Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate amendments be disagreed to and that the following government amendments, government amendments (1) and (2), as circulated, be made in place thereof:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 38 (after line 10), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Prohibition of credit betting

Interactive Gambling Act 2001

1 Section 3

After:

(c) an Australian-based prohibited interactive gambling service must not be provided to customers in designated countries;

insert:

(ca) credit must not be provided to customers of certain interactive wagering services;

2 Section 4

Insert:

credit has the meaning given by section 11A.

related company group means a group of 2 or more bodies corporate, where each member of the group is related to each other member of the group. For this purpose, the question whether a body corporate is related to another body corporate is to be determined in the same manner as that question is determined under the Corporations Act 2001.

wagering service means a service covered by paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of gambling service.

wagering service provider means a person who provides a wagering service.

wagering turnover of a person for a financial year means so much of the turnover of the person for the financial year as is attributable to the provision of wagering services.

3 After section 11

Insert:

11A Credit

For the purposes of this Act, credit is provided by a person (the creditor) to another person (the debtor) if, under a contract, arrangement or understanding:

(a) payment of a debt owed by the debtor to the creditor is deferred; or

(b) the debtor incurs a deferred debt to the creditor.

4 After Part 2A

Insert:

Part 2B—Credit not to be provided to customers of certain interactive wagering services

15B Simplified outline of this Part

15C Credit not to be provided to customers of certain interactive wagering services

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a regulated interactive gambling service that is a wagering service; and

(b) either:

  (i) the person provides, or offers to provide, credit in connection with the service to a customer, or prospective customer, of the service who is physically present in Australia; or

  (ii) the person facilitates or promotes the provision of credit (other than by way of an independently-issued credit card), by a third person, in connection with the service to a customer, or prospective customer, of the service who is physically present in Australia.

Penalty: 500 penalty units.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits a separate offence in respect of each day (including a day of conviction for the offence or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

(3) A person who provides a regulated interactive gambling service that is a wagering service must not:

(a) provide, or offer to provide, credit in connection with the service to a customer, or prospective customer, of the service who is physically present in Australia; or

(b) facilitate or promote the provision of credit (other than by way of an independently-issued credit card), by a third person, in connection with the service to a customer, or prospective customer, of the service who is physically present in Australia.

Civil penalty: 750 penalty units.

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (3) commits a separate contravention of that provision in respect of each day during which the contravention occurs (including the day the relevant civil penalty order is made or any later day).

(5) Subsections (1) and (3) do not apply if the person:

(a) did not know; and

(b) could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained;

that the customer, or prospective customer, as the case may be, was physically present in Australia.

Note: In the case of proceedings for an offence against subsection (1), the defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), in determining whether the person could, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the customer, or prospective customer, as the case may be, was physically present in Australia, the following matters are to be taken into account:

(a) whether the customer, or prospective customer, as the case may be, was informed that Australian law prohibits the provision of credit to customers, or prospective customers, who are physically present in Australia;

(b) whether the person required customers to provide personal details and, if so, whether those details suggested that the customer was not physically present in Australia;

(c) whether the person has network data that indicates that customers were physically present outside Australia:

  (i) when the relevant customer account was opened; and

  (ii) throughout the period when the service was provided to the customer;

(d) any other relevant matters.

(7) For the purposes of the application of subsections (1) and (3) to a person who provides a regulated interactive gambling service, independently-issued credit card means:

(a) if the person is not a member of a related company group—a credit card issued by another person; or

(b) if the person is a member of a related company group—a credit card issued by another person who is not a member of the related company group.

(8) Section 15.4 of the Criminal Code (extended geographical jurisdiction—category D) applies to an offence against subsection (1).

15D Exception—provider ' s annual wagering turnover less than $30 million

(1) Subsections 15C(1) and (3) do not apply to conduct engaged in by a person at a particular time (the relevant time) in a financial year (the current financial year) in relation to a regulated interactive gambling service if:

(a) the service is a telephone betting service; and

(b) both:

  (i) the conduct involves providing, or offering to provide, credit in connection with the service to a customer, or prospective customer, of the service; and

  (ii) dealings with the customer, or prospective customer, as the case may be, in relation to providing, or offering to provide that credit are wholly by way of one or more voice calls; and

(c) in a case where:

  (i) the person is not a member of a related company group at the relevant time; and

  (ii) the person was a wagering service provider throughout the last financial year that ended before the relevant time;

the wagering turnover of the person for that financial year was less than $30 million; and

(d) in a case where:

  (i) the person is not a member of a related company group at the relevant time; and

  (ii) the person was not a wagering service provider throughout the last financial year that ended before the relevant time;

it is reasonably likely that the wagering turnover of the person for the current financial year will be less than $30 million; and

(e) in a case where:

  (i) the person is a member of a related company group at the relevant time; and

  (ii) the person was a wagering service provider throughout the last financial year that ended before the relevant time;

the total wagering turnover of the members of the group for that financial year was less than $30 million; and

(f) in a case where:

  (i) the person is a member of a related company group at the relevant time; and

  (ii) the person was not a wagering service provider throughout the last financial year that ended before the relevant time;

it is reasonably likely that the total wagering turnover of the members of the group for the current financial year will be less than $30 million; and

(g) in a case where, during the whole or a part of the last financial year that ended before the relevant time, the person had one or more employees whose duties involved the provision of wagering services—during the whole or a part of that financial year, at least one of those employees performed those duties at a racecourse in Australia; and

(h) in a case where:

  (i) the person is an individual; and

  (ii) the person did not, at any time during the last financial year that ended before the relevant time, have any employees whose duties involved the provision of wagering services;

during the whole or a part of that financial year, the person provided wagering services at a racecourse in Australia; and

  (i) the other conditions (if any) determined under subsection (2) have been satisfied.

Note: In the case of proceedings for an offence against subsection 15C(1), the defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

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

(3) For the purposes of this section, voice call means a voice call (within the meaning of section 8AA) that is made using a carriage service.

15E Exception—customer is a gambling service provider

(1) Subsections 15C(1) and (3) do not apply if:

(a) the customer, or prospective customer, of the regulated interactive gambling service is the provider of a gambling service; and

(b) the other conditions (if any) determined under subsection (2) have been satisfied.

Note: In the case of proceedings for an offence against subsection 15C(1), the defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

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

15F Acquisition of property

(1) Section 15C has no effect to the extent (if any) to which its operation would result in an acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) from a person otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph).

(2) Section 15C does not prevent a person from recovering a debt that was deferred or incurred before the commencement of that section.

15G Review of operation of this Part

(1) After the end of the 3-year period beginning at the commencement of this section, the ACMA must conduct a review of the operation of:

(a) this Part; and

(b) the remaining provisions of this Act, so far as they relate to this Part.

Public consultation

(2) A review under subsection (1) must make provision for public consultation.

Report

(3) The ACMA must:

(a) give the Minister a report of the review within 6 months after the end of the 3-year period mentioned in subsection (1); and

(b) as soon as practicable after giving the report to the Minister, publish the report on the ACMA's website.

(4) The Minister must cause copies of a report under subsection (3) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

5 After paragraph 16(b)

Insert:

(ba) Part 2B; or

6 After subparagraph 21(1 ) ( a ) ( ii)

Insert:

  (iia) Part 2B; or

7 After paragraph 64A(c)

Insert:

(ca) subsection 15C(3); or

8 After paragraph 64C(1 ) ( c)

Insert:

(ca) subsection 15C(3);

9 After paragraph 64D(1 ) ( c)

Insert:

(ca) subsection 15C(3);

The amendments which we present today to the House are very important amendments. In essence, they will prohibit online gambling companies from being able to offer lines of credit to their customers. This was an election commitment of ours in 2013; it was raised by the O'Farrell review into online gambling; it was an election commitment of ours in 2016; and now the amendments to this bill will implement those commitments.

In essence, we are concerned about online gambling companies offering lines of credit, because there is too much of a conflict between a gambling company providing gambling services on the one hand and effectively being a bank on the other, to enable a gambler to continue with their gambling practice even if they have already cleaned out their savings account and any other asset that they have. We hold the principle very dear that there should be a separation between those two things.

This has been a very personal commitment of mine as well since my first term in this parliament—from perhaps five years ago now. It was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine who came to see me with his widowed mother. He was a person who had a gambling problem and was unemployed at the time. He did not have a job and he would have struggled to get a second-hand car loan, but he was offered, first of all, $5,000 by Sportsbet to continue his betting by way of a line of credit and then $10,000, then $20,000, then $40,000 and then $80,000 in credit by this online gambling company for him to continue his betting practices despite him being an unemployed individual. He came to see me after the gambling company said to him, after he had blown all of that money, that he had to pay back the money and that they were going to bankrupt him and seize his and his widowed mother's house to pay back the debt. I committed at that time that we should fix this problem, and today this bill does exactly that.

Importantly, though, the bill does provide an exemption, and that is the exemption for trackside bookmakers—in essence, those trackside bookmakers who have been doing their practice for hundreds of years. Indeed, my understanding is that that is where credit betting initially originated—from giving a nod to a potential customer trackside. We had always said that we would exclude that category, and this important amendment does exclude that category of people from the application of the otherwise broad principle of prohibiting gambling companies offering lines of credit. The bill also allows a transition period of six months before the prohibition comes into effect, to allow waging operators and consumers to adjust their business and betting practices, with no time limits placed on the recovery of debts as such. But the amendment also gives authority for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to undertake a statutory review after three years to assess the effectiveness of these new provisions. It also prohibits operators from promoting or facilitating credit via a third party—for example, small account credit contractors such as payday lenders—which was not captured in the initial Senate amendments.

I would like to thank the member for Franklin, who is sitting opposite me, for her cooperation in working through these amendments. These amendments, in essence, are in place of amendments which were moved by the Xenophon Team in the Senate and which the Labor Party supported. We were concerned that those amendments had not been thought through and had not made that carve out provision for the trackside bookmakers. There were also a few other technical problems with those amendments. In consultation with the member for Franklin, as well as with the broader industry, the responsible gambling groups such as Responsible Wagering Australia, we are confident that this bill, these amendments, will fulfil the overall objective of prohibiting lines of credit being offered. That will help many thousands of people in the years ahead, as well as provide that essential carve out for the trackside bookmakers, so that they continue their practice. I commend these amendments to the House.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor has always maintained a strong stance to ensure appropriate harm minimisation measures are in place to protect and assist our community when it comes to responsible gambling. We know that the majority of people who gamble enjoy it and do it in a responsible manner. However, we also acknowledge that gambling in our community can, in some cases, have devastating social, financial and emotional consequences. That is why we supported many elements of the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016, moved by the minister in this place. The Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 is an important starting point that will go towards improving protections for those who choose to wager within an online environment.

Labor has been very clear on our position when it comes to banning credit betting. We have always thought a ban on credit betting is an important part of harm minimisation measures, particularly in relation to problem gambling. And that is why we did support a Senate amendment to ban credit betting. While I appreciate and acknowledge the minister's personal commitment, it is a shame that this provision was not in the original bill. I am not sure why it was not in the original bill, and I understand that the minister wanted to deal with the states on these matter first and come to that. But it really could have been in the original bill, and we could have had this bill through the houses of parliament months earlier. But it is very pleasing to see that the government and the minister have worked very hard to ensure that this amendment occurs and that the ban on credit betting provision will be in the bill. I also understand and appreciate the government's consultation in relation to the trackside bookmakers and the exemptions that will be provided in this bill for them.

When it comes to that exemption, I have also sought some assurances from the government and the minister that the turnover of $30 million is an appropriate threshold to have this exemption for trackside bookmakers. I want to put on record that, if there is any way that any of the other gaming operators try to get through this loophole, I would expect the government to act on that. It is of course only intended for trackside bookies that this occurs. I appreciate the government working on that and I appreciate the consultation from the government on it, and I am really pleased to see that finally we will get some harm minimisation for people in an online gambling environment. I will be supporting the government's amendment.

Question agreed to.