Wednesday, 3 May 2023
Bills
Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023
Bills
Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023
Statement of compatibility
Melissa HORNE (Williamstown – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Roads and Road Safety) (10:36): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023.
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023.
In my opinion, the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights as set out in the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
Human Rights Issues
The Bill amends the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to make changes to the wagering and betting licence framework to permit multiple licences and remove the ‘no less favourable’ racing industry funding requirement for the wagering and betting licence.
The proposals in the Bill do not engage any rights of persons under the Charter.
The amendments in the Bill will affect wagering and betting licensees, VicRacing Pty Ltd and Racing Products Victoria Pty Ltd. Wagering and betting licensees are required to be corporations under the Gambling Regulation Act.
Hon Melissa Horne MP
Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming and Liquor Regulation
Second reading
That this bill be now read a second time.
I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Incorporated speech as follows:
The Bill makes important changes to the structure of wagering and betting and will provide the necessary flexibility for government in awarding future wagering and betting licences – in order to yield the greatest benefit for the State.
A wagering and betting licence is issued under Chapter 4 of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (the Act) which allows the licensee to conduct several gambling activities, including:
• pari-mutuel and fixed odds betting;
• simulated racing;
• operating the only off-course wagering and betting retail network in Victoria; and
• establishing and operating a betting exchange.
The current wagering and betting licence was awarded in 2011 and is due to expire on 15 August 2024.
The process for the awarding a wagering and betting licence to operate from 15 August 2024 is underway.
The proposed reforms in this Bill will provide flexibility for the government to ensure that the value of future wagering and betting licences is maximised for the State.
I now turn to the provisions of the Bill before the House.
The Bill amends the Act to enable the Minister to determine the number of wagering and betting licences and any exclusivity periods for future licensing processes.
Currently the Act only permits one wagering and betting licence to be in operation at the same time. This restricts the options that the State can present to the market to attract greater interest in the wagering and betting licence.
The Bill introduces an approach with the option to issue multiple licences and incorporate exclusivity periods within the licence to increase competition for the 2024 wagering and betting licence or licences.
This approach is consistent with provisions for the public lottery licence and Keno licences.
An exclusivity period means that the State would not be able to issue another wagering and betting licence that has effect during the period of exclusivity. For example, the State could issue one wagering and betting licence for a term of 20 years with an exclusivity period of 10 years. After 10 years, the State could issue additional licences.
No subsequent wagering and betting licences could be issued on an exclusive basis until all existing wagering and betting licences have expired.
The Bill also repeals the ‘no less favourable’ racing industry funding requirement for issuing a new wagering and betting licence.
In simple terms, the ‘no less favourable’ requirement provides that to award a post-2024 licence, the Minister must determine that the arrangements between the Victorian racing industry and a licence applicant are ‘no less favourable’ to the Victorian racing industry than the arrangements under the current wagering and betting licence.
Failure to remove the ‘no less favourable’ requirement will reduce competition, with the likely outcome being the prevention of the State from awarding a post-2024 wagering and betting licence.
Not awarding a post-2024 wagering and betting licence would result in significant foregone revenue for government and would have a negative effect on employment.
The Bill will remove the ‘no less favourable’ requirement to enable future wagering and betting licences to be issued without being required to determine that the licensee has entered into ‘no less favourable’ funding arrangements with the Victorian racing industry.
These changes are reflective of the changing wagering and betting environment, with the proliferation of online wagering and lowering demand for land-based wagering.
In conclusion, these are important amendments that provide for a more competitive wagering and betting licence process and greater flexibility for government in awarding the licence(s).
Ultimately, they should also lead to greater financial benefit for the State of Victoria.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (10:36): I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
That the debate be adjourned for 13 days.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:37): The minister has just sought to adjourn the debate on a new tax that the government intends to bring into this place for 13 days. What a surprise, and what a concerning step the government has taken that every Victorian should be worried about. We know – this chamber knows – that any government and governments for the best part of 100 years have given Victorians time to consider new bills they bring into this place, and to hear that a minister would stand at the table and seek to ram a new tax through this place –
Members interjecting.
James NEWBURY: It is no wonder that the government protest that they want to bring in their 44th new tax – their 44th new tax, a $125 million new tax – and ram it through this place. What an outrage. Every Victorian should be distressed by what this government is doing, and I hope that every Victorian hears the debate that is taking place today. For 100 years Westminster parliaments have allowed Victorians and Australians the opportunity to consider bills that are brought in to parliaments, and that should be the way that it is. It should be the way that a government brings in a new proposal, so that the community has the opportunity to think about what is being proposed. A government should want to do that. It should not just be because the community wants to spend time considering it. A good government, a government with integrity, should want to bring bills into the community and have them consider those bills. The government should be happy to bring those bills into the community, to talk to stakeholders, to talk to the community about what they are proposing to do – but not this government. This government’s natural inclination is not to bring in a bill and allow the community the opportunity to consider it. What this government is doing is pushing through a bill in this chamber, this bill that relates to gambling regulation.
But it is not a surprise, because no government with integrity would want to do that, and yet that is what they are doing – because they lack integrity. When something like that happens probably the first reaction of the community would be, especially considering what we have seen in this chamber recently, ‘poor management of this place’, and we have seen that numerous times across numerous issues. We have seen a lack of capacity to properly manage this place and filibustering through motions because there is a lack of an agenda – there is no agenda.
So you would look at this bill being pushed forward and you could be mistaken in believing that there is a lack of capacity, a lack of foresight of this government in managing this place, but no, no, no, no. In this case it is not because of a lack of capacity, a lack of preparedness or a lack of planning. This is sneaky. This is very, very sneaky by this government. That is what this government is doing, and we are going to see it more. We are going to see this every week, where the government tries to push through their sneaky agenda and take up the time of this place, because they have run out of an agenda. That is what we are seeing with this. So I oppose, and the opposition absolutely opposes, this dangerous step that this government is proposing to make.
The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Manager of Opposition Business to refrain from hitting the table.
Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (10:42): I must say I have not heard more hyperbole in this place for some significant time. Every single sitting week we come here the Liberal Party in this chamber seek to take up valuable parliamentary debating time on matters important to the people of Victoria. On this particular occasion it can only really be described as a parliamentary stunt. I would like to suggest to those that are listening to this chamber’s debate on this occasion that this parliamentary stunt introduced today by the Liberal Party, to be frank, is to distract the press gallery from Matthew Guy’s witch-hunt of who leaked –
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for South Barwon will refer to members by their correct titles.
Darren CHEESEMAN: the member for Bulleen and his witch-hunt about who –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is a debate over a procedural matter, and the member has outrageously and flagrantly turned this into a slanging match. I would ask you to bring –
Members interjecting.
James Newbury: I didn’t hear anyone calling any objection when I spoke.
The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair.
James Newbury: I would ask the Speaker to ask the member to return to this very, very tight debate.
The SPEAKER: I made some comments yesterday in relation to procedural debates – they are very narrow. This is about the timing of the return of a bill to the house, and I ask members to stick to that.
Darren CHEESEMAN: Thank you, Speaker. This debate is really just a stunt. The reality is that for a bill that is 29 pages long, that is not particularly difficult to get one’s head around, 13 days is more than adequate to consult those that might be interested. An extra 24 hours will make absolutely no difference to the contributions that the Liberal Party make to this chamber. The reality is – and I can predict this – that every single sitting week between now and 2026 the Liberal Party will at every opportunity seek to frustrate the Andrews Labor government’s agenda of getting important legislation through. I claim very loudly that this stunt by the Liberal Party to waste a good half an hour of valuable chamber time on this procedural motion is really to simply distract the press gallery from the comments made by the member for Bulleen yesterday.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, again the member has strayed into mudslinging in what is a very, very tight debate, and I would ask you to return the member back to the debate.
The SPEAKER: I understand your point of order. The member to come back to the motion before the house.
Darren CHEESEMAN: The motion before the house today, Speaker, as you well know, is in regard to whether we give 13 days for people in this chamber, for people who have responsibilities, to consult. The reality is that 13 days is more than sufficient time for parliamentarians to be able to consult, assuming they have the requisite skills to be a parliamentarian. Assuming they have those skills to be able to get out there and do the work that their political party has given them, 13 days is more than sufficient time on a 29-page bill. This is just further evidence that the Liberal Party are not fit to govern this state, because they cannot get the job done in –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, this is the third time in one contribution I have been forced to raise a point of order in relation to the member being unable –
The SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. There is no point of order.
Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (10:47): I rise to support the Manager of Opposition Business in opposing this 13-day adjournment, and I say to those over there, you cannot be surprised. Every time in the last Parliament –
The SPEAKER: Through the Chair, member for Gippsland South.
Danny O’BRIEN: Speaker, every time in the last Parliament the government tried to do this in breach of the forms of the house, of the conventions of the house, we took objection. So do not be surprised now when we do it again. It is disappointing to us all that the member for South Barwon has vacated the chamber, but I would like to take him up on the point that apparently we cannot get this done in 13 days. We are debating this week an entire piece of legislation that was passed in 2021 and was due to come into effect in June this year, 2023. This week we are debating legislation to defer that for another 12 months because the government has not got around to consulting people about it. And you are complaining that we cannot do this in 13 days.
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gippsland South, through the Chair.
Danny O’BRIEN: They are complaining, Speaker, that we cannot do this in 13 days when this very week the government is deferring legislation for another 12 months because they have not done the consultation with the community. Yet we get this piece of legislation –
Will Fowles: That’s not right.
Danny O’BRIEN: ‘That’s not right’ – the member for Ringwood says that is not right. That is what the bill is. Go and have a look at the bill. Didn’t you speak on the government business program this week?
The SPEAKER: Order! Through the Chair, member for Gippsland South.
Danny O’BRIEN: Speaker, I apologise, but it is very frustrating when government members do not know their own business program and do not know their own legislation and they complain that we are taking up valuable time. We have had 14 speakers on the water legislation, which is pretty much about the River Murray. Not one government member represents that area, and we have got 14 speakers on it. The government is so bereft of ideas –
Will Fowles: On a point of order, Speaker, in following the framing set by the member for Brighton, I think this is a very narrow debate. The member for Gippsland South is now spending a great deal of time talking about a bill that is not this bill and talking about a motion that is not this motion. I would ask you to bring him back to the subject of this debate.
The SPEAKER: The member for Gippsland South will come back to the motion before the house.
Danny O’BRIEN: Thank you, Speaker. I would like to talk about this bill, but I do not yet know anything about it. It has just been presented to this Parliament. The conventions and the forms of this chamber are that members of the Parliament and members of the public are given 14 days to consider legislation before it is debated, and there are very good reasons for that. This legislation is 29 pages. It amends four different acts relating to gambling, including the Casino Control Act 1991, the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 and the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. These are big, important issues, and they involve potentially billions of dollars when it comes to the wagering licence, so these are very, very, very important issues that need to be given full consideration.
I say again the government should not be surprised that we would object. We have consistently objected to the inability of the government to manage its own business program going forward and it having to force the Parliament to truncate the process that has been agreed and accepted for many, many hundreds of years in the Westminster system and certainly for the time Parliament has been operating in this place. It is, as I said, a result of the lack of agenda and a lack of respect that the government pays to the Parliament in giving people the opportunity to fully consider things and the opportunity for me as the Shadow Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation – and potentially the Shadow Minister for Racing and no doubt the Shadow Treasurer might be interested and may want to consult various stakeholders on this. It is a due consideration of the forms of the house and a little bit of respect to the house to say, ‘Hey, we haven’t got our act together. We’ll give it 14 days as we normally do.’ Let us not just rush things through for the sake of the government’s agenda and make it easier for them.
I say again it is not through there being too much on the agenda. The two bills on the government business program this week are both bills that are basically revisitations of previous bills from last term, and we have got the government putting up motions like the SEC motion to fill gaps. So it is not like the government has got so much on that it has to rush this through. This should not be supported, this 13-day motion.
Will FOWLES (Ringwood) (10:52): Boy, oh boy, oh boy. The outrage could not be more confected than what we have heard today from those opposite on this motion. There is of course no substantive difference between 14 days and 13 days, because you have the week –
Members interjecting.
Will FOWLES: They well know that they have the week in between sittings in which to do their consultation. I mean, do you pack your sports bag for the whole school week, or do you need to bring it in on the Wednesday or the Tuesday? It does not really make any substantive difference at all. This is a bill with some very important reforms, including to the racing industry, and the opposition have the blinkers on, don’t they? They have the blinkers on when it comes to the very –
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Order! Manager of Opposition Business, you have had your turn.
Will FOWLES: Thank you, Speaker. They absolutely have the blinkers on here, because the outrage is being confected about 13 days versus 14 days. For anybody who has the great misfortunate of listening to this debate online it will be abundantly clear that the outrage is confected. It makes no substantive difference, because the consultation that the opposition purport to need to do on this pretty slim bill all happens when we are not here, so they do not need the additional day. It is about when it lands in the subsequent sitting week. It is not about whether you have the use of the interregnum or not, it is about whether it lands in that subsequent sitting week.
The member for Brighton has got the bit between the teeth and is very excited about this bill, but he probably should be scratched from this race, because the notion that this is a great affront to democracy is just nonsense. The real affront to democracy in this joint, the real affront to democracy in Victoria, is the complete ineptitude of those over there. That is the matter that –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, I loathe having to stand up repeatedly –
Members interjecting.
The SPEAKER: Manager of Opposition business, I ask you to state your point of order succinctly.
James Newbury: Speaker, another government speaker has flagrantly failed to debate the question at hand, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the issue at hand.
The SPEAKER: I invite all members to speak to the motion before the house.
Will FOWLES: Thank you very much, Speaker. I think Brighton is more gelding than stallion perhaps. The substance here is that it is a very important debate because it just exposes the flaw in the argument of those opposite that there is some great travesty going on here in relation to when, within the subsequent sitting week, a debate will come on. It is not about whether you have the use of the interregnum or not, it is just about when within the subsequent sitting week this gets dealt with. To be honest, they perhaps ought to be taken off to the political knackery, and they are doing a pretty good job of it at the minute. This is a –
James Newbury: On a point of order, Speaker, again I am disappointed to raise the fact that the member has strayed from the question at hand. It is disappointing that each government member is doing this on a matter of integrity in this place, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the question.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order this time, but I do ask the member for Ringwood to refrain from straying from the motion before the house.
Will FOWLES: Thank you very much, Speaker. Look, what is abundantly clear in this is that those opposite are seeking to torch another 30 minutes of parliamentary time on a nonsense procedural objection when there is actually no substantive difference whatsoever between 14 days and 13 days, because it is not about whether you have the time in between sitting days. That time is there – that time will almost always be there. But of course we are having a gigantic sook about where in the subsequent sitting week this bill will be considered. I would say, through you, Chair, to those opposite that they should just giddy-up and get on with it. This is an uncomplicated debate in so many respects. They can go off and do their consultation – that is absolutely fine – and we will come back in the subsequent sitting week and we will consider the bill and have the debate, and that is a perfectly reasonable thing for the government to put to this place.
Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (10:57): It is like the member for Ringwood went to the stud farm and was terribly disappointed. I also rise to speak on this circumstance. No-one, absolutely no-one, should be surprised that the opposition is opposing this sleight of hand, this underhandedness by the government, this highway to a slippery slope of a loss in parliamentary standards, which seems to be the topic du jour, the place where the members of this government are most comfortable. By one measure it is true the difference between 13 days and 14 days is but 24 hours, but the principle still remains. The member for Ringwood in his curious contribution made the statement that he was concerned by us on this side of the chamber raising this concern – which no-one, again, should be surprised by – and that we were, quote, ‘torching another 30 minutes’ of time. Well, how about this: if the government actually got a grip on the government business program in this place, we would not need to raise this time and time and time again. If the government actually did have a legislative agenda and timed the legislative agenda in a way that suited the parliamentary sitting schedule, which they set themselves before the parliamentary year actually commenced, then we would not be in this circumstance. But of course we are, for two reasons: firstly, the government does not have a parliamentary agenda, an agenda for their government that is visionary, that builds communities –
Will Fowles: On a point of order, Speaker, the member for Sandringham has drifted well away from this very narrow procedural debate. He is waxing lyrical about the broader aims of the government. This is a debate about parliamentary procedure, not the government, and I would ask you to bring him back –
The SPEAKER: Order! Members will make their points of order succinctly. I do ask the member for Sandringham to come back to the procedural debate.
Brad ROWSWELL: It comes down to the resources of the opposition and the opportunity that we have to consult on very significant matters on changes to the statute books in this state. We take that obligation very, very seriously, and frankly 24 hours could very well make the difference. I know that with this bill and, I am assuming, the next bill that the government wishes to introduce there are stakeholders within my own portfolio and within the members for Gippsland South and Gippsland East’s portfolios that will want to be consulted. Without the opportunity to consult people within those portfolios we are the poorer, the Parliament is the poorer and the community is the poorer, because those key stakeholders who would have otherwise had an opportunity to contribute to the decision-making process in this state have not had that opportunity – and that is not on us. That circumstance is not on us; that circumstance is on the government, who because they are distracted, because they are focused on themselves and not their responsibility and role within the parliamentary system, keep on time and time again requesting 13 days leave instead of 14. We will continue to raise this as an issue as it arises – and I am sure it will again, because there does not seem to be any apparent circumstance in which the government has got its stuff together to be able to manage the government business program in a way that is appropriate for this chamber and for the community of Victoria.
I will finish where I began: the reason why we are raising this – and yes, arguably, the only difference between 13 days and 14 days is 24 hours – is that we are deeply concerned by this and will continue to be in the future, because it is a slippery slope. It is a slippery slope to uncertainty. It is a slippery slope to being driven by a government who are focused on themselves instead of their responsibilities to this place and outside of this place to the Victorian people, and that is why we believe we on this side should have 14 days to consider the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (48): Juliana Addison, Daniel Andrews, Josh Bull, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Will Fowles, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (26): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ryan Smith, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Jess Wilson
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned until Tuesday 16 May.