Communications Minister Senator Richard Alston needs to undertake remedial classes in technology. Following his abysmal display over digital television he is now continuing to pursue his flawed policy agenda on internet gambling.
In May last year, Senator Alston pushed through a one-year moratorium on internet gambling. He now wants to make that moratorium permanent. The initial moratorium was a prohibition, backed by legal sanctions, against anyone in Australia operating an internet site for gambling. At the time it was widely thought that this was just another exercise in political grandstanding to appease a vociferous anti-gambling lobby. It was thought that once the one-year moratorium ended sanity would prevail.
Not so. Instead, the folly gets worse. Rather than a total prohibition the government proposes to allow Australian gambling sites to deal with overseas clients but not Australian clients and it will allow a Australians to gamble with overseas sites but not Australian sites. The policy is flawed both technologically and socially. It is obviously geared towards the continual appeasement of a vocal group who rightly sees that there is a significant gambling a problem in Australia, but it is dealing with it in an ineffective counter-productive way.
The the Federal Government says its aim is to reduce the number of gambling outlets available to the 300,000 or so compulsive gamblers in Australia. The Government knows that it has no power over internationally based internet sites. It’s only jurisdiction is over Australian sites. Its other jurisdiction is over individual Australian users. It has therefore crafted its policy by around the maximum of its jurisdiction to be seen to be doing a lot rather than what is practical and what will actually achieve the most.
It would have been better not to have used this heavy-handed prohibitionist approach. The 300,000 or more problem gamblers in Australia will be driven to unregulated, overseas sites beyond Australian control. It would have been far better to have regulated the Australian sites where the harm of compulsive gambling can at least be minimised.
The proposed new policy will make things worse for compulsive gamblers not better. The opposition and minor parties in the Senate should push for stronger regulation of Australian gambling sites rather than their prohibition. Australian gambling sites would by and large be willing to comply with regulations that would help protect problem gamblers and would give better security to other Australian gamblers so they would not have to deal with international sites. To leave Australian gamblers with unregulated international sites as the only option is irresponsible to compulsive gamblers, their dependants and community groups who support them and to Australian taxpayesr and Australian small business who will lose revenue and business to overseas organisations. Taxpayers will also be confronted with a compensation bill from Australian gambling sites who say that the Commonwealth has unconstitutionally taken away their property rights.
The internet provides a speed-of-light access to gambling sites throughout the world. Senator Alston should have recognised that technological fact and based his policy upon it rather than put up a look-good grandstand with an unworkable prohibition. At present we have to conclude either that Senator Alston is either a technological klutz or that he is a brazen political opportunist exploiting those with little technological understanding who think that a gambling ban can be enforced.