As far as I know (and I did some work helping the programming team fix stuff, and that was on the list to be fixed just under low priority) the reason for that was never anything to do with the legislation or anything, it had to do with the programming team being incompetently slow at times and there being far more significant upgrades to make to the software to focus their efforts on (eg fixing gamebreaking glitches, implementing other game types/addon buttons/stuff like that)

I was concerned about the company's position with the IGA with an offshore license but being Australian owned as well but was told that the company's lawyers had said they could operate legally (at least until they were told to shut down then they did) and I figured as I was just doing work for the company and had no ownership stake or anything it's basically none of my business and it's up to the company's owners and their lawyers to figure out where to put the servers etc. it's my understanding the servers were not in Australia and were in the jurasdiction that the site was licensed in, but that the site was Australian owned and paying standard business tax to Australia etc. although I had nothing to do with the business side of operations I was mostly just working with the programming and customer service teams to try and deliver improvements in both areas.

It's absurd that a mixture of the the far left Greens, far right One Nation, and basically anti-slots party NXT and an absurd independent in Hinch whose platform is basically 'idgaf about the law or due process lets attack people i with no legal standing label as guilty for political points' will basically decide the fate of online poker in Australia. Hopefully Leyonhjelm has some sway over things, I know he's on good terms with the FF senator so that could be a voting bloc of two, although FF are basically a 'we love jesus hate gays and all sins are bad' party so maybe not.

I do think we could have had a better public outcry as a community and had 100+ submissions in favour of poker instead of the dozen or so it seems like we got, although every single submission from the public is basically single issue keep online poker legal so hopefully that helps if the politicians care about community feedback at all

I find it beyond pathetic that the big poker sites didn't make submissions as far as I can see unless they're private for some reason as not all of the submissions seem to be showing up in the list

Congrats, in the award for the most moronic use of this joke (and there have been plenty), you're a clear winner.

Thanks Lazza for your input. Thanks also to Swoop for your all of your work. I am just a rec but for you guys who rely on this for your livelihood I hope things work out.

I also appreciate the updates on the situation guys and too would like to know approximately when the decision will be made.

The Senate Committee is scheduled to report on Wednesday at which stage the bill will be sent back to the House of Representatives for consideration, possible debate and the vote.

How the bill comes back i.e. recommendations for amendments, omissions etc will tell us a lot about the future of online poker in Australia. If there isn't any changes relating to online poker, then we are in a world of hurt as the government is committed to closing the 'Click to Call' loophole for in-play sportsbetting.

If the bill passes both houses, it will take effect 28 days after receiving Royal Assent (Signed by the Governor-General)

+ 1

Thanks Lazza. It looks like more and more submissions are coming in. There were 22 yesterday afternoon, 26 when I woke up this morning and 28 now.

wouldn't like this, I just recently started getting into poker. maybe I'll hold out on buying poker tracker untill I know whats happening.

Uhh a big crossbench is a good thing. The alternative, and why the early election was called, was to have a majority Libs/Nats upper house. Online poker wouldn't have a chance in that situation.
And lol at NXT being 'basically anti-slots party'

Parliament report

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...ons/IGA/Report

Committee recommends that the amendment is passed, I guess there will be a vote either tomorrow or in the new year, although sounds like team Xenophon are not happy with some parts of the bill.

Online poker is specifically mentioned and then subsequently dismissed in the report.

"The submissions relating to online poker services demonstrate the balance between individual freedoms and harm minimisation that gambling regulation strikes. People who gamble responsibly and are willing to take responsibility for their own actions understandably object to their activities being restricted. However, the regulatory framework recognises that problem and at-risk gamblers can be exposed to significant danger. Problem gambling affects not just the individuals concerned; there are considerable flow-on effects for others in society

The bill does not change the existing policy decisions about what services should be available and how they should be regulated. Rather, the bill seeks to enforce the original intent of the IGA, which is to minimise the scope of problem gambling amongst Australians. Whether particular services should no longer be restricted under the IGA is a separate question that this committee was not asked to consider as part of this inquiry.

Here's the relevant section. They actually quote my submission twice, but then in point 2.62 they seem to dismiss all of the concerns as being a separate point to this amendment although they make no comment about how specifically this would be addressed. 'Whether particular services should no longer be restricted under the IGA is a separate question that this committee was not asked to consider as part of this inquiry.'

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...ons/IGA/Report

Online poker services
2.59 The committee received a small number of submissions and form letters from individuals expressing concern about the consequences of the bill for online poker services. Online casino-style gaming services of chance or mixed skill and chance, such as poker, which are played for money or anything else of value, are currently prohibited services under the IGA.54 The submissions called for the bill to be amended to enable reputable operators of online poker services to be licensed to offer online poker in Australia. In support of this argument, submitters noted the following:
…thousands of Australians enjoy playing online poker recreationally as an entertaining gambling game of skill, as opposed to other forms of gambling like online slots/pokies that are games of chance with no skill aspect, no social aspect and increased risks of problem gambling for consumers.55
2.60 The following extract from the submissions is the crux of the issue:
We believe it is our right as consenting adults to participate in a game of skill with our money for entertainment if we choose to do so.56
Committee comment
2.61 The submissions relating to online poker services demonstrate the balance between individual freedoms and harm minimisation that gambling regulation strikes. People who gamble responsibly and are willing to take responsibility for their own actions understandably object to their activities being restricted. However, the regulatory framework recognises that problem and at-risk gamblers can be exposed to significant danger. Problem gambling affects not just the individuals concerned; there are considerable flow-on effects for others in society.
2.62 The bill does not change the existing policy decisions about what services should be available and how they should be regulated. Rather, the bill seeks to enforce the original intent of the IGA, which is to minimise the scope of problem gambling amongst Australians. Whether particular services should no longer be restricted under the IGA is a separate question that this committee was not asked to consider as part of this inquiry.

At this point I think i'm hoping the bill just fails and gets abandoned. If it passed and online poker is gg'd and the big sites pull out, i'll look into who exactly we would contact about what they cited in 2.62 that the committee wasnt asked to consider excluding online poker from the IGA etc.

When do they vote?

I'm not sure I assume tomorrow but no idea. Leyohjelm is on our side, no idea about the rest of the minor party senators could be worth calling their offices to ask/ask them not to vote for any bill that effectively outlaws online poker, if Labor opposes the bill we have a chance it'll fail if not it'll obviously pass with government support

Can someone please explain this to me.

IGA makes offering any online interactive gambling illegal, it's just never been enforced.

It's not in tomorrow's Senate schedule so will make it through without a vote until they're back in Feb at the earliest.

If it's not up for a vote until next year we actually have time to figure out if Labor is voting against it and lobby the crossbench to vote against it unless online poker is exempted from the IGA

I'm going to be away/busy next week but happy to make some calls when I get back in early-mid december and find out where the various parties/senators stand on it so we can lobby the key ones

links to schedule? I can't see that confirmed anywhere.

edit, is this it?

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...f20161201_SR23

looks promising that we should at least get a couple more months.

what a cop-out

From November 10


"Mr Tudge said the changes to rule out online in-play betting would help protect punters.

“We are doing what we said we would do: ensuring the original intent of the law is being upheld,’’ he told The Australian. “This protects against high-frequency betting, which experts say leads to problem gambling.”

It is understood that the ALP is unlikely to oppose the changes, although Labor’s spokeswoman on gambling, Julie Collins, said the party would need to see the bill before reaching a final stance."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...0485e23701e6ee

Yup that's it. The House of Reps schedule doesn't come out until an hour before they sit, and as it turns out the IGA was meant to be read yesterday (past midnight as I'm writing this) but the backpacker tax and protest fiasco may have pushed it back as it was the last item of the day. So entirely possible it makes its way into House of Reps tomorrow and pushed into Senate, so not out of the woods yet. Check Daily Program here at about 8:30-9am to see if it'll come up

Any chance this act makes bookies have a min bet they just take from customers.
A friend told me recently.
So for country racing

After 9:30 am

Bookie must bet to win $1000

And for city it is $2000

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_...ts/Dynamic_Red

Looks like bullet may be dodged today.

its looking like we will run out of time and it won't come back until march next year~

still would be better if it just got defeated and the bill got told to **** of

gambling online is so much safer than going to a casino getting free alcohol and been souronded by flashing lights and an envioernment that encourages you to keep going.

gambling from home if you lose a few bets the enviornment doesn't feel the same so you stop.

not to mention you can bet SOOO much less than what a casino would allow.

you can bet $1 or less online vs $5 min bets or $10 min bets at the casino

I'm willing to make calls to senate member offices if someone more articulate on the issue can write a simple script.

I mean while is true for a lot of people it's a super overgeneralisation. It being far easier and accessible to gamble online being the obvious counterpoint