Mr STEPHEN SMITH (10:35 AM) —The problem for the government is that the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 which is before the House now, on this last scheduled day of sitting before Christmas, is internally inconsistent, hypocritical and will not work. That is the basic problem; it will not work. In the latter stages of his second reading speech—which, whilst a second reading speech to the House, was read by him for the first time—referred to industry uncertainty. Nothing could cause industry more uncertainty than the measure that the government is pursuing. Consistent with the spirit of Christmas past, I will outline to the minister and the House how the opposition proposes to handle debate on this matter, which has been presented to the House at the death knock.

Before the conclusion of my remarks, I will formally move a second reading amendment which again places on the record the opposition's approach to this particular piece of legislation. We propose to divide on that second reading amendment and then to formally oppose all further stages, including the third reading, but not to delay the House unnecessarily by dividing on those issues. We would not be proposing to conduct a detailed committee stage debate given that this matter has been exhaustively considered by the Senate: firstly, in the bill's initial form, secondly, in the committee's report and, thirdly, by the Senate in the last couple of days when the government recommitted the bill to the Senate.

The bill seeks to impose a moratorium on online gambling. The minister refers to a 12-month period, but the moratorium is proposed to be retrospective to the date of announcement in May of this year, so the government's moratorium will be effective until May of next year. The problem for the opposition is that a moratorium is simply a fancy word for a short-term ban. We also believe that the government's unstated intention is to seek to effect a long-term ban. The problem with any ban in this area is that the ban will not work. It is unworkable and ineffective, and it will only have the consequence of driving users and industry to offshore sites. So www.gamblingaustralia will become www.gamblingoffshore, leaving open the risk that even more Australians will be at risk from the worst excesses of gambling without any of the protections that a sensible, regulated industry arrangement in Australia could effect. To slide this bill through the Senate to effect a recommittal, the government is relying upon a hotchpotch of coalitions, a splinter group of Democrats and the Tasmanian Green. We saw last night a couple of the Democrats voting in favour of the government's proposal, a couple of the Democrats abstaining and a handful of them voting against. Such is the tension within the Australian Democrats party at the moment that that dispute spilled over publicly onto the floor of the Senate in a most unseemly way so far as senators would be concerned. Adding to the industry uncertainty is the unholy alliance and shamble of coalitions which the government's legislative basis relies upon. What certainty, if any, will there be for industry when the government is forced to revisit this issue in May of next year, some six months from now?

This ban will not work. A short-term ban or a long-term ban will not work so far as online gambling is concerned. It will be as ineffective as the government's online content legislation has proven to be. At the heart of our opposition is the same philosophical point: there is no point seeking to try to ban use of the Internet; you have got to do your best to educate the user and consumer, to have sensible industry regulatory arrangements and to have sensible legislative regulatory requirements. To slide the bill through the Senate, the government has now come upon a distinction between wagering and gaming. Betting on sports is okay, but gaming is not. Wagering is okay, but gaming is not. I will just refer the House to what the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, said in the Senate on 9 October. He said:

That was Senator Alston speaking in the second reading debate of the bill on 9 October this year when there was no distinction between the two. Now there is a distinction between the two, and the government seeks to put forward a sensible public policy argument that a distinction which did not exist in October is now a valid basis upon which to proceed, adding to the hypocrisy, adding to the industry uncertainty and adding to the unfairness of the outcome.

The sensible way to proceed is as outlined by Labor senators in their minority report of the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies on this measure, as outlined by the Labor opposition's second reading amendment in the Senate, and again as reflected by the second reading amendment which I will formally move when I conclude my remarks. This second reading amendment, which is in comparable terms to that moved in the Senate, makes the point that the sensible way to proceed on this measure is to have an effective regulatory arrangement. You cannot simply proceed on the basis that www.onlinegamblingaustralia will not end up being www.onlinegamblingbermuda, with no capacity whatsoever for the government to extend any prohibition or regulatory arrangements to that. You have an arcane distinction between gaming and wagering which was not valid two months ago but is valid today.

It is no wonder that Senator Alston is just about to scurry away offshore for two weeks, but I am sure that as he does the rounds overseas for those two weeks he will get the same response in respect of this measure that he got when he went to Silicon Valley in the aftermath of the government's enactment of the online content legislation. How can you proceed on the basis that a nation like Australia seeks to have a role in the new economy and the new information age, but on two examples of public policy your starting point is that you ban activity or regulate activity out of existence? That is the fundamental flaw in the government's approach. Before I formally move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name, I indicate again to the minister that we propose to divide on the second reading amendment and formally oppose passage of the legislation at all of the further stages of consideration of the bill, but we will not delay the House with divisions in respect of those points of procedure. So I move:

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Martin Ferguson —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.