Division
Nick Xenophon I have a number of questions for the minister before amendments are dealt with. I make reference, perhaps as a reference point, to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee's report on this bill. The minister's second reading speech on the bill explained: The review— the O'Farrell review, as it is known, into the Interactive Gambling Act— found that the amount of money being spent on illegal wagering services could be as high as $400 million annually with a further $100 million in lost taxation revenue and product fees. There does not seem to be any firm view on the amount of money actually lost. Some figures you hear are $500 million and other figures go much higher than that. Does the Commonwealth have the ability to be more specific about these figures? For instance, if it obtained the cooperation of banks in terms of other mechanisms of measuring the amount that goes offshore—because presumably most of these transactions are occurring using credit cards and other discernible transactions—surely there ought to be some way of measuring more accurately the extent of the problem of these illegal offshore gambling sites. Mitch Fifield You have indicated the sorts of ranges that are spoken of when talking about these dollar amounts. Obviously, there is always a capacity for greater specificity in these things, but you raise some potential avenues for that. Nick Xenophon At least you did not talk about programmatic specificity! Senator Dastyari interjecting— Senator Dastyari is familiar with who I am referring to. Has the government considered measures to more accurately measure the amount of money that goes to illegal wagering services? For instance, has the government inquired of the banks or financial institutions to determine by virtue of the merchant numbers for these illegal, overseas, online gambling operations, to determine the amount lost in that way? Has an effort been made? Has anyone in the Commonwealth, whether it be ACM
Senate, 2017-03-20. affirmative: ayes 36, noes 28.
Question
Nick Xenophon I have a number of questions for the minister before amendments are dealt with. I make reference, perhaps as a reference point, to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee's report on this bill. The minister's second reading speech on the bill explained: The review— the O'Farrell review, as it is known, into the Interactive Gambling Act— found that the amount of money being spent on illegal wagering services could be as high as $400 million annually with a further $100 million in lost taxation revenue and product fees. There does not seem to be any firm view on the amount of money actually lost. Some figures you hear are $500 million and other figures go much higher than that. Does the Commonwealth have the ability to be more specific about these figures? For instance, if it obtained the cooperation of banks in terms of other mechanisms of measuring the amount that goes offshore—because presumably most of these transactions are occurring using credit cards and other discernible transactions—surely there ought to be some way of measuring more accurately the extent of the problem of these illegal offshore gambling sites. Mitch Fifield You have indicated the sorts of ranges that are spoken of when talking about these dollar amounts. Obviously, there is always a capacity for greater specificity in these things, but you raise some potential avenues for that. Nick Xenophon At least you did not talk about programmatic specificity! Senator Dastyari interjecting— Senator Dastyari is familiar with who I am referring to. Has the government considered measures to more accurately measure the amount of money that goes to illegal wagering services? For instance, has the government inquired of the banks or financial institutions to determine by virtue of the merchant numbers for these illegal, overseas, online gambling operations, to determine the amount lost in that way? Has an effort been made? Has anyone in the Commonwealth, whether it be ACM
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.