Hachem's been at least trying to speak to Abbott's twitter account (not sure if Abbott actually reads replys, but it's something)

No idea what Hachem's online record is, or if he plays online at all but at least there's one noteable figurehead looking to speak up.

Not what their policy says. They are planning no new legislation, just an advisory committee, monitoring the industry's advertising code to see if that works before any legislation and enforcing the ban on online gambling.

You ca read it here:
http://www.liberal.org.au/helping-problem-gamblers

Doing nothing about the current government policy to enforce the ban is a barkingly mad approach to the issue.

Members of the Australian non-poker playing community are going to be reading an online poker forum?

I'd really like to hear the thoughts of Mjw006, OnTheMac, Nur1ck, and Brett_Threat on this, in terms of whether we should all just shut up or possibly make some kind of organisation and be prepared for any kind of law that comes around regarding poker.

I'm pretty sure getting the top ranked aussie players to make a stand is a good start.

I know you guys don't want to talk about this crap, but it would be good if you were in it for the rest of the community cause you guys would help build the support here in aus since alot of people respect you as players and reputable members of the australian poker community.

Doing nothing and hoping it all goes away is not the solution

In case you haven't realised the liberals have stated their intentions very clearly, they want online poker out and its already in the spotlight

If you don't do something NOW say goodbye to Online poker in Australia

ozpoker stop posting please your so ****en dumb

I don't want to derail the thread but this new thread re the UK consultation may be of interest.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/57.../#post40093895

One area of concern is that the UK changes are likely to force all the sites to choose - either have access to the UK (white) market or the Aus market which is grey. Currently a UK licenced site cannot accept players that are from a jurisdiction that bans online poker like the US. Sadly I think Aus already meets this criteria too. Sites may be forced to pull out of the Aus market via a combination of the new gov and the regulatory chages in the UK.

Some helpful reading about the impact of tax law on online gambling and whether income produced is assessable and you can claim your losses as deductions:

http://www.ashtoncartwright.com/is-p...-in-australia/

In addition, here is a private ATO tax ruling which also brings to bear a couple of important points about why it would be difficult for the government to just regulate the industry instead of getting rid of it:

http://www.ato.gov.au/rba/content/?f...tent/91541.htm

Firstly, my understanding that it can be taxable if the ATO proves you are carrying on a business. But this is nearly impossible to prove for an individual given:

"Your activity is not very sophisticated. You do not have an office, employ staff or maintain a website. The computer software you use does not minimise the element of chance or give you a special advantage over your fellow players"

Although you derive relatively significant income from your gambling activities, this factor in itself does not indicate that you are conducting a business.
You do not derive earnings from any associated industry activities.

Your gambling involves playing a gaming activity. By the application of skill, you may have reduced your chances of a loss, however your overall gains are largely dependent on chance rather than skill.

The mere playing of such an activity is ordinarily thought of as a hobby or pastime rather than engaging in a business"

Also, note this passage from this case:

In Babka v. FC of T 89 ATC 4963; (1989) 20 ATR 1251 it was held:

"A taxpayer who did no more than bet could never be regarded as carrying on a business, regardless of the frequency, scale or system-based nature of the betting. A pastime does not turn into a business merely because a person devotes considerable time to it and has retired from a previous full time profession"

In summary from all of this, Abbott only really has two options:

1. Leave poker be; or
2. Ban it completely as the Act says atm.

There is no regulation of poker I'm afraid unless it involves only taxing the poker companies as they would be regarded as conducting a business for the purpose of generating income through gambling activities. However, I still have my doubts about how this can occur given that they are off-shore and how exactly would you know how much rake these poker companies are taking as its prone to fabrication given they can probably launder the money back to the Isle of Man.

They could copy the UK and introduce a levy on all Aus players regardless of where the site is located, they would do this by requiring that they get an Aus licence. The other model is to copy the Italian, French and Spanish model and allow licenced poker sites only if they are based and taxed in Aus.

Either of these is of course better than having a ban and the threat of that ban being enforced.

I don't get how this will effect other countries, the sites aren't based in the UK and the UK has no jurisdiction over other countries. If the UK have restrictive laws Stars will just use Pokerstars.co.uk and run that separately?

This is my understanding as well. co.uk sites for UK resident players, which will share the same player pools as dot-com (and DK, EE and BE, for that matter). Oz players continue on dot-com.

Even better, the UK regulations are based on registered address, not playing location so, as it stands now, a visitor to the UK can continue will be able to keep playing on dot-com sites (or dot-es, etc).

Online poker is "gray-market" in loads of countries which dot-com continue to server; sweden, poland, australia, norway to name a few.

A levy? What take a cut like 3% of their takings (a.k.a party poker )? And who would be the collection agency?

Nah too much of a hassle for the government - as I said it is going to be a ban or nothing.

My feeling is that it will be nothing and all this hoo haa around here will have been a waste of time.

cliffs anyone?

will they ban poker

Stars want mixed player pools from many countries. The UK model gives them this so it is far better than the other EU models like Spain, Italy and France. For Stars the UK model is far far better than splitting the player pool again and again so they are likely to get a UK licence and keep serving UK players from the .com site and work to lobby the other EU countries to sign up to the same model.

The 100% legal UK market is far more important to them than the grey at best Aussie market.

The UK is requiring a UK licence to serve UK customers and part of that means the sites complying with the UK rules for all their players on things like age verification, arbitration of disputes, player fund protection, self exclusion....

The 2005 Gambling Act has an offence in section 44
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/44

The UK licence gives them a UK location for the purposes of the act. I have not seen the full list of banned countries for UK licenced operators but I know it includes the US, I expect Aus should be on it and if it is not all it takes is a request from the Aus government and the Secretary of State will add them to the banned list in a flash.

Now stars might set up an Aus only site with different licencing and no UK licence but I doubt it. The gov has already had the phone app pulled, there are difficulties advertising. In all that sort of grey market is high risk little reward for Stars. Especially if they want to get back into the US too.

The new UK law is an interesting one, it is trying to impose UK laws and regulations on Internet firms based overseas and accessing many more markets than just the UK. You may think it is overreach but I think it will fly, the sites will sign up voluntarily to make sure they have UK access and then use that credibility elsewhere too.

Nice trick if they can get away with it but I don't see how the UKGC or UK government will let a UK player on a .co.uk site play with an Aussie player on the .com site given that section 44 makes this illegal.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/44

This is one of the miscellaneous offences in the act that apply to anyone in the UK not just the licence holder (like cheating)

Australia draws much law, especially in cases taken to the High and Federal Courts, from other jurisdictions, most prevalently the mother land England. Cases like this might be persuasive in an Australian context.

Btw, this is the epitome of hypocrisy. I cant see the difference between online gaming and the local hotel, or one of the casinos present in our capital cities. In any case, poker is obviously a game of skill. In an ideal world I would rather not see regulation and taxation (an increase in rake isn't especially desirable). Hopefully this issue remains insignificant in light of the many issues facing the newly elected federal government.

If Nick Xenophon gets his say we're ****ed. I'm scrutinising the votes for the senate tomorrow (I was working for liberal on election day) so I'll somehow try to minimise his vote count. Maybe bribe the vote counters.

i dont know anything about the situation but imo seems pretty obvious they dont care if its a game of skill or whatever its just about protecting their gambling market share. keno, lotteries, pokies, sportsbook, racing, casino etc

I don't see why its a trick. dot-com site is not under UKGC license, servers aren't in the UK.

It comes down to whether there is anything in the regs that specifically says a pokerstars.co.uk can't share its player pool with a pokerstars.com. Can you point to one?



If you're right, then Australia is a tiny part of the problem. We're talking some of the biggest markets falling foul of this clause, inc very profitable ones in Scandinavia; the result will be an effective UK segregation on co-uk. I haven't heard this suggested anywhere before.

The clause is in the act. I can't see how they can allow a subsidiary to claim to be just UK players whilst taking US or Aus players and sharing the pool. They are putting the players against each other.

There are two other complications:
1) If Stars do set up a new entity for UK players then they can't use the passported licence promised in the transition arrangements for it.
2) The software supplier to the new entity (Stars) need to be licenced too and the section 44 rule on prohibited territories applies to them too. If they supply software to allow prohibited territory players in breech of 2005 Act that is an offence.

I can't find the secretary of state's prohibited territories list, I know the US was on it but it has been moot for years as no remote gambling sites had a UK licence so I don't know if Aus (or others) are on it - yet.

Microgaming and Playtech will need licences too if they accept UK players, they can't pass it all to the skin and opt out as they have in the past. They also look like they will be liable for the tax bill alongside the skin - the exemption was for skins on same network not being liable for each other, it was not the provider getting out of joint and several liability with their skin.

The player pool has to be relevant to that section of the act.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/44

That tax issue is driving them into the detail of provider/skin so I just don't see how they can impose joint liability on Stars as network provider and StarsUK subsidiary for the tax bill and not treat them together for the 2005 Gambling Act, section 44.

Hey, I could be wrong, I have been in the past but when the Aus PM rings up and says why are UK licenced sites operating illegally in Aus what do you think the Secretary of State will do?

Starts making the BetFair retreat from grey markets look like a good call to me.

PS
server location is soon to be 100% irrelevant, they don't need any kit in the UK to need a UK licence. The .co.uk would have the servers where they are now for .com - its not an issue.

In 2010

The Australian Government does not agree with the Productivity Commission recommendation that the Australian Government amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 to allow for a liberalisation of online gambling, starting with allowing the provision of online poker games to Australians. The existing rules will continue to apply.

http://assistant.treasurer.gov.au/Di...ear=&DocType=0






The Productivity Commission is the Australian Government's independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues affecting the welfare of Australians. Its role, expressed simply, is to help governments make better policies in the long term interest of the Australian community.

As its name implies, the Commission's focus is on ways of achieving a more productive economy - the key to higher living standards. As an advisory body, its influence depends on the power of its arguments and the efficacy of its public processes.

http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquir...ng-2009/report




Interesting, that the PC came up with something that supports Online poker, and still the government decides not to follow their findings





Also one more thing "If we don't talk about it, it might just go away "


Liberials current policy to online gambling

Under

4. A STRONGER ONLINE GAMBLING ENVIRONMENT

There are ongoing community concerns that the current laws prohibiting certain forms of online gambling, such as online poker and casino games, are not adequately enforced. Gambling sites illegally offered to Australians do not comply with strict probity requirements

Translation = No online poker for Australians starting with Pokerstars

Clear enough?

http://www.liberal.org.au/helping-problem-gamblers

Actually, there have been very specific suggestions by the Department of Broadband on amendments needed to the IGA that will make enforcement more effective. While some have argued that none are needed, the view of the Department was several additional mechanisms were required - empowering ACMA, imposing civil fines, holding company directors responsible, and so forth.

The senate matters for this reason. It also matters as a bargaining chip. A senator with the balance of power could say "well, i'll pass legislation x, if you go ahead and amend the IGA".

we must put to bed the concept of 888poker setting up a "lobby group" representing aus players .
glazier, kaye, edwards & co.

why allow a company that puts a
"premium" on australian deposittors
todays 888poker ripoff exchange
US$1.0000 = AUD1.1290

stars etc.

AUD/USD = 1.07580

my belief is that the oz govt is like me tired of the ripoff and will view ALL online poker operators on this deception

They can charge what they like, if you don't like it then vote with your feet and use a different site. They aren't forcing anything on you.

So you are effectively lobbying for them to ban all poker out of spite at 888?

There are other websites that rip you off on exchange rates too, are you also lobbying the coalition to ban or regulate Paypal?