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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill amends relevant legislation to put a positive obligation on gambling companies to report to AUSTRAC if they have any reason to suspect a person is paying for a gambling service with money that they've obtained illegally. And where a better has paid for a gambling service using funds they did obtain illegally, the bill enables the Federal Court to order the gambling company to compensate the injured party for their loss. In other words, the bill will reduce the opportunity for gambling companies to profit from the misfortune of others and ensure that gambling entities are held accountable by preventing them profiting from illegal behaviour in particular. It targets the unconscionable conduct of gambling companies to ensure that the money they receive from betters has not been obtained at the misfortune of innocent parties.

By way of background, Australians continue to be the world's biggest gambling losers per capita. Indeed, according to the latest annual figures of Australian Gambling Statistics, Australians lost over $25 billion in 2018-2019, which equates to $1,276 per person, for every person. And it's getting worse.

Indeed, according to the Australian Institute of Family Studies' report, Gambling in Australia During COVID-19, dated October 2020, one in three survey participants signed up for a new online betting account during the early days of the pandemic. Even with limited access to venues, overall, participants were gambling more often. Indeed, the proportion who gambled four or more times a week increased from 23 per cent to 32 per cent. Of particular concern, 79 per cent of participants were classified as being at risk of, or already experiencing, gambling related harm.

And the Australian Communications and Media Authority's annual consumer survey, more recently, in 2022, found that online gambling increased significantly between 2020 and 2021. Indeed, the percentage of Australians who participated in online gambling was sitting steady at approximately eight per cent up until 2020, but this increased dramatically to 11 per cent in 2021. Moreover, 16 per cent of those surveyed reported gambling at a higher frequency than before the pandemic. According to other research—and this comes really to the essence of the bill—there is a clear correlation between problem gambling and crime. Moreover, the more complex, prolonged and persistent the gambling problem, the more likely it is that a crime will be committed. But, while there is a growing understanding that gambling addiction is a behavioural disorder, this has not been translated into sentencing by the courts. Indeed, problem gambling is, bizarrely, not considered to be a mitigating factor in sentencing in the same way that mental health problems or drug and alcohol addiction are.

At this point, I'd like to acknowledge Mr Gavin Fineff, who is the inspiration for this bill and who has helped to develop it. Gavin is a former financial adviser who lost more than $8 million of his clients' money through gambling after he was targeted by three of the country's biggest online betting agencies. Yes, Gavin understands that he did the wrong thing, takes full responsibility for his actions and will accept any punishment meted out by the courts, without appeal. But he feels he is not the only one to blame, and he is right, considering the predatory practices of the gambling companies as they took advantage of Gavin's gambling addiction.

First there was Tabcorp, where Gavin was quickly promoted to VIP status, assigned a personal customer service manager and offered special treatment, including events, experiences and bonus money to bet with. Of course he was, because Gavin was gambling and losing big-time. Indeed, from September 2016 to June 2018 there were 194 times when he deposited $10,000 or more into his TAB account and 23 times when he made a withdrawal of more than $10,000 from his account, 10 of which were for $50,000. But, as Gavin continued to lose more and more money, rather than offering him support, Tabcorp fuelled his growing addiction with bonus money and tickets to sporting events to encourage his gambling. All the while, Tabcorp never intervened—never asked Gavin for proof of funds, never asked for proof of income and never showed the slightest interest in where all the money was coming from—until it was too late and Gavin had lost almost $4 million. Yes, his TAB account was eventually frozen, but this didn't stop the predatory gambling companies from continuing to knock on his door.

Next, there was Ladbrokes. About three weeks after his Tabcorp account was frozen, Gavin was contacted by representatives from that company, completely out of the blue, who offered to sign Gavin up with a 'superior experience', including thousands of dollars in bonus bets. When Gavin disclosed that his Tabcorp account had been frozen, the Ladbrokes representative facilitated an account under a false name. He was never asked for identification nor, again, asked for proof of income.

And then there was BetEasy. A few months after signing with Ladbrokes, where he lost close to $700,000, Gavin was contacted out of the blue by gambling company BetEasy, who set up an account for Gavin and gave him $50,000 in free bonus bets, which he lost within the space of 45 minutes. Over the next 16 months, Gavin lost approximately $3.6 million with BetEasy. And, again, BetEasy never asked him for proof of income and only checked his identification in the last two months of his gambling with that company.

This brings me back to the bill. Gavin Fineff believes—and I agree with him—that he was deliberately targeted by the gambling companies for his addiction. Of course the betting agencies would have known that Gavin's gambling was suspicious, because their software tracks certain behaviour and hunts down the most vulnerable so they can be groomed and milked of every dollar they have. And this must stop, because gambling companies are preying on the financially and emotionally vulnerable and must be held accountable for their unconscionable and unethical behaviour. So, while I in no way condone Gavin's behaviour, I do acknowledge that an addict, by definition, has lost control of their behaviour and that the bigger crims are those that knowingly create the addiction in the first place. At least Gavin is prepared to try and do something about it, and good on him for that.

I now invite the member for Mayo, who is seconding the bill, to contribute to the debate in my remaining time.

See this speech in context