Senator HARRADINE (1:26 PM) —I want to have a few words about the title, the commencement date and the simplified outline contained on page 2 of the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000. In so doing, I indicate to the chamber what a number of other people have indicated: that gambling imposes enormous problems on individuals and on society in general. The Productivity Commission has indicated that problem gamblers make up 2.1 per cent of the population. That means that 290,000 people are problem gamblers. The commission also refers to reports which state that problem gambling negatively affects 10 to 15 people for each problem gambler. That is an enormous problem which Australia needs to address.

I heard what Senator Woodley said. Senator Woodley indicated that the extension of opportunities for gambling would add to the number of problem gamblers. I suppose that is axiomatic. In the simplified outline, the bill does say that this proposed act:

We have heard in the debate thus far a couple of things about that. One is that those persons who were providing the service before 19 May would be able to continue providing that service to people within Australia. I do not know whether people have had the chance to or did in fact read Senator Tierney's and my comments in the report entitled Netbets: a review of online gambling in Australia about the matter of providing gambling services to Australians. We said:

This measure states that the clientele of those already providing the service not only overseas but also in Australia as at 19 May will be limited to overseas. The second thing of considerable concern about this date is that there are providers of this service—if you would call this interactive gaming service that—who were actually issued with a licence before that date. If they were not up and running by that date, even though they were issued with a licence, they will be affected by this cut-off.

I heard somebody from the opposition—I am not sure who it was—indirectly criticise Senator Alston in their speech. They said that Senator Alston had written to the Tasmanian government on 19 May seeking cooperation for the development of a regulatory program for online gambling and that some little time afterwards, on the same day, the Tasmanian government received a letter from Senator Alston announcing the moratorium. On the face of it, I suppose that looks a bit rough. But what was the government to do? If it was going to initiate a moratorium it had to do so in such a way as to prevent persons getting around that, if there were some sort of notice given. I think it is reasonable that the federal government made an announcement but it is unfortunate that it did not exempt those who already had licences. As has been discussed here in the chamber, one such group is the Federal Hotels group. They had been discussing the issue with the state government over a period of time, had been issued with a licence and had spent considerable amounts of money on developing the site, and this will now affect them. So I would like the government to consider those two matters. I do not know whether or not this will be a close vote but, at the end of the day, the situation of the operators who were issued with licences as at 19 May ought to be recognised and, secondly, the restriction of the gambling service to persons overseas ought to be considered.

The other thing that is probably appropriate and relevant for me to deal with now is that, time after time, speakers opposing this bill have been saying, `It's going to be useless because persons can access overseas sites.' I think Senator Crossin indicated that, if this moratorium comes in, Lasseters has suggested it will set up its site overseas. I would like to see an amendment to this legislation that prevents access to overseas sites. It is quite difficult but the federal parliament does have financial powers. It is not beyond the wit of those erudite senators around the place to devise amendments that would effectively, using various fiscal powers, prevent access to overseas gambling sites.

The final matter that I think it is appropriate to deal with is the difference between wagering and gambling. I am personally inclined to support an amendment that would exempt gaming on registered horseracing, harness racing and dog coursing, but I would not extend it to betting on whether the next ball is going to be a googly or not—in other words, sports betting. Those are the three industries you can ring up the TAB number and put a bet on. I would obviously listen to the arguments, but I am inclined to the view that there should be exemptions for registered horseracing events, coursing events and harness racing.