1.1        We support the legalisation and regulation of online poker in Australia. It does not pose the risks of harm that other forms of gambling are argued to involve.

1.2        This position was also strongly (and persuasively) supported by:

• the joint submission from the Australia Taxpayers' Alliance and MyChoice Australia;[1]
• the submission from the Australian Online Poker Alliance;[2] and
• the 2010 inquiry report into gambling by the Productivity Commission (PC) under the fine stewardship of its then Chairman Gary Banks.[3]

1.3        In addition to these organisations, many of the other 266 submissions to this inquiry that were either confidential or had names withheld supported the legalisation and regulation of online poker.

1.4        We consider that the recent amendments to the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (the Act)—which updated and tightened the ban on gambling games—have over-reached by banning games like online poker.

Online poker is very different to most forms of gambling

1.5        There are a number of aspects to poker (and its online form) that make it inherently different to other forms of gambling. These aspects help to increase benefits relative to costs (or potential harm)—to both individuals and their communities—and make the task of properly regulating the activity, including minimising harm, simpler and less risky. Pivotally—as the 'Key Summary' in the submission from the Australian Online Poker Alliance describes so well[4]—these aspects include:

• that poker is a peer-to-peer game—not one played against the casino or 'the house';
• the activity, hosting entity and platform is therefore relatively easier to regulate as there are no 'stacked odds' by the casino/house requiring constant regulator scrutiny;
• it is therefore a zero-sum game for the players, less any transparent, up-front fees that licenced hosts would have to competitively charge to cover platform provision costs and a reasonable profit margin (after regulatory fees and tax);
• it involves players pre-committing to the dollar amount they want to outlay or risk, helping to contain harm from excessive or addictive behaviour;
• it is relatively social and involves camaraderie and distinct groups (more often than not comprising males with full-time employment and above-average education and incomes);[5]
• over the medium term, poker is far more a game of skill and strategy than luck and chance; and
• it helps to develop a broad range of useful life skills, such as critical evaluative skills, numerical skills, pragmatism, problem-solving and self-awareness and self-control—as the joint submission by the Australian Taxpayers' Alliance and MyChoice Australia extensively sets out.[6]

The Productivity Commission (PC) also understands online poker

1.6        As part of the 'Key points' in its 2010 gambling report, the PC saw online poker as a ripe first step or test case in beginning the legalisation and regulation of online gaming (gambling) in Australia—bringing it onshore so that current (and prospecting) players can be properly protected from unscrupulous platform providers and lax regulatory standards.

Online gaming by Australians appears to have grown rapidly despite the illegality of domestic supply. Gamblers seeking the benefits it offers are exposed to additional risks and harms from offshore sites that could be avoided under carefully regulated domestic provision.

•     Liberalising the domestic supply of online poker card games, accompanied by appropriate harm minimisation measures, would test whether managed liberalisation should be extended to all online gaming forms.[7]

1.7        As the PC report goes on to demonstrate, with regards to the potential for deep or widespread harm, and the degree of regulatory difficulty if legalised, online poker is one of the most benign forms of gambling, posing fewer concerns relative to other more publicised forms (e.g. electronic gaming machines in pubs, clubs and casinos).

1.8        The general principle here is that, rather than reflexively banning activities that include some risks and potential for harm, but:

• are not 'gateways' or well-trodden paths to further bad behaviours and destruction (as opposed to illicit drugs and crimes, even those which currently attract mild punishments, as these are so often gateways to evermore destructive attitudes, habits and behaviour); and/or
• you cannot see yourself or your friends and loved ones from ever enjoying (or wanting to partake in); and/or
• are not commonly indulged in by elites and sophisticated people;

it is generally better to legalise and regulate such activities (or at least seriously explore those avenues, particularly where participants are already numerous and their benefits of enjoyment and camaraderie are rarely offset by any harm). Moreover, any resulting regulation should be targeted and proportionate, not deliberately broad-brush and over-burdensome to curtail, vexatiously, the activity and squeeze it out of existence.

1.9        Not only does this guiding conservative principle help us to avoid becoming ever-more censorious and puritanical, it also prevents further atrophy of our personal risk-management skills, self-governance capabilities and impulse control—sparing us from a downward-spiral into ever-more moral hazard.

Conclusion

1.10      We support the legalisation and regulation of online poker in Australia. It does not pose the risks of harm that other forms of gambling are argued to involve.

1.11      Indeed, the inquiry heard no evidence suggesting anything other than coincidence between poker and problem gambling. While some problem gamblers are known to play poker, problem gamblers also gamble in other ways well known to lead some people into problem gambling.

1.12      The government needs to simply get on with implementing the recommendations in the PC's 2010 inquiry report into gambling by legalising and regulating online poker. Online poker is unique, participation and enjoyment is widespread, the risks of harm are low and it is better to have it regulated (and taxed) onshore than driven underground or offshore.

1.13      Other western countries allow it—e.g. the UK, Italy, France, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, or various states within, e.g. in the US[8]—it is time Australia's ban and aversion to online poker also ends.

1.14      In legalising online poker, the government should closely follow the model of the UK Gambling Commission. Its approach, which involves issuing licences specific to each kind of gambling, enables it to address risks to gamblers, sport and consolidated revenue in a logical and effective manner. It is relevant that the companies seeking to offer legal online gambling services to Australians favour this approach.

Senator Cory Bernardi                                          Senator David Leyonhjelm
Australian Conservatives                                      Liberal Democratic Party
Senator for South Australia                                  Senator for New South Wales

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page