Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda Commonwealth of Australia Explanatory Memoranda[Index] [Search] [Download] [Bill] [Help]
1998 - 1999 - 2000
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF
AUSTRALIA
SENATE
INTERACTIVE
GAMBLING (MORATORIUM) BILL 2000
SUPPLEMENTARY
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
Amendments to be moved on behalf
of the Government
(Circulated by the authority of the
Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator the
Hon. Richard Alston)
ISBN: 0642 463662
The Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 (the Bill) proposes
to impose a 12-month moratorium on the development of the interactive gambling
industry in Australia by creating a new criminal offence, the provision of an
interactive gambling service. The new offence prohibits a person
from providing an interactive gambling service unless the person
was already providing the service when the moratorium commenced on 19 May 2000.
Consistent with the Government’s decision to impose a moratorium for
twelve months, the offence ceases to have effect at midnight on 18 May
2001.
The Bill provides a definition of what an interactive
gambling service is. An interactive gambling
service has four essential elements:
• the service is a
gambling service; and
• the service is provided in the course of
carrying on a business; and
• the service is provided to customers
using any of the following communications services:
- an Internet carriage
service or any other listed carriage service; or
- a broadcasting service or
any other content service; or
- a datacasting service provided under a
datacasting licence; and
• the service is linked in a specified way to
Australia.
The Bill specifically excludes from the definition of interactive
gambling service services for telephone betting; services relating to
the entering into of contracts that, under the Corporations Law, are exempt from
a law relating to gaming or wagering; and services that the Minister determines
are exempt services. Consequently these services are not subject to the
moratorium.
The proposed amendments exclude an additional category of
services from the definition of interactive gambling services, namely certain
types of wagering services. The effect of these amendments is that certain
types of wagering services are excluded from the moratorium. The amendments
specifically provide that services relating to betting on a horse race, harness
race, greyhound race or sporting event or series of these races and events, and
betting on any other event, series of events, or contingencies, are excluded
services for the purposes of the moratorium.
However, wagering services
relating to a sporting event after the event has begun, will not be excluded
from the moratorium. They will still be subject to the moratorium. These
services go beyond a mere extension of the existing telephone betting services,
and potentially provide for rapid continuous betting, which could be highly
addictive and therefore undesirable.
These amendments are proposed to
address concerns raised in the course of the debate of the Interactive Gambling
(Moratorium) Bill.
The proposed amendments will not have any significant impact on
Commonwealth expenditure or revenue. Enforcement costs are expected to be
minimal.
Amendment (1) – clause 5 – exemption of certain wagering services
This amendment inserts new paragraphs 5(3)(aa) and 5(3)(ab). The effect
of this amendment is to exclude certain wagering services from the moratorium,
by providing that they are not an interactive gambling service for
the purpose of the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill.
The excluded
interactive wagering services are in effect little more than an extension of
existing telephone betting services, which are currently excluded from the
moratorium (see paragraph 5(3)(a) of the Bill). This amendment has been
included to address the concerns raised during the course of debate on this
Bill.
Proposed new paragraph 5(3)(aa) specifically excludes a service
that relates to betting on a horse race, harness race, greyhound race or a
sporting event, or series of these races or sporting events, from the meaning
of interactive gambling service. ‘Sporting event’ is
to be given its ordinary meaning.
While the effect of proposed new
paragraph 5(3)(aa) is to exclude certain wagering services from the moratorium,
proposed new subclause 5(3A) limits the wagering exclusion so as not to cover
certain wagering services on sporting events after the event has begun (see
discussion below at Amendment (2)).
Proposed new paragraph 5(3)(ab)
ensures that other wagering services which relate to betting on an event, a
series of events, or a contingency are not subject to the moratorium. It
provides that they are also excluded services for the purposes of the
Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill.
While the most common forms of
wagering relate to betting on a sporting event or horse race, a wager includes a
bet on any outcome or event. For example, a service relating to betting on the
weather for a particular day, or betting on an election result, would be a
wagering service and would be excluded from the moratorium by proposed new
paragraph 5(3)(ab).
It is intended that a service that introduces
individuals who wish to make or place bets to individuals who are willing to
receive or accept bets on the events or contingencies specified in paragraphs
5(3)(aa) and (ab) would also be covered by the exclusion, and not be subject to
the moratorium. Such a service would be a ‘service that relates to
betting’ on these events or contingencies.
Wagering services are
different to gaming services. Wagering is focused on a bet on an event, a
series of events or a contingency while gaming is focused on playing games of
chance for money or something else of value. In a wager, the bettor usually
does not participate in the actual event or contingency. In contrast,
interactive gaming involves the bettor in the game.
Proposed new
paragraph 5(3)(ab) distinguishes an ‘event’ from a ‘series of
events’. This is consistent with the anti-hoarding provisions in Part 10A
of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which also distinguish between
‘events’ and a ‘series of events’.
The
distinction between an ‘event’ and a ‘series of an
events’ can be explained by way of example. For example, in the case of
the game of cricket, the ‘event’ would be characterised as a single
cricket match. However, the test series would be characterised as a
‘series of events’. In the game of tennis, an individual tennis
match would be an ‘event’. However a tennis tournament, such as the
Australian Open, would be characterised as a ‘series of events’.
Wagering services on either an ‘event’ or a ‘series or
events’ is excluded from the moratorium by proposed new paragraph
5(3)(ab). However this exclusion is limited by proposed new subclause 5(3A)
which provides that the moratorium will cover wagering services on an event
(that is an individual match as opposed to a series or tournament) after the
event has begun (see discussion below at Amendment (2)).
Amendment (2) – clause 5 – exemption of certain wagering services
This amendment inserts proposed new subclauses 5(3A) and 5(3B). This
amendment limits the types of wagering services that are exempt from the
moratorium. In effect it provides that wagering services on a sporting event
after the event has begun are subject to the moratorium. This amendment will
ensure that ‘ball-by-ball’ betting services will not be exempt from
the moratorium.
This type of continuous wagering is of particular concern
as it goes beyond a mere extension of the telephone betting services currently
offered. There is a concern that potential new forms of interactive
wagering services, such as real-time ‘ball-by-ball’ betting
on interactive television, could evolve, with a potential risk of this
‘continuous’ wagering being highly addictive.
Proposed new
subclause 5(3A) provides that the wagering services exemption in proposed new
paragraphs 5(3)(aa) and 5(3)(ab) does not apply to wagering services on sporting
events where the bets are placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning
of the event.
Proposed new paragraph 5(3A)(a) excludes betting services
on the outcome of a sporting event after the event has begun from the wagering
exclusion in proposed new paragraphs 5(3)(aa) and 5(3)(ab). For example, a
service that enables the placing of a bet on the result of a cricket match after
the first ball has been bowled comes within new paragraph 5(3A)(a) and therefore
would be subject to the moratorium.
Proposed new paragraph 5(3A)(b)
excludes a service relating to betting on a contingency that may or may not
happen in the course of the sporting event after the event has begun from the
wagering exclusion in proposed new paragraphs 5(3)(aa) and
5(3)(ab).
Examples of what would be covered by ‘a contingency that
may happen during the course of the event’, include who is going to take
the most wickets in a cricket match, whether the next ball in a cricket match
will take a wicket, or who will serve the next ace in a tennis match. Such
wagering services would be subject to the moratorium.
However this
amendment does not cover services relating to betting on extraneous events,
unrelated to the official course of an event, after an event has started. For
example, betting on the likelihood of rain during a cricket match, after the
match has begun, would not be categorised as a ‘contingency that may or
may not happen in the course of a sporting event’. Consequently this
would mean that such a wagering service would not be covered by the
moratorium.
Nor would proposed new subclause 5(3A) cover betting services
on the outcome of a tournament or series after the first match within that
tournament or series has begun. Proposed new subclause 5(3A) only covers
wagering on a ‘sporting event’ after the event has begun. A
‘sporting event’ refers to an individual event. It does not cover
wagering on a ‘series of sporting events’, such as a tournament or
series, after an individual event has begun. Proposed new paragraph 5(3)(ab)
clearly distinguishes between an ‘event’ and a ‘series of
events’ (see discussion above at Amendment 1). Consequently betting on
the final outcome of a cricket test series after the first cricket match has
begun would not be covered by subclause 5(3A) and therefore would be excluded
from the moratorium.
Proposed new subclause 5(3B) provides that a service that relates to betting
on the conduct or outcome of a lottery or game is not an excluded service under
new paragraph 5(3)(ab) (see Amendment 1). This means that a wagering service on
a game or lottery does not come within the exemption in paragraph 5(3)(ab). For
example, an interactive gambling service which involved a bet on the outcome of
the spin of a virtual roulette wheel would not come under paragraph 5(3)(ab) and
would not be an excluded service for the purpose of the moratorium. This
ensures that services which are properly characterised as interactive gaming or
lottery services do not come within the exemption provided in paragraph
5(3)(ab).