is made, 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 wagering service must include link to National Self -exclusion Register website

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

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

(b) the service includes a website; and

(c) the website does not include a clear and prominent link to the National Self-exclusion Register website that complies with regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph on each page.

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.

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.

Regulations

(5) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c) may include requirements in relation to the following:

(a) the position of the link;

(b) the size of the link;

(c) logos that must be included with the link;

(d) any other information that may be required to be included with the link.

Division 3—Prohibition of advertising of restricted wagering services

61GO Restricted wagering service advertisements not to be broadcast during certain programs

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person broadcasts a restricted wagering service advertisement in Australia;

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

I move Nick Xenophon Team amendment (24) on sheet 8038:

(24) 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.

I excised this amendment because of a request from the Australian Greens, and I respect that request. This amendment says that the minister must within six months after the commencement of this section make a legislative instrument requiring internet service providers to block access to illegal overseas gambling websites. This is something that I know is contentious, but if you want this to work it can work.

We know from just one company, Netsweeper of Canada, that I met with and that have given submissions to inquiries in relation to this that you can have internet content filtering categorisation, web threat management solutions and services that allow organisations to manage internet access and activity. This can be used for gambling. This can be used to ensure that these illegal overseas online gambling sites cannot be easily accessed. Netsweeper is not 100 per cent perfect, but my understanding is that it ends up filtering well over 95 per cent of these sites. It makes it very difficult for these sites to be accessed. We know from the Australian Bankers Association that they can track the merchant numbers, or they have a pretty good idea of what the merchant numbers are, of these unauthorised online casinos. We do not know exactly how much is lost to these casinos, but it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. If we are going to be fair dinkum about tackling illegal online casinos this is the way to do it. This has merit and will be effective.

It is enough of a battle to deal with the legal online bookmakers here in Australia, with sports betting and the damage that causes, but it is really the wild west when it comes to these unauthorised online casinos from overseas. I have had constituents and Senator Kakoschke-Moore has worked with constituents who have been devastated by losses to companies that are based in Malta, Gibraltar or the Caribbean. I commend this amendment as a means of requiring the government to seriously tackle this by ensuring that we use available technologies to block these sites.

Question negatived.

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

() (): by leave—I move Nick Xenophon Team amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 8046 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 21), after the definition of designated interactive gambling service, insert:

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.

[Note: The definition of " electronic equipment " has not been removed because it is used in the definition of " electronic betting terminals " .]

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

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

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

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

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

It is the view of the Nick Xenophon Team that the bill as it is currently drafted will increase the opportunities for in-play betting in TABs, clubs and licensed premises. This goes against the intention of the government's bill. Indeed, the Department of Communications and the Arts admitted that the definition of electronic equipment within the bill could include smartphones and tablets. They also admitted that they have done no analysis or modelling of whether this will increase the effects of problem gambling.

Consequently, the amendments on sheet 8046 narrow the definition of electronic equipment and make it clear that electronic equipment will instead be defined as an electronic betting terminal which is installed on a permanent or fixed basis at a place where gambling services are provided, is unable to be connected to the internet in a designated supervised area and is available for the use only of customers using cash or a card issued by the provider.

This definition will limit in-play betting to electronic betting terminals to ensure that gambling operators do not seek to expand their operations by allowing people to place in-play bets using tablets or smartphones provided by the venue. These terminals are permanent installations located in a specific area set aside for gambling and are unable to be connected to the internet. We put that if the government is sincere in its intent to clamp down on in-play sports betting it should not be enabling venues to hand out tablets and smartphones to its customers. Therefore, we encourage the Senate to support the amendments on sheet 8046, which will put a stop to this harmful practice.

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

Labor is well and truly on the record for raising concerns about terminals in licensed venues. As I have already stated, we do not want to see and do not support a proliferation of mobile devices. Minister Tudge, in the other place, has already said that he will act if there is a proliferation, and Labor expects the government to maintain the status quo. We are not supporting the amendment, on this occasion, but I just wanted to put on the record, again, that we have raised concerns about this issue and I indicate, clearly, to the government that Labor does not expect to see a proliferation of mobile devices, given the minister's comments.

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

I am grateful to the fact that the opposition have the courtesy to respond to it. I do not agree with the argument and think it is a weak one, respectfully, but could the minister at least humour us and give a response to this amendment? You did not on the previous amendments, but this is a pretty discrete amendment. It goes to the heart of this bill about in-play betting and whether it can be circumvented. This amendment, moved by my colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore, seeks to obviate that. Can the minister give us the government's position on this amendment and any undertakings that if there is a proliferation of tablets, smartphone devices, the government will monitor it and act accordingly?

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

Thank you, Senator Xenophon. We did canvass these matters extensively last night, your contributions, and those of Senator Kakoschke-Moore, in relation to these amendments and the previous ones and I responded to those, at length, last night. As the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, I have the practice of avoiding repeating myself, where I can, to ensure that legislation is passed efficiently. But let me restate that this legislation is not seeking to create a new situation. This legislation is, simply, seeking comment, with place based betting, to maintain the status quo. As I indicated last night, this is something that we will monitor.

Question negatived.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

As I indicated in my second reading contribution, the government believes that online poker poses a risk to problem gambling in Australia and it will maintain the prohibition of these services under the Interactive Gambling Act. The act creates an offence of providing or advertising interactive gambling services to customers in Australia, prohibiting gambling services—including online casino-style gaming services, including online poker—which are played for money or anything else of value. The intent of the act is to minimise the scope of gambling in Australia.

The government was clear in its response to the illegal offshore wagering review that it will not expand the online betting market in Australia. This bill will maintain the status quo and uphold the original intent of the Interactive Gambling Act. Online poker will, therefore, remain a prohibited interactive gambling service.

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

Senator Leyonhjelm has obviously thought through this amendment and it would be disrespectful not to respond to it.

I and my colleagues do not support this amendment for a number of reasons. There is an ambiguity as to how it would operate and as to what the betting limits would be. I have met with poker machine players who like playing online poker, and they have made the point that sometimes you pay $50 and it will last you for a number of hours, which is very different from sports betting services where you can lose thousands of dollars with just one bet. Their argument is that there is an inconsistency in the current law that allows sports betting where enormous amounts of money can be lost; whereas, if online poker were regulated with very small bet limits, it would not be as harmful as sports betting. I am not canvassing and I am not commenting on those remarks as such. But, in the context of this debate, whilst I do not want to see any expansion of online gambling, there does seem to be a dichotomy between poker players, who have described to me that they can bet 1c at a time and lose very small amounts of money in the scheme of things, and sports betting. Senator Leyonhjelm has raised an important issue.

The paradox may be that if there were very low bet limits, and I am talking very low bet limits as a number of cents compared to dollars or multiples of dollars, the impact would be smaller than sports betting as it currently exists. It is a matter that the Productivity Commission raised in its reports on gambling. I think there will still be an ongoing debate on this, and I understand the point of online poker players who say that there is a dichotomy between a game where $50 will keep you playing all day compared to being able to lose literally tens of thousands of dollars at a time with sports betting. This is something that will need to be debated. I do not want to be seen to be encouraging an expansion of gambling, but there is an inconsistency in the approach of the government and opposition to sports betting, where you can bet thousands of dollars at a time per game or per sporting event—per horse race—compared to online poker, where there could be some very strict limits as to what could be bet. It is something that needs to be debated further.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad Senator Xenophon made the distinction between poker machines and poker. It is an important one. I do support the amendment from Senator Leyonhjelm. I have had a number of emails, text messages and tweets about this saying, 'I am a poker player. I am a hobby poker player. I enjoy it. I have fun. Please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Please don't include this.' If you will support Senator Leyonhjelm's amendment, I am happy to support the bill.

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

In the same way, I have respect for Senator Leyonhjelm with regard to the amendment he has put forward. With regard to these matters, the Senate standing committee's report indicates in its closing section at 2.62:

Whether particular services should no longer be restricted under the IGA is a separate question that this committee was not asked to consider as part of this inquiry.

That is one important point that should be made here in the course of the debate. We do also need to put on the record that the purpose of this particular piece of legislation is to act in a harm minimisation way as a preventative to the adverse outcomes of gambling in our community. I make that point by way of contribution to the debate this afternoon.

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

I want to add a few additional comments to put this into context. There is a very active poker community in Australia. They like to play poker. They like to win. There are tournaments. They make money. Some people lose money. Some of them have high stakes, and they can lose a lot of money at once, but mostly it is pretty small beer. That is not, essentially, regulated very much at all. That occurs in pubs and clubs where people gather, and if you are interested in playing poker competitively, there are no shortage of opportunities. What we are doing here is saying, 'You can't do that online. You can't play poker online with the same sort of people.' The risks are the same—you can lose small amounts of money or large amounts of money—and you bet what you choose. Yet, we are saying, 'No you're not allowed to do that online. You're only allowed to do it face-to-face.' It a little bit like saying to Australians, 'You're allowed to talk to each other by telephone, but you are not allowed to talk to each other by FaceTime, because FaceTime goes via a server in another country.' I am sure most of you know what FaceTime is. It is that method within Facebook of talking to each other external to the telephone system. What we are basically saying here is that one kind of playing poker is okay, but another kind of playing poker is not okay because it is online. Seriously! This is the 21st century. Almost everything is online these days, and to pretend that we can regulate so that you can do one but not the other is dreaming. I think it is very bad legislation. We really should not entertain it.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8054 moved by Senator Leyonhjelm be agreed to.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8093:

(1) Schedule 1, item 26, page 11 (after line 13), at the end of paragraph 8A(5) (c), add:

(vi) a service relating to betting on the outcome of a lottery;

(2) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 15), after item 27, insert:

27A At the end of subsection 8D(2)

Add:

; or (c) betting on the outcome of a lottery.

My amendments are about a service related to betting on the outcome of a lottery. We have a foreign investor in Australia by the name of Lottoland, who bought a licence in the Northern Territory for $550,000. They are actually allowing people to bet on the outcome of a lottery anywhere in the world. They pay no tax. They are here in Australia. They do not employ a lot of people; they employ about six people. They are providing a service that is detrimental to 4½ thousand newsagents around this country who rely on lottery tickets being sold and who are struggling. So here we have a foreign company in Australia, possibly taking hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, out of the country in unpaid taxes.

I also raised this in light of the government moving a bill in this house to address multinationals not paying their taxes in Australia. I think this has been on the table since almost 20 years ago when, I can remember, I raised the topic of multinationals not paying their taxes in Australia. This would be a good reason for the government to support my amendment to shut down one foreign multinational company working here in Australia and to stop the demise of 4½ thousand newsagents who are losing business because of this. If they are fair dinkum about clamping down on multinationals in Australia—in this case not employing a lot of Australians—taking money out of the country by not paying taxes here, then I expect the government and the opposition to support my amendments.

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

I thank Senator Hanson and her office for taking the government through the intent of One Nation's amendments. I think my colleagues would appreciate that, under the law as it is, Lottoland is not illegal, and I think that is the point of Senator Hanson's amendments. Lottoland is also not offshore. It is a licensed service in the Northern Territory, and the proposition here is beyond the scope of this bill. As Senator Hanson and One Nation have put this proposition here, the government will examine it, but it is important, with the proposed changes, that there be consultation. So it is not possible for the government to support these amendments in the context of this bill, but, as One Nation have asked that we examine this, we are happy to do so.

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

I indicate very briefly that I and my colleague strongly support these amendments. If the government does not support them, I genuinely suggest Senator Hanson put up a private senator's bill. I would co-sponsor it. The sooner we get onto it, the better. We need to bring this to a head. This is a loophole under current laws. It is beyond me that the Northern Territory regulator actually allows this to be licensed. I believe it is a sneaky and tricky form of gambling that effectively allows more people to get sucked in or roped in and become gambling addicts, because this service promises huge returns, but the odds are even huger. I think it is very problematic in terms of it being offered as a service. It also has a real impact on state-based lotteries. Whatever problems you have with those, at least you know that the revenue is staying here in the Commonwealth rather than going off overseas.

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

I too would like to put Labor's position that we are very sympathetic to the issue that Pauline Hanson's One Nation party has drawn to the attention of the chamber through these amendments. However, it did arrive into the whole consultation very, very late, and one of the important things in legislative care is to make sure that there is adequate consultation, so we will not be supporting these amendments at this point in time.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased that the government has recognised the merit of these amendments so far as the tax is concerned and so far as it will be considered. I will just add some weight to that because the evasion of tax by foreign entities is something that has not been addressed since 1953. It is something that we must, must get on top of because of our debt situation in this country and the unfairness of our tax system. It needs to be a part of the considered and comprehensive review of our tax system.

The CHAIR: The question is that Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8093, as moved by Senator Hanson, be agreed to.