Bills

Authorised Betting Operations (User Bans) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:55): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Authorised Betting Operations Act 2000. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:56): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Next week, hundreds of millions of dollars will be splurged on the Melbourne Cup, the horse race that stops the nation. A lot of money will be won and a lot more money lost through various gambling channels, including the biggest area that has emerged in recent times, the online betting platforms. But what if I told you that winners can only be losers on these platforms? Yes, you heard me correctly: winners can only be losers.

Today, I rise to present the Authorised Betting Operations (User Bans) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill tackles one of the most underhanded, exploitative, underpublicised and little-known tactics employed by betting companies: banning or restricting punters simply because they have dared to beat the system. Betting in Australia has long been a system rigged against the punter—consumer—or, dare I say it, suckers.

The thrill of the bet—punters versus bookies—has been one of Australia's colourful pastimes, each trying to beat the other at their game. The world of gambling today is far more sophisticated and expansive than it was in the pre-internet/computer era, when the only tools punters relied on were form guides, tips or shady practices. In the old days, the unscrupulous types would resort to all manner of deceitful ways to improve their odds of winning and beating the bookies: fixing races, nobbling runners, using whips that would release an electric charge, even trying ring-ins like the infamous Fine Cotton case back in the 1980s. You would not get away with that skulduggery today, as racing is heavily regulated.

I can vividly recall the hysteria that followed one particular punter who struck fear into the cold hearts of bookmakers around the country in the 1970s: Eddie 'The Fireman' Birchley, given the nickname because he really was a fireman. He made headlines with his raids on bookies, placing huge cash bets on short-price runners in smaller fields, with lots of success. He made some spectacular losses too.

When the Queensland TAB and bookies in that state cottoned on to his gambit, they changed the rules, forcing Eddie to ply his luck in the crowded betting rings in Melbourne and Sydney, where he became quite a celebrated figure, taking on the likes of Bill Waterhouse, Terry Page and Lenny Burke.

One of his biggest wins was in 1974, plonking $200,000 on a six-to-one pop at Flemington called Caboul, a brilliant sprinter I remember well, as I also followed him in my younger years when I lived and worked in Melbourne. The Fireman collected $1.2 million plus his money back that day. I reckon I had a modest $5 each way.

The traditional bookie is all but a relic of bygone days, when there would be dozens of them in betting rings at racecourses, laying off big wagers to other bookies to avoid losses. Today, the sophistication in their operations is unmatchable. Their algorithms pick up on every tiny detail, from the way you swipe on your phone application to the IP address you use when making bets. If you are banned, every IP address you have ever used will be similarly blackmarked, just in case you pass on your strategy to another person.

To highlight just how sophisticated these betting operators are, let me give you some figures. Flutter Entertainment, the conglomerate that owns Australia's Sportsbet and myriad other international betting agencies, has a market capitalisation of $60 billion, of which Sportsbet contributed $2.2 billion in 2023 alone.

Tabcorp, which owns TAB and Sky Racing, had a 2023 revenue of $2.34 billion. Then we have Entain group, a multinational operating in over 30 gambling markets worldwide, including Australia's Neds and Ladbrokes, which turned over $9 billion in 2023. The technology, data capabilities and resources of these companies are unrivalled, and with a progression in technology come smart and well-resourced gamblers attempting to improve their chances of landing winners.

Some punters are just really good at analysis. Others utilise complex computer algorithms, and of course those betting companies have wised up and devised their own way to ensure they still hold the upper hand. They simply ban the punter. The Fireman would not stand a chance of collecting big pots of cash these days.

These multinational sports betting groups know there is no such thing as responsible gambling, and the idea that any of these companies play fair is the biggest con they have ever pulled on the public. For too long we have allowed these operations to profit from the misery of losing gamblers, all while they very quietly remove the winners from the equation.

But does the public understand their business model? Do the people in this chamber? Have any of you ever read and understood the terms and conditions when you create an account? Have you read that tiny paragraph in there that allows the platform to restrict or ban you at any point without notice or reason? Of course not, and herein lies the problem.

At the heart of this legislation are the fundamental principles of fairness and commercial viability. Betting operations are one, if not the only, business model that sustains its viability by arbitrarily restricting or banning users who pose a threat to their profit margins. They want losers, sucker punters.

These companies have departments of people in risk management whose sole job is, and I am not kidding, to identify, limit or ban perceived profitable players or those who do not bet with the status quo (who lose). And when they do ban you, they do not even have to give a reason as to why. If you do not believe me when I say this happens, just ask my adviser. He has been restricted from all major Australian gambling platforms since 2021. This is not an isolated case; it is industry practice. Essentially, it is only possible to lose and, for those suckers, these greedy, some might say unscrupulous companies, are more than happy to incentivise and take your money.

This legislation seeks to introduce specific measures to counteract those grossly unfair practices, and provide greater transparency and fairness for punters. So what does the bill do? Most importantly, betting companies will no longer be allowed to ban, refuse or restrict punters simply because they win or have a certain betting strategy. No more banning winners or changing the odds on specific players just to save their bottom line.

These companies enter the market freely, and they need to play by the rules, not rig the system in their favour. In fairness to smaller betting operations, the bill does allow a company to refuse a bet that pays out more than $5,000 over the stake if they cannot afford it, but that is the only exception.

Betting companies enter the market willingly, and pocket billions of dollars from losing bets willingly, so they cannot cry poor when it comes time to pay out a winner. If they cannot manage the financial risks inherent in the industry without fixing it, then perhaps they should not be operating at all.

The bill will, in the case a punter is restricted, force these companies to give written reasons why they refuse or restrict your bet. No more hiding behind silence or arbitrary decisions. If they are going to block you, they will have to explain themselves. Punters deserve transparency, not cloak-and-dagger tactics.

Moreover, betting companies will not be able to exploit minimum payout or withdrawal limits to hold on to your money. You win? You get paid. No sneaky barriers or limits designed to stop you from collecting what is rightfully yours. If these companies step out of line, they will face fines of up to $500,000 or two years' imprisonment for repeat offending. This is not just a slap on the wrist; it is a warning shot across the bow to stop exploiting users.

This bill does not stop betting operations from taking action in circumstances of suspected unlawful activity, like in the instance of soccer players gaming the system through participation in exotic bets, or where a punter has sought self-exclusion. I will note here that some of these betting companies have now quietly opted out of offering markets on exotic betting on reality television programs. So they have quietly stopped that, but they should not be allowed to punish individuals for simply having a certain strategy or being successful. If a business cannot handle the risk inherent in their business model, then they should not be in the business at all.

Let me be very clear: this is not about banning gambling. Far from it. This is about people being taken advantage of, and not knowing what they are up against. It is time we stopped letting betting companies operate like cartels, profiting from the misery of losing punters or shutting out the few who manage to succeed. We can no longer sit back and allow these companies to limit or ban those who play by the rules and win fair and square. If we are going to allow them to operate, they operate like every other company and if they cannot survive without exploiting both winners and losers, then they should not be in business.

Unfortunately, this bill creates a dilemma for our state government. It says gambling is destructive and that it is here to help people. It lists its principles as, and I quote, 'a better future for South Australians where everyone deserves a fair go'. But it knows its betting operations tax, which lines the government's coffers with $60 million of the over $600 million in annual gambling tax, will be affected if more people are winning.

The bill is a straightforward proposal: stick to your principles and give everyone a fair go. Ensure that if betting companies want to continue exploiting losers then they must be held accountable and assume the risk that there will be winners. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.