Racing Amendment Bill

[curious]

Not as far as I know but I could be wrong. NSW are also considering this and I think WA has legislated for 15% as well?

[curious]

It appears to have been set at 8% and comes into effect in 2019.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-14/victoria-announces-consumption-tax-for-online-betting/9758116

[Chief Stipe]

Victorian Government to introduce lowest online betting consumption tax in the country

By state political reporter Richard Willingham

Updated 14 May 2018, 3:28pm

PHOTO: The new 8 per cent tax will apply to a bookmaker's monthly winnings.

RELATED STORY: Online bookmakers brace for new tax in Victoria

Punter losses with online bookmakers in Victoria will be taxed at the lowest rate in the country, Treasurer Tim Pallas has announced.

The new point of consumption tax (POCT) will apply from the start of 2019 and will be set at 8 per cent of a bookmaker's monthly winnings.

It is forecast to raise $30 million a year.

Victoria has fallen well short of other states which have either implemented a 15 per cent rate or have promised to do so, prompting some warnings that punters may be inundated with gambling advertising.

The State Government has come under significant pressure from both sides of the debate, with corporate bookmakers including Sportsbet, CrownBet and Bet365 arguing that a rate of 15 per cent would kill their business.

Through their industry group Responsible Wagering Australia (RWA), headed by former senator and Victorian Labor heavyweight Stephen Conroy, they had advocated for a lower rate to keep their businesses viable.

PHOTO: Mr Pallas said the tax would generate revenue without hurting the racing industry. (ABC News: Stephanie Anderson)

 

The group also said it wanted to ensure there was no adverse impact on Victoria's racing industry, to which they pay fees.

Most corporate bookmakers are licensed in the Northern Territory where they pay modest fees.

But established bookmaker Tabcorp, the anti-gambling lobby and the Hotels Association had argued for 15 per cent to ensure there was a level playing field against the new competitors.

Mr Pallas said the tax was designed to collect funds the online bookies should be paying and to ensure the harm of problem gambling was addressed.

"We've got a situation at the moment where online gaming operators are effectively avoiding tax, they don't pay a cent of tax,"' Mr Pallas said.

"The aim here is to make sure that we do no harm to the racing industry but we stop the leakage in revenue that should properly be the just desserts of Victoria.

"We do need to recognise that harm is being done through the provision of gambling products and the appropriate payments by those operators to assist in dealing with that harm has to be made."

'Far-reaching' consequences for Victoria

Mr Conroy said bookmakers were disappointed with the decision.

"Whilst RWA acknowledges the Victorian Government's consultative approach, this new tax will nevertheless have significant negative and far-reaching consequences for Victoria,"' Mr Conroy said.

He said last financial year the online wagering industry directly employed around 1,000 Victorians, paid $6 million in state payroll tax and paid $80 million to the racing industry.

"The online wagering industry already pays a significant amount of consumption tax through the GST, as well as corporate income tax to the Federal Government,"' he said.

"An eight-per-cent POCT does not adequately account for these significant contributions and will result in Victoria having one of the highest effective wagering tax rates in the world."

New South Wales is considering how to implement the tax, while Queensland has vowed to introduce a 15 per cent rate.

Bookmakers' tax rate 'scandalous': Costello

The Alliance for Gambling Reform director Tim Costello welcomed the tax but argued the rate should have been higher.

"Victoria's proposed 8 per cent tax on net wagering revenue could have been higher, but at least the Government has committed to review its operation in 2020, so I call on the Victorian Opposition and Upper House cross-benchers to support the forthcoming legislation to get this done,'' Mr Costello said.

"It is scandalous that the 24 licensed bookmakers and betting exchanges in the Northern Territory were only budgeted to pay a miserly $5.4 million in taxes to Territorians in 2017-18, when Australians are losing close to $2 billion a year gambling with these companies."

"Why should Tabcorp be paying an estimated $71 million to the Victorian Government in wagering taxes in 2017-18 and $111 million to the NSW Government when its big foreign competitors like Sportsbet and Ladbrokes contribute nothing to taxpayers in our two largest states."

Labor 'influenced by gambling lobbyists'

Legislation will have to be passed in the State Parliament before it can go ahead.

The Greens have already slammed the proposal as not being tough enough on bookmakers.

Greens leader Samantha Ratnam said the tax would create a "honeypot" for online bookies and result in Victoria being flooded with gambling advertising.

"There is no valid reason for the Andrews Government to go it alone and create a tax break for gambling companies," she said.

"This is a direct result of the influence gambling lobbyists hold over Labor.

"Digital bookmakers already use excessive marketing to target young people and we can expect advertising to get a lot worse if Victoria has a lower tax rate."

Mr Pallas said all negotiations with interested parties had been conducted by his department and he could not recall speaking to Mr Conroy about it.

The tax take will go towards a hospitals and charities fund, with a small slice given to the racing industry to make up for expected shortfall in industry fees.

[Chief Stipe]

Well there is an opportunity for the NZRB - offer a cheaper competitive option for punters and bookies.

[curious]

True. That's what I was thinking. 5% maybe?

The money doesn't go to racing though, it goes to Govt in Vic as it should it seems, so very different from what is proposed here. It will get a test in the interim anyway because presumably it can't be effected at least until the end of the "no new taxes" term.

Edited June 3, 2018 by curious