HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-03-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (CHEATING AT GAMBLING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 February 2013.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:10): I rise on behalf of the Liberal opposition to indicate my support for the Criminal Law Consolidation (Cheating at Gambling) Amendment Bill 2012. The 2010 report of the Productivity Commission on gambling found that 70 per cent of Australians participated in some form of gambling in 2009. Gambling revenue in 2008-09 was reported to be just over $19 billion. Of this revenue, 14.8 per cent (that is, approximately $2.8 billion) was attributed to betting.

In South Australia there are presently 27 licensed bookmakers, 344 TAB agencies and 37 active racing clubs. There are also currently 26 interstate betting operators providing services in South Australia. During 2011-12, the Independent Gambling Authority received 10 complaints relating to wagering (that is, the services offered by the above agencies). Two of these complaints were in relation to telephone bets, one of which was resolved in favour of the patron, and no other breaches were identified.

The Coalition of Major Professional and Participation Sports (COMPPS) represents seven of the national sporting codes, including the AFL and Cricket Australia. In 2010, COMPPS formed the Anti-Corruption Working Party with the sole purpose of providing the sports industry with a comprehensive analysis of betting-related corruption in sport and an effective approach to deterring potential corrupters and maintaining the integrity of their sports. One of the recommendations made by the working party was that nationally consistent criminal legislation be enacted creating an offence of 'cheating in connection with sports wagering'.

In August 2011, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission issued a report on gambling corruption. It recommended a uniform criminal offence based in state and territory law. As I understand it, this preference for a state-based offence was based largely on the practicalities of investigation and enforcement, which will depend on the cooperation between betting providers, local sports controlling bodies and state and territory police forces.

In November 2011, the Standing Council on Law and Justice (SCLJ) decided to develop nationally consistent match-fixing legislation. The New South Wales Crimes Amendment (Cheating at Gambling) Act 2012 was developed as the model law and was passed on 12 September 2012.

COMPPS welcomed the introduction by the New South Wales government of that bill and its use as a basis for enacting nationally consistent legislation. The government acknowledges that the behaviour in question in this bill is almost universally covered by existing laws. As the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech:

All States and Territories agreed that their framework of existing offences, both at common law and in legislation, deal with the agreed match-fixing behaviours in almost all circumstances.

That is, the government admits that these laws basically duplicate current laws. However, the government claims that it provides clarity for betting industries and persons involved in events subject to bets. Equivalent practices will be treated the same in each state, and serious penalties will apply for that behaviour.

The bill before the council virtually mirrors the model law; however, it differs in two respects. First, it includes an offence which is more far reaching than that contained in the model law. In addition, the Law Society is of the view that the offence proposed in section 144I(1) extends more widely than is appropriate for criminal law. The society's concern is that it makes offering to engage in one of the offences a major indictable offence, even though no harm has actually resulted. Notably the model bill (that is, the New South Wales bill) does not contain such a provision. Secondly, the South Australian bill lacks provisions providing for a three-year review of the part.

Given that the bill will create duplication in offences, it is important that the government monitors the effectiveness of offences created by these provisions. I note that the New South Wales legislation, which the SCLJ recommended using as the model legislation, contains a provision for a three-year review to monitor, and I quote, 'whether the policy objectives of the Part remain valid and whether the terms of the Part remain appropriate for securing those objectives'.

It may assist the council if the government was able to advise whether, considering that New South Wales is maintaining the model law, for want of a better word, its review is intended to be national in scope such that any problems that emerge in the South Australian jurisdiction are within scope for that review. In any event, the government has not decided to make provision for the review in this act.

Each offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, except for an offence of using insider information, which attracts a penalty of two years. Wagering/betting is available at almost every major sporting event in this country. It is also available for an array of other events, such as the size of the next increase or decrease in the Reserve Bank interest rate determination, elections, events of public significance (such as when the Duchess of Cambridge will give birth), beauty pageants and even the weather. My understanding is that the bill would cover all such betting events.

The bill duplicates South Australian law, but, in the government's view, in the process provides more clarity. The Law Society has expressed its concern that having duplicate offences could allow prosecutors to charge a person multiple times for the same conduct and also has the potential to be counterproductive by creating long, drawn-out, complicated trials. I would certainly appreciate the government's view on that concern at the second reading summing-up stage.

The council would be rightly concerned if that were to be an outcome, especially in the context of having recently passed legislation that had a particular goal of reducing the backlog of cases in our courts. Nonetheless, on behalf of the Liberal opposition, I indicate that we intend to support this legislation.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:17): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Criminal Law Consolidation (Cheating at Gambling) Amendment Bill 2012. I do so, echoing some of the sentiments of the previous speaker that, strictly speaking, this bill actually is not necessary as in fact almost all the provisions are covered by existing laws, with the possible exception of the concealment of match fixing, although it is likely that this also is covered should that be tested in the courts.

However, I acknowledge that industry and sporting groups want it and that it in fact may have some international ramifications in terms of our ability to host events in the future. I also acknowledge the position that many involved in sport are in at the moment, with drug scandals and match-fixing scandals around the world. It can only be a good thing to send a strong message of cleaning up the area of professional sport.

Certainly the Greens, in our support of this bill, are cognisant that the Australian sports ministers have signed, on behalf of their governments, Australia's first national policy on match fixing in sport and agreed, through the Attorneys-General, to consistent approach to criminal offences and penalties, and we certainly support that. Sport is not an activity these days constricted by state boundaries and, while state borders are often are important in the rivalries of sport, many of those engaged in professional sports in this day and age travel not only within and across our jurisdictions in Australia but also internationally.

We are also incredibly grateful for the work of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, its reference on cheating at gambling and the report (report 130) which was subsequently produced, which was quite extensive, and we made great reference to that in terms of ensuring that this bill was well consulted on. While it was not consulted on specifically with regard to this bill in our state, certainly the New South Wales' bill is the base for this bill, and the areas we are dealing with had consultation and support not only from sport and industry groups but also from those within the 'profession' of gambling, for want of a better word.

I will, on that note, commend the Weatherill Labor government for the removal of the word 'gambling' from their sport and recreation portfolio, certainly a move supported by the Greens. It would be a welcome thing on behalf of the Greens to see gambling less associated with sport in our society.

While acknowledging that, in fact, many of the provisions in the bill are not new and possibly not necessary, we do recognise that there is an explosion in match fixing around the world and an explosion in gambling, not only in Australia but around the world. Worldwide sports bets have actually grown by 66 per cent between 2001 and 2011 to about 52.5 billion as internet and mobile phone wagers, in particular during live betting throughout games, have proliferated.

I refer to the article by News Limited journalist Anthony Sharwood that, in fact, it is probably close to impossible in this day and age to engage in match fixing in Australia. However, there is still the potential, particularly for exotic bets, to have some relevance to this particular legislation and certainly it will make it clear to all involved, not only in the sporting industry but also in the industry itself, that it will not be supported by this government and by this parliament.

The connections between sport and illegality and, of course, the recent scandals not only in the area of match fixing but things like doping, do no favours to sports. I feel for those athletes who are tarred with the brush of those who are not necessarily as ethical as many athletes are. They have had to face some pretty bad press over the last few months and years and certainly many of them made those representations, not only in the course of the consultations in this area of the bill but also most recently in the federal parliament in regard to doping in sport. To support those athletes who are doing the right thing and also to send a clear message that match fixing is not acceptable, the Greens are pleased to support this bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:22): I rise briefly to speak on the Criminal Law Consolidation (Cheating at Gambling) Amendment Bill 2012. As members are aware, the bill seeks to create offences for those who engage in conduct that corrupts the betting outcome of an event. In its simplest form, it addresses the issue of match fixing. The most obvious sorts of match fixing that spring to mind are those that relate to sporting events.

Over the years, there have been numerous scandals, both in Australia and overseas, relating to match fixing or the manipulation of sporting games that result in some sort of unfair financial advantage in most major sporting codes, whether it be cricket, soccer, football or rugby. We are probably all aware of cases involving the footballer, for instance, who provided information to family and friends about an upcoming game and those family members and friends have, in turn, placed bets on that game using the knowledge they have obtained. At present, as I understand it, players who partake in this sort of behaviour may face disciplinary action and be sanctioned by their club or by the AFL, but they do not face any criminal charges for their actions.

As the minister alluded to in her second reading speech, allegations of improper behaviour are not limited to players only. They extend to referees, coaches, team officials, support staff and players' agents. We are also probably aware that many professional athletes and others involved in the sport have, over the years, revealed that they themselves have gambling problems. In some instances, players have been sanctioned for placing bets on games within their own sporting codes, albeit against the rules of the sport.

The bill itself is not limited simply to match fixing in sports; rather, it extends to any event that an individual can legitimately place a bet on. For instance, it would apply equally to bets on who will win the next federal or state election or any particular seat in an election, or the next federal leadership.

A quick look at Centrebet's websites also reveals other rather interesting events that one can bet on, such as who will be the next James Bond, who will win the next UK general election, who will win the next Eurovision contest, or whether the next RBA cash rate announcement will result in an increase or decrease. It is really rather easy to bet on virtually anything.

In terms of the scope of the bill, in a nutshell, if I were, for instance, to tell one of my friends that I had had a chat with a member of parliament who had indicated to me in confidence that they would not be standing at the next election and this was something that one could bet on and my friend proceeded to place a bet on that member's not standing, that could be considered conduct that corrupts the betting outcome of an event. If I asked my friend to place the bet knowing that the member did not intend to stand with the intention of obtaining a financial advantage, we could both be prosecuted for using inside information.

There is no question that betting is becoming increasingly available, and the rapidly growing online betting facilities make it possible for people to gamble 24 hours a day. You can no longer watch or attend a football match without the constant reminder of betting facilities. You can no longer watch television in general without being bombarded by gambling advertisements. The inception of online gambling has meant that our gambling legislation falls short in terms of adequate regulation, and this is clearly an area that warrants closer scrutiny, particularly given the growing number of concerns about illegal betting and money laundering.

We know that, internationally, links have been identified in professional sport between organised criminal groups and match fixing, illegal betting, money laundering and corruption. Whilst I would question whether this is limited to international professional codes only, this is an issue that we need to nip in the bud. I understand that there are, of course, a number of jurisdictional issues that need to be overcome in relation to these matters.

Whilst this bill does not address these issues in particular, it is a good starting point, and I am pleased that it goes some way towards addressing a growing problem in our society. With that, I support the second reading of the bill, and I look forward to the committee stage debate.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT