Wednesday, 10 September 2025

Bills

Casino and Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Anthony Carbines:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (10:46): I am delighted to rise and speak on the Casino and Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. May I say from the outset that the Liberal–Nationals will not be opposing this bill, and there are many reasons for that, which we will cover off on as we go through the lead speech.

First, I want to touch on some background. Crown Casino’s history has been well documented, and as Victoria’s largest single private employer we have great respect for the commitment Crown has made to Victoria. It is the entertainment centrepiece, and yes, it provides opportunities to gamble, but it would be very short sighted if you did not see Crown as more of a food and dining experience and entertainment complex than a place for people to lose money on the pokies at the tables. Gambling is a legitimate pastime in Victoria, and as always, it is important to ensure that for those with a gambling addiction or problem the checks and balances are there as a safety net. Remember, the safety net is for the families as well as the players. Having said that, there are no excuses for Crown’s behaviour that saw a royal commission and the punishments that were set out. I will not be reprosecuting this today, but I will say the punishments were justified and that Crown is complying with those recommendations.

The bill covers a few areas, which I will cover off on. One, it is about extending the timeframe for Crown to achieve the compliance that was demanded by Ray Finkelstein, and Crown intended to honour these recommendations and actions. It has become apparent that technology constraints and time barriers are making this transition very difficult, and the physical hardware of carded play on blackjack tables and carded play on roulette tables is still months away from a complete rollout. So we are still months away from this rollout and a trial. People might understand from the EGMs of poker machines that Crown already have carded play. You cannot play a pokie without a card that goes in and says how much you have spent and your history, and that is really important. The consoles, when you can sit down at one of those small consoles and play blackjack or roulette – it is very easy – are done as well; carded play has been adopted there. Where the difficulty is is in the roulette tables, the blackjack tables: you need to have a whole new set of chips; you need to have tables that are now designed purely for that purpose of being able to put your card in and play blackjack or roulette with a dealer or with a croupier. That technology is just lagging behind at the moment, and that is why they are calling for this two-year extension. Again, they are not trying to get off the hook here; they are just trying to extend the opportunity to make sure that when they get this compliance they get it right.

If you need any proof of the time for transition that Crown has gone through – pre COVID, if you did not see a specialist in a month’s time, you were pretty disappointed, and now, post COVID, if you see a specialist inside of three months, you think it is pretty good.

This is the same thing that happens in the manufacturing industry. There is only one industry that does these specific tables, and Crown are working to make sure they get there and get the compliance right. That is the bulk of what this bill is about – it is to get that extension from 1 December this year to 1 December 2027.

The ramifications are pretty high, and I will go through those in a moment. Well, actually, I will go through them now. The alternative for Crown is not logical. Option 1 is to shut down their roulette tables and their blackjack tables, and that will cost 1000 jobs. Giving 1000 people their marching orders prior to Christmas is not a great thing for anyone. There is a cost-of-living crisis in Victoria at the moment, and the last thing anybody wants to see is 1000 people losing their job with the biggest employer in Victoria. This is not about changing the rules and letting them off the hook, it is about extending the deadline so Crown can do the compliance that they want to do.

The other option is for Crown to take a chance, and that is to get their croupiers and their dealers to make sure that they get all the details from people before they actually play at a blackjack table or a roulette table. That is very risky. There is always the chance of human error, and that is a $100 million fine. Now, Deputy Speaker, I do not know how you would go with a $100 million fine, but I do not think there are too many businesses in Victoria that would be able to face that. That is why Crown, not in a threatening manner, have just said, ‘This is what we have to do if we can’t get this extension, due to the technology shortfalls at the moment.’ I am not saying it is not there, it just has not been rolled out in a timely way. The trial needs to take place, and that is what this extra two years is all about.

As I say, if the bill is not passed, Crown will need to close down all its traditional tables. I mean, you would still have your poker machines, your EGMs and your consoles, but you would have no atmosphere without the other activities that they have there with blackjack, and I think that would be a real test for what is Victoria’s largest entertainment complex, moving into the summer. That is the pain we do not want to risk. With the cost-of-living crisis at the moment, we want to make sure that our city is vibrant, and Crown is the centrepiece of that entertainment in Melbourne. This is about extending it; it is not changing the rules, it is just pushing it down the road a bit further so that we get this compliance right. At no point am I suggesting that Crown should not follow the recommendations of the royal commission, nor am I suggesting that any of these recommendations get watered down. But extending the timeframe to achieve better outcomes is plain common sense. This is not letting them off the hook; it is ensuring job security for many and that Melbourne’s biggest entertainment complex will stay in full swing over the coming summer. The tourist dollar is very, very important. We have lost a lot of the tourist dollar in places. I know cruise ships are one example, and there are other examples that show that we have lost the tourist dollar, and here is a critical point where we do not want to lose that tourist dollar when people come to Melbourne and Crown Casino.

I also want to recap the Melbourne transformation plan that was formulated as a result of the royal commission. The Melbourne transformation plan formally initiated in December 2023 is a comprehensive multiyear reform and redevelopment strategy mandated by the VGCCC, the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission. Its key aim is to redesign Crown Melbourne into a safer, more culturally vibrant and globally competitive, integrated resort. Those key objectives are to enhance player safety and responsible gambling with embedded, ethical, lawful, culturally responsible operations. They aim to support staff with improved compliance frameworks and training.

In terms of regulatory oversight and reporting mechanisms, in April 2024 the VGCCC issued a statutory direction requiring Crown to implement the Melbourne transformation plan and regularly report on its progress. It is to include status reports and quarterly updates on progress, funding, staffing, audits and how reforms reduce gambling harm, with public status reports and more accessible summaries for the public issued every six months. Crown published its second public status report in early 2025.

The VGCCC has strengthened enforcement powers, and penalties now can reach up to $100 million, which I said before. That is a significant breach. Nobody is prepared to take that risk, and Crown is included in that.

As part of the Melbourne transformation plan, there were key reforms and initiatives, including responsible gambling and harm minimisation; mandatory carded play on electronic gaming with identity verification, which is already in place, as I said; precommitment systems, including enforced breaks – a 15-minute rest after 3 hours, a 2-hour break after 12 hours play and other limits per weekly duration; and certainly removing continuous play features and placing cash limits of $1000 per 24-hour period. The transformation plan included governance and culture; the establishment of a transformation steering committee, a dedicated program office and senior leadership accountability for each workstream, external oversight via independent verifications, financial audits and substantive board management.

Crown have made significant changes, to their credit, on the retail, dining and entertainment redevelopment side of things, with the closure of Rosetta, the Italian fine dining, replaced by the Henley, a bar highlighting local produce and casual ambience, late in 2024. There are plans to revitalise the Southbank precinct with river walk upgrades, retail dining and public activations, drawing on a Las Vegas style integrated resource model, and proposed conversions of the fireball pylons into large LED screens to display events. So Crown really are doing their bit to oblige the recommendations of the royal commission but at the same time changing their whole culture and certainly changing the way we see Crown, not as a gambling venue as such but as an entertainment venue with food and fine dining. As far as technology and tourism ambitions go, Crown has made a $52 million investment in IT upgrades in 2025 across Melbourne, Sydney and Perth, including HR, payroll, rostering systems and mobile enhancements. There is a broader vision by Crown’s leadership to reposition Crown Melbourne as a global tourism icon comparable to Singapore’s Marina Bay Sands or Las Vegas resorts.

To summarise the Melbourne transformation plan, the Melbourne plan represents a holistic commitment to regulatory operation, cultural and structural, to redefine Crown Melbourne. It balances enhanced safety and compliance with expansive upgrades in entertainment, dining and guest experience, all under rigorous oversight. The royal commission has certainly changed the way Crown looks and feels and operates, and they certainly are significant wholesale changes.

Touching on the bill, clause 1 – probably the most significant one – touches on what I said before. It sets out the main purposes of the bill, which are to amend the Casino Control Act 1991 in relation to corporate associates, disciplinary action, player activity statements, cashless gaming and carded play, to amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 in relation to club gaming machine entitlements and to make minor technical amendments. That is clause 1, which is the guts of what we are talking about today.

Clause 3 includes new definitions of ‘corporate associate’ and ‘fully automated table game’ versus traditional table games, ‘semi-automated table game’ and ‘traditional table game’. These definitions help to understand the new dawn of Crown gambling, which helps to reduce money laundering. Clause 4 explains the difference between associates and corporate associates and the rules around the 5 per cent or more interest in the casino operator. Clause 5 is the clause that ensures that Crown are not getting off the hook lightly. For anyone who thinks Crown has gotten off lightly, if this bill succeeds through both houses, let us be clear: clause 5 suggests that if Crown fails in its duty of this new modified transition plan, Crown is now liable for fines of up to $1 million a day.

Gone is the $100 million fine. But we have got a $1 million fine per day, which would add up very quickly. And this has come from $10,000 per day, so this is not a gentle prod to Crown Casino saying, ‘Okay, we will allow you this extra time, this extra two years, to get things in order.’ This is not a gentle prod; this is: ‘If you do not get it right, this is a massive stick.’ It is a $1 million fine per day to say, ‘You’d better get it right or it’s going to get very expensive very quickly.’ Clause 8 makes it very clear that all associates must notify the commission in writing of a relevant change. That is common sense.

Now I want to touch on mandatory carded play on table games, clause 13 – amendments to section 71A postpone mandatory carded play requirements. Crown will implement the mandatory carded play on all electronic table games by 25 September. Those are the ones I have told you about, the consoles, the poker machines and the EGMs, as the technology infrastructure is fully developed and available – for clarity, that is blackjack, roulette, et cetera – on electronic consoles. Crown has requested an extension on traditional gaming table requirements till 1 December 2027 for the reasons that I have spoken about earlier, mainly through the lack of technology. These are world-first reforms and so the technology is not yet fully available to transition all traditional game types at Crown Melbourne to accommodate this plan. As I say, you have got to change the chips and you have got to have tables that people can now insert their mandatory card in at a blackjack table or at roulette. So there is a process, and there is more technology that is still rolling out as we speak and that is why that extension is required.

Crown are actively working with providers. There are also challenges associated with securing delivery of the necessary hardware due to the providers’ limited output capability, because there is only one manufacturer that can do this job. So there is a lot of pressure on to try and get their hands on these tables to comply with the royal commission. And as I say, this is a world-first, so it is important that we get that right. The technology is available for baccarat, and I know Crown intends to begin a phased transition to full compliance across the casino by 1 December 2027. That is what this bill is seeking, as we know.

On the impact of a manual approach, to put you in the picture, the potential manual operation controls – that would be the best endeavours of the croupier or the dealer. If it goes wrong, if it goes pear-shaped, that is a $100 million fine currently and that is a risk Crown is not prepared to take. There would be further detrimental impacts to player experience, massive financial exposure and a great risk to the casino. And as I say, it is a risk; although we call it the casino, which it is, it is also the entertainment mecca of Melbourne. It is the primary entertainment aspect of Melbourne, and we need to protect that.

Clause 14 amends to section 71C offences related to mandatory carded play. Clause 14 provides a new offence which prohibits Crown from knowingly or recklessly allowing a person to play a traditional table game other than by use of a player card. This ensures that discretion is applied to Crown’s implementation on the traditional games. Only the subsequent penalties are for noncompliance, because there remains the possibility of human error, and that does not exist on electronic table games and electronic gaming machines.

So that is a summary of the bill that relates to the carded play on traditional tables. Let us not forget that Crown have complied with the carded play for EGMs, and it is fair to say that the rest of the electronic gaming industry are not thrilled that this occurred – because they are now going through the process of a trial – and that carded play may or may not come into all pubs and clubs in Victoria. I can tell you firsthand that pubs and clubs in Victoria are not thrilled with what Crown did, which required the royal commission, because now it is putting a bit of pressure on those as well outside of Crown Casino and it is affecting pubs and clubs in such a way that they do not believe that they deserve to be in that position. But now we are finding it is rolling out to pubs and clubs and Crown is taking it on the chin, but at the same time pubs and clubs are now having to see how this trial rolls out and to wait with bated breath to see whether they too will have to go to carded play in all their EGMs throughout all of Victoria.

I also note the bill raises the maximum number of gaming machines an entitlement operator can hold. This is just clubs. If we think about EGMs, or poker machines, as it is easier to call them, within the club sector – not the pubs, not Crown, just the clubs – an operator can hold up to 840 EGM licences. This bill will extend that from 840 to 1260. The good side of this, the important part to this side of it, is that all of us in this place will have small clubs in our communities and in our electorates that signed up to a deal that was not so great. It is a 20-year deal for these EGM licences that they signed up to. The rules got changed. I will not go into that, but what was going to be a better deal is not a great deal for all of them at the moment. Some of them want to get out of their licences. Some of them say, ‘I’ve only got 20 poker machines. We’re losing money hand over fist. How do I get rid of them?’ Well, they cannot. They have signed up to a deal for 20 years.

Other clubs and other venue operators would take on some of those machines because it suits their business structure, their business model, but they cannot because they are already at the maximum. Increasing this maximum allows some of the larger operators to be able to take on those licences and actually help some of our smaller clubs get off the hook on a licence they really do not want anymore when they are happy to move out of the gaming space. I think that is a great assistance to our smaller clubs or any club who decides they want to get out of the gaming scene and the poker machine scene for whatever reason, whether it is moral, ethical or profit driven. Whatever the reason, if they want to get out of the EGM scheme – the poker machines – they should be able to do that. This is not the silver bullet, but it certainly helps some of those clubs to be able to do that. This change primarily benefits, as I say, the small clubs to help them get out of this if they like. After review by various stakeholders no objections were raised to this reform, and we are certainly not opposing that change. I think it is a good step forward, allowing that to happen. I also want to point out that for the clubs in this space the total EGMs allowable per operator, at 840, was 6 per cent. Going from 840 up to 1260 now makes it 10 per cent. Now, let us keep that in perspective with the pub space. In pubs operators can have up to 35 per cent, so we are still a long way from where the pubs are. This is a significant improvement for clubs, so that is where we stand on that.

Clause 20 amends section 3.2A of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to substitute the number ‘1260’ for the number ‘840’. The effect of this amendment is that the number of club gaming machine entitlements that a venue operator may hold is increased from 840 to 1260 – and likewise, the sum of club gaming machine entitlements held by the entitlement holder and those that are held by one or more entitlement holders. So clause 20 touches on what I have just spoken about – that increase for clubs. Again, both clubs and pubs and their bodies, Australian Hotels Association (AHA) and Community Clubs Victoria, support that change as well.

Going back to clause 10 for a moment, which amends section 64A to postpone cashless gaming requirements, Crown has requested an extension of the $1000 cash limit for two years. This goes hand in glove with the gaming machines to make sure this technology all plays out rightfully and the compliance is in order. That is why the cashless gaming requirement change goes hand in glove. They certainly want to make sure that is extended by two years as well to ensure that compliance comes together as it should. There is still a significant change in patron behaviour required to comply with the reforms, the $1000 limits set to come into effect in December this year, which requires considerable operational resources.

Clause 12 allows for Crown to introduce external funding requirements, which will give patrons the ability to use the Crown wallet to externally transfer funds in and out of their account using a debit card.

I want to be clear: this is debit card only, not credit card, obviously, for good reason. If you want to gamble with your own money, it is one thing, but when you are starting to gamble on credit, it is very risky behaviour. The rollout of this technology and the Crown wallet will allow sufficient time for Crown to transition players to cashless gaming and mitigate the significant operational and financial impact of cash limits. This is going to assist Crown to transition to cashless gaming. As the current legislation stands, there is no ability to externally fund before the imposition of cash limits and such and no ability for Crown to transition patrons to cashless gaming. I know that Crown is currently working with the Department of Justice and Community Safety on regulations to retain harm minimisation measures.

In terms of economic contribution to Victoria’s economy and the significance that Crown offers, there is no argument. It is a $2 billion industry in Victoria, with 13,000 employees and over 1900 suppliers that it uses, so Crown is really important to the Victorian economy and certainly the tourist economy around Melbourne. Crown has invested $200 million in remediation efforts post the royal commission, for good reason. Nobody is trying to say that should not have happened. That is not something to hang their hat on, but I just know that they have invested $200 million to uphold the highest industry standards to try and make it the safest place to gamble in Victoria, and that is what we want.

Crown remain committed to the recommendations of the royal commission, and they have invested significantly in responsible gambling reforms. Since December 2023 Melbourne Crown has operated mandatory carded play in all electronic gaming machines, and all players engaging with EGMs at Crown Melbourne are now required to obtain and use a valid Crown player card, which is supported by the government’s YourPlay program. That is now working seamlessly, hence this two-year extension would make the rest of these cashless transactions and the carded play seamless as well through Crown. The card can be used to help track and monitor play with compulsory time and spend limits, providing the necessary guardrails to help ensure that players are better able to manage their gambling activity. That is so important, because as I said earlier, gambling harm not only affects the individual but families and spreads like wildfire through the family, and that is a major concern. Obviously people have gambling concerns, and that is why this legislation needs to come in.

Since the commencement of mandatory carded play, Crown has seen an average of 5000 player sign-ups per week, going from 18 registered YourPlay players in October 2022 to over 630,000 now at the end of August 2025. So the system is working. Let us face it, it has got to work – if you want to play the poker machines in Crown, you have got to have a card. This is living proof that this is heading in the right direction to try and help gambling harm and that the system is working, and no doubt when these other recommendations are brought into line, they too will support gambling harm minimisation.

With respect to mandatory carded play and traditional games, Crown has the option to use a manual approach, like I said, but this will increase the risk of regulatory noncompliance. I know that Crown is in the process of acquiring smart table technology at a cost of $40 million, which will assist in delivering these changes. We will see that roll out over the next six to 12 months in the trials, and then it will be fully going by 1 December 2027. The process will involve purchasing the smart tables, replacing all casino chips, integrating them into operations, training staff and informing customers about the necessary requirements, and the rollout will be complete and ready to go in 2027. If Crown does not get it right, it does not get this extension. It would cost a thousand jobs, and it would be a shame to see that happen. It is fair to say that Crown will make this target, and we want to see that happen.

I will just go on to the reforms that negatively impact pubs and clubs. I have been contacted by industry stakeholders, with them raising any concerns, and I am confident that the AHA and Community Clubs Victoria support this bill. I am confident in the knowledge that the club cap increase is unlikely to distort the broader market and the carded play deferral provides operational certainty at Crown.

There has been a bit of media around this extension. They have said that this will allow more money laundering at Crown. I think this is a little over the top. It is not recognising that it is because these mandatory changes are needed. It is just more time. It is just the essence of more time that is needed. It was also suggested that Crown is too close to government, and that is just a cheap shot at former Attorney-General Martin Pakula. That is the media having a go at him. His integrity has never been in question, and no doubt he is not about to lower his standards to appease the government of the day. Although I will not say that the government’s integrity has not been compromised over the years since his departure, Martin’s integrity remains intact.

As I said, we are not opposing this bill. Crown Casino will still comply with the recommendations of the royal commission. There will be a short extension, but it is an extension to ensure that the compliance can be achieved, that it is not rushed through too quickly and that no shortcuts are made in implementation, to make sure this goes seamlessly. We are not opposing the bill and hope it gets a speedy passage.

Josh BULL (Sunbury) (11:16): I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to make a contribution on the Casino and Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 and to follow on from the comments of the lead speaker from the opposition. I note the lead speaker has indicated that the opposition will not be opposing the bill. I think the 30-minute contribution that was provided was quite measured when it comes to the matters contained within this bill and the process by which the government is implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence and of course the matters of the Casino and Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.

As was mentioned previously, Crown Casino, since its commencement within this state down there on Southbank, has established itself as a premier entertainment precinct. That does not just go to matters of gaming, which I will come to a little bit later in the contribution, but of course to hospitality, restaurants, entertainment and many of the places that were mentioned by the previous speaker. There is of course the significance of the employment that is generated around the precinct and the connection to many of our major events – major events that increase tourism and contribute to the way in which this state operates each and every day.

What is most important and where this bill is particularly targeted goes to the royal commission that was held in this state and the report received by the government in 2021 with a range of recommendations that go to many of the concerning operations and issues that were occurring within the casino. I have, just in the time that the previous member was speaking, gone through again some of those recommendations within the more than 600-page report that was provided by the royal commission. They cover many of the matters that the previous speaker spoke about. Those issues that were really well canvassed go to many concerns that were addressed: the need for the royal commission in the first place, the need for the beefing up of powers and the importance of providing those recommendations that are in the report. There are a number of matters that go to data collection, with recommendation 12; gambling codes, with recommendation 11; and carded play, which I will talk to shortly. And there are a whole range of others that were found to be of serious concern and were identified within the process that was taken.

The genesis, in many ways, of the bill that is before the house this morning goes to those recommendations and improving the way that the casino is able to operate and the provisions and functions to which are contained within the gambling framework and the matters that go to harm minimisation within this state.

There is of course a series of work that is underway that goes to those matters, but what the bill before us this morning looks at is the amendment to the Casino Control Act 1991 to support the implementation of some of those royal commission recommendations which I have just spoken about and ensuring that the regulator, the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, has the powers needed to hold the casino operator to account. The bill also amends – and we heard this previously – the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to improve market flexibility, making it easier for community clubs that want to step back from gaming to do so without increasing the statewide cap on pokies.

This bill goes to making sure that those recommendations are implemented. I think what should be noted is the consideration and the time needed for those recommendations to be put in place properly. The consideration of all of the factors that go into the way the operation is occurring is significant, and I dare say that a number of members will touch on some of those wider economic benefits that go to matters that I spoke to earlier but also to the reforms, which are very, very important to increase the safety and protection around the way that gambling occurs, and to those recommendations and their implementation, which is of course why the royal commission was held in the first place.

The bill builds upon the nation-leading reforms that we have already implemented and are being implemented through pubs and clubs across the state: the mandatory carded play at Crown on EGMs, the precommitment, the mandatory 4 am to 10 am closure in pubs and clubs, the $100 load-up limits, the slower spin rates and of course the provisions for cash withdrawals from EFTPOS machines. Making sure that these are in place is incredibly important, but what the report found – and it is extensive at, as I mentioned earlier, over 600 pages – is that the government should make sure it has, via the regulator and through other functions and powers within both this and other legislation, the opportunity to provide for a safer environment, which goes to many of the concerns that were raised by the community.

What is also really important – and the lead speaker also touched on this – is the increases to penalties for noncompliance with direction from the regulator relating to the transformation plan. I have not touched on the transformation plan. It is long and comprehensive, as is the royal commission report, and that goes to the implementation of those measures that were contained to provide for a much safer environment. The increase of the penalties that I mentioned earlier relating to that transformation plan, from a $10,000 one-off fine up to $1 million per day, make for increased penalties and therefore lead to increased change.

The safeguards and provisions through the transformation plan, the work of the royal commission and indeed the powers that were provided through the previous reforms go to making sure that those practices that were identified and were really well canvassed in the royal commission have the opportunity to provide for further safeguards.

I note the comments that were made by the previous speaker as well. I certainly agree on the ever and ongoing change and challenge that exists within this space, but there is opportunity for jobs to be provided and economic activity to be driven, but also to be able to do so in a safe and appropriate manner.

It is of course about striking a balance. It is about making sure that these matters are dealt with. The commitment of the government to implement the recommendation stands, and it needs to stand in an appropriate way. But providing for a more structured and more timely approach gives the opportunity for the venue – ‘venues’ we could say; ‘venue’ in its entirety – to provide for a better set of circumstances to lead to a better outcome, and that is why this piece of legislation is important. It is why the government have worked closely with the regulator and closely with the venue to make sure that we arrive at this place, and then to be able to provide for the additional penalties that are in place is really important. It is sending a message that breaches are not okay and making sure that of course the work continues.

It is through these measures and the measures that I mentioned earlier – a number of those, which I am sure will be mentioned by other speakers – which go to providing that additional support and of course that certainty, as we move forward in this period of transition and transformation. It is really important that those opportunities occur and that the work is done. With those fairly brief comments, I will happily commend the bill to the house.

Brad ROWSWELL (Sandringham) (11:26): I rise to address the Casino and Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. In doing so, I give credit to the Shadow Minister for Gaming and Liquor, the member for Ovens Valley, for his leadership of this bill from an opposition perspective. As I plan to articulate in this contribution, this is an important bill. It is an important bill for Victoria’s broad economic stability and security, and it is an important bill because at this time in Victoria’s existence we need a little bit of positivity and we need more opportunity for people to retain highly paid jobs to be able to provide for themselves and their family.

In October 2021 the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence handed down some 33 recommendations, including mandatory carded play and 24-hour limits on cash deposits or withdrawals of up to $1000 per day. As the member for Ovens Valley described, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Casino Control Act 1991, to do a couple of things, including to extend the deadline for cashless gaming and mandatory carded play.

Crown Melbourne are the largest single employer in Victoria, with over 13,000 employees. Carded play has been adapted to all Crown EGMs and to their electronic gaming tables. For those who are playing along at home who do not know what electronic gaming tables are, those are the consoles where you can sit and play, for example, blackjack or roulette against a machine and not a real person. The traditional gaming tables, which are either serviced by a croupier or a dealer, with games like blackjack and roulette, make it somewhat more difficult to have a carded play system. This requires new technology – gaming tables that are in the final stages of development and trial but that will not be available by the 1 December deadline, as recommended by the royal commission. Therein lies the problem, the conundrum, which is one of the reasons why we are considering this bill today.

As I am advised, Crown Melbourne will miss their deadline from the royal commission for 100 per cent carded play in Crown Melbourne by 1 December 2025. To their credit, Crown are investing some $40 million to introduce this new technology and are working to implement this as soon as practicable. But unfortunately, this will not happen by 1 December 2025, hence they are seeking an extension for the traditional gaming tables to be converted to carded play until 1 December 2027. As the shadow minister has outlined, we will not oppose this bill. I dare say the Greens will bring on a division close to 5 pm tomorrow evening at the guillotine for the consideration of government business and government bills.

I dare say at this point we on this side of the house will indicate our support for the bill.

I have a couple of points. Firstly, it might be strange for me as a member of the opposition – the alternative government – to say this, but I would like to give credit to the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Mr Erdogan, in the other place for recognising the problem, for consulting with his stakeholders and for having the courage to bring forward through government processes, including cabinet processes, the bill which this house is considering today. I give to the credit to the minister for doing that, for a number of reasons. Firstly, I think that there are a number of members of the government and a number of members of the cabinet who would not be disposed to agree with such changes as are being proposed by the government in their bill today. In fact I am of the understanding that there were at least two cabinet ministers that vehemently opposed the bringing forward of this bill, possibly more, and I think it is important to give credit to the minister for standing up to those opponents, because I think that the bill before the house today is an entirely sensible outcome.

I also want to draw attention to the Greens party. I am sure at some point in the very near future they will come into this place and they will articulate, through their interpretation of what is reasonable and justifiable, why they oppose this bill. I say to those Greens members: you have on many occasions said that you are on the side – forgive me for using that phrase, Acting Speaker De Martino; that the Greens are on the side – of vulnerable Victorians. The Greens are on the side of the downtrodden. The Greens are the custodians of all that is morally upright and good and true. For those more measured and sensible amongst us – and I even look to the government benches and count a small selection of government members in that category – they are absolutely and utterly on the wrong side of history when it comes to this. The Greens party, by opposing this bill – which I am sure they will do, as indicated by their question to the Premier in question time just last week – are putting some 13,000 jobs of Victorians at risk. The 13,000 jobs equate to those employees of Crown Melbourne providing for some 13,000 families and offering those more than 13,000 Victorians the opportunity to provide for themselves and for their family and to stand on their own two feet.

To those not only in the Greens party but in the Twitterati and the broader commentariat who refer to this bill as a sweetheart deal for Crown Casino, let me be very clear: this is a piece of legislation that ensures that Crown Casino can continue to employ those 13,000 people that work onsite. The vast majority of workers at Crown come from the western, northern and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. They are largely made up of culturally and linguistically diverse Victorians from culturally and linguistically diverse communities in our state. What those people who say and refer to this bill as simply a sweetheart deal for Crown are doing is negating the dignity that every one of those 13,000 Victorians deserves, negating the dignity that those more than 13,000 Victorians not only deserve but have through the opportunity that employment at Crown provides. We speak about the dignity of work in some sort of metaphysical way, but the dignity of work is a real thing. It is a very real thing. It enables Victorians right around this state to provide for themselves, to provide for their family, to put a roof over their head, to provide for their children, to pay their bills – ever-increasing bills after 11 years of this Labor government.

But it is not just about employees; it is also about how much Crown spends in Victoria. Annually I am advised Crown spends some $417 billion in Victoria across over 1890 businesses, and the vast majority of those are in fact small to medium sized businesses. In fact in my own community I am advised that Crown spends some $1.2 million on SMEs. These are the same businesses that continue to feel the heat and the pain of 11 years of a Labor government here in this state. Whether it be through the payroll tax, whether it be the government’s emergency services tax, whether it be their COVID debt levy on medium to large businesses, whether it be land tax hikes hitting business and property owners or whether it be the ongoing WorkCover premium increases, the reality and the truth of the matter is that under this Labor government we in Victoria have the highest taxes in the country and the highest business taxes in the country. This is why the ANZ bank made their announcement yesterday, which all Victorians should be deeply concerned about.

Again, the opposition does not oppose this bill. We think it is the best thing to do at this time, especially to give those more than 13,000 Victorians who are employed at Crown the certainty they need and to give their families the certainty that they need also.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (11:36): We know that the Allan Labor government has led the nation in casino reform and in tackling gambling harm. We established the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence and are delivering on all 33 recommendations. This shows unequivocally our collective dedication to making sure that we do all we can to minimise gambling harm. We have spoken many times in the chamber about the significant impact that this kind of gambling can have on a person’s life – an addiction to gambling – hence the imperative to bring about the controls which we are discussing today. In particular, this bill gives the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) stronger powers, ensuring that we have a watchdog with the authority to hold Crown to account.

Crown is working towards delivering its commitments under the Melbourne transformation plan. What is that? Basically, it is a program of improved compliance, operations, customer experience, gambling harm minimisation and investment over the coming years. To make sure those commitments are met, the bill increases penalties for noncompliance with a direction from the regulator relating to the Melbourne transformation plan from a $10,000 one-off fine to up to $1 million a day. We can see therefore the unequivocal commitment to making sure that we do get correct and appropriate compliance with those regulations already in place and those that we are bringing into being. What this really is also doing is making sure that Crown cannot drag its feet on implementing reforms, because in anyone’s language $1 million a day would mount up very quickly. We are also extending regulation to Crown’s corporate associates, allowing discipline of parent holding companies and third-party partners. Importantly, this bill also strengthens money laundering safeguards by enabling cashless funding sources, paving the way for the commencement of daily cash limits. Together these changes give the government watchdog greater powers to monitor the casino’s activities and ensure stronger accountability.

I just do want to reiterate that our Allan Labor government is leading the way in reforms to limit Victoria’s exposure to gambling harm. That cannot be overstated. I certainly also commend the minister for her dedication and commitment. Of course we are absolutely collectively united unequivocally on these reforms, recognising the dangers that addictive gambling behaviour can cause.

Carded play has been in place at Crown since the end of 2023. So if we are looking at what reforms have been implemented in terms of practical measures to help minimise gambling harm, this has been implemented on all electronic gaming machines and will be extended to electronic table games this year. And now our nation-leading account-based play reforms are being trialled through three LGAs: Dandenong, Monash and Ballarat. This is giving players in pubs and clubs greater visibility over their gambling and empowering them to make safer choices – because I suppose fundamentally you cannot change a habit unless you are being really honest and confronting it and are absolutely aware of what you are actually doing. And without seeking to superimpose what it must be like to have a gambling addiction, I can imagine that with the significant emotional element to it, probably an element of that is blurring the line and underestimating the ramifications of those behaviours. So we are providing literally a mirror through these mechanisms for the person who is undertaking this gambling or who is using electronic gambling machines and the like. It means that they have better accountability, if you like, from a personal level in terms of what they are doing literally to themselves and of course anyone else who may be impacted by their behaviour.

The bill builds on and extends these reforms by making sure the next stage is implemented effectively with the right technology in place, so the reforms are delivered in full and can also stand the test of time. That includes mandatory carded play on traditional table games such as roulette and blackjack and the daily $1000 cash limit across the casino floor. I have to say, personally, I feel fortunate. I think I have tried an electronic gaming machine once, and I did not particularly enjoy it, and I am very glad that I did not enjoy it. But I can imagine, for those who do enjoy that activity, that there can be risks and temptation and perhaps exceeding what is a safe limit, so I am very pleased that we are continuing to strengthen the scrutiny with regard to gambling in terms of electronic gaming machines and other types of machines that one finds in a casino or maybe a local pub or club.

There are a couple of other points that I want to speak to. I see I have got a bit more time; that is good. Many community clubs want to step back from gaming – and I have heard this problem mentioned before, certainly in my local area as well – but cannot find buyers for their entitlements, which is certainly very frustrating and restrictive. This bill will help that by increasing the maximum number of entitlements a single club operator can hold, and so this reform will create more flexibility in the entitlement market, making it easier for community clubs that want to step back from pokies to find a buyer, while preserving the community benefits that clubs and RSLs provide. An important caveat with this, though: this change does not add a single new machine, the statewide cap remains in place and there are no changes to caps at individual venues or LGAs.

Really, the reforms that we are bringing about are building on Victoria’s record of nation-leading gambling reform. No other state has gone as far as Victoria to keep gaming safe and accountable. First off, we established the VGCCC, the strongest regulator in Australia, and we have already delivered reforms that have reshaped gaming in pubs and clubs across the state. What does this look like? We have mandatory carded play at Crown on electronic gaming machines; YourPlay statewide precommitment – the only jurisdiction in Australia with voluntary precommitment available on all EGMs; and mandatory 4 am to 10 am closures in pubs and clubs. And thinking about human beings and your acuity between 9 and 5 versus where you might be at those early hours of the morning and your ability to discern what is appropriate or not appropriate and whether you are looking after your best interests or otherwise, this is very sensible reform also to help temper decisions that might not be made with sufficient sleep and rest and appropriate temperance.

Slower machine spin rates – new EGMs must have a minimum 3-second spin, reducing the losses per hour, so you can see a pragmatic correlation there that is very sensible. Limiting EFTPOS cash withdrawals to $500 per card in 24 hours – again, tempering the potential losses that one might experience should one seek to gamble more than is relative to income and capacity or otherwise.

These are certainly some really strong and pragmatic reforms. I think it is pretty evident the rationale that underpins them. There has been a lot of hard work to implement these various measures to help make Victoria overall safer when it comes to, and to minimise the harms that can result from Victorians engaging in, the various types of gaming machines. I am very pleased, on that note, to be able to commend the bill to the house.

Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (11:46): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Casino and Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Gambling is always an area I have been interested in, professionally and personally – professionally because of the first shadow ministry that I had when I was elected. Way back in 2006 then leader Ted Baillieu appointed me as Shadow Minister for Gaming even before I was sworn in. That was the very first portfolio that I had. I was up against an up-and-coming young minister by the name of Daniel Andrews at the time – not the first time we faced off in this place. But it was a great area because it is both a regulatory portfolio and an economic portfolio and it has got some social issues as well. That is why it is a real art and a science to try and get the regulation right when it comes to the regulation of gambling.

We acknowledge that gambling is an activity that adults are entitled to undertake, but we also know that some significant harm can come from poor gambling choices and that can be devastating. Years ago, the Productivity Commission undertook a report into Australia’s gambling industries, and it found, I think, that about 0.7 per cent of the Australian population had very serious gambling problems and about 2.3 per cent of the population had mild to moderate gambling problems. While that is a relatively small proportion of the population, the devastation for those individuals and for their families was really significant. The fact that those problem gamblers – or people with gambling harm, to use the modern term – contributed a lot of the revenue to various gambling companies was an issue. And unfortunately we have seen an increase in the amount of crime that is been committed by people with gambling dependencies to try and feed those habits. Gambling harm has a significant spread right throughout the community, and this is why it is so important to get the regulation right.

When I was gaming minister from the end of 2010 to about March 2013 we introduced a number of reforms. We removed ATMs from pokies venues, which was a really important measure. It used to be that pokie venues would have ATMs and people could maybe set themselves an internal limit – ‘Maybe I’ll only spend $100’ – go up, play that $100, lose that $100 and then pop around to the ATM in the next room, get more money and keep gambling. The thinking behind removing ATMs from gambling venues was to require people to walk out of the venue and go down the street to find an ATM if they were desperate to do so. But even just that break, that walk, that time away from the machines gave people an opportunity to pause, to think and to reconsider whether they really wanted to go back in. Or the alternative was, because some people obviously still did need to access cash, you could undertake EFTPOS withdrawals, but only via a staff member.

Staff members in gaming venues are required to undertake responsible service of gambling training, and part of the RSG training involves identifying people who may be suffering from gambling harm and opportunities to provide information or to intervene in a discreet way to give people an opportunity to reconsider their actions. That was part of a number of suites of gambling reforms that were brought in under the former government, which I was very proud to lead as minister at the time.

We also established a body known as the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF). Previously, work that was done on problem gambling research, problem gambling counselling and support and even advertising, communications to people who are at risk of gambling harm, was all done in silos across government. We thought it made a lot more sense to consolidate these functions, to bring them together under one roof, and that roof would be called the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. As the author of that policy I can say I unashamedly ripped off VicHealth, because VicHealth has been an extremely successful model. Part of the VicHealth model is to have parliamentary representatives, because gaming policy from time to time becomes very politically contested, and I thought we were going to be able to get better outcomes and a more bipartisan view if we had a foundation board which had members of Parliament from across the political aisle. We would all have a seat at the table, we would all understand what actions were being taken and what research was driving those actions and therefore, hopefully, we would be able to have a more sustainable and cohesive approach as a Parliament to how we tackle gambling-related harms. We also needed more funding, because for all the money that governments make out of taxation on gambling, not a lot of that goes back into tackling gambling-related harm or preventing gambling-related harm. So in that first budget of that Liberals–Nationals government we increased by 41 per cent the total budget for the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

I do have to say I was extremely disappointed when this current government took the decision to abolish the VRGF last year. I think that was a retrograde step. We have now seen the functions of the responsible gambling foundation once again put into silos across different departments, and I think that that means there is a real risk that the importance of action to tackle gambling harm is going to be lost. I do not think we will have the same accountability that we had when we had the VRGF operating, and we will not have the same access to bipartisanship that we had when we had the VRGF operating. I cannot understand why the government did it other than potentially to save some money, and I do not think that is a good enough reason to have abolished a model that was effective. It was not a perfect model. There was an Auditor-General’s report which indicated there were ways in which that model could be improved, and I think that was something that people on all sides of Parliament would have been happy to accept. But I am disappointed that we did not see those recommendations adopted. Instead, the government decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater and simply abolish the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

In relation to the matters currently before us, obviously Crown Melbourne, under its previous ownership and management – and I stress, under its previous ownership and previous management – was found by the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence to be unsuitable to hold Victoria’s casino licence, in October 2021. As a consequence of that, a number of recommendations were made. I should just perhaps very briefly quote from the royal commission report:

Within a very short time, the Commission discovered that for many years Crown Melbourne had engaged in conduct that is, in a word, disgraceful. This is a convenient shorthand for describing conduct that was variously illegal, dishonest, unethical and exploitative.

That is a very damning finding. The government has attempted to implement a number of the recommendations arising from that Finkelstein royal commission. We are supportive of those recommendations being implemented. I had the opportunity to have a tour of Crown Melbourne, which I should say, under its current management and current ownership, seems to have really lifted its game a lot, and it needed to, given what it inherited. To see some of the safety and security technology that is operating down at Crown Melbourne, the facial recognition technology to identify people who have self-excluded or been excluded by regulators to make sure they cannot enter the premises or, if they do, they are removed very quickly – it is top notch.

The fact that there is already cardless play operating in relation to gaming machines is a very positive thing as well. Part of this bill is to extend the timeframe for the implementation of cashless technology on table games on the basis that it simply is not available to be implemented at this point in time. As the member for Ovens Valley and as the member for Sandringham mentioned in their contributions, we do not want to see jobs put at risk. While as legislators it is easy for us to write a law that says ‘You shall do this’, if the technology simply does not exist to do it at this time, then I think we need to be practical. I do think this bill is practical in that sense. For that reason the opposition does not oppose it. We do think Crown has an important place in Melbourne’s and Victoria’s tourism offerings and major event offerings.

I was at the My Room charity ball two weeks ago at the Palladium – a fantastic night. It raised a lot of money for My Room, which is a charity that supports kids with cancer at the Royal Children’s Hospital. I think Crown does a lot of good, but it does need to be kept on a strict regulatory leash, as does every operator in the gambling space, because the prospect of gambling harm is very real and can be quite devastating for those who experience it. On that basis we think this is a sensible bill, a pragmatic bill and one that gets the balance right, and the opposition will not be opposing it.

Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (11:56): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak about this bill. I am pleased that we have got consensus across the aisle. I hope to see this bill pass with good passage.

As Hansard will show, I have spoken about gambling and gambling harm on a number of occasions in this place. I think that the matter is one that is of importance to everybody in this place and to us as a society and a community, because gambling impacts so many lives. It reflects my passion about the issue, and I make no bones about the fact that I despise gambling, especially automated gambling, because I know the terrible toll which it takes on far too many people in our state, especially our elderly and our vulnerable. I consider it one of the most important duties of good government to do all that it can to eliminate gambling, mitigate the social evil and help those that it does impact to repair their lives.

But the numerous times that I have spoken on this matter in this place reflect something else too, and that is the work and serious action that this government has taken and is taking to tackle gambling head-on. Since the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence handed down its report in October 2021 this Labor government has completely overhauled the oversight of Victoria’s gaming industry and held Crown Casino accountable for the behaviour unearthed by the royal commission. We have established a dedicated gambling regulator and its own casino division to hold the casino and the industry to the highest standards of integrity. We have delivered on our commitments as a government. All royal commission recommendations have been implemented, are underway or have been enshrined in legislation for implementation.

This piece of legislation before us today, the Casino and Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, delivers on the government’s commitment to holding Crown to the highest standards on its day-to-day operation of the Melbourne casino. It proposes to increase scrutiny of Crown Melbourne and Crown Melbourne’s corporate associates and support the modernisation of casino operations and implementation of the royal commission reforms. It proposes to introduce tough new disciplinary action the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission can take against Crown and its corporate associates. Specifically, the legislation proposes to give the commission the power to, firstly, fine Crown up to $1 million for every day it fails to comply with a commission direction relating to the Melbourne transformation plan and, secondly, fine Crown’s corporate associates if they fail to respond to the regulator’s direction or fail to provide information to the regulator. The legislation also provides updated timelines to allow Crown to phase out cash at the casino, providing time to develop, test and roll out cashless technology and transition staff and customers to the new systems.

This bill amends the Casino Control Act 1991 to support the implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations and ensure the regulator has the powers that it needs to hold the casino operator to account. The bill also amends the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to improve market flexibility, making it easier for community clubs that want to step back from gaming to do so, without increasing the statewide cap on poker machines.

With this bill the Allan Labor government is holding Crown to account by arming the regulator with tough new powers to enforce compliance. The Allan Labor government continues to maintain a zero-tolerance policy for unlawful practices whilst delivering gambling harm minimisation across the entire system.

The Allan government has led the nation in casino reform and tackling gambling harm. We established the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence, and Crown accepted and is delivering on all 33 of the recommendations. This bill builds on those reforms by strengthening scrutiny and ensuring the royal commission reforms are delivered in full and for the long term. It gives the regulator, the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, or the VGCCC, as it is otherwise known, stronger powers, ensuring that we have a watchdog with the authority to hold Crown to account.

Crown says that it is working towards delivering its commitments under the Melbourne transformation plan, a program with improved compliance, operations, customer experience and investment in reducing gambling harm over the coming years. That is welcome, but I will believe all of these things when I actually see them. To make sure that those commitments are met, the bill increases penalties for noncompliance with the direction from the regulator relating to the Melbourne transformation plan from a $10,000 one-off fine to up to $1 million per day. This means that Crown cannot simply drag its feet on implementing these reforms. We are also extending regulation to the Crown’s corporate associates, allowing discipline of parent holding companies and third-party partners. And this bill strengthens money laundering safeguards by enabling cashless funding sources, paving the way for the commencement of daily cash limits. Together, these changes give the government watchdog greater powers to monitor the casino’s activities and ensure stronger accountability.

The Allan Labor government is leading the way in reforms to limit Victoria’s exposure to gambling harm. Carded play has been in place at Crown since the end of 2023 on all electronic gaming machines, and it will be extended to electronic table gaming this year.

I did a tour of the casino last year, and I have got to say it is an incredible building and an incredible space that many people have gone to. I know that some in this chamber have reflected on the varied activities that take place there. It is literally like a mini city. There are 13,000 staff at Crown Casino, of which, proudly, 368 live in Kororoit. There are 26 million visitors each year to the casino, and on weekends it is an absolute hub for social activity, with busy nights seeing over 100,000 patrons. Yes, there are bad elements to gambling, which I am not a fan of, but at the same time the casino does have many social activities which many people do enjoy and get to go to, and we are lucky to have it here in Victoria.

Our nation-leading account-based player reforms are being trialled across three local government areas, Dandenong, Monash and Ballarat, giving players in pubs and clubs greater visibility over their gambling and empowering them to make safer choices. This bill builds on and extends those reforms by making sure that the next stage is implemented effectively with the right technology in place so that reforms are delivered in full and stand the test of time. I look forward to them being rolled out in all electorates, especially in my electorate of Brimbank and Melton, where we have, unfortunately, the biggest losers in the state. That includes mandatory carded play on traditional table games such as roulette and blackjack and a daily $1000 cash limit across the casino floor.

This government was always clear, when we announced these reforms, that they depended on technology that does not yet exist – smart tables and RFID-enabled chips – which is why we adopted a staged implementation. Without that technology, enforcement would rely on manual dealer processes that are prone to error and abuse, making the reforms obviously harder to deliver. By updating the commencement timeline the bill provides the time needed for the technology to be rolled out, tested and made sure that it is all okay. These reforms will still be delivered in full, but they will be delivered properly, ensuring that Crown is held to account and Victoria continues to lead the nation in reducing gambling harm. The minister also retains the power to bring forward the date if the technology is ready earlier.

Many community clubs want to step back from gaming but cannot find buyers for their entitlements. This bill helps that by increasing the maximum number of entitlements a single club operator can hold. This reform will create more flexibility in the entitlement market, making it easier for community clubs that want to step back from pokies to find a buyer, while preserving the community benefits that clubs and RSLs provide to the community.

We have seen this work before. When the cap was last lifted in 2017, it enabled AFL clubs to leave gaming altogether and strengthen the social licence. Most importantly, this change does not add a single new machine. The statewide cap remains in place, and I think that is a very important thing to reflect on. There are no changes to the caps in any of the local government areas.

This bill builds on Victoria’s record of nation-leading gambling reform, and no other state has gone as far as Victoria. We established the VGCCC, which is the strongest regulator in Australia, and we have already delivered reforms that reshaped gaming in pubs and clubs across the state, including mandatory carded play; the YourPlay statewide precommitment; the mandatory 4 am to 10 am closures in pubs and clubs; the $100 load-up limit, which is down from $1000; the slower machine spin rates; limiting EFTPOS cash withdrawals to $500 per card in 24 hours; and a statewide EGM pokies cap until 2042, freezing the total number of pokies in our state.

This legislation also builds on our reforms at Crown Casino. These include mandatory registered carded play on all electronic gaming machines, including electronic tables from this year; binding precommitment limits on EGMs, helping players manage their gambling and avoid harm; load-up limits reduced from $2000 to $1000, so that patrons cannot load large sums into a machine all at once; player activity statements; limits on hours of play; and a ban on junkets. This bill is the next step in the record, ensuring that Crown reforms are locked in and that harm minimisation continues.

Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (12:06): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

The reason that the debate should be adjourned is because there are so many more important things that this Parliament should be discussing for the benefit of Victorians. The reason that we are here in this house, in the people’s house, is to represent the issues that are most important to Victorians, and right now the most important issue to Victorians is the soaring crime crisis here in Victoria under the watch of the Labor government.

Certainly there are many motions on the notice paper that could be discussed that are of significant importance. I mean, a motion was put to the house today that, sadly, this Labor government, this tired Allan Labor government, denied us speaking on. The fact is this Labor government and the Deputy Premier moved to silence the opposition and to silence the Leader of the Opposition from raising serious matters of violent crime here in Victoria, and what that ultimately does is to silence the voices of victims of crime.

Only last weekend we saw the horrific, brutal murders of two children, and being a mum of two teenagers myself, I cannot even imagine the anguish and the pain for the parents, the families and the friends of the 12-year-old and the 15-year-old who were brutally hacked to death by machetes. Machetes and the crime caused by machetes and gangs in this state are of unacceptable proportions, and yet the Labor government takes no action. Time after time they want to have meetings and they want to set up taskforces – they are not taking the action, and that is precisely why we want to adjourn debate right now. We want to be debating the topic that is of immediate importance to Victorians, and that is Victoria’s crime crisis. Dare I say, we could also be talking about the cost-of-living crisis, but most pertinent to Victorians right now is the fact that they do not feel safe in their own homes. Victorians do not feel safe in their own homes. They do not feel safe going out on the street just for a walk. Young children are not safe leaving a sporting precinct to go home. Our stores, our shops, our shop owners and our local supermarkets do not feel safe. Young retail workers are not safe in their shops. Even in my own electorate, local supermarkets in Mooroolbark and in Montrose have been attacked by machete-wielding thugs.

This is what matters to Victorians right now. This is precisely what we should be debating and why we should be adjourning this debate. I am not saying we should not talk about regulating the casino, but frankly, the fact that people are terrorising people in their homes, in their shops, on their streets and in shopping centres with machetes, terrorising Victorians – that is what we should be debating and discussing in this chamber right now, discussing the reforms that are crucial and critical to stopping this escalating violent crime. That is what we should be discussing.

The crime crisis in Victoria has soared. The statistics are damning of this Allan Labor government. They have been in power for 10 years, the Andrews and Allan Labor government. Labor in power for 10 years – and crime is escalating at record-high levels. It is just disgraceful.

Even in my own electorate in the Yarra Ranges, aggravated burglary is up a staggering 177 per cent. These are people in their own homes in Lilydale, in Mooroolbark, in Chirnside Park who are being terrorised – terrorised in their own homes, on their private property. These are the matters that are important to Victorians right now, and it is precisely why we should be adjourning debate. And I know that these are the matters that the opposition has been leading on. We are here because we want to give voice to the victims of crime. We want to give voice to the victims of crime, but what we saw in the chamber yesterday was a disgrace. We had the Labor government, led by the Premier, led by the Deputy Premier, silencing the Leader of the Opposition, silencing the opposition in disgraceful scenes. We were actually raising the serious matters of a 50-odd-year-old woman who had been carjacked violently and of a 12-year-old who had been hacked to death by a machete. These are terrible, terrible circumstances on the streets of Victoria, and yet all Labor wanted to do was distract, divert and silence the opposition, and it was a pure disgrace.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (12:11): I stand to speak against this appalling stunt of a motion. We are here to protect and look after the people of Victoria, not to play political games. One of the reasons that we are seeing extremism across our state is because we are seeing the denigration of the very institutions that make up our democracy, and for that contribution to suggest that the Speaker is in some way silencing debate is an appalling denigration of the most important institution in our democracy. I am appalled.

I am further appalled: we hear the member for Evelyn telling us that she is the mother of small children and she is fearful of crime. Let me tell the member for Evelyn: I am the mother of two boys who no longer have a father in this country, who no longer have a farm that they can inherit, because their father –

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the father in Cobblebank no longer has a son. This is a disgrace from –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Evelyn, you can resume your seat. There is no point of order.

Michaela SETTLE: My children no longer have a father in this country or a farm to inherit because of gambling – because of the dreadful harms of gambling. And for you to come in here, for the other side to come in here, and bring in this stunt just to score another front page of the Herald Sun while they leave thousands and thousands of families and people in this state vulnerable to gambling harm is truly, truly abhorrent.

This is a stunt and nothing more. This is an adjournment of an incredibly important bill, and they come in here just to score political points. The Speaker yesterday named the Leader of the Opposition. It was the Speaker, and she is the most important person in this building –

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, members are required to be factual, and it was actually the Labor government, the Deputy Premier, who moved the motion.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Evelyn, there is no point of order. Member for Evelyn, resume your seat.

Michaela SETTLE: The Speaker named the opposition leader yesterday. This was not the government. This was the impartial and most important person in this institution. If those on the other side want to continue to denigrate the very institutions that support our democracy, we end up with extremism in this state. And they should think long and hard about how important their political skins are when they are putting our state at risk.

But I go back to the fact that they are adjourning off a bill that matters to thousands and thousands of Victorians – people like me and people like my family, who have seen the very, very awful harms that gambling can bring. But no, they would see us thrown to the dogs for their political games.

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, Rulings from the Chair from Speaker Edwards, pages 54 and 55, says language should not be used to disparage colleagues personally. I think the member on her feet is using language – to say that I want to ‘throw people to the dogs’, I think is quite disparaging. I take personal offence, and I ask you to ask her to withdraw.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): It has been a robust debate. I did not hear language that was directed towards specific members, but I ask that all members observe the protocols of the house.

Michaela SETTLE: It certainly was not directed at any particular member; it was directed at the entire opposition – the entire Liberal–National opposition, who will play games while people in Victoria suffer and their families suffer from gambling harm. But no, all of those on the other side, not just the member for Evelyn, would protect their own political skins before they would look after Victorian people and Victorian families. This motion for adjournment is nothing more than a stunt, but one day they will face people at the booths, at the boxes, and they will understand that Victorians care about gambling harm. Victorians want their government to come in here and make legislation that protects their families and their communities, not come in here and play games so they can get another bit in the Herald Sun, another grab on TikTok.

James NEWBURY (Brighton) (12:16): I support the motion to adjourn debate because what we saw yesterday was an absolute disgrace. It was an absolute disgrace from this government, silencing the opposition from speaking on behalf of victims of crime. Ignore the government claiming that this bill does something to protect people. What this is is a sweetheart deal for Crown. This bill is a sweetheart deal that has been done between the Labor Party and Crown. That is what this bill does: it delays protecting people by two years. That is what this bill does. So anyone who cries crocodile tears about this bill somehow providing protection does not even understand what they are doing.

Paul Mercurio: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is a tight procedural debate. I ask you to bring the member back to the procedural debate.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Hastings, there is no point of order.

Michaela Settle: On a further point of order, Acting Speaker, I take very real personal offence at the suggestion that –

James Newbury: I didn’t say anyone’s name.

Michaela Settle: I have been the only speaker on this bill so far, so it can only have been directed at me. To suggest that I cry crocodile tears when my family has been ripped apart by gambling harm is obscene and offensive, and I take offence.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Eureka, I did not hear language that was directed personally towards members. But before the member for Brighton resumes, this is an emotive debate and I would ask all members to be respectful of colleagues.

James NEWBURY: Of course, Acting Speaker. Yesterday this government removed the opposition from speaking on behalf of victims of crime. The Deputy Premier moved the motion. I understand that the backbench do not understand what occurred yesterday, and that is okay, but the Deputy Premier moved the motion.

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, like the point of order that was used by the other side, we need to be factual – it was the Speaker who named the Leader of the Opposition.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): It is not for the Speaker to adjudicate on debate.

James NEWBURY: We saw the opposition removed from this chamber because they were speaking on behalf of victims. We saw –

Mary-Anne THOMAS: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member for Brighton knows full well that he cannot stand in this place and tell lies. The opposition walked out of the chamber yesterday in complete disrespect of the Speaker.

Wayne Farnham: Further to the point of order, Acting Speaker, the Leader of the House knows she cannot say lies. She knows that is unparliamentary. I would ask you to call her back to order.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): I call the entire house to order. Member for Brighton, I would ask you to ensure that your debate and your contribution are accurate and we carry on with some decorum.

James NEWBURY: I appreciate the fact that you only made that advisory remark to the opposition. It is disappointing, and it just shows the point.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Brighton, do not reflect on the Chair, please.

James NEWBURY: I am not reflecting on the Chair. I am stating a fact. What concerns the opposition – this is outrageous.

Michaela Settle: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, he has ignored your ruling not to reflect on you and continued to reflect on your good service, as indeed they do in all institutions in this place.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): There is no point of order.

James NEWBURY: This house knows and Victoria knows the Premier hid from the media for two days after two kids died. She refused to do media and refused to condole on behalf of those children. The media know it, Victoria knows it and this Parliament knows it.

Daniela De Martino: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, this is a procedural motion, and the member for Brighton has gone so far beyond the procedural motion to adjourn debate on the bill at hand.

Bridget Vallence interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Evelyn, I will adjudicate on the point of order without assistance. It has been a robust debate, but I ask the member for Brighton to return to the substance of the motion.

James NEWBURY: You can see that the government is trying to cover the fact that the Premier hid for days.

Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (12:22): Can I say my heart is filled with sadness for victims of crime –

Nicole Werner: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the member for Eureka’s comments around the dead bodies of two children.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Warrandyte, is there a point of order?

Nicole Werner: Yes, I take offence to her statements talking about –

Members interjecting.

Nicole Werner: If I could finish my point of order –

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): There is no point of order. Member for Warrandyte, I did not hear language that was directed personally towards anybody. I am not sure where offence has been taken. I do not believe there is a point of order. You can raise it with the Speaker subsequently.

Lauren KATHAGE: As I was saying –

Bridget Vallence interjected.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Evelyn, if you are reflecting on the Chair, I do not think it is appropriate. I am listening to the debate. It has been a robust debate. There are a lot of people speaking concurrently, and I am doing my best to listen to the debate across the house.

Lauren KATHAGE: As I have been trying to say, I am filled with sadness for victims across Victoria and for what they have experienced, and the behaviour of those opposite fills me with shame standing here. This is the Parliament of Victoria, and those opposite are taking the sadness of victims and treating it with contempt as a political football – shame. This is a place where we seek to improve lives for victims. That is why we are here talking about victims of gambling. I myself, the member –

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, this is precisely why we want to talk about the victims of crime, because the Labor government silenced us yesterday.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Evelyn, what is the point of order?

Bridget Vallence: The point of order is that the member is misleading the house, quite frankly.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Iwan Walters): Member for Evelyn, there is no point of order.

Lauren KATHAGE: As I said, the Leader of the Nationals opposite and I sat and listened to the voices of gambling victims in our role in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. This is part of the broad work this government is doing to make life better for victims of gambling, and they are seeking to stop that by adjourning the debate. They are the ones that are standing in the way of improvement for victims, and their behaviour, frankly, brings shame on the whole house. I ask them to put victims first and stop making it about them, about politics and about their own personal ambitions. That is shameful.

Can I be really clear that there is a separation – there is no connection between sadness for victims and what happened yesterday. Most of us here have been put out of the chamber at a different stage – I know I have, certainly, and everyone I see here has been. Yesterday I saw in a workplace a woman being yelled at. I saw aggression towards a worker here, and as is the case with every other member of Parliament, they were put out. If it was footy and someone treated the umpire like that, they would be put off for four weeks. Here somebody is put out, and they throw the dummy out of the pram.

Nicole Werner: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I take personal offence at the member for Yan Yean’s statements, because she speaks about respect for women every single day in this place, and the respect that is shown to the women on this side of the house is absolutely disrespectful. The Manager of Opposition Business knows it – they disrespect her every day she stands on her feet. I take offence.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Warrandyte, a point of order is not an opportunity for further debate.

Tim Richardson interjected.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mordialloc can leave the chamber for 20 minutes.

Member for Mordialloc withdrew from chamber.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear the member for Warrandyte referred to directly. References to a collection of members are a matter for debate, not a matter of imputation. The member to continue. Let us do it calmly.

Lauren KATHAGE: I feel I am being silenced by people who wish to continue to take offence not letting us speak.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (12:27): I rise to support the member for Evelyn’s motion to adjourn this debate, and I would like to point out a few of the facts about what this bill is actually about. Firstly, the motion is to adjourn debate on the Casino and Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The government members seem to be under some misapprehension about what the casino bill is actually about. I have the utmost sympathy and empathy for the member for Eureka for her personal circumstances with gambling. This is actually legislation that delays introducing further reforms to protect people from problem gambling – delays it by two years. Government members do not seem to understand that about this bill. Those of us on this side are supporting this legislation, as we did two years ago when it was first brought in. But please be under no misapprehension, anyone who is watching this: this legislation is not acting swiftly to reduce gambling harm, it is actually delaying it for two years.

To the member for Yan Yean, who is so upset and sad about the undermining of democracy: this is what democracy is. This is the opportunity for the chamber, the people’s chamber, to actually debate issues. It is an absolute right of any member of this chamber to stand up at any time and move an adjournment motion, as the member for Evelyn has done, to tackle the issues that are important to Victorians, to tackle the issues that are important to regional Victorians.

Those opposite speak about respect and disrespect – ask the people who were protesting at the bush summit in Ballarat a couple of weeks ago, or on the steps of Parliament on the day of the budget, how much respect they are getting from this government on issues like the emergency services tax, when farmers were facing a 150 per cent increase in the bill that they are getting; when every single household, every single resident, every single commercial property is getting their bill right now with a 100 per cent increase in the rate of the emergency services tax they are paying; and when every industrial property is facing a 64 per cent tax increase.

The member for Eureka, the member for Yan Yean, the member for Ripon – everyone on that side all supported the legislation to approve that tax. They stand condemned, and we should be debating issues like this. At a time of a cost-of-living crisis –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, on relevance, Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Nationals is now talking about issues that have nothing to do with the motion that is before the house. I ask that you rule him out of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Nationals had, I think, just mentioned the word ‘adjournment’, and I encourage him to continue on the adjournment procedural motion.

Danny O’BRIEN: In debating the matter before us, I am explaining why I think we need to be adjourning this legislation, to go on to other matters of importance – matters such as the government’s complete failure on energy, not just what it is doing in the energy sphere but what it is doing to regional Victorians with its steamrolling attitude.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, again on relevance, the motion is to adjourn the debate to talk about a specific issue, none of which the Leader of the Nationals has raised in his contribution.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Especially in this debate that has become wider than it probably should have been, the Leader of the Nationals is allowed to rebut other members and also contrast his reasons for adjournment.

Danny O’BRIEN: The actual debate is about why we want to adjourn, and that is exactly why I am saying it, Deputy Speaker, so I thank you for your ruling.

We look at the energy sphere. As I said, the government talks to us repeatedly about how it is getting prices down, down, down. We all remember that from the minister. Yet every single household and business is seeing their prices just go up, up, up at the same time that the government is actually disrespecting regional communities, removing the right of them to appeal at VCAT if they are opposed to a renewable energy or transmission project. It is just extraordinary that a government led by a Premier supposedly from regional Victoria who got elected on the back of discontent, she readily reminds us, is actually taking away the voices of regional Victoria. The Nationals and Liberals will give that voice back. That is the sort of thing that we should be debating. We should be actually talking about that, because that policy was introduced by regulation. There was no legislation. This chamber did not actually get the opportunity to even debate that. We would actually make sure that we will give the voice back to regional Victorians, whether it is on things like the VNI West project, whether it is on transmission lines through my electorate and things like offshore wind, whether it is renewable energy projects in general. The government is stifling the voice of regional Victoria. The Nationals and Liberals will give it back. Those are exactly the sorts of things that we should be debating in this chamber.

Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (12:32): It seems that those opposite might have some confusion with the time on their clocks, be it on their phones or their wrists. It is not a grievance debate; it is not a matter of pubic importance – that happens at 4 o’clock. This motion to adjourn debate has turned into a word salad with the greatest hits of the opposition’s pack of stunts that they hold in their hands like a magician with a deck of cards trying to distract all those around them –

Sam Groth: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I believe you ruled in favour of the Leader of the Nationals in your recent ruling in regard to the process in which this debate is being taken, and the member for Monbulk is reflecting on your rulings.

Daniela DE MARTINO: On the point of order, there was absolutely no reflection on you as Chair, Deputy Speaker. It was a reflection on the behaviour of those opposite.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will rule on the point of order. The member was being relevant to the debate that we are all in the middle of. There is no point of order.

Daniela DE MARTINO: Again, as I was saying, this is like a magician, but with a very tired, very sad deck of cards, trying to distract from the fact that those opposite are absolutely bereft of proper policies. All they have are slogans and a high-level paternalistic statement, because I suspect they cannot actually decide on any in-depth policies beyond ‘Tough on crime and lower taxes’. That is about all they have in that deck of cards of theirs.

I would like to correct for the record the exact events of yesterday during question time, where we saw some of the most disgraceful behaviour from the Leader of the Opposition towards the Speaker of the house. I watched, and I saw from here with my eyes the aggression on the face of that man. May I just say that with the tradition here, the actual convention is the Speaker names a person and then the requirement is that the minister at the table must move the motion.

The government did not eject; the Speaker named. Those opposite may want to brush up on standing orders and how this place works. The member for Brighton may well laugh, but perhaps there is irony in the laughter, potentially. My point is that with this motion to adjourn debate we are seeing off an incredibly important bill. The member for Eureka spoke with absolute conviction and passion, as did the member for Yan Yean. We take offence – but not the kind of offence where we are going to raise a point of order on it – that this stunt has occurred again. It is fundamentally terrible to hear the Leader of the Nationals say, ‘This is democracy.’ Actually, democracy generally requires good faith on all parts for it to work well, and at the moment it feels like there is a lack of it.

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, if the Labor government had any good faith, they would be discussing the violent crime in Victoria right now. I would ask you to ask the member on her feet to come back to the relevance of why we should adjourn the debate to deal with the soaring crime crisis.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Relevance – thank you, member for Evelyn. The member will continue on the procedural motion.

Daniela DE MARTINO: Continuing on the procedural motion, it is incredibly, fundamentally disappointing to see this stunt pulled again. I tend to speak on procedural motions, and I tend to do them far more often than I would like to because we see the stunt that comes from those opposite: it is to interrupt, it is to create headlines out of this place – what a disingenuous way of going about things.

I do have to say that this bill before the house at the moment that they seek to adjourn is incredibly important. It goes far beyond what has been alluded to by those opposite who have not yet spoken on it. But I sat in that chair previously and I heard the contributions, and I also heard the full support of those opposite. So to stand up and say counter to that is quite interesting, to say the least. At the end of the day, this is baseless, and it should be absolutely condemned.

Assembly divided on Bridget Vallence’s motion:

Ayes (26): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, 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, David Southwick, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Nicole Werner, Rachel Westaway, Jess Wilson

Noes (50): Jacinta Allan, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Eden Foster, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, John Lister, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (12:43): It gives me great pleasure to rise and contribute in favour of this incredibly important bill this afternoon – a bill that is incredibly important not just to a lot in our community but to a lot in this chamber as well. I acknowledge the member for Eureka, who has been quite open about how gambling harm has affected her life and the lives of her family in the past.

The Allan Labor government has a long track record of implementing reforms to ensure the safety of local punters. That is why we established the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence and have committed to delivering every single one of the 33 recommendations. This bill goes to a suite of those recommendations.

Do not get me wrong, gambling is a legitimate pastime here in Australia and in Victoria and a legitimate pastime that I engage in from time to time, whether that be horseracing or sport or maybe playing cards at the casino. But it is a genuine and legitimate pastime that from time to time requires government intervention to save some people from themselves, and that is exactly what the very reasonable steps included in this piece of legislation do. They make it easier or put guardrails in place for people that have identified themselves as problem gamblers – people that are finding it difficult to stop, that are gambling too much and that are experiencing harm because of it – to have easy mechanisms in place to encourage them to gamble in a more responsible manner.

The government is not all-seeing and all-knowing; we cannot absolutely guarantee that we or our reforms will always be able to save people from harm. But we are committed to creating the settings to make it easier for problem gamblers that are causing harm to themselves and to their families and to their community to gamble in a more responsible manner.

This bill supports those royal commission recommendations and also ensures that the regulator, which is the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC), has the powers it needs to hold casino operators and pubs and clubs to account. The gambling industry for some time has been somewhat of a self-regulator in this space. I think we have seen corporate bookmakers probably lead the way in respect to self-regulation on gambling harm. I am sure anyone that has a punt on sport or on the horses has seen for some time many prompts on their corporate bookmaker app to set deposit limits so they can set what they are prepared to lose at the beginning of having a bet, which is incredibly important. It is incredibly important, obviously, that you are not gambling with money that you do not have, that you are not gambling with money that is set aside for food or for bills or for rent. But what we have seen, unfortunately, is that venues, pubs and clubs with pokie machines and Crown Casino, are a fair way behind on that. They have I think for some time either failed or just not been able to appropriately, in a meaningful way, self-regulate to make it easier for people that are experiencing gambling harm to really be able to set a healthy limit as to what they may spend whilst having a bet. With that, I think it is important to take a moment to acknowledge the harm that gambling has and has the potential to cause to Victorians, to Victorian families and to communities in general, and protecting Victorians from that is an utmost priority for this government.

For those that attend Crown from time to time, they would have noticed that since 2023 carded play has been in place there for electronic gaming machines, pokie machines – I do not think the venues like you calling them pokie machines anymore, but just for my benefit, that is what I will. That has been in place since 2023, and now our nation-leading account-based play reforms are being trialled across three LGAs, Dandenong, Monash and Ballarat. This system I know has been in place in other states for some time in their casinos. If you think about South Australia, I believe carded play has been active in that Adelaide casino – why you would ever want to go to the Adelaide casino is beyond me, if you have ever been there. It has been in play there I think for the better part of a decade, if not more. Nick Xenophon was a pretty significant driver of that back in his days as an independent representative in the Senate, being from South Australia. So that gives pubs and clubs greater visibility, obviously, over people that may be harming themselves through gambling, but it also helps people that would like to have a bet – as I said, it is a legitimate pastime – and that would like to engage in that legitimate pastime but may be concerned about their capacity to gamble in a healthy manner or may be concerned about their capacity to stop gambling once they have started.

So there is carded play, and there is a maximum deposit that you can put onto that card, which has come I think down to $100 from $1000, so you can limit the amount that you are going to spend on pokie machines before you begin, hopefully reducing that harm and only potentially losing what you can afford to lose.

The bill is also increasing scrutiny of the casino and ensuring that the royal commission reforms are delivered in full, and for the long term it gives the VGCCC stronger powers to hold Crown to account. That is incredibly important. We saw out of the royal commission, frankly, some unscrupulous behaviour by Crown Casino. I do not think anybody can deny that. Making sure of that scrutiny and those guardrails and transparency around the way the Crown Casino operates is incredibly important to holding Crown Casino to account. But it is obviously also just incredibly important to reduce gambling harm in Victoria, which I think everybody in this chamber thinks is a positive thing. Like I said, I am not anti-gambling, but I think where we can provide guardrails to help save people from themselves in respect to gambling harm, we should do so.

Crown Casino, as has been mentioned in previous contributions, is far more than a place to gamble. It is far more than a gambling venue. It is an entertainment venue with fantastic restaurants, retail outlets, a cinema, a huge arcade that my children love and accommodation as well. It is economically, both from employment and economic revenue, incredibly important to this state. But it is also of vital importance that we hold Crown to account when they have done something wrong and that we make sure that those attending Crown who may be vulnerable people that may harm themselves through gambling have the capacity to have those guardrails in place to reduce the possibility of that happening.

To make sure that these commitments from the royal commission are met, we are also increasing penalties for noncompliance with a direction from the regulator relating to the Melbourne transformation plan from a $10,000 once-off fine up to $1 million per day, which means that Crown cannot drag its feet on these reforms. I would hope that creates an enormous disincentive for Crown and the operator to do anything wrong or unscrupulous. As I have said throughout this contribution, gambling harm is a problem in Victoria, and we need to make sure that we put those guardrails in place to help vulnerable people.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (12:53): I too rise to speak on the Casino and Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. Victorians expect this Parliament to put the interests of the community ahead of those in the gambling industry. They expect the government to protect families from harm, not to postpone the hard-won protections that the government has already promised. This bill does contain some modest good steps. It strengthens the regulator’s hand against Crown and its related companies, including new powers to discipline corporate associates, and it lifts penalties so that the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC), which can already fine Crown up to $100 million, can impose an additional $1 million per day if Crown ignores directions tied to its Melbourne transformation plan.

The bill creates a new category called a ‘corporate associate’, for example a holding company. If one of these companies fails to cooperate with the regulator, does not give required information or is found unsuitable, the VGCCC can issue a censure letter or a fine up to $1 million. Those changes are a response to the royal commission era and the long list of breaches that led to Crown’s $450 million AUSTRAC penalty. We support stronger enforcement and clearer lines of accountability. But the same bill delays life-saving harm reduction measures and delays implementation of royal commission recommendations against money laundering, which we know fuels organised crime.

We have been hearing a lot about crime lately in this chamber, and I am sure we are going to hear more calls for locking up teenagers for longer and promises from the government to increase the number of unsentenced prisoners in this state. But this is a bill which will allow gangsters to continue to disguise the profits of their crime as casino winnings. So this bill is not just soft on crime, it is aiding and abetting it.

Let us look at what it does. It pushes back the start date for key cashless controls – from limits on cash accepted on the casino floor to identity verification and paying larger wins electronically – from 1 December this year to 1 December 2027, so that is two years more of money laundering for organised crime. It also defers the application of the carded play division to 2027, even as it technically clarifies that carded play is required across table games. In plain terms the bill slows the rollout of the very tools – cashless gaming and mandatory player cards – that help people set limits, that curb money laundering and that stop losses from spiralling. This bill is a step backwards.

Let us remember why carded play matters: when people must use a card, set a limit, verify who they are and receive large payouts electronically rather than in cash, the data show who is playing, how much and whether interventions are needed to reduce gambling harm and avoid money laundering. Experts have been clear for years: precommitment and design changes perform better than posters and pamphlets. Those are the measures that actually reduce harm. Technical rollout issues are solvable; other jurisdictions already run precommitment systems. The only real question is whether Victorian Labor has the political will to switch it on now, not in two years.

We should be honest about the scale of the problem. Victorians lose billions to poker machines every year, with the heaviest losses in lower income suburbs. Even Labor MPs have called this a moral issue inside their own caucus. Meanwhile, budgets continue to rely on gaming taxes over the forward estimates. This is precisely why delayed protections are so dangerous: the longer we wait, the more people are harmed and the more reliant the budget becomes on that harm.

Campaigners have been vocal. The Alliance for Gambling Reform and chief advocate Tim Costello have condemned these delays, saying we cannot keep postponing reforms that prevent addiction and save families from financial ruin. They are right. We heard the same message when the government missed earlier milestones and then delayed the statewide carded play trial. The pattern is delay, consultation and more delay, while losses keep mounting.

Delaying carded play also delays anti-money-laundering protections. At their core carded play and cash rules are not just about harm minimisation; they are also frontline controls against money laundering. This bill pushes back two pillars of that control at the casino until 1 December 2027. The first is the $1000 per day cash acceptance cap, and the second is the rule that winnings or credits over $1000 must be paid electronically and only after ID is verified. Those two levers make it much harder to wash cash via a rapid buy-in and cash out or to cycle illicit money through machines and walk away with clean funds.

The explanatory memorandum for the bill says the delay is to support ‘effective operationalisation’, but a delay is still a delay, and during that time the cash status quo remains easier to exploit. In other words, money laundering will just keep on going for another two years because of this bill. Even the government’s own notes make clear that these settings are about phasing out large cash payouts and tightening traceability. The explanatory memorandum explains that the bill expands how cashless gaming accounts can be funded – like through EFT from a patron’s own bank account – to support the eventual phasing out of large cash amounts at the casino. In other words, the destination is traceable non-cash play, but this bill moves the arrival date out two years at precisely the moment we should be locking in protections against money laundering.

We do not have to guess about the risks. The Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence heard direct evidence from Victoria Police that the casino’s cash-heavy environment has long been attractive to criminals wanting to turn illicit notes into apparently legitimate funds. One experienced officer explained the standard method in plain terms.

Sitting suspended 1:00 pm until 2:02 pm.

Business interrupted under standing orders.