Senator MARK BISHOP (1:17 PM) —The Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 implements the government's misguided policy of restricting interactive gambling to services which were already available on 19 May of this year. I say that the government's policy is misguided because it does not address any of the concerns about interactive gambling that were raised in the Senate IT committee's `Netbets' inquiry and in the more recent inquiry into this bill by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee. In fact, the recent inquiry into this bill provided considerable evidence that this legislation is no more than a deceptive attempt by the government to reassure Australians that it is concerned about problem gambling. Of course, this bill does nothing to prevent or restrict problem gambling.

The bill seeks to impose a 12-month moratorium on the further development of the online gambling industry in Australia. It achieves this by creating a new criminal offence of the provision of an interactive gambling service unless that service was already being provided when the moratorium commenced on 19 May this year. It is pertinent to note that the bill does not prohibit existing Australian interactive gambling services from continuing to operate. The explanatory memorandum to the bill contains this confession:

It will not restrict access to existing online gambling services in any way at all. Consequently, the bill will not affect existing accessibility of gambling services. Rather, instead of permitting strictly regulated options for online gamblers, overseas sites of dubious probity will continue unabated, potentially facilitating problem gambling.

The impacts of the bill have resulted in considerable concerns being expressed by a number of interested groups. These concerns are the impact of the bill on existing and aspirant interactive gambling service providers; the bill's impact on existing and aspirant interactive wagering and lottery service providers; the impact of the bill on the availability of interactive gambling services and on problem gambling levels; the impact of the bill on consumers; the impact of the bill on Australia's IT industry; the fulfilment or otherwise of the stated purposes of the bill and of public policy objectives; the impact on a growing export industry; and, finally, legal rights that might accrue to interactive gambling service providers and state and territory governments resulting from the imposition of the moratorium.

The minister's second reading speech indicated that a moratorium `puts the interactive gambling industry on notice that its future is uncertain and that it should hold off introducing new services until its future is resolved'. No wonder the Australian dollar is in such strife. The government has in recent weeks denied that Australia is perceived as an old economy in spite of criticism that it is failing to foster new areas of economic growth. Yet here we have this bill which is seeking to discourage investment in a field where Australia is, in terms of technology, investment and expertise, a world leader. The government has consistently reacted to issues relevant to Australia's technological advancement in an overly restrictive and backward way. Examples of this approach include the government's excessive restriction on the potential datacasting industry to the point of rendering it unviable and the ill-conceived and futile attempts to regulate Internet content. This moratorium is another instance where the government is failing to allow Australian industry to excel and lead the world in technological innovation.

It is the government's contention that issues relating to banning interactive gambling are irrelevant to the bill and were not relevant to the bill inquiry. However, the government's explanatory memorandum to the bill explicitly raises the issue of a permanent ban, stating that the government is disposed to banning and that the moratorium will give the government time to investigate `the consequences of any banning option on consumers and problem gamblers'. This statement gives a specific context to the debate surrounding the rationale of a moratorium and it is in this context that the bill needs to be considered.

The opposition have repeatedly stated the view that we do not support an outright ban of gambling on the Internet because we do not consider it to be technically feasible or necessary. Labor consider that a moratorium or partial ban on interactive gambling will not prevent access to online gambling and will not prevent Australian gamblers from contacting offshore sites that are unregulated and do not offer consumer protection or probity. It is noteworthy that the government does not mention in its explanatory memorandum that it intends to take into account any consequences of a ban on the relevant industries, because it obviously has not taken into account these consequences or it chooses to ignore them. The bill is evidence of the government's unenlightened approach to the importance of IT investment in Australia's economy. A short-term moratorium on the online gambling industry is likely to create an atmosphere of uncertainty for IT investment in Australia.

The government has stated that it is seeking to impose a moratorium on online gambling services in order to limit the threat to potential and existing problem gamblers. The moratorium will not, however, restrict the accessibility of interactive gambling or the incidence of problem gambling online. There are already numerous gambling sites overseas and several in Australia which can be accessed via the Internet. Arguments that the community needs to be protected by restricting Australian interactive gambling sites to the number and range of services offered as at 19 May this year demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the Internet. The only way to restrict accessibility will be to limit Australia's growing access to the Internet, and that is clearly undesirable.

As ALP senators stated in the Netbets inquiry report, a strictly regulated Australian industry in terms of probity of providers and consumer protections remains the most effective means of avoiding potential gambling problems arising from interactive gambling. It is not a feasible policy option to prevent Australians from accessing interactive gambling via the Internet. The government knows this yet it persists with its futile investigations into feasibility. If the government were serious about problem gambling, it would implement policies to control the problems rather than allow problems to emerge while it stalls on making a decision.

A number of objections to the bill have been founded on the basis that the government's approach does not represent good public policy. The changing public policy environment in Australia, particularly as it relates to technology, requires regulatory approaches that are not technology specific. To make something illegal selectively on the basis of what communications technology is used is not good public policy.

A product or service can be legal or illegal, but not solely because of its means of delivery or reception. Still the government persists with that technology specific regulation, in spite of warnings that it is both inappropriate and detrimental to Australia's long-term interests. Clearly, the government is looking to appease community concerns about the Internet potentially increasing gambling problems. This being the case, the government legislation is inappropriate and inadequate to properly achieve this purpose and any sense of security it offers is false. A moratorium on interactive gambling will predominantly impact the industry by preventing its further development. Businesses that have invested in product development will not be able to use that investment if they were not operating as at 19 May this year. Investment and innovation in the industry will effectively be put on hold for the period of the moratorium. The prospect of a ban at the end of the moratorium will further discourage any innovation or investment that might otherwise have occurred during the moratorium period.

Some witnesses to the inquiry suggested that the bill would defeat its stated purpose of minimising the harm arising from interactive gambling by forcing Internet punters to go offshore to unregulated environments. Australia's economy could potentially lose the benefits that a local industry could provide by discouraging investment, notwithstanding the benefits, guarantees and protections that Australia has to offer. Even though there are marketing advantages resulting from Australia's international reputation for a well-regulated gambling industry, those advantages are unlikely to ensure that the industry does not move overseas, particularly in the case of relocation of these kinds of companies. Expansion of existing businesses will apparently have to be put on hold due to the restrictiveness of the moratorium legislation.

Furthermore, it has been argued that this moratorium places companies in a position that is inconsistent with their obligations to their shareholders because to remain in Australia will compromise growth of profits and business expansion. Concerns have been raised that legal rights will accrue to interested parties as a result of the passing of this bill. In view of the magnitude of potential litigation claims, this is another valid reason against the imposition of the moratorium. The interventionist approach that this bill takes to the interactive gambling industry is not warranted by the additional dangers of the online industry compared with the physical or land based gambling industry. Many dangers of problem gambling would be most successfully addressed by harm minimisation strategies and strict regulation of the industry beyond strategies available in the physical environment.

One final point that I wish to make is that evidence from the inquiry process into this bill suggested that wagering and gaming are very different forms of gambling. As such, it was argued that the strict controls imposed by state and territory governments and regulators are the appropriate level of regulation for the wagering industry and there is no need for those services to be subject to a moratorium or ban. The wagering industry would have us believe that the social evils of gambling found by the Productivity Commission were all related to gambling, principally in the form of poker machines. This is obviously not the case, as the Productivity Commission actually identified a higher incidence of problem gambling associated with wagering than with casino games, which are a form of gaming. Arguably, wagering is technologically different to other forms of gambling. The way it is operated, the frequency of bets and the intensity of wagering provide a contrast to gaming. Additionally, the only apparent differences between phone betting and Internet betting is who performs the input into a computer terminal. Providers of wagering services consider it artificial and arbitrary for the moratorium to be imposed on those bets placed by a specific means of communication.

However, as far as the opposition is concerned, there is no need to distinguish wagering from gaming if the government's bill is wholly rejected. Selective regulation of the Internet—and by that I mean technology specific regulation—is not an appropriate policy for dealing with the issues that the government says it is addressing in this bill. Labor has previously stated its position that the most effective way to manage online gambling is through a national regulatory framework formulated with the cooperation of states and territories. This would include industry-wide codes of practice to address harm minimisation issues such as gambling by minors and problem gambling. Given that a ban or moratorium will not achieve, or will obstruct achievement of, desired policy outcomes which are ultimately aimed at protecting Australian consumers, the opposition continues to support the development of an effective coregulatory scheme.

The opposition will oppose this bill in its entirety because it does not achieve the policy objectives that it purports to and will, in all likelihood, have a detrimental impact on problem online gambling and growth in this Australian IT sector. This bill is contrary to the interests of Australia and Australians.