Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (12:32): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (23) and (25) on sheet 8038:

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 8), at the end of section 3, add:

This Act also regulates the conduct of restricted wagering services by imposing restrictions on these sports betting services in relation to various practices such as offering micro‑betting, credit or inducements.

The Interactive Gambling Regulator has a variety of functions in relation to enforcing compliance of this conduct, as well as providing advice and information.

A person may also regulate their own interactions with restricted wagering services by applying to be included on the National Self‑exclusion Register which is kept under this Act. Restricted wagering services must check the Register, which is kept and administered by the Regulator, before creating accounts for individuals to place bets using their services.

(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 12), after the definition of ACMA official, insert:

betting limit, in relation to a period, means the total maximum amount nominated by an individual that he or she may bet using a restricted wagering service during the period.

(3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 14), after the definition of carriage service, insert:

category A document, in relation to an individual, means any of the following:

(a) a licence or permit issued in the name of the individual;

(b) a passport issued in the name of the individual;

(c) a birth certificate in the name of the individual;

(d) any other document in relation to the individual that is recognised as proof of identity under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

category B document, in relation to an individual, means any of the following:

(a) a credit card, debit card or other automatic teller machine card that has the name and signature of the individual;

(b) a Medicare card issued in the name of the individual;

(c) a passbook issued in the name of the individual by an ADI (within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959);

(d) a statement of account issued for a utilities or rates account that:

(i) was issued in the previous 12 months; and

(ii) includes the name and address given by the individual.

(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 18), after the definition of civil penalty provision, insert:

credit has the meaning given by section 11A.

(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 26), after the definition of Federal Circuit Court, insert:

G classified, in relation to a television program, means classified G in accordance with whichever of the following industry codes of practice included in the register under section 123 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is relevant:

(a) the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice;

(b) the Subscription Broadcast Television Codes of Practice;

(c) the Subscription Narrowcast Television Codes of Practice.

(6) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (before line 5), before the definition of personal information, insert:

micro betting means betting that relates to a horse race, a harness race, a greyhound race or a sporting event and either:

(a) the bet is:

(i) on the outcome of the race or event; and

(ii) placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the race or event; or

(b) the bet is on a contingency that may or may not happen in the course of the race or event.

personal details, in relation to an individual, means:

(a) the individual's name, residential address, telephone number, email address, date of birth and gender; and

(b) any other information of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this definition that identifies the individual.

(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (before line 22), before the definition of regulated interactive gambling service, insert:

protected information means personal details or other personal information to the extent that this information:

(a) is obtained under, or in accordance with, this Act; or

(b) is derived from a record of information that was made under, or in accordance with, this Act; or

(c) is derived from a disclosure or use of information that was made under, or in accordance with, this Act.

Register means the National Self‑exclusion Register kept under section 61HA.

(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 23), after the definition of regulated interactive gambling service, insert:

Regulator means the Interactive Gambling Regulator established under section 61JA.

(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 25), after the definition of Regulatory Powers Act, insert:

restricted wagering service means a gambling service that:

(a) is provided to customers using any of the following:

(i) an internet carriage service;

(ii) any other listed carriage service;

(iii) a broadcasting service;

(iv) any other content service;

(v) a datacasting service; and

(b) relates to the placing, making, receiving or acceptance of bets on, or on a series of, any or all of the following:

(i) a horse race;

(ii) a harness race;

(iii) a greyhound race;

(iv) a sporting event.

(10) Schedule 1, item 17, page 7 (after line 15), after the definition of unlicensed regulated interactive gambling service, insert:

verified has the meaning given by section 11B.

(11) Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 12), after item 32, insert:

32A After section 11

Insert:

11A Meaning of credit

For the purposes of this Act, credit is provided by a restricted wagering service if under a contract or other arrangement:

(a) payment of a debt owed by one person to another is deferred; or

(b) one person incurs a deferred debt to another.

11B Meaning of verified

For the purposes of this Act, an individual's identity is verified for the purposes of creating an account, or otherwise facilitating the placing of bets, with a restricted wagering service, if:

(a) the service is given the originals or certified copies of either:

(i) 2 category A documents, each of a different kind, identifying the individual; or

(ii) one category A document and 2 category B documents, each of a different kind, identifying the individual; and

(b) the personal details contained in those documents correspond to the personal details provided by the individual for the purposes of creating the account, or otherwise facilitating the placing of bets.

32B After Part 1

Insert:

Part 1A—Offence of failing to train gambling service employees

14A Offence of failing to train gambling service employees

(1) If:

(a) a person provides a gambling service; and

(b) either:

(i) the person is a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies; or

(ii) the service is provided to customers using an internet carriage service; and

(c) the person has employees who have direct contact in the course of their employment with individuals who use the service;

the person must ensure that each such employee is provided with the information, training or instruction prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is subject to a requirement under subsection (1); and

(b) the person fails to comply with the requirement.

Penalty:   120 penalty units.

Regulations

(3) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) may include:

(a) information, training or instruction relating to the following:

(i) recognising problem gambling behaviour;

(ii) assisting individuals to access information regarding the Register and other services or programs to deal with problem gambling;

(iii) dealing with individuals who have identified themselves as having a gambling problem; and

(b) when such information, training or instruction must be provided.

(12) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 24), after item 66, insert:

66A At the end of Part 3

Add:

Division 4—Injunctions

31A Injunctions

(1) The Federal Circuit Court may, on application by the Regulator, grant an injunction referred to in subsection (2) if the Court is satisfied that:

(a) an ADI (within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959) facilitates transactions in relation to a gambling service; and

(b) the gambling service is a prohibited interactive gambling service.

(2) The injunction is to require the ADI to take reasonable steps to prohibit transactions in relation to the prohibited interactive gambling service.

Parties

(3) The parties to an action under subsection (1) are:

(a) the Regulator; and

(b) the ADI; and

(c) the provider of the prohibited interactive gambling service.

Service

(4) The Regulator must notify the:

(a) the ADI; and

(b) the provider of the prohibited interactive gambling service;

of the making of an application under subsection (1).

Matters to be taken into account

(5) In determining whether to grant the injunction, the Court may take into account the following matters:

(a) whether prohibiting transactions in relation to the prohibited interactive gambling service is a proportionate response in the circumstances;

(b) whether it is in the public interest to prohibit transactions in relation to the prohibited interactive gambling service;

(c) whether access to, or transactions in relation to, the prohibited interactive gambling service has been disabled or prohibited by orders from any court of another country or territory;

(d) any other matter prescribed by the regulations;

(e) any other relevant matter.

Rescinding and varying injunctions

(6) The Court may:

(a) limit the duration of; or

(b) upon application, rescind or vary;

an injunction granted under this section.

(7) An application under subsection (6) may be made by:

(a) any of the persons referred to in subsection (3); or

(b) any other person prescribed by the regulations.

Costs

(8) The ADI is not liable for any costs in relation to the proceedings unless the ADI enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings.

(13) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 19), after item 138, insert:

138A After Part 7A

Insert:

Part 7B—Restricted wagering services

Division 1—Simplified outline of this Part

61G Simplified outline of this Part

This Part sets out a number of restrictions on the conduct of restricted wagering services in relation to sports betting. These restrictions aim to ensure that such services do not engage in certain predatory practices, particularly in relation to problem gamblers, and that sports betting services are provided in a responsible manner.

These restrictions include bans on offering micro‑betting, credit or inducements, as well as requirements for the restricted wagering service to check that individuals are not included on the National Self‑exclusion Register before creating new accounts.

Restricted wagering services that contravene these restrictions may commit an offence or contravene a civil penalty provision.

Division 2—Offences and civil penalty provisions

61GA Restricted wagering service must not offer credit

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the service provides, or offers to provide, credit to individuals to use the service.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   500 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   500 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the day the relevant civil penalty order is made, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GB Restricted wagering service must not induce a person to use the service

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service; and

(b) the person:

(i) induces, or attempts to induce, another individual to use the service; or

(ii) causes another person to induce, or attempt to induce, another individual to use the service.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   500 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   500 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the day the relevant civil penalty order is made, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GC Restricted wagering service must not offer or accept micro betting

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the service offers or accepts micro betting.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   2,000 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   2,000 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the day the relevant civil penalty order is made, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GD Restricted wagering service must require certain details be provided to establish account

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the person creates an account, or otherwise facilitates the placing of bets, for an individual; and

(c) the individual has not provided his or her personal details.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   120 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   120 penalty units.

61GE Restricted wagering service must verify identity of account ‑holder before creating account etc.

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the service creates an account, or otherwise facilitates the placing of bets, for an individual; and

(c) the person has not verified the individual's identity.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   300 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   300 penalty units.

61GF Restricted wagering service must check the National Self ‑exclusion Register before creating account

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the service creates an account, or otherwise facilitates the placing of bets, for an individual; and

(c) the person has not submitted the individual's personal details to the National Self‑exclusion Register to check whether the individual's personal details are included on the Register.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   300 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   300 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the day the relevant civil penalty order is made, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GG Restricted wagering service must include pre ‑commitment options when creating account

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service; and

(b) the person does not require each individual who creates an account with the service to register and set annual and monthly maximum betting limits.

Note: The service must not permit these limits to be exceeded (see section 61GK, and may only increase the limits if notice is provided (see section 61GI).

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   200 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   200 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the day the relevant civil penalty order is made, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GH Restricted wagering service must not create accounts etc. for individuals on the National Self ‑exclusion Register

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the service creates an account, or otherwise facilitates the placing of bets, for an individual whose personal details are included on the National Self‑exclusion Register; and

(c) the person either:

(i) knew that the individual's personal details were included on the National Self‑exclusion Register; or

(ii) was reckless as to whether the individual's personal details were included on the National Self‑exclusion Register.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   500 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   500 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the day the relevant civil penalty order is made, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GI Restricted wagering service must not increase individual ' s betting limit

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the person increases, or causes to be increased, the monthly or annual betting limit set by the individual.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the individual has:

(a) requested that the person increase the monthly or annual betting limit; and

(b) either:

(i) in relation to the monthly betting limit—the individual requested the increase at least 7 days before the limit was increased; or

(ii) in relation to the annual betting limit—the individual requested the increase at least 14 days before the limit was increased; and

(c) the individual has not made more than one other such request in the previous 12‑month period.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2).

Fault ‑based offence

(3) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   300 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   300 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the day the relevant civil penalty order is made, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GJ Restricted wagering service must not induce a person to increase betting limit

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service; and

(b) the person:

(i) induces, or attempts to induce, an individual to increase his or her monthly or annual betting limit; or

(ii) causes another person to induce, or attempt to induce, an individual to increase his or her monthly or annual betting limit.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   300 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   300 penalty units.

61GK Restricted wagering service must not permit account ‑holder to exceed betting limit

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person intentionally provides a restricted wagering service in Australia; and

(b) the service accepts a bet from an individual that exceeds the monthly or annual betting limit nominated by the individual for the service.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   200 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   200 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the day the relevant civil penalty order is made, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

61GL Restricted wagering service must provide statement

(1) A person who provides a restricted wagering service must provide each individual who uses the service with a statement of the individual's transaction history that complies with regulations made for the purposes of this subsection.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is required to provide a statement under subsection (1); and

(b) the person fails to provide the statement as required.

Penalty:   120 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if:

(a) the person is required to provide a statement under subsection (1); and

(b) the person fails to provide the statement as required.

Civil penalty:   120 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the day the relevant civil penalty order is made, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

Regulations

(5) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) must prescribe:

(a) the period which the statement must cover; and

(b) how frequently the statement must be provided (which must not be less than once a month); and

(c) the manner and form in which the statement is to be provided.

61GM Restricted wagering service must not disclose information for marketing purposes

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person provides a restricted wagering service; and

(b) the person discloses personal information of an individual who uses the service to another person or entity; and

(c) the information is disclosed for use by the other person or entity in relation to marketing of a good or service.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   300 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   300 penalty units.

61GN Restricted wagering service must include link to National Self ‑exclusion Register website

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person provides a restricted wagering service; and

(b) the service includes a website; and

(c) the website does not include a clear and prominent link to the National Self‑exclusion Register website that complies with regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph on each page.

Fault ‑based offence

(2) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Penalty:   120 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(3) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1).

Civil penalty:   120 penalty units.

Continuing offences or contraventions

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of a separate offence or contravention of a civil penalty provision in respect of each day (including a day of a conviction for the offence, or the day the relevant civil penalty order is made, or any later day) during which the contravention continues.

Regulations

(5) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c) may include requirements in relation to the following:

(a) the position of the link;

(b) the size of the link;

(c) logos that must be included with the link;

(d) any other information that may be required to be included with the link.

Division 3—Prohibition of advertising of restricted wagering services

61GO Restricted wagering service advertisements not to be broadcast during certain programs

(1) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person broadcasts a restricted wagering service advertisement in Australia; and

(b) the broadcast is during a G classified television program or a television program that consists of coverage of a sporting event.

(2) A person contravenes this subsection if:

(a) the person authorises or causes a restricted wagering service advertisement to be broadcast in Australia; and

(b) the broadcast is during a G classified television program or a television program that consists of coverage of a sporting event.

Fault ‑based offence

(3) A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1) or (2).

Penalty:   120 penalty units.

Civil penalty provision

(4) A person is liable to a civil penalty if the person contravenes subsection (1) or (2).

Civil penalty:   120 penalty units.

Definitions

(5) In this section:

broadcast means transmit by means of a broadcasting service.

broadcasting service means a service that delivers television programs or radio programs to persons having equipment appropriate for receiving that service, whether the delivery uses the radiofrequency spectrum, cable, optical fibre, satellite or any other means or a combination of those means, but does not include:

(a) a datacasting service; or

(b) a service that delivers programs using the internet, where the delivery does not use the broadcasting services bands.

program has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

restricted wagering service advertisement means writing, still or moving picture, sign, symbol or other visual image, or any audible message, or any combination of 2 or more of those things, that gives publicity to, or otherwise promotes or is intended to promote:

(a) a restricted wagering service; or

(b) restricted wagering services in general; or

(c) the whole or part of a trade mark in respect of a restricted wagering service; or

(d) a domain name or URL that relates to a restricted wagering service; or

(e) any words that are closely associated with a restricted wagering service (whether also closely associated with other kinds of services or products).

Part 7C—National Self ‑exclusion Register

Division 1—National Self ‑exclusion Register

61HA National Self ‑exclusion Register

(1) The Regulator must keep a register of individuals who wish to self‑exclude from restricted wagering services.

(2) The register is to be known as the National Self‑exclusion Register.

(3) The register is to be kept in electronic form.

(4) The register is not a legislative instrument.

(5) The Regulator must begin to comply with subsection (1) as soon as practicable after the commencement of this section.

(6) For the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988, the primary purpose of the register is to facilitate:

(a) self‑exclusion from restricted wagering services; and

(b) the prohibition, under section 61GH, of restricted wagering services creating accounts, or otherwise facilitating the placing of bets, for individuals who have self‑excluded.

61HB Regulator may correct or update information in Register

The Regulator may correct or update information in the Register.

61HC Applications for registration

(1) An individual may apply to the Regulator for the individual's personal details to be entered on the Register.

(2) The application must:

(a) include the individual's personal details; and

(b) be in the form specified by the Regulator under section 61HG; and

(c) be made in the manner specified by the Regulator under section 61HG.

61HD Registration

If:

(a) an application is made for an individual's personal details to be entered on the Register; and

(b) the applicant satisfies the Regulator that the details provided under paragraph 61HC(2)(a) are the applicant's personal details;

the applicant's personal details must be entered on the Register.

61HE Duration of registration

(1) The registration of a person's name and personal details:

(a) takes effect when the name and details are entered on the Register; and

(b) unless sooner removed from the Register in accordance with section 61HF or 61HG, remains in force indefinitely.

(2) If a person's name and personal details are removed from the Register, this Act does not prevent the person from being re‑registered on the Register.

61HF Removal from Register

(1) The Regulator must, by legislative instrument, make a determination that makes provision for a person to apply for his or her name to be removed from the Register.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the determination must include:

(a) the form of application for individual's personal details to be removed from the Register; and

(b) the information which must accompany the application; and

(c) the documentation that must be provided in support of the individual's application.

61HG Administration of the Register—determinations

The Regulator may, by legislative instrument, make a determination that makes provision for and in relation to any or all of the following:

(a) the form of application for individual's personal details to be entered on the Register;

(b) the manner in which such applications are to be made;

(c) the manner in which entries are to be made on the Register;

(d) the correction of entries in the Register;

(e) the removal of entries from the Register on the Regulator's own initiative;

(f) any other matter relating to the administration or operation of the Register.

Division 2—Dealing with protected information in the Register

61HH Authorised dealings with protected information

Uploading personal information to the Register

(1) A person may collect, make a record of, disclose or otherwise use:

(a) personal information; or

(b) relevant personal details;

if the person does so for the purposes of including the information in the Register.

Note: This subsection is an authorisation for the purposes of other laws, including the Australian Privacy Principles.

Using or disclosing protected information in the Register

(2) A person may make a record of, disclose or otherwise use protected information if:

(a) the person does so for the purposes of the Register, and the person is:

(i) an officer or employee of the Commonwealth or of an authority of the Commonwealth; or

(ii) engaged by the Commonwealth, or by an authority of the Commonwealth, to perform work relating to the purposes of the Register; or

(iii) an officer or employee of, or is engaged by, a person referred to in subparagraph (ii) to perform work relating to the purposes of the Register; or

(b) the person does so for the purposes of performing the person's functions, or exercising the person's powers, under this Act.

Note: This subsection is an authorisation for the purposes of other laws, including the Australian Privacy Principles.

61HI Offence relating to protected information

A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person obtains information; and

(b) the information is protected information; and

(c) the person makes a record of, discloses or otherwise uses the information; and

(d) the making of the record, or the disclosure or use, is not authorised by section 61HH.

Penalty:   Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.

Part 7D—Interactive Gambling Regulator

61JA Establishment of the Interactive Gambling Regulator

There is to be an Interactive Gambling Regulator.

Note: In this Act, Regulator means the Interactive Gambling Regulator (see section 4).

61JB Functions of the Regulator

The Regulator has the following functions:

(a) to advise and assist persons in relation to their obligations under Parts 7B and 7C;

(b) to monitor, promote, investigate and enforce compliance with Parts 7B and 7C;

(c) to develop, in consultation with industry (including restricted wagering services, gambling counselling services and financial counselling services), a code of practice relating to responsible gambling that is to be applicable to restricted wagering services;

(d) to collect, analyse, interpret and disseminate:

(i) aggregated and de‑identified data on gambling expenditure and trends in gambling patterns or behaviours; and

(ii) information relating to the operation of Parts 7B and 7C;

(e) to monitor and evaluate the operation of Parts 7B and 7C;

(f) to provide information and advice to the Minister about the operation of Parts 7B and 7C;

(g) to undertake or commission research in relation to gambling matters and the operation of Parts 7B and 7C;

(h) such other functions as are conferred on the Regulator by this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth;

(i) to do anything incidental to or conducive to the performance of any of the above functions.

61JC Powers of the Regulator

The Regulator has power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done in connection with the performance of the Regulator's functions.

61JD Appointment of the Regulator

(1) The Regulator is to be appointed by the Minister by legislative instrument.

Note: For reappointment, see section 33AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(2) A person is not eligible for appointment as the Regulator unless the Minister is satisfied that the person has substantial knowledge, qualifications or experience in at least one of the following fields:

(a) public administration;

(b) consumer protection;

(c) mental health.

(3) The Regulator holds office on a full‑time basis.

(4) The Regulator holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 5 years.

61JE Acting Regulator

(1) The Minister may, by written instrument, appoint a person to act as the Regulator:

(a) during a vacancy in the office of the Regulator (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to the office); or

(b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Regulator:

(i) is absent from duty or from Australia; or

(ii) is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.

Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see sections 33AB and 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(2) A person is not eligible for appointment to act as the Regulator unless the person is eligible for appointment as the Regulator.

61JF Remuneration and allowances

(1) The Regulator is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the Regulator is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed by the regulations.

(2) The Regulator is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed by the regulations.

(3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

61JG Leave of absence

(1) The Regulator has the recreation leave entitlements that are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.

(2) The Minister may grant the Regulator leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on the terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise that the Minister determines.

61JH Outside employment

The Regulator must not engage in paid work outside the duties of his or her office without the Minister's approval.

61JI Disclosure of interests to the Minister

The Regulator must give written notice to the Minister of all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the Regulator has or acquires and that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the Regulator's functions.

61JJ Resignation

(1) The Regulator may resign his or her appointment by giving the Minister a written resignation.

(2) The resignation takes effect 2 weeks after it is received by the Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day.

61JK Termination of appointment

(1) The Minister may terminate the appointment of the Regulator:

(a) for misbehaviour; or

(b) if the Regulator is unable to perform the duties of his or her office because of physical or mental incapacity.

(2) The Minister may terminate the appointment of the Regulator if:

(a) the Regulator:

(i) becomes bankrupt; or

(ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or

(iii) compounds with his or her creditors; or

(iv) makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of his or her creditors; or

(b) the Regulator is absent, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or

(c) the Regulator engages, except with the Minister's approval, in paid work outside the duties of his or her office (see section 61JH); or

(d) the Regulator fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 61JI.

61JL Other terms and conditions

The Regulator holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister.

61JM Delegation by Regulator

(1) The Regulator may, by writing, delegate any or all of the Regulator's functions or powers to:

(a) the Secretary of the Department; or

(b) an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Department.

(2) A delegate must comply with any written directions of the Regulator.

61JN Staff assisting the Regulator

The staff assisting the Regulator are to be persons engaged under the Public Service Act 1999 and made available for the purpose by the Secretary of the Department.

61JO Consultants

(1) The Regulator may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, engage persons having suitable qualifications and experience as consultants to the Regulator.

(2) The consultants are to be engaged on the terms and conditions that the Regulator determines in writing.

61JP Annual report

The Regulator must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, a report on the operations of the Regulator during that year.

Note: See also section 34C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which contains extra rules about annual reports.

61JQ Minister may give directions to the Regulator

(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, give written directions to the Regulator about the performance of the Regulator's functions and the exercise of the Regulator's powers.

Note 1: For variation and revocation, see the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

Note 2: Section 42 (disallowance) and Part 4 of Chapter 3 (sunsetting) of the Legislation Act 2003 do not apply to the directions (see regulations made for the purposes of paragraphs 44(2)(b) and 54(2)(b) of that Act).

(2) A direction under subsection (1) must be of a general nature only.

(3) The Regulator must comply with a direction given under subsection (1).

(14) Schedule 1, item 139, page 32 (lines 13 to 16), omit subsection 64B(2), substitute:

Authorised applicant

(2) For the purposes of Part 4 of the Regulatory Powers Act:

(a) the ACMA is an authorised applicant in relation to the civil penalty provisions of this Act other than Divisions 2 and 3 of Part 7B; and

(b) the Regulator is an authorised applicant in relation to a civil penalty provision in Division 2 or 3 of Part 7B.

(15) Schedule 1, item 139, page 33 (after line 15), after subsection 64C(1), insert:

(1A) A civil penalty provision in Division 2 or 3 of Part 7B is subject to an infringement notice under Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act.

(16) Schedule 1, item 139, page 33 (after line 20), after subsection 64C(2), insert:

(2A) For the purposes of Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act, a person appointed under subsection (2B) is an infringement officer in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1A).

(2B) The Regulator may, in writing, appoint a person who holds, or performs the duties of, an APS 6 position, or an equivalent or higher position, within the Department.

(17) Schedule 1, item 139, page 33 (after line 24), after subsection 64C(3), insert:

(3A) For the purposes of Part 5 of the Regulatory Powers Act, the Regulator is the relevant chief executive in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1A).

(18) Schedule 1, item 139, page 33 (line 25), after "chief executive", insert "mentioned in subsection (3)".

(19) Schedule 1, item 139, page 33 (after line 32), after subsection 64C(5), insert:

Amount payable

(5A) The amount to be stated in an infringement notice for the purposes of paragraph 104(1)(f) of the Regulatory Powers Act for the alleged contravention of a civil penalty provision mentioned in subsection (1A) of this section must be one‑fifth of the maximum penalty that a court could impose on the person for that contravention.

(20) Schedule 1, item 139, page 34 (after line 5), after section 64C, insert:

64CA Enforceable undertakings

Enforceable provisions

(1) The provisions of Division 2 and 3 of Part 7B are enforceable under Part 6 of the Regulatory Powers Act.

Authorised person

(2) The Regulator is an authorised person in relation to the provisions of Division 2 and 3 of Part 7B for the purposes of Part 6 of the Regulatory Powers Act.

Relevant court

(3) For the purposes of Part 6 of the Regulatory Powers Act, each of the following courts is a relevant court in relation to the provisions of Division 2 and 3 of Part 7B:

(a) the Federal Court;

(b) the Federal Circuit Court.

Extension to external Territories etc.

(4) Part 6 of the Regulatory Powers Act, as it applies in relation to the provisions of Division 2 and 3 of Part 7B, extends to:

(a) every external Territory; and

(b) acts, omissions, matters and things outside Australia.

(21) Schedule 1, item 139, page 34 (after line 20), after subsection 64D(1), insert:

(1A) The provisions of Division 2 and 3 of Part 7B are enforceable under Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act.

(22) Schedule 1, item 139, page 34 (after line 24), after subsection 64D(2), insert:

(2A) For the purposes of Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act, the Regulator is an authorised person in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1A).

(23) Schedule 1, item 139, page 34 (line 28), after "subsection (1)", insert "or (1A)".

(25) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 36 (after line 29), at the end of the Part, add:

Privacy Act 1988

146A After paragraph 7.8(a) of Schedule 1

Insert:

(aa) Part 7B of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001;

These amendments are all about strengthening the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016. I welcome this bill, I welcome the debate and I welcome the fact that we are trying to make the Interactive Gambling Act more effective because it is quite disturbing that after almost 16 years of operation of this bill, there has yet to be one prosecution under it. The minister helpfully said last night, in terms of the bill, that ACMA will be dealing with these matters rather than the Federal Police and that the burden of proof would be one of the balance of probabilities for these civil penalties rather than beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstances, that is something that would more likely lead to more prosecutions.

I am concerned that it is going to be dealt with by way of a ministerial council—which is looking at the O'Farrell review—and that we will get the lowest common denominator. There is no question that the Commonwealth has the power to deal comprehensively with interactive gambling using its constitutional powers under telecommunications, banking, corporations and taxation powers in order to deal with these matters.

The amendments that I am moving—(1) to (23) and (25)—are largely borrowed from the legislation that I previously introduced into the parliament as a private senator's bill, which was co-sponsored by my colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore just late last year. These amendments strengthen the bill in a number of respects. They look at, for instance, microbetting, which is banned, and you cannot bet on a particular event within a game or race. Microbetting corruption is problematic in sports. It is also very problematic in driving gambling addiction, because people particularly chase their losses with microbetting.

The amendments also look at the whole issue of not having gambling ads during G-classified times. It is an anomaly that you cannot show gambling ads during G-rated times unless it is during a sporting broadcast. Sporting broadcast should not be exempted from that. They also ensure that the regulator has regulatory powers in what a restricted wagering service is. It also looks at the whole issue of making sure that gambling service employees are appropriately trained and there is an offence if they are not trained to be able to intervene.

The amendments also include issues with respect to giving power to regulators to stop prohibited transactions in relation to prohibited interactive gambling services, including injunctive relief. We have dealt with the issue of not offering credit, through an amendment which was passed last night in the parliament, by this chamber. Let us wait and see what happens to it in the lower house, but I would urge the government to reconsider their opposition to that.

In relation to having restricted wagering services not inducing a person to use a service, it is all about offering inducements to gamble, which is very problematic in terms of gambling addiction, as well as requiring wagering services not to provide details of an account. In other words, individuals ought to be given details of what they have lost. The amendments also have stronger verification-of-identity provisions. They include that there is a national self-exclusion register before creating an account, which is an important reform that was raised in the O'Farrell review. They also, importantly, raise the whole issue of having mandatory recommitment options when creating an account, so they have real teeth and, combined with a national self-exclusion register, would actually be quite effective in dealing with these issues. Together with that, an online gambling service must not increase an individual's betting limit.

These are a framework of consumer protections that ought to be acted on now, not later. These are the sorts of things that I believe would give this bill real force, real effectiveness, in dealing with problem gambling, because my concern is that the government's approach has been a minimalist approach and, as my colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore will indicate with her amendment, the bill is questionably effective at dealing with the matter that it deals with because it does have a number of loopholes in it. I am very happy to speak to this and take questions from my colleagues in relation to this, but effectively this is a belt-and-braces approach, to ensure that we have an effective approach to deal with problem online gambling in this country.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (23) and (25) on sheet 8038, moved by Senator Xenophon, be agreed to.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (12:48): I move Nick Xenophon Team amendment (24) on sheet 8038:

(24) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 19), after item 143, insert:

143A After section 69A

Insert:

69B Minister must mandate blocking illegal overseas gambling websites

The Minister must, within 6 months after the commencement of this section, make a legislative instrument requiring internet service providers to block access to illegal overseas gambling websites.

I excised this amendment because of a request from the Australian Greens, and I respect that request. This amendment says that the minister must within six months after the commencement of this section make a legislative instrument requiring internet service providers to block access to illegal overseas gambling websites. This is something that I know is contentious, but if you want this to work it can work.

We know from just one company, Netsweeper of Canada, that I met with and that have given submissions to inquiries in relation to this that you can have internet content filtering categorisation, web threat management solutions and services that allow organisations to manage internet access and activity. This can be used for gambling. This can be used to ensure that these illegal overseas online gambling sites cannot be easily accessed. Netsweeper is not 100 per cent perfect, but my understanding is that it ends up filtering well over 95 per cent of these sites. It makes it very difficult for these sites to be accessed. We know from the Australian Bankers Association that they can track the merchant numbers, or they have a pretty good idea of what the merchant numbers are, of these unauthorised online casinos. We do not know exactly how much is lost to these casinos, but it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. If we are going to be fair dinkum about tackling illegal online casinos this is the way to do it. This has merit and will be effective.

It is enough of a battle to deal with the legal online bookmakers here in Australia, with sports betting and the damage that causes, but it is really the wild west when it comes to these unauthorised online casinos from overseas. I have had constituents and Senator Kakoschke-Moore has worked with constituents who have been devastated by losses to companies that are based in Malta, Gibraltar or the Caribbean. I commend this amendment as a means of requiring the government to seriously tackle this by ensuring that we use available technologies to block these sites.

Question negatived.

Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE (South Australia) (12:50): by leave—I move Nick Xenophon Team amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 8046 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 21), after the definition of designated interactive gambling service, insert:

electronic betting terminals means electronic equipment that is:

(a) installed on a permanent or fixed basis at a place where gambling services are provided; and

(b) located in an area that is set aside for gambling services and under the continual supervision of the provider; and

(c) unable to connect to the internet; and

(d) available for use only by customers using cash or a card issued by the provider.

[Note: The definition of " electronic equipment " has not been removed because it is used in the definition of " electronic betting terminals " .]

(2) Schedule 1, item 27, page 11 (lines 32 and 33), omit "electronic equipment", substitute "electronic betting terminals".

(3) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (line 1), omit "electronic equipment is", substitute "electronic betting terminals are".

(4) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (lines 19 and 20), omit "electronic equipment", substitute "electronic betting terminals".

(5) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (line 22), omit "electronic equipment is", substitute "electronic betting terminals are".

(6) Schedule 1, item 27, page 12 (line 24), omit "electronic equipment is", substitute "electronic betting terminals are".

It is the view of the Nick Xenophon Team that the bill as it is currently drafted will increase the opportunities for in-play betting in TABs, clubs and licensed premises. This goes against the intention of the government's bill. Indeed, the Department of Communications and the Arts admitted that the definition of electronic equipment within the bill could include smartphones and tablets. They also admitted that they have done no analysis or modelling of whether this will increase the effects of problem gambling.

Consequently, the amendments on sheet 8046 narrow the definition of electronic equipment and make it clear that electronic equipment will instead be defined as an electronic betting terminal which is installed on a permanent or fixed basis at a place where gambling services are provided, is unable to be connected to the internet in a designated supervised area and is available for the use only of customers using cash or a card issued by the provider.

This definition will limit in-play betting to electronic betting terminals to ensure that gambling operators do not seek to expand their operations by allowing people to place in-play bets using tablets or smartphones provided by the venue. These terminals are permanent installations located in a specific area set aside for gambling and are unable to be connected to the internet. We put that if the government is sincere in its intent to clamp down on in-play sports betting it should not be enabling venues to hand out tablets and smartphones to its customers. Therefore, we encourage the Senate to support the amendments on sheet 8046, which will put a stop to this harmful practice.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (12:52): Labor is well and truly on the record for raising concerns about terminals in licensed venues. As I have already stated, we do not want to see and do not support a proliferation of mobile devices. Minister Tudge, in the other place, has already said that he will act if there is a proliferation, and Labor expects the government to maintain the status quo. We are not supporting the amendment, on this occasion, but I just wanted to put on the record, again, that we have raised concerns about this issue and I indicate, clearly, to the government that Labor does not expect to see a proliferation of mobile devices, given the minister's comments.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (12:53): I am grateful to the fact that the opposition have the courtesy to respond to it. I do not agree with the argument and think it is a weak one, respectfully, but could the minister at least humour us and give a response to this amendment? You did not on the previous amendments, but this is a pretty discrete amendment. It goes to the heart of this bill about in-play betting and whether it can be circumvented. This amendment, moved by my colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore, seeks to obviate that. Can the minister give us the government's position on this amendment and any undertakings that if there is a proliferation of tablets, smartphone devices, the government will monitor it and act accordingly?

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (12:54): Thank you, Senator Xenophon. We did canvass these matters extensively last night, your contributions, and those of Senator Kakoschke-Moore, in relation to these amendments and the previous ones and I responded to those, at length, last night. As the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, I have the practice of avoiding repeating myself, where I can, to ensure that legislation is passed efficiently. But let me restate that this legislation is not seeking to create a new situation. This legislation is, simply, seeking comment, with place based betting, to maintain the status quo. As I indicated last night, this is something that we will monitor.

Question negatived.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (12:55): by leave—I move Liberal Democratic Party amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8054 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 14), after the definition of carriage service, insert:

casino ‑style poker or blackjack gambling service has the meaning given by section 8BC.

(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 12), after item 23A, insert:

23B Before paragraph 5(3)(c)

Insert:

(bc) a casino‑style poker or blackjack gambling service (see section 8BC);

(3) Schedule 1, item 27, page 13 (after line 15), after section 8BB, insert:

8BC Casino ‑style poker or blackjack gambling service

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a casino‑style poker or blackjack gambling service is a service for the conduct of a game covered by paragraph (e) of the definition of gambling service in section 4:

(a) to the extent to which the game is poker or blackjack; and

(b) to the extent to which the game is conducted in a manner substantially similar to the manner in which it would be conducted at a casino;

so long as the other conditions (if any) determined under subsection (2) have been satisfied.

(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine one or more conditions for the purposes of subsection (1).

(4) Schedule 1, item 28, page 13 (after line 29), after paragraph 8E(1)(g), insert:

(ga) a casino‑style poker or blackjack gambling service (see section 8BC); or

Items 1 and 3 on sheet 8054 define casino-style poker and blackjack as poker or blackjack conducted in a manner substantially similar to the manner in which it would be conducted at a casino so long as any other conditions determined by the minister, by legislative instrument, are satisfied. Item 2 excludes casino-style poker and blackjack services from the definition of prohibited interactive gambling services. Item 4 includes online casino-style poker and blackjack services in the definition of regulated interactive gambling services.

If these amendments are passed, the person who is licensed to provide an online casino-style poker or blackjack services under a law of the state or territory would face no criminal or civil penalty under Commonwealth law. This would only be a first step towards legalising online casino-style poker and blackjack services. State and territory licensing would still be required, but it is a necessary step.

Despite the current prohibition in the existing law, online poker and blackjack are enjoyed by many Australians. They are entertaining games of chance and considerable skill. And despite the current lack of regulation—or, should I say, loophole of regulation?—there is no evidence that online poker and blackjack causes more harm than the other services this bill seeks to regulate rather than prohibit, like online sports betting. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (12:58): As I indicated in my second reading contribution, the government believes that online poker poses a risk to problem gambling in Australia and it will maintain the prohibition of these services under the Interactive Gambling Act. The act creates an offence of providing or advertising interactive gambling services to customers in Australia, prohibiting gambling services—including online casino-style gaming services, including online poker—which are played for money or anything else of value. The intent of the act is to minimise the scope of gambling in Australia.

The government was clear in its response to the illegal offshore wagering review that it will not expand the online betting market in Australia. This bill will maintain the status quo and uphold the original intent of the Interactive Gambling Act. Online poker will, therefore, remain a prohibited interactive gambling service.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (12:59): Senator Leyonhjelm has obviously thought through this amendment and it would be disrespectful not to respond to it.

I and my colleagues do not support this amendment for a number of reasons. There is an ambiguity as to how it would operate and as to what the betting limits would be. I have met with poker machine players who like playing online poker, and they have made the point that sometimes you pay $50 and it will last you for a number of hours, which is very different from sports betting services where you can lose thousands of dollars with just one bet. Their argument is that there is an inconsistency in the current law that allows sports betting where enormous amounts of money can be lost; whereas, if online poker were regulated with very small bet limits, it would not be as harmful as sports betting. I am not canvassing and I am not commenting on those remarks as such. But, in the context of this debate, whilst I do not want to see any expansion of online gambling, there does seem to be a dichotomy between poker players, who have described to me that they can bet 1c at a time and lose very small amounts of money in the scheme of things, and sports betting. Senator Leyonhjelm has raised an important issue.

The paradox may be that if there were very low bet limits, and I am talking very low bet limits as a number of cents compared to dollars or multiples of dollars, the impact would be smaller than sports betting as it currently exists. It is a matter that the Productivity Commission raised in its reports on gambling. I think there will still be an ongoing debate on this, and I understand the point of online poker players who say that there is a dichotomy between a game where $50 will keep you playing all day compared to being able to lose literally tens of thousands of dollars at a time with sports betting. This is something that will need to be debated. I do not want to be seen to be encouraging an expansion of gambling, but there is an inconsistency in the approach of the government and opposition to sports betting, where you can bet thousands of dollars at a time per game or per sporting event—per horse race—compared to online poker, where there could be some very strict limits as to what could be bet. It is something that needs to be debated further.

Senator HINCH (Victoria) (13:02): I am glad Senator Xenophon made the distinction between poker machines and poker. It is an important one. I do support the amendment from Senator Leyonhjelm. I have had a number of emails, text messages and tweets about this saying, 'I am a poker player. I am a hobby poker player. I enjoy it. I have fun. Please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Please don't include this.' If you will support Senator Leyonhjelm's amendment, I am happy to support the bill.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:03): In the same way, I have respect for Senator Leyonhjelm with regard to the amendment he has put forward. With regard to these matters, the Senate standing committee's report indicates in its closing section at 2.62:

Whether particular services should no longer be restricted under the IGA is a separate question that this committee was not asked to consider as part of this inquiry.

That is one important point that should be made here in the course of the debate. We do also need to put on the record that the purpose of this particular piece of legislation is to act in a harm minimisation way as a preventative to the adverse outcomes of gambling in our community. I make that point by way of contribution to the debate this afternoon.

Senator LEYONHJELM (New South Wales) (13:03): I want to add a few additional comments to put this into context. There is a very active poker community in Australia. They like to play poker. They like to win. There are tournaments. They make money. Some people lose money. Some of them have high stakes, and they can lose a lot of money at once, but mostly it is pretty small beer. That is not, essentially, regulated very much at all. That occurs in pubs and clubs where people gather, and if you are interested in playing poker competitively, there are no shortage of opportunities. What we are doing here is saying, 'You can't do that online. You can't play poker online with the same sort of people.' The risks are the same—you can lose small amounts of money or large amounts of money—and you bet what you choose. Yet, we are saying, 'No you're not allowed to do that online. You're only allowed to do it face-to-face.' It a little bit like saying to Australians, 'You're allowed to talk to each other by telephone, but you are not allowed to talk to each other by FaceTime, because FaceTime goes via a server in another country.' I am sure most of you know what FaceTime is. It is that method within Facebook of talking to each other external to the telephone system. What we are basically saying here is that one kind of playing poker is okay, but another kind of playing poker is not okay because it is online. Seriously! This is the 21st century. Almost everything is online these days, and to pretend that we can regulate so that you can do one but not the other is dreaming. I think it is very bad legislation. We really should not entertain it.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8054 moved by Senator Leyonhjelm be agreed to.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (13:13): by leave—I move Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8093:

(1) Schedule 1, item 26, page 11 (after line 13), at the end of paragraph 8A(5) (c), add:

(vi) a service relating to betting on the outcome of a lottery;

(2) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 15), after item 27, insert:

27A At the end of subsection 8D(2)

Add:

; or (c) betting on the outcome of a lottery.

My amendments are about a service related to betting on the outcome of a lottery. We have a foreign investor in Australia by the name of Lottoland, who bought a licence in the Northern Territory for $550,000. They are actually allowing people to bet on the outcome of a lottery anywhere in the world. They pay no tax. They are here in Australia. They do not employ a lot of people; they employ about six people. They are providing a service that is detrimental to 4½ thousand newsagents around this country who rely on lottery tickets being sold and who are struggling. So here we have a foreign company in Australia, possibly taking hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, out of the country in unpaid taxes.

I also raised this in light of the government moving a bill in this house to address multinationals not paying their taxes in Australia. I think this has been on the table since almost 20 years ago when, I can remember, I raised the topic of multinationals not paying their taxes in Australia. This would be a good reason for the government to support my amendment to shut down one foreign multinational company working here in Australia and to stop the demise of 4½ thousand newsagents who are losing business because of this. If they are fair dinkum about clamping down on multinationals in Australia—in this case not employing a lot of Australians—taking money out of the country by not paying taxes here, then I expect the government and the opposition to support my amendments.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (13:15): I thank Senator Hanson and her office for taking the government through the intent of One Nation's amendments. I think my colleagues would appreciate that, under the law as it is, Lottoland is not illegal, and I think that is the point of Senator Hanson's amendments. Lottoland is also not offshore. It is a licensed service in the Northern Territory, and the proposition here is beyond the scope of this bill. As Senator Hanson and One Nation have put this proposition here, the government will examine it, but it is important, with the proposed changes, that there be consultation. So it is not possible for the government to support these amendments in the context of this bill, but, as One Nation have asked that we examine this, we are happy to do so.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:17): I indicate very briefly that I and my colleague strongly support these amendments. If the government does not support them, I genuinely suggest Senator Hanson put up a private senator's bill. I would co-sponsor it. The sooner we get onto it, the better. We need to bring this to a head. This is a loophole under current laws. It is beyond me that the Northern Territory regulator actually allows this to be licensed. I believe it is a sneaky and tricky form of gambling that effectively allows more people to get sucked in or roped in and become gambling addicts, because this service promises huge returns, but the odds are even huger. I think it is very problematic in terms of it being offered as a service. It also has a real impact on state-based lotteries. Whatever problems you have with those, at least you know that the revenue is staying here in the Commonwealth rather than going off overseas.

Senator O'NEILL (New South Wales) (13:18): I too would like to put Labor's position that we are very sympathetic to the issue that Pauline Hanson's One Nation party has drawn to the attention of the chamber through these amendments. However, it did arrive into the whole consultation very, very late, and one of the important things in legislative care is to make sure that there is adequate consultation, so we will not be supporting these amendments at this point in time.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (13:18): I am pleased that the government has recognised the merit of these amendments so far as the tax is concerned and so far as it will be considered. I will just add some weight to that because the evasion of tax by foreign entities is something that has not been addressed since 1953. It is something that we must, must get on top of because of our debt situation in this country and the unfairness of our tax system. It needs to be a part of the considered and comprehensive review of our tax system.

The CHAIR: The question is that Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8093, as moved by Senator Hanson, be agreed to.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts) (13:28): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:29): This bill would amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003. These acts concern the issuance of security identification cards, ASICs, and maritime security identification cards, MSICs. It comes to us as a response to a recommendation from the National Ice Taskforce for greater rigour in guarding against drug smuggling in ports and airports through a toughening of background checks.

When this legislation came on in the other place in the 44th Parliament, we the opposition noted our concern about whether the addition of an organised crime check to the existing terrorism check might inadvertently reduce the level of rigour that applies to the terrorism check. That remains our concern. Our worries about these administrative matters have been deepened by the government's strange secrecy about its broader position on transport issues and its ongoing attempts to undermine Australian jobs. I note you are nodding with me there, Mr Acting Deputy President Ketter. Security standards in Australia's maritime and aviation sector should have nothing to do with politics. Public safety is our only priority. Laws and regulations relating to the security of ports and airports need to be tough and clear so Australians, and criminals who might wish us harm, are in no doubt of the strength of our resolve to keep our nation safe.

The legislation before us would take background checks on workers in airports and in the maritime sector. Under existing arrangements, people applying for aviation security identification cards and maritime security identification cards undergo background checks. Those checks are designed to establish whether applicants have links with terrorist organisations. This bill would add an extra layer of checking, to ensure that applicants have no links to serious and organised crime. The opposition will not oppose the bill, because we take security seriously. However, we are deeply concerned about the glaring inconsistencies in the government's approach, particularly when it comes to maritime security.

It was less than 12 months ago that the government asked the other place to support laws that would have removed Australian mariners from coastal trade and replaced them with overseas crews who have not been through the maritime security identification card checks. What was known as the notorious 'Workchoices on water' legislation would have allowed overseas vessels paying their crews as little as $2 an hour to undercut Australian vessels, whose owners are required to pay Australian level wages. It would have destroyed Australian jobs and it was quite rightly rejected in this place.

Today, we are being asked to toughen background checks on Australian mariners in the name of security. We argue that these proposals are at odds, so the opposition seeks clarity. On the one hand the government wants to enhance security with better background checks, but on the other hand it seeks to reduce security by clearing the way for people who have not been subject to security checks by replacing people whose backgrounds have been vetted. That does not seem to make sense to us.

Australians know and need to know more about the government's forward agenda for the shipping and the aviation industries. During last year's election campaign—the longest in decades—the coalition released no policies on aviation or shipping. All we have to guide our understanding of the government's forward agenda is its history, and that is a history of trying to undermine Australian jobs. Labor on the other hand has a comprehensive shipping policy that covers the full range or maritime issues, including: security, industry taxation arrangements, workforce planning, cruise shipping, ports, the Australian International Shipping Register and Labor's approach to coastal trading. We also have an aviation policy that sets out all of our policy principles for that sector. If anyone wants to know where Labor stands on aviation and shipping, they can go online and access those documents.

Australians deserve to hear more information about the principles underlying the coalition's policy in shipping and aviation. That is the thrust of the amendments put forward in the other place and again here today. Our amendments would require the government to do exactly what Labor has already done: sit down and put in the work required to frame aviation and maritime policies. The opposition has always seriously considered enhanced security measures and will also take a non-political path on such matters. Australians of course demand nothing less. Australians also expect us to look at the whole picture around any picture put to us. As it stands, we cannot see that full picture. Let me be clear: Labor supports well-targeted measures that address serious and organised crime. Those who use our aviation and maritime transport systems as means to distribute drugs or other contraband into, out of and within Australia commit crimes. We know it happens, and sensible measures to minimise this trade, detect the perpetrators and bring them to justice are initiatives that Labor will of course support.

The report of the National Ice Taskforce from December 2015 was welcomed by Labor. We support measures to align and refine the security identification cards and maritime security identification cards to ensure that persons accessing secure areas around airports, ports, aircraft and ships are subject to proper background checks. Labor also supports a transport security framework that has a clear purpose in its own right. Transport security is a vital mission for government. It is a qualitatively different task from targeting organised crime in our transport system. We trust that the government has systems in place to ensure the strong focus on transport security will not be lost with the addition of a new purpose.

However, it is not clear that the security issues are always considered when the government develops aviation and maritime policy. Two substantial acts exist which govern, respectively, transport security at our major aviation and maritime gateways, including offshore facilities, and which also extend to aircraft and maritime vessels within our jurisdiction. The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 are both post-September 11 pieces of legislation that seek to implement a transport security environment targeting that class of risk. The two acts currently target unlawful interference in the aviation and maritime sectors.

'Unlawful interference' is currently defined in both acts as being acts that impede the operation of airports, aircraft, ports, offshore facilities or ships, or which place the safety of facilities, ships or aircraft at risk, with exceptions for mere advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action. The current focus is, accordingly, on targeting deliberate behaviour which may cause harm to passengers, crew, aviation and maritime personnel, the general public and damage to property. In a word: terrorism. The changes proposed will add a new, secondary purpose to both acts as per above, and administer this solely through changes to eligibility criteria for existing aviation security identification cards and maritime security identification cards.

There is a potential risk that widening the purpose of the transport security legislation will confuse the two missions of transport security and targeting serious and organised crime in the transport system. Both these tasks are important; the question is whether achievement of both is best done via the mechanism here.

Labor expressed concerns arising from the Senate inquiry in the previous parliament about how this change affected the transport security mission. It is also not clear that the government has fully thought through what it wants in these changes, and that is a concern. The Ice Taskforce called for the aviation security identification cards and the maritime security identification cards to include checks to target 'serious and organised crime', as did the Attorney-General's Department and the coalition majority on the Senate inquiry that last looked at this bill. But the bill is worded much wider than that: it looks at 'serious or organised crime'.

It is of concern that two phrases with different meanings are used variously by the government without nuance as to the difference. In adding new scope to an existing vital mission, it is essential that we are clear about what the mission is. Labor will seek to amend the bill to clarify this, and we hope that the government will support our amendment.

A quarter of a million people currently hold an ASIC or MSIC card. In the quest to target organised crime, it is important to acknowledge they have a right to be fairly treated by this change, as their jobs are at stake. While we will not tolerate criminals in our midst, we need to be careful that how we specify the offence could unfairly affect existing participants in the system. Labor will be carefully scrutinising the regulations that follow this bill, particularly in the area of offences and their relation to the behaviour the system seeks to eliminate. Such a system should have well-justified offences and cut-offs. It should not be open to abuse.

Refusal of an MSIC or ASIC can mean that employees lose their jobs. For this reason, the system must have a robust appeals mechanism. Labor will move to require this in the legislation, and we will carefully scrutinise the regulations when they comes forward.

This legislation fits within a wider system of aviation and maritime transport security. Labor is concerned that the focus on our ports and airports does not remove a focus from those outside secure areas who also have an opportunity to participate in serious crime via the transport system. This includes personnel and their managers packing and unpacking containers in establishments away from secure zones where ASIC and MSIC cards rule. We should care about who is moving high-consequence domestic cargo around our ports. Ammonium nitrate, explosives and fuel should ideally be moved by holders of MSIC or ASIC cards rather than crew on Maritime Crew visas, that are less able to be verified.

And we deserve a government that believes in promoting Australian jobs in shipping and aviation. We know that government can better vet Australians than foreign employees. That only stands to reason. This government in the last term effectively tried to replace some Australian aviation workers with foreign crews when it considered changing air cabotage arrangements in northern Australia. And in shipping, we had Work Choices on water. The government tried to replace the Australian flag on the back of Australian vessels with the white flag of surrender on Australian jobs.

If you work in Australia, you should be paid Australian-level wages: it is that simple. Labor's laws backed a level playing field for Australian shipping employers when bidding for work in Australia. It is in Australia's economic, environmental and national security interests to maintain a vibrant Australian shipping industry. None of the major environmental accidents around the Australian coast in recent years have involved Australian-flagged vessels. If you drive a train across the country or a truck down the Hume Highway, you should be paid Australian-level wages. Arrangements should be no different on the blue highway from the Hume Highway.

Quite apart from removing a level playing field based on Australian standards for Australian aviation and maritime businesses and the people they employ when competing for work in their own country, these policies also work against improved outcomes in targeting transport security and organised crime. Work Choices on water continues to cast a threatening shadow over job security in the maritime sector.

The government's failure to produce shipping and aviation policies mean that we have no idea about its future intentions. I have no doubt whatsoever that the government takes maritime and aviation security seriously, but I and the opposition fear that its ideological warriors will be back for another attempt to destroy Australian shipping. Indeed there are numerous senior ministers who, before and since Work Choices on water was rejected, have indicated their support for its key principles. The government has bitter ideological divisions which are graphically demonstrated by the conflicting nature of the bill before us—and, I might say, many other pieces of legislation—and the government's previous positions on shipping. That is why we seek to amend the bill.

Our concern is not only about the lack of a government policy on shipping and aviation. In recent months there have been a range of other indicators that raise red flags for the opposition. For example, a High Court judgement last August exposed the government's zeal for facilitating the replacement of Australian workers with cheap overseas labour. In December 2015, the government granted working visa exemptions to overseas workers on oil and gas rigs in Australian waters. The government had argued that oil rigs were vessels. It wanted to help employers to cut costs by hiring overseas workers instead of Australians. In August, the High Court ruled the exemption invalid and declared the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection had exceeded his authority.

Since the rejection of Work Choices on water, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure has continued to undermine Australian maritime jobs by abusing provisions of the existing laws relating to temporary licences. Existing legislation allows the use of overseas crews for temporary work around Australia's coasts when no Australian crew is available. In the most flagrant example of this abuse, the government, last year, issued a temporary licence allowing the operator of the MV Portland to sack their Australian crew and replace them with a foreign crew. The Portland has been operating between Western Australia and the Victorian port of Portland for two decades. This work is not temporary and an Australian crew were available. The existing Portland crew were sacked and escorted off the vessel.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Senator FARRELL: Yes, it is a shame. Over the summer break, the Commonwealth and Victorian governments reached a deal with the Portland smelter for taxpayer support to allow it to keep operating; yet, as far as we know, this government is happy to continue to have the smelter supplied by a vessel crewed by overseas mariners. Let's not forget that only two years ago the Harper review into competition policy proposed allowing overseas aircrews to undercut the Australian aviation sector. The conservative economist Ian Harper wanted to allow foreign airlines coming into Australia to be allowed to also fly Australian domestic routes in direct competition with Australian airlines. Just as with overseas mariners, these overseas employees are paid less than their Australian counterparts.

With so many red flags waving, the government needs to be up-front with the people of Australia on its plans for aviation and shipping. Labor is always up for supporting genuine security measures, but, even if we support this bill before us today, it seems highly likely that the government will undermine the bill's objectives with a fresh attack on Australian shipping. We know this because we have clear evidence that the government previously discounted warnings from its own security advisers by advancing Work Choices on water. We know also that, having failed to secure passage for that disgraceful piece of legislation, it has continued to promote its vile objectives in both word and deed. And we know, despite the political controversy caused by its previous attack on Australian shipping, it chose during the recent election campaign to refuse to outline its future intentions. It is time that the government started being straight with the Australian people. It could do so by accepting our amendments.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (13:49): I am rising to speak on the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016. In making my comments on the bill today, I want to reiterate the view that the Greens put in our report when the regional and rural affairs and transport committee inquired into this bill last year, which is that we believe preventing serious and organised crime in our ports and airports is a critical issue. But the question remains whether trying to tackle that by tacking that provision onto existing bills, which primarily were intended to deal with threats of a terrorist nature, is an appropriate way to enact appropriate security measures.

Although we see merit in trying to align the powers of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003, we still have some significant concerns with the legislation in its current form. And this is important because this bill has the potential to affect up to 260,000 Australian maritime and aviation workers. We believe that there is the potential for the proposed new background checking to be very punitive for people with particular histories of involvement with drugs. Access to employment is very important for those with a history of drug or alcohol abuse and should not be denied to people who have successfully rehabilitated their lives. We are concerned that, by attempting to add a secondary purpose to the maritime security or aviation security ID cards, the bill's measures could unreasonably exclude work opportunities for a large pool of already disadvantaged Australians seeking work. The fact remains that these cards—the ASIC and MSIC cards—were and should still be primarily identity cards, not security cards.

We are also concerned with the history of this bill. Submitters representing the workers have shared their concerns that they still do not feel that they have been appropriately consulted and engaged with the development of this legislation. We remain hopeful that, if there are amendments to this legislation being considered and in the rollout of this legislation, there will be more effective consultation.

In particular, our concerns about this bill also relate to whether it is tackling what are the fundamental security concerns because if we are serious about tackling the security holes that exist in our maritime and aviation security policy settings we need to work out whether tacking these issues onto another bill is the best way to achieve appropriate policy. It seems the reason ramping up the checks on maritime and aviation workers is being focused on is that it is the area that fits with the government's ideological agenda, it is relatively easy to do and it gives the impression that they are doing something whilst there are gaping holes in other elements of our security regime.

During the inquiry into this bill we saw lots of submissions that talked about the existing flaws and loopholes in the maritime crew visa background and security checks, and the fact that foreign aviation workers can be excluded from the need for ASIC cards. There is also the issue of exclusion of managers from stevedoring companies and trucking companies who are responsible for things like personnel recruitment, rosters, allocation of ship berthing and directing security. These are positions which are unquestionably vulnerable to infiltration by people seeking to cause damage or to engage in illicit activities, and yet these are not being addressed. In fact, managers, operators and workers in container packing yards, for example, who are often backpackers, have no requirement for MSIC checks. These yards are sometimes only metres outside of the security container terminals and the workers have the responsibility to place customs locks on containers, but they are exempted from the MSIC program.

Then there were the issues raised during our inquiry into flag-of-convenience shipping and the huge flaws and the huge, gaping holes in the regulation of these ships. In seeking to deregulate the domestic shipping industry we have been opened up to many, many more flag-of-convenience vessels. What we risk is that we have a much higher-risk workforce predominating in our shipping industry and a far fewer number of MSIC registered seafarers who are working our domestic shipping routes. This imbalance in itself—the fact that we have a majority of seafarers that are plying our ports, plying our shores and going in and out of our ports are on flag-of-convenience ships rather than on Australian flagged vessels—is a particular security concern.

In the Senate inquiry into flag-of-convenience shipping on the Australian coast there was a startling admission that the federal government's Department of Immigration and Border Protection made where it warned that there are features of flag-of-convenience registration, regulation and practice that organised crime syndicates or terrorists may seek to exploit. Reduced transparency or secrecy surrounding complex financial and ownership arrangements are factors that can make flag-of-convenience ships more attractive for use in illegal activity, including by organised crime or terrorist groups. This means that flag-of-convenience ships may be used in a range of illegal activities, including illegal exploitation of natural resources, illegal activity in protected areas, people smuggling and facilitating prohibited imports or exports.

Here we have a bill that is presenting this image that we are getting serious about organised crime when we know that we have got many, many more areas where there are gaping holes. Some of these areas have been identified and they are alarming. The fact is we have flag-of-convenience ships that are involved in the carriage, storage and delivery of really dangerous cargoes, including ammonium nitrate. There is huge evidence that with regard to the background checks for maritime crew visas for foreign workers who are engaged on flag-of-convenience shipping there is a lot that can slip through the net. So we have ourselves in a particularly vulnerable situation. We have critical infrastructure of oil and gas production, exploration and storage where we have foreign workers with inadequate checks having access to that. Yet we are focusing on increasing the security checks on Australian workers. We have Australian city ports where there are no security checks at all and where foreign crew on foreign flagged ships and flag-of-convenience ships are free to come and go through open gates. These are where we really have the problems and where we really need to focus our efforts if we are serious about addressing serious and organised crime.

We really think it is important that we are addressing issues of serious and organised crime, but we feel that this current legislation is failing to deal with the real problems. So the Greens do not believe that this legislation should be supported in its current form, but we are open to seeing this legislation improved. We understand and have considered the Labor Party amendment being proposed to this bill. We think that amendment, if passed, would significantly improve some of the aspects of this bill. In particular, rather than imposing these background checks just on Australian workers for serious or organised crime, the fact is it should be serious and organised crime considered. If an Australian worker is denied a visa there needs to be a process of appeal because it is important not to be denying Australian workers a visa unilaterally, with many people missing out on their opportunity to be working in our ports. We have to have an appeals process, particularly if you compare that with the situation of the many foreign workers on flag-of-convenience vessels who do not have to have the same checks. We have all of these gaping holes. We know that we can have foreign workers coming through our ports without the same checks, but we are unnecessarily and inappropriately having to have very restrictive arrangements on Australian workers working on our ports.

We look forward to the rest of the debate on this legislation and we look forward in particular to discussing the amendments that have been proposed by the Labor Party. I am hoping that we can see some vastly improved legislation that we will be able to support.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It now being 2 pm we will proceed to questions without notice.

The PRESIDENT (15:34): Does any senator wish to have the question put on any of those proposals? There being none, we will now proceed to the discovery of formal business.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (15:34): I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name for today, proposing a reference to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee, relating to the levelised cost of electricity.

Leave granted.

Senator ROBERTS: I move the motion as amended:

That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2017:

(a) the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE), with particular reference to the energy production options, including:

(i) coal fired electricity (without carbon capture and storage),

(ii) combined cycle gas turbines (without carbon capture and storage),

(iii) wind turbines,

(iv) medium-sized (five megawatt) solar photovoltaic (PV) systems,

(v) hydroelectricity, and

(vi) nuclear power;

(b) the projected LCOE generation in Australia from 2017 to 2030 as using coal, gas, wind, solar, hydroelectricity and nuclear power, and the likely variations in the percentages of these sources of electricity over the same period;

(c) the amount of taxpayer subsidies currently paid for electricity generation from each source, and the projected subsidies to 2030;

(d) to assist in cost effective decisions relating to carbon dioxide reductions, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for coal, gas, wind, solar energy, hydroelectricity and nuclear power in:

(i) the construction process for plants or farms, for example, construction of components and transportation,

(ii) a 20 year power production period once constructed, and

(iii) the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for wind and solar PV farms across a 20 year power production period when a gas fired power station is the backup power source for when wind and solar PV is not supplying power at the rated power level, including the carbon dioxide emitted from the backup power source;

(e) the average amount of time over a year, a month, a week and a day that power plants or power farms are not producing power at their full-rated power level;

(f) whether the basis for calculating the effect on global climate of carbon dioxide as a result of human activity is either the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the reports of NASA or the reports of CSIRO;

(g) the financial costs and benefits to Australia of reducing Australia's carbon dioxide output by 23 per cent, 50 per cent and 90 per cent; and

(h) any other related matter.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:35): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: Our No. 1 energy policy priority is maintaining energy security and affordability as we transition to a lower emissions future. That is why, under the coalition, the COAG Energy Council has commissioned Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, to develop a national reform blueprint to maintain energy security and reliability in the National Electricity Market. The substantive energy matters to be examined in the proposed reference are being exhaustively considered through the work of Dr Finkel and in three Senate and House inquiries currently underway into Australia's energy market.

With respect to climate change, the Australian government accepts the science of climate change and takes its primary advice on climate science from the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO. Under the Paris Agreement, Australia is committed to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion as amended, moved by Senator Roberts, be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Senator Williams: Can I make a statement, Mr President?

The PRESIDENT: I will take that as a point of clarification whilst the division bells are ringing. Senator Roberts did call for a division. You could seek leave at the end of the division to make a statement. It would be up to the Senate whether it accepts that proposition at that point.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (15:43): I seek leave to make a brief statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator WILLIAMS: I am very concerned about the number of referrals coming through and inquiries we are having. I support inquiries. This chamber has achieved so much through inquiries over the many years I have been here. But we run the risk of overloading the secretariat staff with work. I was just talking to Senator Reynolds. She is on 23 to 24 inquiries at the moment. How can you read all the submissions? How can you do the work? How can you do it properly? I urge the Senate leadership—Senator Wong, Senator Brandis and the crossbench—to get together and work out some coherent way to bring these inquiries forward so that the staff are not overworked and overloaded, so that we can do our work properly and not rush the recommendations, and so that we bring justice to the good work the Senate has done for so many years. I hope everyone gets together and thinks of the staff, who have so much work to do with so many inquiries. I support Senator Roberts, and perhaps we can have an inquiry later on. But let's not overload everyone with work, and let's do our job properly.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (15:44): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to remuneration of certain office holders, and for related purposes. Communications Legislation Amendment (Executive Remuneration) Bill 2017.

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (15:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator HANSON: I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I rise to speak on my private senator's bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Executive Remuneration) Bill 2017. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 and the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 to remove the ability of the respective Boards to set remuneration and to give that authority to the Remuneration Tribunal by amending to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

Australia Post and the National Broadband Network Company (NBN Co) are two of six government owned enterprises known as Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) which are defined in section 8 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and are prescribed in section 5 of the PGPA Rule to the PGPA Act.

The other four are the Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited responsible for some 10,000 kilometres of interstate rail, Australian Submarine Corporation Pty Ltd responsible for naval ship building and in particular the proposed spend of $50 billion on new submarines, Defence Housing Australia and the Moorebank Intermodal Company Limited to be responsible for the major infrastructure hub in Sydney.

All these businesses are very different but they share some important characteristics.

each business has its capital provided by the taxpayer and its existence based on a government monopoly. All the risks are underwritten by the taxpayers of Australia through Australian Government ownership. In these respects these government owned enterprises businesses are unlike any listed public company;

these businesses, with their safety net of government underwriting, were established to fulfil a dominant purpose - to provide an essential service; and

the responsibility for achieving the respective purposes lies with the respective Board and with the Shareholder Minister or Ministers.

I now want to turn to Australia Post. It is common ground in the community that the payment of some $5.6 million to the Managing Director of Australia Post is out of step with community expectations. The way in which the remuneration package was discovered, the response of the shareholder Ministers and the Board and the Managing Director will no doubt become a text book study of what not to do.

It seems that this payment of $5.6 million also permitted the Managing Director of Australia Post to take on other paid work. The 2016 Annual Report of Pro-Pac Packaging reports Mr Ahmed Fahour was also paid a fee of $109,500 last year by the ASX listed. It maybe that Mr Fahour also earned other income but my concern is not with Mr Fahour but with the Board of Australia Post.

The Board of Australia Post is either unaware its Managing Director has another job in the same space that Australia Post operates in or it is aware and does not care.

The Board of Australia Post has failed the people of Australia and needs to be replaced. In the meantime the power to set remuneration for the Managing Director needs to be removed and given to the Remuneration Tribunal which already sets the remuneration of most of the other GBE's.

Here are the problems with setting the remuneration of the Managing Director at $5.6 million.

The single payment is excessive, it reduces the dividend to government, but worse it has a flow on effect throughout Australia Post. It makes payment of between $1.3 and $1.8 million to a number of other executives seem reasonable when it is not and that further reduces the dividend.

The flow on effect goes on and on because these excessive payments come at the cost of moral and a sense of fairness to the real workers at Australia Post, the staff, the contractors and owners of licensed and franchised post offices who deliver the community service obligation. It's a zero sum game: someone has to pay for this excessive remuneration regime.

So the question now has to be asked 'how did this happen'? The short answer is a complete failure of the Board of Australia Post and the Coalition Government who failed to bring to a stop a remuneration arrangement already in play under the previous Labour Government.

I think it is instructive to look at the sequence of recent events. The Board of Australia Post ceased publishing the remuneration arrangements of the Managing Director in its Annual Report in 2013.

The remuneration arrangement for the Managing Director of Australia Post were revealed in a response to a question at Senate Estimates and a flurry of newspaper articles in The Australian and other print media which was followed by radio and television commentators. Finally we knew what the Board and the shareholder Ministers had known all along.

Once the media took up the story, the Government responded with a letter to the Board of Australia Post. Later the Prime Minister thought the Managing Director of Australia Post could search his conscience and return some of the money. You would have thought the Government was simply powerless to act.

This Bill makes it clear that the tools necessary to deal with the matter of remuneration were always available to Government.

I met with Communications Minister Fifield on 9 February 2017 and pointed out that the position of Managing Director of Australia was already a principal executive office along with the CEO of the Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd which seemed to surprise him and he told me he would get back to me shortly. He didn't.

On the 16th of February 2017 I won the ballot for that day's Matter of Public Importance and spoke about Australia Post and said I had been left with no alternative but to try to fix the problem myself because quite clearly no one else had any interest in doing so.

The Bill before you reflects no more and no less than the removal of the remuneration setting power of the Board of Australia Post and the allocation of that removed power to the Remuneration Tribunal.

The Remuneration Tribunal sets the salary of the Prime Minister which is $517,504. The Chief of the Navy, the Chief of the Army and the Chief of the Airforce receive much less.

If the Remuneration Tribunal as an independent statutory body can handle the remuneration of the Prime Minister, the judiciary and others managing government businesses then they can handle the remuneration for the most senior officers at Australia Post and NBN.

Once the Remuneration Tribunal sets the remuneration package for the Managing Director at Australia Post some community confidence will be re-established in the system of government in Australia. Possibly some lessons will learned.

The Coalition and Labour need to get out more. Less time in their political bubble in-fighting and more time with the rest of Australia, the people they so passionately care about when interviewed for television and radio. In 2016 Australia Post reported a dividend of $20 million and that amount would have been much higher probably double if the Board of Australia Post and the shareholder Ministers were not asleep at the wheel of Australia Post.

Before I leave the case for change, I want to look briefly at the remuneration for comparable organisations.

In the United States (US) the US Postal Service is an independent agency responsible for providing the postal service and like Australia Post it is obliged to provide a postal service regardless of geography at a uniform price. The US Postal Service employs over 600,000 staff and delivers more than 660 million pieces of mail a day yet their CEO has a package worth $1.2 million Australian dollars, which is one quarter of the remuneration of the equivalent position in Australia Post. How can that be justified? It's the same story for the United Kingdom and Canada.

On the 24th of February 2017 the Government announced it would bring the position of Managing Director of Australia Post within the regime administered by the Remuneration Tribunal but it said nothing about the CEO of NBN.

I now want to turn to the Board of the NBN Co and its payment of $3.6 million to the Chief Executive Officer. This Bill also brings the CEO of NBN Co within the framework of the Remuneration Tribunal.

Finally I would like to mention the questions asked and replied to at the Additional Senate Estimates Environment and Communication Committee on the 28th of February 2017. The Managing Director of Australia Post suggested that his religion and his skin colour have paid a role in my decision to speak in Parliament on the issue of his remuneration. It has not.

Personal factors have played no role in my decision to speak up on the remuneration of the Managing Director at Australia Post on the 16th of February 2017. Every other speaker on that occasion agreed the remuneration package for the managing Director of Australia Post was excessive. On that basis I would expect them to support this Bill.

Senator HANSON: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (15:48): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 239 standing in my name and in the names of Senators Di Natale and Lambie for today, proposing the introduction of a bill.

The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?

Senator Bushby: We haven't seen that.

Senator McGrath interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, could you assist the Senate by indicating the nature of the amendment?

Senator CAMERON: Yes, Mr President. I amend the motion by inserting a hyphen in the short title of the bill between the words 'take' and 'home' to ensure uniformity between the use of the word in the principal act and the amending bill.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Cameron. I gather there is clarity in the chamber now.

Leave granted.

Senator CAMERON: I, and also on behalf of Senators Di Natale and Lambie, move the motion as amended:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes. Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017 [No. 2].

Question agreed to.

Senator CAMERON: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (15:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator CAMERON: I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017 will prevent the penalty rates cut proposed by the Fair Work Commission's decision in matter AM2014/305 from taking effect.

It will protect workers take-home pay now and into the future.

The Bill ensures that modern awards cannot be varied to reduce the take-home pay of an employee. This includes any reduction in take-home pay as a result of a reduction in penalty rates or the hours to which penalty rates apply.

The Bill preserves the independence of the independent workplace umpire, the Fair Work Commission (the Commission), but appropriately guides the exercise of its discretion to ensure wages are not cut.

The purpose of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-Home Pay) Bill 2017 is to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 so that the Fair Work Commission, in exercising its powers to vary modern awards, cannot vary a modern award so that the effect of the variation would be likely to reduce, or reduce the take-home pay of any employee.

The Bill amends the definitions of reduction in take-home pay and take-home pay in the Fair Work Act 2009 by reference to new subsections 135A(4) and 135A(5).

Item 3 of the schedule inserts a new subsection 135A in Division 2 of Part 2-3 which requires that, in exercising its powers under this Part, the Fair Work Commission cannot vary a modern award such that an employee's, or prospective employee's, take-home pay is reduced.

It does not require individual employees to provide evidence to the Fair Work Commission of actual loss of take-home pay.

The Bill provides that any determination of the Fair Work Commission made on or after 22 February 2017 that would result, or would be likely to result in a cut to take-home pay under the Award, is of no effect.

At the date of the introduction of this Bill, no determination has been issued arising from decision AM2014/305 by the Fair Work Commission. The effect of this amendment is to invalidate any determination which may be issued by the Fair Work Commission, arising from decision AM2014/305 by the Commission, prior to the enactment of this Bill.

This amendment ensures that modern awards are a safety net for the take-home pay of employees currently under the award and of prospective employees under the award.

For the avoidance of doubt, the definition of take-home pay makes it clear that all employees under modern awards are to receive the full benefit in their take-home pay of any increase to the modern award minimum wage. For example, the Fair Work Commission may not vary a modern award so as to phase in a cut to penalty rates by offsetting that cut against any annual increases in the modern award minimum wage.

Australia's national workplace relations system can, in simple terms, be viewed in three parts.

Firstly, the National Minimum Wage and the National Employment Standards (NES); which are ten statutory minimum employment standards that all employees are entitled to.

Secondly, modern awards, which are legal documents that outline the minimum pay rates and conditions of employment. There are 122 industry or occupation awards that cover most people who work in Australia.

Thirdly, enterprise agreements and other registered agreements which set out minimum employment conditions. When a workplace has a registered agreement, the award does not apply. However, in order to have an approved, registered agreement it must leave workers better off overall than the relevant industry award.

At the time of their conception, the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Ms Gillard made it clear that modern awards were established to, "ensure that they maintain a relevant and fair minimum safety net and continue to be relevant to the needs and expectations of the community."

This provision was further supported and strengthened by an amendment to the Fair Work Act 2009 in 2013 which amended the modern awards objective to ensure that the Fair Work Commission, in carrying out its functions, must take into account the need to provide additional remuneration for employees working outside normal hours, such as employees working overtime or on weekends.

At the time, the Minister for Workplace Relations, Mr Shorten, said "Our Bill makes it clear that this Labor government believes in the value and utility of penalty rates…"

It is abundantly clear that it was not ever envisaged that modern awards would be cut in the manner the Fair Work Commission proposes in the penalty rates case. The fact that the Fair Work Commission has been able to propose cuts in the manner it has is contrary to the intention of the Parliament. To reduce the pay of already low and middle income earning Australians does not, in the Opposition's view, maintain a relevant and fair minimum safety net, nor is it relevant to community expectations.

It is paradoxical that modern award conditions such as penalty rates, which exist as a safety net, can be reduced by the Fair Work Commission but enterprise agreements, which are negotiated between employers and their workforces ensuring workers are better off overall than the award, cannot be altered to reduce pay or conditions of employment otherwise than in a manner which is consistent with the better-off-overall-test.

Inequality in Australia is at a 75-year high. Wages growth is at historic lows and underemployment is at record highs.

There could not be a worse time to cut workers' take-home pay; a fate workers will not have to suffer if this Bill is passed.

The decision of the Fair Work Commission, one that was campaigned for by the Prime Minister and Government, affects 700,000 Australians and will have particularly devastating effects on women, Culturally And Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities, young people and regional communities. The McKell Institute's analysis states, "For many, the changes are dramatic: full time or part time retail workers who work a full 8-hour shift, for example, will lose at least $72.90 per week. Annually, this equates to a $3499 loss." Further, "55 per cent of those impacted by the proposed changes are female…".

In relation to regional communities, the McKell Institute estimated a partial abolition of penalty rates in the retail and hospitality sectors would result in, "workers in Rural Australia losing between $370.7 million per annum and $691.5 million per annum." and "A loss in disposable income of between $174.6 million per annum and $343.5 million per annum to local economies in Rural Australia."

In arriving at its conclusion, the Fair Work Commission noted the hardship which the proposed cuts to penalty rates will impose on employees who work on public holidays and Sundays. The Commission observed that, "…. the variation of a modern award which has the effect of reducing the earnings of low-paid employees will have a negative impact on their relative living standards and on their capacity to meet their needs". The Opposition agrees and believes the Commission has not given appropriate weight to the effects of reducing penalty rates in reaching its decision.

This decision has implications for workers beyond retail, hospitality and pharmacies. Workers such as nurses, teachers, community workers, disability workers, cleaners and construction workers are, as a result of this decision, at risk of seeing their penalty rates cut in the future.

Through this Bill, Labor is making it clear we don't share the Coalition Government's easy to hire, easy to fire, low road, race-to-the-bottom view of what the Australian labour market should look like.

The way to protect the take-home pay of workers under modern awards is for the decision of the Fair Work Commission not to take effect, and for the Parliament to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 in the way proposed by the Opposition to make it clear that the Commission may not vary a modern award in a way that would result, or would be likely to result in a cut to the take-home pay of an employee or prospective employee covered by a modern award.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator CAMERON: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.