Tuesday, 27 May 2025

Bills

Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Harriet Shing:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (13:48): I rise to speak on the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024, a piece of legislation that has been long anticipated. Despite the abrupt timing, I welcome the opportunity to address the bill, which has been nearly two years in the making – not that the government ever took this to the last election. There are a number of things that the Liberals and Nationals have called for, and I understand the minister will be making some sort of statement on these issues later, either in or prior to committee, and I will welcome his contributions on that.

We on this side of the chamber – at least I speak for myself – acknowledge that many Victorians suffer as a result of gambling-related harm, whether directly or indirectly, and we are absolutely supportive of efforts to minimise gambling-related harm within the Victorian community. As a, I guess, relatively new MP you have a bit more freedom to speak on issues of importance to yourself that you would like to see change on throughout your political career, so prior to my elevation to the front bench of the opposition I chose to elevate the issues surrounding gambling harm and have seen firsthand some of the issues which this bill seeks to address. Particularly I have seen firsthand some of the issues going on in the northern suburbs of Melbourne and have seen firsthand venues seeking to stagger closure times and other tactics like that.

I have seen firsthand the effects on families, including family breakdowns, that gambling harm can cause. I have seen firsthand the impact that gambling harm, particularly pokies-related gambling harm, can and does have on our multicultural and multifaith communities. I continue to call on the government to do more with our CALD communities when seeking to address this issue. It is not just about investing in gambling harm prevention as a set and forget. Just like we saw during the pandemic when critical messages were not communicated into people’s languages, we continue to see government investment directed in a way that does not meet people where they are, where there are households that speak English as a second language. We see many multicultural and multifaith communities, particularly in the outer northern suburbs, affected by gambling-related harm. I particularly note that Hume and Whittlesea are amongst the highest placed LGAs when it comes to record losses due to gambling. We see hundreds of millions of dollars walk out the door from hardworking Victorians due to gambling-related harm.

I particularly use this opportunity to continue to encourage the government to do more. We can always do more when it comes to the impact of gambling harm on our communities. But I note in particular if you are going to invest in harm prevention programs as a government, have a particular focus on getting the message out to people in their language and meet people where they are, because it is not good enough for everything just to be in English. Now that we have a minister who is from the northern suburbs, I will continue to call on the government to perhaps work with the multicultural affairs department to get some translators on the ground and get some information provided in different languages, whether it be Arabic or Turkish or Greek, which are fluently spoken in many communities in the northern suburbs. I will leave that part of my contribution there.

On the changes, at the time of the announcement the government outlined several key reforms: the implementation of mandatory carded play; the introduction of mandatory closure periods for gaming venues; a reduction in the load-up limit on gaming machines from $1000 to $100, and a decrease in the spin rate of gaming machines. This bill partially delivers on that agenda by enacting the reduced spin rates and establishing a legislative framework to enable the implementation of mandatory carded play. I do note, however, that it falls short of actually introducing the mandatory carded play policy in full. Instead it sets up a framework, a head of power, which authorises the government via regulation to implement such a scheme at a future date. That approach might seem efficient from a bureaucratic standpoint, but from a parliamentary and public accountability perspective it is lacking. Parliament deserves a detailed understanding of what these reforms will look like in practice and how they will be implemented and on what timeline. Relying on regulation, especially when it comes to specific regulations that are not yet articulated, limits our ability as legislators to scrutinise and debate the merits and the pitfalls of the policy that is actually before us in this place. I appreciate the government’s willingness to respond to this point and improve parliamentary oversight on this.

We know from the second-reading speech that the government intends to phase in these reforms through trials and a gradual rollout, with the ultimate goal of statewide implementation of mandatory carded play by 2026 or 2027. However, even those stated timelines are already slipping. The bill was introduced in November. We now find ourselves in late May considering it in this place.

On this side of the house we recognise the need to address problem gambling. It is a real issue that affects not only individuals but families in communities across our state and across the country. There is no doubt that poker machines in particular have been a significant contributor to gambling harm. That said, acknowledging harm is not the same as endorsing every proposed remedy. This is a government policy initiative. We have got to be honest about mandatory carded play: while well intentioned, it might not be the silver bullet that some claim it to be. The fundamental issue is that problem gamblers, by definition, are individuals who already struggle with control. If signing up for a gambling card is the price of continuing their habit, many will just comply without hesitation. They will provide identification, accept the data tracking and proceed to gamble anyway. The system may indeed allow them to set limits on time and money spent, but enforcement of those limits remains a separate issue. Simply having a card does not guarantee behavioural change.

What this scheme may do, however, is affect the casual punter – the person who might visit their local RSL or pub on a Saturday night, have dinner and decide to put a pineapple into the poker machine. I have certainly done that before on occasion. For that individual the requirement to sign up to a government-tracked card, provide identification and have their activities monitored may seem like an unnecessary intrusion. The impact of this will fall not on problem gamblers but on the hospitality sector – our clubs and venues that serve as community hubs and fund a broad range of local activities, including sports, veterans programs and charities.

While we are on this bill, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the government of its sorry record when it comes to RSLs. The former minister and the government aggressively pursued several RSLs to pay for poker machine entitlements they legally could not use due to local government restrictions – RSLs like the Glenroy RSL, the Darebin RSL and the Pascoe Vale RSL, which has now gone into administration unfortunately. The government and the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission aggressively pursued that these RSLs pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in some cases millions of dollars, for poker machine entitlements they literally could not use, because the local councils did not give them a permit to do so. They were charged for nothing, but the government was belligerent that this had to be the policy of the day and they must indeed pay up, even though when they agreed to these licences they could not possibly have known about the permit arrangements of the local council and the local councils’ determination to stop those particular machines. But what it did mean, and what the Labor policy was in practice, was that RSLs that support their veterans and communities, local schools and local charities, like the Glenroy RSL, were sent aggressive legal letters from the VGCCC demanding they pay up. It was only after advocacy from me, my colleague Danny O’Brien and the Glenroy RSL that Labor were dragged kicking and screaming to abandon their pursuit of these RSLs on entitlements. So that was a sorry saga, I think, but it is worth refreshing the memory of the chamber on Labor’s historical treatment of our RSLs. I particularly enjoyed visiting the Glenroy RSL recently for their Anzac Day service and having a very-early-in-the-morning schooner with some of the veterans and a gunfire breakfast, and also thanking them for their service but also speaking about the kinds of activities they are doing to give back to their community.

It is worth recalling I think how we got here. The government made no commitment to gambling reform at the last state election. In fact shortly before that it entered into a 20-year licensing agreement with the gaming machine operators – 10 years with a 10-year renewal option. These operators, having secured their licences, made significant financial commitments on the basis of a known regulatory environment, and yet within a year the government signalled a dramatic policy shift that changes the rules entirely. This undermines investor confidence and raises questions about sovereign risk. If the government is willing to rewrite arrangements midstream, what certainty is there for businesses to invest in good faith?

We have had a few changes since then, obviously. Some things have been pushed back in this bill – and not only pushed back in this bill, but the minister has been pushed on and a new minister has replaced that minister. That seems to be all done on purpose, and you do not need to hear it from me. You can readily hear it in the hallways of this place and in the phone calls to journalists from Labor backbenchers and Labor cabinet ministers frustrated by this government’s abandoned attempt at some sort of social policy. You can read it in the newspapers. You can happily go up and just speak to a member of the Labor backbench, who are frustrated with the fact that Minister Horne’s reforms were watered down and pushed back to the state that we see today. So I am looking forward to hearing many of the Labor members speak on that fact and possibly even celebrate the fact that these reforms have been really pushed back until after the next election. I suspect we will not, but I suspect that we will see an increase in the already viral briefing against their own government for delaying these reforms, as we have seen in particular in the ABC and other outlets and in the corridors this week.

The government may respond, in advocating for and pushing for these reforms, that Crown Casino has already implemented mandatory carded play and therefore the rest of the sector should follow. But Crown Casino, as we know, was subject to royal commissions both here in Victoria and in New South Wales due to serious misconduct, including failures to prevent money laundering. The pubs and clubs sector has faced no such findings. The overwhelming majority of these venues have played by the rules, invested in harm minimisation programs and supported the YourPlay voluntary system. While we are on Crown Casino, it is worth going through what happened there with mandatory carded play. Just to refresh the memory of the Labor colleagues in the chamber, there was a significant decline in patronage. Shortly thereafter the casino laid off about a thousand workers. The company may deny a direct link, but it is impossible to ignore the timing. Reduced visitation, declining revenue and staff cuts followed on the heels of the carded play rollout.

Furthermore, I suspect that Crown, having borne the brunt of these changes, is now lobbying quite aggressively for their extension to pubs and clubs. They do not want to be alone in bearing the cost of this reform, but we should question whether that is a fair and logical basis for policymaking in Victoria. Should we impose burdens on smaller venues simply to level the playing field for a corporate giant that has, in the past, failed in its duties? YourPlay, the existing voluntary card system, has largely failed to gain traction. Few patrons have signed up, and anecdotal evidence from venue operators suggests that the uptake is minimal, even during targeted promotions. People are simply not interested. While I understand the government’s desire to move from a voluntary to a mandatory system, we need to ask whether this represents meaningful harm reduction or simply a bureaucratic imposition with limited practical benefits.

The Liberals and Nationals have supported one aspect of this bill from the beginning: the introduction of pre-commitment tools that allow individuals to set limits on time and money spent. Empowering people to set their own boundaries is a positive step, and I am wary of suggestions that the government should set hard limits. If someone wants to gamble $1000 of their own money over a weekend, that is their choice, but we must strike the right balance between harm minimisation and personal freedoms.

There are also concerns around the choice of technology. The government proposes to use magstripe technology, essentially the same system used by credit cards since the 1960s. The world has moved on. We now use smartphones, tap and go, and digital IDs, yet the government wants to use magstripe. My fear is once we have moved on from that it is going to be much more expensive for the government to roll out smarter technologies. It is like how it is costing hundreds of millions of dollars overbudget and delay and delay to try to get the Myki ticketing system to work with a credit card, yet the government thinks it is a good idea to use magstripe when we have got much newer technologies available.

This is why the opposition keeps talking about digitisation of government being an important principle, because when we digitise things, we make it easier. We make government more customer focused and more outward looking, rather than inward looking, backward looking, doing what works best for the bureaucrats, not what works best for the people. When we look at government systems in Victoria and satisfaction rating among Victorians, it is much lower than what you get in New South Wales, thanks to the reforms of the former Liberal government there. Service NSW has a customer satisfaction rating of over 90 per cent. It is unprecedented for any government service operator to have that high a satisfaction rating. That is because they did the investment in digital transformation to make sure that they had the tools necessary to better enable people to access government and to deliver government services to people and to business.

As we can see, to implement a new system using outdated technology in 2026 is not only regressive but possibly wasteful. We have seen, as I said, the government spend hundreds of millions trying to retrofit Myki to work only for it to be delayed and delayed and delayed. Especially when the contract for the current system monitor, Intralot, expires in 2027, are we really going to roll out a system that may be obsolete and replaced within a year? That is what the government has to ask itself. Other states have taken different approaches. Tasmania initially proposed a similar carded play system but ultimately abandoned it in favour of exploring facial recognition technology and a self-exclusion registry. New South Wales backed away from its own trial and is now looking into alternative harm minimisation tools. South Australia has successfully implemented a facial recognition system that helps enforce self-exclusion. That system allows third parties such as family members to initiate an exclusion, and from all reports it works well. Facial recognition may raise privacy concerns, but it also offers targeted and enforceable solutions. It avoids the burden on the average low-risk gambler while focusing on those most at risk. It may well prove to be more efficient and less intrusive than mandatory carded play.

Again I am pleased that, thanks to the Liberals and Nationals, the government is willing to come to the table and consider a trial of these technologies. When you have got so many other states that have looked at this and done this, I ask the government, in its consideration of a trial, to, instead of thinking the government can do it itself, look at these other states and see if it can take something off the shelf and learn from the mistakes of programs like Myki. Where there is a good idea, see if we can get it off the shelf and work with other states that have done this well, because ultimately we want to see it succeed. We think facial recognition is an option worth looking at.

We also must consider cross-border implications. If Victoria mandates carded play and New South Wales does not, what happens to clubs in Cobram, Mildura, Yarrawonga or Wodonga? Patrons will simply drive across the border. This affects not only venues but also the community groups they support. These are not just businesses; they are vital community institutions. There were many fears in the community that we would see a return to the shuttles that would travel north past Yarrawonga over the bridge to the services club there in New South Wales, which used to be, before the Kirner changes, full of Victorians. We used to see those. But this legislation now allows for the minister to issue directives on a different geographical basis, and I encourage the minister to protect regional communities with the powers at his disposal. I am pleased that the minister has been constructive in his dealings with us and has provided the concessions that allow the Liberals and Nationals to not oppose this bill.

Before we hear from all the Labor members about how worthy they are in pushing for a harm prevention policy in Victoria, may I remind the Labor Party who first started poker machines in Victoria. What government was that? It was indeed a Labor government. I think we would all agree that if we could have our time again, we would not have poker machines in Victoria. We would all agree on that. But we have to remember it as a deep, dark and regrettable legacy of the Victorian Labor Party that has inflicted untold harm on the community through their actions. They did it because the state was in deep financial despair and a deep mess when it came to finances in Victoria, and I fear we are in a similar position at the moment.

We are heading on a trajectory to $194 billion of debt. That is truly frightening, and I fear that this government is making decisions that inflict similar harms on people across the state. When I look at what is happening to our farmers getting charged the emergency services and fire services levy increase – unaffordable at a time during drought. This is the same kind of harm that was inflicted by the Kirner government, with its rollout of poker machines. That has had a terrible effect and inflicted so much pain on so many working families across the state, and so many family breakdowns are a result of that Labor government. As I said before, I spent a lot of time prior to my elevation to the front bench speaking about these issues in my belief about these issues and wanting to do something about it. Personally I still hold a lot of those views, but the legacy of the Kirner Labor government cannot be forgotten. Labor do like to talk about their legacy sometimes when raising positive things, but I think all those positive things are undone by the countless and untold harm that that government inflicted on so many working families across our state, and it is a shame that the Labor Party should carry with it forever.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:16): I rise to speak on the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. These amendments, the ones that are in this bill, will build on the government’s work to reduce the pervasive harm that gambling causes to individuals, families, communities and Victoria more broadly. I think it is fair to say when you look at whether it is the implementation of Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC), the tightened rules around Crown Casino, which Mr Mulholland referenced, or the various other reforms that have been made by this government in this space, it is certainly fair to say that this is a government that, perhaps without equal, has done more than any other government in this state to reduce the harm of gambling and particularly to reduce the harm of poker machines.

We are acting proactively in this space, and the measures that are in this bill are an important step towards better protection against gambling harm. It will introduce account-based play on gaming machines in Victoria. We know that when patrons lose control, that is what gambling does and what the more predatory gambling industry practices are designed to do. We know that gambling is addictive and how it works to pull individuals into spending more time and more money than they had intended when they were away from the machines.

As I have referenced a few times in this chamber, a little while ago I had the opportunity to take part in a very important and very insightful inquiry conducted by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee into gaming as well as liquor control in Victoria. It was quite remarkable evidence we heard. In fact the inquiry was taking place at roughly the same time that these reforms were first announced. I note the immense support for these reforms, of which today’s bill is an important part. I also note something that has stuck with me: evidence from I believe it may have been Tim Costello, who drew the correlation between the ‘Gamble responsibly’ message and the arguments pushed by gun peddlers in America that ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people’, shifting the responsibility for an industry’s failings onto the very people who are being harmed, and drawing that comparison to the way that much of the language and messaging around, for example, responsible gambling was done as well. I note that, although it did some very good work, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation has now been abolished and its functions absorbed into this effective regulator, the VGCCC, which has already conducted the inquiry, as we know, into the casino, and we have seen the reforms in the casino with card-based play particularly through that as well.

So that was a very important message that we heard. So too was the important message around the need for opening hours. Under the previous arrangements licences could have any variance of hours with which they were to have their shutdown period for the night, and what you would of course see was neighbouring premises coordinate their times so that you could go from one venue to the next to the next, thus effectively guaranteeing for those who are trapped in that cycle that there was no respite. The reforms, which have already been implemented, are now introduced for the statewide shutdown of these sorts of pokies venues, be it in suburban Melbourne or regional Victoria. Those shutdown hours between 4 am and 10 am are so especially important.

Carded play is a relatively simple concept. It means that a player card must be inserted into an electronic gaming machine (EGM) in order for it to operate. I note that obviously one of the other functions of this bill is to enable the trial and the other things that are being undertaken with that, and to Mr Mulholland’s point, I know that the trial is not explicitly focusing on one technology and that other technologies may well still be incorporated into whatever final system is implemented to ensure that it is as responsive and as effective as it can be. We were the first state to introduce a voluntary statewide carded play scheme and that precommitment scheme for gaming machines. The technical framework is somewhat therefore established, but as I say, the trial will help to inform the best approach for making this work in future. We know that for some, voluntary requirements have been stigmatising, and therefore we would also see a lot of benefits for many people if this was standardised as the normal practice.

This bill also implements another very important part of those reforms, which is the new spin rate limits to all new EGMs, slowing down the rate of play and therefore the risk and magnitude of potential player loss at both the hotel and the club venues and also at the casino, which will lower the rate at which people can lose money on EGMs. These new EGMs will be required to have a spin for a minimum of 3 seconds, which compares to 2.14 seconds, which is the current time it takes to play one single spin. There will also be further amendments as part of this bill to ensure that overall gambling legislation is clear and is consistent.

I have spoken before as well about the effects that gambling harm can have. In my region alone in any typical year my constituents lose more than $500 million on poker machines alone. That of course does not take into account other forms of betting. In Greater Dandenong more than $100 million is lost every year; in Knox it is $56 million; in the City of Casey, $114 million. For these people, for my constituents and for the families and communities I am pleased that this government has been taking these strong actions to minimise the harm of gambling. I am eager to see that these measures are strengthened and further protections are added at both the state and the federal levels.

Whilst poker machines remain some of the most widespread and some of the most pervasive forms of gambling, we have seen some very concerning trends in the increase to the rates of gambling in other forms, particularly with regard to sports betting and even in online forums and online games such as loot boxes and the like. I note that from the south-east of Melbourne we had the late great Peta Murphy, who handed down her landmark report on gaming reform, particularly with regard to advertising in sport, and I reiterate my very strong support for the recommendations in the Murphy report to reduce the prevalence of sports betting that all people, but especially children, are exposed to far too frequently when engaging in sports content – as they should be. They should be inspired to be able to enjoy sports, but they should be able to without the constant bombardment of such advertising. I take a moment as well to acknowledge and thank the work of my federal Labor colleagues, who have been continuing to agitate and push in the space of implementing the Murphy reform.

We have, as I referred to earlier, established the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, the VGCCC, which is Australia’s strongest gambling regulator, and we have given it stronger and more enhanced oversight and enforcement powers. We have already implemented mandatory carded play for pokies at Crown and, as I mentioned, the mandatory closure periods. Since August last year all hotels and clubs must have their gaming areas closed between 4 am and 10 am. We heard some really interesting evidence at the inquiry about the need for those times in particular and tragically why so late in the morning was required, until 10 am. We heard considerable evidence of the effect of having poker machines available earlier – of people dropping their kids off to school and then being able to go access the pokies. That is a very tragic situation and cycle to be in. Having the mandatory closure period end at 10 am is one further way in which we can try and break that cycle.

I am mindful of the fact that there are many people who will want to make contributions on this bill today, but I will take the opportunity to welcome the amendments, which were discussed by Mr Mulholland, that are being introduced by the government and reiterate that this is a very important subject. It is one where much work has been done, and I thank both Minister Erdogan and former minister Horne, and both of their teams as well, for their very diligent work in this space. There is much work that has been done, there is much work to do, and I very much look forward to seeing the outcomes of the reforms we are discussing today.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (14:27): I also rise to speak on the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. The Greens will be supporting this bill and are pleased that it is finally before us in this place. The previous Premier and the previous minister announced these reforms way back in July 2023, almost two years ago, and the bill itself was introduced to the other place six months ago. The reason to be concerned about these delays is that the degree of gambling harm that continues to affect communities across Victoria has not slowed and in fact is increasing.

Nearly a decade ago the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation quantified that harm in a report that estimated 330,000 Victorians experience harm as a result of gambling each year, costing Victoria around $7 billion annually and leading to significant financial distress, mental health concerns and relationship issues. That figure included a full range of costs, which at the time – nearly a decade ago – were $2.2 billion in family and relationship problems; $1.6 billion in emotional and psychological issues, such as distress, depression and suicide; and $1.3 billion in financial losses, including excessive spending and bankruptcies. I will emphasise that that figure has more than tripled in the eight years since the report was issued in 2017. It was $3 billion last financial year, and this year the figure at 10 months is $2.167 billion, on track to be nearly $3.2 billion this financial year should it continue. The report also found $1.1 billion in costs to the Victorian government for services like mental health and homelessness support flowing from gambling harm, $600 million in lost productivity and work-related costs and $100 million in costs associated with crime.

Research that was published this year has demonstrated that that harm is accelerating. Equity Economics, commissioned by the Alliance for Gambling Reform and Wesley Mission, found that gambling losses are a bigger drain on household budgets in Australia than the cost of electricity and gas and that gambling losses are growing at a rate faster than the cost of housing. The research also revealed that Australia’s staggering annual gambling losses of $31.5 billion eclipse what the federal government spends on aged care and almost rival the expenditure for the NDIS. The minister’s electorate crosses over six local government areas. The Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission has laid out the data on losses by LGA, and in just one of those LGAs, the City of Hume, in just the first 10 months of this financial year communities have lost more than $122 million – in one LGA alone.

In the Premier’s electorate communities in the Greater Bendigo LGA have already lost $50.8 million, and the financial year is not over yet. With regard to regulating poker machines I will say again that Australia remains a global outlier in having allowed the beast of poker machines to be unleashed out into our communities across pubs and clubs. Most jurisdictions in the world, including here in Australia – in WA, as a notable Australian exception – only see these machines in casinos and very scattered across the communities. I defy anyone who visits the lively pubs and clubs in WA to fail to see that their vibrant nightlife, music scene and all their pubs and clubs, which are venues that financially thrive and provide safe and family friendly environments, do so without income from poker machines. But then again, this predatory industry has wrapped its addiction model not just around people who use the machines and around the communities and families that are affected by that gambling harm; it is wrapping that addiction model around our community venues as well.

I take the opportunity to say that the government does need to remove barriers to venues that are looking to see their poker machine entitlements surrendered and then extinguished, so that those machines cannot pop up at another venue and just continue to cause harm and wreak havoc in communities across our state. Given how much we all acknowledge the harm that is caused by this industry, reform is well overdue, and it is very welcome that the government brings this bill forward today.

I also want to touch on the initial reforms that the previous minister instituted, such as standardising venue closing hours to between 4 and 10 am and setting a default pre-commitment limit of $50 a day, and acknowledge that Victoria was the first state in the country to introduce a voluntary carded play system, which this mandatory system will and should, given the limitations that we have discovered with that model, build on. This bill does have a number of important measures to reduce gambling-related harm in Victoria. It empowers the minister to set out a framework for mandatory carded play systems in Victoria, which in plain English means that if someone is wanting to use a poker machine, they will need to have a card and they will need to set a limit for how much they want to spend that day. The bill also puts in place a very welcome reform of slower spin rates. The minimum spin rate for poker machines is increased from the current 2.3 seconds to at least 3 seconds, which will slow down the pace of play, the pace of poker machine use, and reduce the intensity and the potential for rapid, accelerated losses at machines.

I also note the government has brought in anti-money-laundering provisions around the maximum cash load up on machines, reducing this from $1000 to $100, limiting the amount of money that can be inserted into a machine at one time. I note that this bill has received support and is I think the direct result of advocacy by committed stakeholders, including the Alliance for Gambling Reform and many lived experience advocates who have put their hearts and souls into campaigning for gambling reform for many, many years. The Alliance for Gambling Reform has endorsed the bill and highlights that evidence shows that mandatory carded play with pre-commitment is a gold standard for reducing gambling harm from poker machines. We welcome that the bill produces the powers for the minister to get on with this work and will allow the minister to trial, set up and then implement this long-awaited mandatory carded play system across Victoria. However, given the delays we have seen to date, there are lingering concerns on and some limitations in the bill that I do want to touch on today. To that end the Greens have two amendments to this bill standing in my name. I ask that they be circulated now.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Katherine COPSEY: The primary concern that has been highlighted in recent days is that though this bill sets up the powers for the minister to require mandatory carded play, there is no deadline in this bill and no requirement for the minister to act on those powers that they have been granted. The purpose of the Greens amendments is simply, in effect, to require that the mandatory carded play system be implemented on or before 1 December 2027. We believe that these amendments would give plenty of time and should be a minimum requirement to ensure that the reforms outlined by the former Premier and the minister two years ago will be implemented in full and will not be wound back or be held up at the discretion of a future minister or future government.

I thank the minister’s office for briefings and constructive discussions on this bill, but I am concerned that we are seeing the implementation timeline pushed out by months if not years and potentially well beyond the date of this term of Parliament. In order to see these reforms fully implemented and helping communities the way that they are designed and for the media release that was put out in July 2023 to come through for Victorian communities and actually deliver, it is going to require the continued commitment of this government and the next government and the next minister to make good on those commitments. We hope and trust that that is the government’s intent but note that this bill does not require things to be done by a certain date. That is the purpose of our amendments today, and I will speak to them further in committee.

I will also touch on a few other concerns that the Greens and gambling harm stakeholders have raised in relation to this bill. The three-phase rollout across a number of years will delay substantive harm reduction, as I have stated, and may leave the reforms vulnerable. Gambling harm stakeholders have been very clear in sharing their concerns with us that this could be a timeline that prioritises industry convenience over urgently needed community harm reduction. We share the view that the trial of technology itself in practice, how it works and what needs to be worked through has in fact been conducted. This kind of technology has been in full operation at Crown Casino over the past two years, and in our view the trial is actually duplicative and potentially could be a delaying tactic. We urge the government to be really live to this issue and see that these reforms are not watered down through this process.

While the bill mandates that a precommitment level must be set, a person can in practice set any daily limit without a cap, which would allow for unlimited losses, which means that in practice someone who is sitting and using a machine could gamble away tens of thousands of dollars in a day, which is what happens at the moment. What people do not understand commonly about the depths of addiction is that individual choice – and Mr Galea spoke about the potentially stigmatising impacts of personal choice narratives and responsible gambling terminology – is only part of the harm equation. These machines have decades of research and billions of dollars of gambling industry money behind them about how to generate and how to sustain addiction, and the industry has weaponised a dangerous product that consumers need to be protected from. We acknowledge that that is the intent of the mandatory precommitment system, and we urge the government to monitor how this works in practice and not be afraid to revisit limit setting and so on into the future to strengthen that protection for communities and poker machine users.

The Greens policy is that the card system should have default maximum limits of $100 a day, $500 per month and $5000 per year, which more than accommodates those people who socialise at venues with machines but would protect people from being completely fleeced, frankly, by the gambling industry. In fact the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s review of gambling regulations in 2023, which followed up from the Auditor-General’s reports, did recommend the introduction of daily and weekly loss limits for poker machine users. However, the government has decided not to implement these limits. Advocates like Tim Costello from the Alliance for Gambling Reform have criticised this decision and view it as a vital missed opportunity to minimise harm. Once this technology is in place we would once again urge the government to monitor how it is being used and whether setting these types of limits can also assist in reduction in harm.

Reducing spin rates from 2.3 to 3 seconds is a good step, albeit not as far as we would like it to go. The Greens policy position is for slower rates – for example, at least 5 seconds between spins – which is helpful to people who are using poker machines to disrupt the addictive, trancelike behaviour that is generated by the addiction-causing nature of the machines and is a major harm reduction measure. The Greens policies also are to have a $1 per spin bet limit and a $20 machine load-up limit, so we are pleased to see some progress towards those policies in terms of the $100 load-up limits instituted by the government. Another missed opportunity, though, for this bill is loyalty schemes. The schemes that venues run, which incentivise prolonged play, can increase gambling harm, and they remain unregulated despite clear evidence that they do in fact exacerbate harm.

We also believe that the anti-money-laundering provisions could be stronger. While the $1000 cash payout verification requirement is welcomed, gambling harm critics argue that broader reforms are needed to combat the systemic money laundering risks that are associated with poker machine operation. There are a raft of anti-money-laundering actions that are not in this bill, and I will be asking the minister more during the committee process about the anti-money-laundering provisions. The Greens platform on money laundering is to cap cash winnings payable by a machine at $100, with winnings up to $250 being payable by a cashier and those over $250 payable only by cheque.

Lastly, the complete sham that is the community benefits scheme continues to appear to be given a free pass by this government. In 2023 our Public Accounts and Estimates Committee recommended a complete overhaul or removal – abolition – of that scheme. In 2017 and again in 2021 the Victorian Auditor-General criticised that scheme for lacking transparency, integrity and public trust. The Greens agree with stakeholders on this matter. The Alliance for Gambling Reform have called this scheme out as a sham that enables clubs to operate tax-subsidised poker machines under the guise of public benefit. What the scheme does allow is for extraneous things to be claimed as community benefits while giving little or nothing back to our communities and reaping a huge tax advantage. The community benefits scheme does need to be radically overhauled or, preferably, phased out entirely.

In summary, we are pleased to see this bill progressing through this place today, and our attention will now turn to the minister to come good on the commitment that was made in 2023 around a promise to the community that these reforms would be implemented and would operate in order to see a reduction in harm from the predatory poker machines that have been allowed to infiltrate our communities in huge numbers and cause huge harm. We will be looking to the minister to follow through and implement those commitments with urgency, and we hope for people’s sake and for the community’s sake that will be the case.

Gaelle BROAD (Northern Victoria) (14:43): I appreciate the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the chamber’s consideration of the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. The bill seeks to amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 and the Casino Control Act 1991 to establish the legislative and regulatory framework for mandatory carded play and precommitment on electronic gaming machines in Victoria.

The Liberals and Nationals are committed to reducing gambling harm. In our last term of government we established the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, which has since been abolished by Labor. First, I do want to acknowledge the significant impact of problem gambling. It impacts not just the person; it impacts family and friends and often workplaces and the local community – there is a ripple effect. There are drastic losses, losses of relationships and losses of employment and in some cases even the family home. According to the statistics, regional Victorians are disproportionately affected by problem gambling. When you look at the figures, it is concerning. In the 2023–24 financial year Victorian losses across different forms of gambling were over $7 billion, and the taxes paid to our state from that revenue were over $2.3 billion. I think it is concerning when you consider the risk that governments may become addicted to gambling revenue.

I have spoken about the challenges in this chamber before. Gambling addiction can snowball from issues such as broken relationships, poor health, financial pressures and social isolation. I remember meeting the team at Anglicare some time ago. They provide financial counselling and support right across Victoria and help people who are experiencing problem gambling. They told me of a lady who stole money from her own workplace to fund her gambling addiction. As a result, family relationships broke down, she lost her job, spent time in prison and needed to rebuild her life with a criminal record. It is important to take action to reduce gambling harm and consult with those who can share their valuable experience and insights. But this bill comes with a lack of consultation, just one year after the state government entered a 20-year agreement with pubs and clubs. This government does make it very hard for businesses. They make it very challenging when they keep changing the goalposts.

Problem gamblers can still sign up to carded play. The current self-exclusion program relies on gaming staff remembering a face from amongst many others in a folder. With many people entering and leaving a licensed premises for various reasons, this is almost an impossible job. I was speaking with local club general manager Martin Beekes of the Bendigo District RSL, a club that has over 7000 members and had over 50,000 people use the facility in the last year, and I know they do a number of community benefit programs. They have support for veterans and veteran services and wellbeing programs, and they do trips and outings for veterans. They operate a military museum, and they have held numerous services there to commemorate our veterans; I have been to a number of those. They do support the local community groups and sporting clubs, so they are very engaged in the local community and they strongly support responsible gambling measures. They want to keep problem gamblers out of their venue, but they are concerned that the technology proposed is outdated and unreliable, posing unnecessary barriers for patrons.

There is no detail about the pilot proposed. Which clubs will be impacted and who will pay? What happens if the system fails, and who will suffer the losses? It is also important to note that some regional venues are using different internet models with different speeds, and if the system crashes, how will the venue trade? Under these changes every person will be required to sign up to a card and hand over and prove their ID before playing the pokies. The Bendigo District RSL has raised concerns that these sweeping changes risk pushing players towards less regulated alternatives such as sports betting apps and online casinos. A person wanting to gamble or with a gambling addiction can find other ways to gamble, and we know that it can be done very easily on the phone and online without any real legal oversight. My Nationals colleague Kim O’Keeffe shared a number of experiences in the chamber during her contribution to this debate. She told a story of a close friend whose 18-year-old son was at university and was gambling on his phone. He left university due to mental health issues associated with the consequences of this addiction, and his comment was that ‘So many others are doing it.’

I note that the parliamentary inquiry into gambling and liquor regulation in Victoria by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee in November 2023 identified a number of findings. Finding 14 says:

Gambling harm is particularly prominent in young men, a cohort for whom gambling is increasingly normalised. Treatment service providers are experiencing a rise in referrals for both therapeutic and financial counselling sought by parents and guardians on behalf of their young sons.

That is very concerning. Finding 15 says:

Gambling player losses in Victoria amounted to $5.1 billion in 2020–21 and increased to $7.5 billion in 2022–23. Losses from electronic gaming machines constitute the largest losses in Victoria but losses from online gambling are the fastest growing category of losses.

The impact of gambling is very real, and the government needs to continue to address these issues.

Venues like the Bendigo District RSL would prefer the government to talk to the industry about facial recognition technology, which has a 99 per cent success rate in recognising a person who has self-excluded themselves. States like South Australia have taken it even further, with this technology already legislated and being used successfully. There are venues in Victoria that are already trialling and using this technology, and they believe it is a game changer, keeping problem gamblers out even if they disguise themselves. The Box Hill and Bentleigh RSLs are currently using this system, and Bendigo District RSL is looking at installing this technology in the coming weeks to also trial it.

I want to note too that Evan Mulholland spoke earlier about the impact of these changes on clubs along the border. That is certainly the case in my electorate of Northern Victoria, where people can very easily commute into New South Wales, which has a different system in place. It would be helpful for the government to consider the amendments being put forward by the Liberals and Nationals to protect border clubs from financial drift to interstate clubs, to evaluate and report on the feasibility of new technologies such as facial recognition and automated risk monitoring systems, to provide evidence that its reforms will reduce gambling harm and to improve parliamentary oversight of these reforms.

We have seen the errors with the introduction of Myki by this government, and we certainly do not want history to repeat itself by rolling out outdated technology across the state. I would ask the government to listen and learn from other states and engage with local clubs in regional areas when considering these changes.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (14:51): Any opportunity we get to speak on a bill that helps reduce the harm from problem gambling is one that we should all take in this place. For me personally, we have many opportunities and many responsibilities as members of Parliament. Doing things that help some of the most vulnerable in the community, some who suffer the most from problem gambling and its ill effects, is something that I personally feel very passionately about, and I am very pleased to rise to speak on the bill today.

As others who have contributed to this debate have said, Victorians lose a lot to different forms of gambling: more than $7 billion in the 2023–24 financial year, around $1300 for every person in the state and more per capita than what Victorians spend on tobacco or alcohol. It is not a problem for everyone, but for too many it is. For one in five gamblers in Victoria there have been family breakdowns. For one in three there has been mental illness. For 65 per cent of gamblers there is a correlation with the dangerous consumption of alcohol. We know that problem gambling is much more than just losing money. It can ruin lives.

The social cost of gambling is significant. Studies show around $2.2 billion of loss related to family and relationship problems and $1.6 billion related to psychological illness. Therefore there are significant costs from problem gambling to Victoria, to the Victorian government and ultimately to Victorian taxpayers. We know that too often, just like with alcohol and just like with tobacco, the problems associated with gambling can start at a very young age. We know that many young people in the community are most at risk of becoming addicted, and that harm can last a lifetime.

The Labor government here in Victoria fundamentally believe that helping prevent Victorians from becoming problem gamblers is something that is absolutely on our list of must dos. The government has already taken serious and significant action to mitigate the risks and the damage of problem gambling. The Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission is Australia’s strongest gambling regulator. We have introduced mandatory carded play for poker machines at Crown, we have introduced mandatory closure periods for gaming areas in hotels and clubs, and this bill goes further by introducing account-based play for all users of gaming machines in Victoria – measures that will put control back in the hands of users, allowing them to stay in control of their spending so that the machines do not start to control them. We know that electronic gaming machines – poker machines – are the source of much of the problem gambling that we see here in this state. Of the more than $7 billion of gambling losses in Victoria, around $4 billion is on poker machines.

The changes that this bill will introduce require gaming machine users to use a form of account-based play – use a card associated with that, for example – and that machines will not operate without that, to allow those users to set their loss limits, to set their losses and expenditure and then set limits on the amount that they want to then put into the machines on deposit. This type of account-based play enables a range of harm minimisation measures, including pre-commitment, because we know and the studies have shown us that when users can visibly see the losses that they are making, they can make better decisions, reducing harm, but also that the technology can step in and remind people of their pre-set limits so they do not exceed them. Because we know that sometimes in the moment people slip past the barriers that they have mentally set and that we need the technology and those pre-commitment systems, carded and account-based play systems, to support them.

There is a significant body of external research that offers very clear evidence that mandatory account-based play can mitigate the damage of gambling on electronic gaming machines – on poker machines. It is an issue. These are measures and technologies that I have personally been following for a very long time – it seems like far too long now – having spent quite a number of years on them when I was working for the Gillard Labor government in Canberra, who sought to introduce a range of measures that would have enabled mandatory pre-commitment technology to be used on poker machines across the country, reforms that were, in the end, stymied by Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party. I think of the benefits that could have accrued had those reforms stayed in place and the losses that have piled up since they were gotten rid of by the Liberal Party in Canberra, so it is very pleasing personally to be part of a government that is taking these steps and is introducing the legislation before us today.

The legislation that we are introducing enables the benefit of these new measures to be implemented in a phased way so that we can do pilot schemes followed by a subsequent broader rollout to enable us to get both the technology and its application right. The bill also does a few other things, including reducing spin rates on gambling machines – an effective harm reduction measure – and I am very pleased to see that, to help slow the rate of loss and to slow the rate of play.

This is another great opportunity that the Parliament has to introduce further measures to reduce the harm from problem gambling, particularly on poker machines, in this state. We know people in our community, community members, are concerned about the impacts of problem gambling in our community, and they particularly know the impact that losses on electronic gaming machines, on poker machines, can have on so many. Any measures that are designed to prevent that harm, that are designed to prevent those losses, should be supported. I am very, very pleased to be part of a government that is taking this action and is supportive of the bill passing through the Parliament today.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (14:59): I rise to speak on this bill and in support of my colleague Ms Copsey and her amendments. These amendments represent an extremely modest ask: simply to commit to implementing the change that the Labor government say that they will make within some sort of visible time horizon – to actually do what they say they are going to do. While the change to the law represents an improvement with respect to harm minimisation, frankly I personally think it is all a joke, because pokies should be wiped out, and as soon as possible. I was once told by someone who worked in the gambling harm minimisation space that sometimes people who have a personal connection to pokies-related harm struggle to temper their advocacy and work towards more incremental change. This was years ago when I was a councillor in Geelong working towards getting a stronger policy with respect to pokies in our municipality. Given essentially the entire junior AFL league business model in Geelong relies on funding gifted from pokies venues, any moves to disincentivise pokies provoked strong community reactions and pressure that was difficult for the rest of council to withstand, and I found it incredibly frustrating.

That interaction with the worker hung with me for a long time afterwards. I do not know if she said it because she detected the experiences I never articulated, but it certainly felt like it. From that point I questioned my judgement and decided that perhaps my response to anything related to pokies may not be entirely reasonable or rational. But when the white-hot rage returned after federal Labor gutlessly failed to act on gambling advertising despite having huge community support to do so, then again on seeing this bill introduced late last year, which did the bare minimum in terms of pokies harm reduction, and then again on learning that the implementation of those modest changes has yet again been delayed, I reflected further and realised that actually my response is entirely reasonable and rational. It is the decision to keep allowing pokies in this state that is senseless.

There is absolutely nothing good about poker machines, and I am yet to meet anyone who can name a single reason they should exist or a single good thing they have ever done. Electronic gaming machines are deliberately designed to create addiction and financial loss for the user. The lights, the sounds, the spinning images, the suspense, the mechanical simplicity and the intermittent so-called wins are all designed to exploit neural circuits in the brain with carefully timed dopamine hits to maximise addiction, and the harms for our society are monumental. One in five Victorians experiences harms from their problem gambling like poor mental and physical health, relationship breakdowns, financial stress, loss of homes and jobs, alcohol and other drug use, violence and crime, and the ripple effects of that are huge. It is estimated that six other people are harmed as a result of a person experiencing problem gambling.

Then there are the lower risk but even more prevalent forms of gambling that still result in harms to the individuals and those around them. We are talking a huge proportion of the Victorian community directly or indirectly experiencing harm from pokies. I have seen it in many ways, personally and professionally. My blood boils just thinking about it.

How on earth did we get to this point? Pokies were legalised in Victoria in the 1990s thanks to the lobbying efforts instigated by the gaming machine billionaire Len Ainsworth to the Kirner Labor state government. Victorians now pour $3 billion a year down the things – over $3 billion – and that amount swells every year. Over $3 billion – think about that. And it is not just the individual users who are addicted. The host venues are addicted. Many venues see it as an unrivalled revenue stream to boost their business profits. But there are plenty of different hospitality venues in Victoria that manage just fine without pokies, and there are other ways to make a buck.

In Victoria gaming venues must contribute 8.33 per cent of profits to so-called community benefits, but the scheme has been shown to be an utter sham, with over two-thirds going towards staff wages, venue decorations and pay TV subscriptions – things that should just be costs of doing business at best, and at worst they serve to facilitate even more gambling. What is left over goes out to various sporting clubs and community groups that receive those community benefits required to be paid out by the venues as a condition of receiving that licence. My deep congratulations to those clubs who have been brave enough to step away from gambling revenue, but I understand it is a really hard thing to do in an environment where government funding is difficult to come by. As I mentioned earlier, in many places, including my home town of Geelong, payments off the back of pokies revenue have become a vital revenue stream for many sporting clubs. They then often find themselves having to defend pokies because the financial pay-off is just too tempting to refuse. And because sports clubs and other community groups are such an important and valued part of our social fabric, which is particularly evident in rural and regional Victoria, whole communities end up conflicted about the role of pokies. It is genius, really – a carefully designed ecosystem of gambling addiction. The thing is, if we got rid of pokies in Victoria, despite all the noise that would inevitably erupt after even so much as floating the idea, the sky would not fall in. There are practical steps the government could take to help businesses and sporting clubs and all the others who have been built into this ecosystem to transition away from pokies revenue. Various councils have led the way on this, like Darebin and Dandenong, and state Labor would do well to learn from them. The benefits for individuals, families and communities would be immense. Lives would be saved.

I think that is the thing that makes me most angry about pokies. The harm from these pointless machines is 100 per cent preventable, and it is absolutely 100 per cent within the power of the state government to prevent this harm. Further, the Labor state government knows this. In announcing this bill they stated all the statistics, they spoke about how these laws would save lives, and yet we learn today that they cannot even follow through and implement these laws. While they are all things that advocates have long called for, they are a far cry from what is needed to eliminate gambling harm from pokies, because that would require eliminating pokies. Labor say they care about things like cost-of-living pressures, like family violence, like poor mental health and suicide. Problem gambling is a significant contributor to these things, yet phasing out pokies is not even remotely close to being on the agenda. Instead they knowingly and willingly choose to allow tremendous human misery and suffering to continue. Why? Because Labor is beholden to the gambling lobby, who have long donated generously not just to Labor but to all the old major parties. Every single one of you who allow your parties to keep supporting this morally reprehensible inertia should be ashamed of yourselves. Victorians deserve better.

I know and accept that my views on this issue are entirely prejudiced by my experiences, but I am unapologetic, because those experiences mean I can see clearly what those sitting in the seats of government who rationalise and justify cannot – or maybe they do see and actively choose to look away from it. To borrow from the Whitlams, it is time to blow up the pokies and drag them away.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (15:07): This bill establishes the framework for mandatory carded play and precommitment on electronic gaming machines – or the pokies, as we call them – in Victoria. It also introduces or enables a range of other measures, including new spin rate limits, slowing the rate in which people can lose money on gaming machines, and this forms also a preventative element to money laundering as well. I am very proud that we are taking action to support Victorians who struggle with gambling addiction. We know that gambling addiction has profound impacts not just on the person who is addicted but on their family and friends. Too often it builds on the issues that people are facing and makes their situations worse.

I have spoken before about working with people suffering from gambling addiction as a counsellor at the South Western Centre Against Sexual Assault, and the reality is that some people turn to gambling and other forms of addiction as a trauma response – a very small group, but nonetheless. Gambling can be a coping mechanism that helps people who have suffered trauma survive hour by hour, day by day. Clients reported to me that it dulls their pains and distracts them from the feelings that otherwise might overwhelm them. This is particularly true for the pokies. The whole experience – bright lights, ringing bells and even the random nature of the payouts – keeps people hooked on the game. It is possibly the first use of an algorithm that is so common now in electronic devices that we experience every day – in fact algorithms that shape our behaviours every day.

In an article in the Age on 25 January 2023 recovering gambling addict Anna Bardsley was quoted as saying, and I thought this was quite powerful:

The only way I can describe it to you is everything else is gone. You just go somewhere else because they mesmerise you. And poker machines are designed to do that.

The same article also quoted a national study in the Journal of Behavioural Addictions, which found unambiguous evidence that electronic gaming machines are responsible for a significant portion of gambling problems in Australia.

I just want to put this in context. Whilst problem gambling is a significant issue for some people and some communities, this is in the context of gambling on the whole being used as a form of pleasure and leisure – at the races, playing cards and a whole range of gambling activities that the majority of the population conduct themselves in safely and without any addiction issues or challenges. I really think that this is not an area where we should be making moral judgements. We should not be imposing blanket bans. We should not be righteously demanding the abolition of something. But what we should be doing is supporting those who have an issue with it. We are now developing a deeper understanding of why some people have a challenge with gambling and the causes of that. I am very pleased that this bill is focusing on making gambling much safer for those experiencing those challenges but also, in doing so, normalising the cards; that is a very positive thing as well.

The bill establishes a framework for the implementation of harm minimisation measures, including account-based carded play. This requires gamblers to insert a player card to operate a gaming machine. The card allows them to preset commitments on how much they are willing to lose. The evidence is that that is a preventative measure right there. We were the first jurisdiction to introduce voluntary carded play and a precommitment scheme for gaming machines. But studies have shown that the voluntary requirements can make people feel stigmatised, so we are making them standard. This is normalising the card, as I said, while restricting those who need or want to be restricted. We will do this in a thoughtful and evidence-based way.

Our approach needs to be adaptable in order to respond to the changes in technology. Digital cards, such as those you keep on your phone only, are rapidly replacing physical cards, and I certainly have an app with all sorts of different cards lodged into it on my phone. These reforms establish a framework that allows continuous improvement. We are conducting pilot programs to assess the effectiveness of harm minimisation technology. Lessons from the pilot will shape the next steps, and the legislation provides the framework for that adaptable approach.

I want to finish by recognising that many of our pubs and clubs rely on pokies for revenue, and they are important parts of our community. For many they are a place to catch up with friends and family, celebrate special occasions or just enjoy a night out. Many community clubs also make significant contributions to local communities, supporting grassroots sports, charities and social programs that benefit thousands of Victorians. I had the pleasure of attending the Warrnambool RSL recently, together with my fellow Labor Party local branch members, to watch the election results. I was particularly pleased at the end of the evening, in fact not even at the end of the evening; I was particularly pleased very early in the evening. It was a wonderful moment and one I was happy to have in such a wonderful landmark with such beautiful views of Warrnambool; the Warrnambool RSL is in a stunning location in Warrnambool. We want to make sure that the RSL and other venues which get some of their revenue, just a very small amount, from gambling do not have that suddenly taken away from them. That is why it is important that these reforms strike a balance, minimising gambling harm while ensuring that community venues remain a safe and enjoyable part of our Victorian life. That is why I support the bill.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:15): I also would like to speak on the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. I will start out by saying that of course gambling causes much harm in Victorian society and that there are many people addicted to gambling. I would also point out that, not least of which, the main organisation that is addicted to gambling is the government itself through gambling taxes. I would also point out that gambling harm could be lessened by lowering those taxes because it would increase the payout ratios. Nonetheless what we are seeing here is an attempt by government to lessen harm caused by gambling. Because they legalised pokie machines many years ago, they have seen harm, and they think that if they can tweak a few settings by having pre-carded play and by lowering the spin rate they can lower harm. I am sceptical for a few reasons, and I am also sceptical about whether this is an appropriate thing to do. The thing that we must treat very clearly here is that these people playing are adults. They are adults making decisions for themselves. In a free society we recognise the agency of people that are adults, and in a free society you are allowed to make bad decisions. In fact if you live in a society where the government does not allow you to make bad decisions, you no longer live in a free society. So I do not think that it is a good idea that the government does this.

Now onto the actual technical mechanisms here. The cards will require the sign-up of people’s private information and will collect all sorts of data. These same companies that the government and other speakers are demonising will be collecting this data. And let me tell you, this data is extremely valuable. I have very large concerns about, firstly, how this data might be used, and I would be willing to wager a bet indeed that it will be leaked at some point in the future through a data breach, as we have seen many other times. What was alluded to by Mr Mulholland earlier – and he made a very good point actually – was that for casual punters, the people that might go in and use them occasionally and not really cause harm, this is probably going to be a barrier too high for them. They are not going to sign up for these cards, they are not going to want to give over their personal details and they probably will not do it. In fact I would not do it. So what you are really doing is turning pokie machine venues into places where only people with problems will play. There will not be casual punters who will just turn up and have a go. You are turning them into places where only people with problems will play, which is a problem in itself.

One of the amendments that was foreshadowed as well is to look into doing a trial or experiment with facial recognition. Again I would like to raise the alarm on this idea – the idea that we want to have a trial on recognising people’s faces before they can spend their own money on something that they choose. I mean, does the government really think that Victorians are adults capable of making their own decisions or not? I do think that Victorians are adults capable of making their own decisions, and I do not think that the government should be making decisions on where people can and cannot spend their money, even if it is on a bad thing like gambling. I am not a fan of gambling myself. I do not like these machines, and I sympathise with many of the concerns that people have raised about these companies and the ways that they exploit algorithms.

Dr Mansfield spoke before about this utopian Greens world where pokies are eliminated. Well, we already know what happens when pokies are eliminated. In fact it was pointed out in the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation report. During lockdowns people could not use pokies. They could not go and use them, and what happened was that online gambling exploded. It exploded, and many of the people that went to use online gambling did not come back to use pokies. They remain using online gambling. Many of these companies are foreign companies, totally out of the reach of Australian regulators. Our federal regulators, let alone the state government, have no hope whatsoever of regulating this. This is what happens with prohibition. That was what the Greens were talking about here – prohibition. When you prohibit these things, people turn to either black markets or foreign grey markets, which is exactly what we saw happen during the lockdowns, as was pointed out in the VRGF report.

These are the reasons the Libertarian Party will not be supporting this. Firstly, we need to treat Victorians as adults that make their own decisions and have their own agency, regardless of whether we think they are good decisions or not. Secondly, I think that collecting the data from these cards and potentially the data from facial recognition is a very dangerous precedent, and I also have concerns about the security on that. I feel that it is incredibly hypocritical that the government, which benefits from these gambling tax revenues, seeks to say that it wants to minimise harm. They could minimise harm by stopping collecting taxes from these revenues, but they do not do that. I find it hypocritical. The Libertarian Party will not be supporting this bill.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:21): I rise to support the legislation before us which has been introduced to amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 and the Casino Control Act 1991 and for other purposes. In doing so I would like to thank my good friend the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister Erdogan, for his hard work in putting together this substantive, evidence-based reform bill. It continues the work of the Allan Labor government in helping reduce the harm of gambling while striking a balance to ensure that community clubs, RSLs and hospitality venues remain an important part of Victorian life.

The Allan Labor government has been working to find ways to minimise the harm to individuals and to society caused by gambling without taking away the ability of individuals to gamble with their own money if that is what they choose to do. The bill will make amendments to the gaming machine monitoring licence and the public lottery licence frameworks to maximise the state’s ability to extract value for future licences as well as to ensure consistency with other major gambling licences. This builds on the measures this government has already delivered to minimise gambling harm. It also establishes a framework for the implementation of stronger harm minimisation measures, which I will touch on shortly.

Everyone working in or operating a business in the gambling industry must follow the current laws about gambling. This includes out-of-state operators or providers that offer gambling services to Victorian residents. Ensuring integrity and minimising harm are twin pillars of Victoria’s gambling regulation. The purpose of amendments such as these is to promote responsible gambling, to minimise harm caused by problem gambling and to accommodate those who gamble without harming themselves or others, as well as to ensure that gambling is conducted honestly and free from criminal influences and exploitation.

Significant work has already been undertaken to further advance approaches to risk-based regulatory oversight of the gambling industry in Victoria, but it is crucial that we continue to identify and respond to new and emerging risks, particularly in the online environment and the continued creation of new gambling products, channels and markets. This bill makes important changes to the legislative framework for the gaming machine monitoring licence and the public lottery licence to provide flexibility for the government in future licensing processes to yield the best outcomes for the state.

The gambling industry underwent a major reconstruction in 2012. A new gaming machine industry structure was created, which allowed venue operators to operate the gaming machines in their venues. Further, a new monitoring licence was created to provide an independent monitoring service for gaming machines. It was the then Minister for Gaming who issued a licence to Intralot Gaming Services Pty Ltd, IGS, to provide an electronic monitoring system. This monitoring licence lasts for 15 years, and all poker machines in Victorian venues must be connected to this system. The licence expires in August 2027. The licence requires IGS to conduct monitoring services and carry out any activities, maintenance and other work necessary to ensure the continuous and uninterrupted operation of poker machines or systems. It is also responsible for the detection and continuous recording and monitoring of significant events. This can act as a critical tool in detecting both money laundering and gambling harm risks.

As part of the monitoring licence, IGS also delivers the statewide precommitment scheme YourPlay. By introducing this system of account-based play on gaming machines across Victoria, we are putting the power back in the hands of patrons. We want patrons to make sound financial decisions and be able to take responsibility for their own gambling for themselves, without veering off out of control. When that happens the cost is more than wasted money and financial distress. It brings severe mental health concerns, relationship strains and issues, with damages ripping throughout your social life. The Allan Labor government is serious about addressing the harms of gambling, and giving patrons more control over their financial state and how much they end up spending is a step closer to them self-regulating. The system introduces certain limitations on players so that they do not endlessly sit at the machine burning through cash. Instead, it empowers them to take greater control over their finances by imposing limits on themselves prior to commencing a game. This is a carded precommitment scheme that allows players to set time and spending limits, which empowers them to stay in control of their play.

While using YourPlay is optional for players, it is mandatory for venues to have it installed and available on all electronic poker machines across the state, including the casino. YourPlay users can see live action summaries tracking the money and time they spend on the display screen at the gambling machine. Those who have spent their limit receive reminders before and when they reach the limit, empowering players to make an informed decision about their gaming machine play. This emphasises the importance of harm minimisation in gambling and this government’s commitment to addressing the underlying causes of gambling addiction.

No government in Australia has done more to prevent gambling-related harm than the Allan Labor government. We know the impact gambling harm has on our community. Estimates suggest that Australians lose approximately $25 billion on legal forms of gambling each year, representing the largest per capita losses in the world. Research conducted in 2022 found that almost 46 per cent of Australians aged 18 or over who gambled would be classified as being at risk or already experiencing gambling harm. If nearly 50 per cent of the people who gamble are considered at risk of gambling harm or worse, then the situation has gone too far, and it is on the Parliament to do our job as legislators and intervene with regulations that protect members of the public facing gambling harm. It has also been increasingly recognised that gambling-related harm affects not only people who gamble but also their families, their friends and the wider community.

The bill before us will amend the requirements of the term of the monitoring licence to replace the current fixed term of 15 years, allowing for provisions that enable the licence term to be specified in the licence. This will enhance the government’s ability to determine the most appropriate licence term at a given point in time, as reflected by the best available evidence and understanding of the value of the state. As part of the amendments the government will also be given the power to require a premium payment as consideration for the monitoring licence. Further, the monitoring licence will need to provide regulatory compliance systems and mechanisms to assist venue operators to comply with their regulatory obligations.

I am proud of the Allan Labor government’s record when it comes to gambling reform, and I will continue to support the hard work that goes into putting together substantial evidence-based reforms such as the ones outlined in this bill. It is a testament to the reform agenda driving the Allan Labor government, and for that reason I am happy to support this bill.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:28): I rise to speak in support of the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. This bill paves the way for the introduction of mandatory carded play and precommitment on electronic gaming machines in Victoria. This bill will also increase spin rate limits for new electronic gaming machines, slowing down the rate of play, reducing money laundering and helping to minimise player loss.

We understand that the government’s original plan was for a trial of these changes in mid-2025, an introduction of carded play on all poker machines by the end of 2025, a statewide evaluation by late 2026 and a consideration of further changes to things like non-binding precommitment limits in late 2027. The issue with this timeline is clear from the name of the bill itself: the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. This bill has taken over six months to be debated in the Legislative Council since it was first introduced in the Assembly, and it is not as if the government lacks the numbers to pass legislation here. Maybe what they really lack is the willpower – the willpower to meaningfully crack down on addictive and harmful parts of the gambling industry, the willpower to stop propping up their budget bottom line by raking in ever-increasing revenue from pokies taxes and the willpower to say to the people and their loved ones whose lives have been profoundly affected by the harms of gambling, ‘We see you, we know we need to change and we will.’

This government has failed to meet its own timeline, and we have no idea what a new timeline even looks like. Victorians deserve to know why this government has gotten cold feet and chosen to delay this critical harm minimisation reform. Accordingly I will be putting forward a number of questions in the committee-of-the-whole stage on this bill. One thing is for certain, these changes will be deferred until well after the next state election. By allowing this delay this government is essentially saying that it does not care about the very real risk of a change of government throwing these changes out. We do appreciate that these are major reforms, but that is all the more reason to get them underway as soon as possible. Crown Casino has already been forced to implement carded play on its poker machines. We need to finish the important work we started here. This bill is before us today because we know how harmful gambling can be, and we know precommitment and carded play are effective in reducing these harms. The existing voluntary scheme has been stigmatising and ineffective. If we are to make changes to address gambling harms, we need to bring everyone along on that journey. Precommitment and carded play empower people to take control of their gambling and know their limits. Norway, the first country in the world to introduce a full precommitment system, saw a great reduction in gambling harms. While this bill by no means reflects all the work still to be done in addressing the harms of gambling both in Victoria and across Australia, it is a step in the right direction.

My colleague David Ettershank and I have stood in this place many times to push for the government to reform and respond to the profound losses that gambling causes. We know that, on average, Victorians spend $1300 per capita on betting each year, making it the costliest addiction in this state. The knock-on financial impacts and emotional, psychological, relational, productivity and social costs are estimated at $7 billion. This dwarfs the forecast $1.5 billion in pokies taxes the government is set to rake in by 2028–29. There is an obvious conflict: this government claim to want to protect vulnerable Victorians while relying heavily on revenue generated from gambling to improve their budget bottom line. When we stood in this place almost two years ago and debated a bill to tighten some of the regulations around casinos, we stated our hope that future reforms would be more ambitious, yet here we are today. We will be supporting this bill, and we encourage this government to implement these reforms as soon as possible. At the very least they must be transparent about why they are allowing the community to continue to be subject to the harms of gambling by delaying these reforms.

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (15:33): Thank you to all members that have contributed to this debate on the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. I know there are a range of strong views on this sector and the reforms that this bill supports. I want to acknowledge the sincere contributions from all members in this chamber, and I also read the many passionate contributions in the other place. As was stated in the second-reading speech and in the debate, this bill creates a framework to support the implementation of elements of the government’s landmark gaming reforms. These reforms are about helping to address gambling harms and prevent money laundering. This bill builds on and complements other reforms that our government has already done and is implementing to reduce gambling harm, including mandatory closure periods between 4 am and 10 am in pubs and clubs across our state and reducing load-up limits by 90 per cent, from $1000 at a time to $100 at a time.

We were also clear that we would be working closely with industry and stakeholders on the implementation, because these reforms need to work in practice. Given where we are in the year, recent developments in technology and evolving approaches in our bordering jurisdictions, we will need to revisit the implementation timeline for elements of these reforms. We will do that in consultation with stakeholders and the industry. I want to especially acknowledge the constructive engagement from members on all sides of this debate, in particular the opposition, Ms Copsey and other members of the crossbench. Many have been working with me and my office to make sure that we land this legislation appropriately and strike the right balance. We remain committed to these reforms to help address gambling harm in a sustainable and sensible way, and I invite everyone in the chamber to join the government in passing this bill. As part of this, we do have some targeted amendments that reinforce the purpose of the bill and seek to address the concerns raised by stakeholders and in the Assembly. I would like to circulate the amendments in my name now.

Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Enver ERDOGAN: As we have discussed before, this bill will create a framework to support a staged implementation of these reforms that will be done using a combination of regulation-making powers and a proposed ministerial direction. They work together, as the proposed stages of the implementation make use of both the ministerial direction and the regulation-making powers. Under the existing Gambling Regulation Act 2003 those regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny as governed by the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994. Because the implementation of these reforms relies on the regulations as well, that means they will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This house amendment puts that beyond doubt by ensuring that all the relevant powers are individually subject to parliamentary scrutiny. In the bill that is achieved by removing clause 11 and expanding clause 12. That effectively relocates the proposed precommitment direction from a standalone subsection, section 3.8A.2, to a direction for player accounts in section 3.8A.13A. The expanded clause 12 also sets out the process by which Parliament can revoke a direction, which is consistent with the existing approach for the regulations. As I said at the outset, this is a targeted amendment designed to clarify and improve parliamentary scrutiny. I commend this amendment to the house.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (35): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Katherine Copsey, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Sarah Mansfield, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Noes (1): David Limbrick

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (15:44)

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, the second-reading speech of the bill outlines a timeline for implementation of mandatory carded play. That timeline would appear to have slipped. What is the government’s current proposed timeline for these reforms?

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Mr Mulholland for his question and his interest in this bill, and I thank him also for his thoughtful contribution during the debate. It is clear that the original timeline envisaged that we would be starting trials or pilots by May or June this year. As we are still debating this bill in the chamber today, that indicative timeline set out in the original second-reading speech is not appropriate, and it would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt the passage of this bill through the Parliament today, per se. What is clear is that we will not be able to start the trial of casual cards in May 2025. Should the bill pass today, we will work through the development of ministerial directions and supporting regulations before the first trial can happen, and we will be consulting with industry and stakeholders on a new timeline for implementation. That is consistent with what we have said about working closely with the industry and other groups to implement these reforms in a balanced and effective way.

Evan MULHOLLAND: What do you envisage to be the expected – I guess, revised – timeline for the implementation of casual cards?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the initial plan was a trial in the middle of this year. I would still hope to have a trial in place later this year, so I would still stick to 2025 for an initial trial of casual cards. But of course, we will consult with the stakeholders and industry on a new implementation timeline, taking into account that we now have a new starting point.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Thank you. The second-reading speech notes that some changes may be held until the new monitoring licence is in place in 2027. Would it not make sense to delay the full implementation of these reforms until this has occurred? It would seem pointless to implement a new regime that may be outdated or superseded by better technology, ideas and innovation under a new monitoring licence.

Enver ERDOGAN: Thank you, Mr Mulholland. The short answer is that the full implementation of these reforms will not happen before the new monitoring licence is in place now. As I have said, we will consult with stakeholders on a new implementation timeline, taking into account this starting point. But I also want to be clear that I want to explore a more technology-neutral approach. That does not mean that physical cards will not have a role to play, but there are useful lessons from proceeding with trials, I think, in the current environment. There will be some people who do want to use cards, so we need to be, as I said, technology neutral, taking into account that some people, going forward – and we are seeing across society the old cards being less and less used, and people are moving towards cardless options. But I think we need to be flexible for both approaches.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Will further trials and evaluations be required of a new monitor?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, there will need to be trial testing and evaluation, which will not be completed by 2027.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Will the minister commit to an evaluation of alternative technologies, including facial recognition technology and automated risk monitoring, to address problem gambling before the full implementation of carded play?

Enver ERDOGAN: I personally am keen to see a trial of facial recognition technology as part of a phased implementation approach, to see what technology can best support these reforms and reduce gambling harm. There may be a role for facial recognition technology – in particular, to support self-exclusion. Anyone who understands how self-exclusion works at the moment knows there are about 13,000 Victorians that signed up themselves. They admit that they have an issue that they want to address and they do not want to be at these premises, so they sign up. But it is a manual process – you actually have to go through a book or a manual screen. Obviously, for any staff member, it would not be physically possible to remember 13,000 faces and implement that. So I think there is a role for facial recognition technology, but I would like to see a trial first.

I would like to look at other jurisdictions and what they have implemented to see how that may work and/or how it may be complementary. I have already asked the department to work with the sector to enable venues to implement facial recognition in a manner that improves patron safety, ultimately. We are also looking to mitigate the real privacy concerns – some of the concerns that Mr Limbrick touched upon.

Evan MULHOLLAND: You kind of touched on it, but would the government consider an evaluation of the South Australian model of regulation of pokies and gambling harm?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes. I think technology neutral means we should look at the best practices nationwide. I do understand, in addition to South Australia, New South Wales had their own inquiry and they are leaning towards a facial recognition role, potentially with third-party exclusions as well. I would be interested in having a look at them, but obviously South Australia have already rolled out their facial recognition technology and have kind of a central system for that. I would be interested to look at that and get as much information about it, and it may mean that I will go to South Australia to see how it has been physically implemented during this time.

Evan MULHOLLAND: One thing that was raised by me and I know Mrs Broad as well from the National Party is that border clubs face a very real risk of significant financial harm and ongoing harm for problem gamblers travelling across the border if Victoria implements a policy that is not replicated across the river. How will the minister address these concerns?

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank the opposition for their constructive feedback in relation to this. I think this is a very real issue. I know as minister I have had a lot of feedback from the sector about the potential impacts – because we know that for a lot of these communities the federation borders do not necessarily reflect the way the communities move – that this would have on those businesses and those communities in terms of harm minimisation. We are looking at that, and that is why we will have a look at what has happened in South Australia and New South Wales. New South Wales still has not finalised their position, but it is clear which direction they are going.

I guess one of the challenges with border towns always is if we do end up with a completely different system. The legislation allows flexibility to set different rules in different parts of the state, but then all you are doing is shifting the border for these changes. We need to have a look at where New South Wales lands in the implementation of our own plan.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Will the minister work with his interstate counterparts to attempt to harmonise the regulation of EGMs nationally or at least with our direct neighbours? You have kind of answered it, but I guess you can give it a go.

Enver ERDOGAN: I know my office and the department have already reached out to the New South Wales minister’s office about their reforms. I am interested in what is happening in South Australia as well. I think it is important that we do look at that. I know as a personal injury lawyer in my previous career I loved uniform laws because they create a level of consistency, and obviously it is easier to educate the public when the rules are similar. But I will look at opportunities to harmonise approaches where we can, keeping in mind achieving our policy objectives is the goal. There is a whole range of aspects to regulation in different states that are not exactly the same and we have got to take into account those differences, but I will look at harmonising opportunities where we can.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Is there a resourcing allocation for awareness or education campaigns around these changes?

Enver ERDOGAN: Initially there will be a trial, and the initial trial will involve venues that will need to participate in this trial. There will be resourcing in terms of the department will be present and assist the venues with this trial. I do not want to pre-empt Mr Mulholland, but I have had this feedback from a number of people: there will not be compensation for clubs or hotels that must participate in this trial.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I completely understand that. I meant education campaigns for problem gamblers.

Enver ERDOGAN: We already have dedicated programs for gambling harm, and much of it now sits with mental health since the reforms we have had. There is ongoing education work to be done in this space. I know during the debate you raised about it being in language. I know that we do advertising in language. We have got about 13 languages existing where there is a harm minimisation message in language. There is always more work to be done in this space. That is clear. I think that we all know, being in the north, that the level of harm caused in our communities is very real, especially multicultural communities. It deeply affects so many people and it touches so many lives. I think these reforms are really important in doing that work. But in terms of our rollout of the trial, there will be educational work in the areas that are chosen to participate in our trial – about what we are proposing at the trial – and support for the venues in terms of having people to do some of that work, but there will be no proposed compensation for venues.

Evan MULHOLLAND: You kind of pre-empted my next question. I just want to touch on – in particular for our CALD communities and multicultural communities – if you envisage or have oversight or can see a role for dedicated communication efforts and education efforts into our multicultural and multi-faith communities and also whether you will give thought to looking at where some of the highest LGAs are for gambling harm, such as Whittlesea and Hume, when looking at determining where a trial might be.

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Mr Mulholland for his really inquisitive, I might add, question. It is a really important issue, and there are so many points to that, but I will say definitely in Hume and Whittlesea. We have seen the geographic impact, especially in our outer suburbs. There is a cultural overlay to that work. I think it is something we should put some serious thought into. I know well, in terms of the further development in this space, having been five, six months in the portfolio, there is always room for improvement. In the language education I felt like we did a really good job as a state government in terms of getting out our message with the COVID pandemic. That was very targeted – in language, very specific – and that was a combination of social media, I recall. For those of you that may not know, I can also read and write in Turkish and in Kurdish, so I was getting a lot of Turkish ads, surprisingly, on YouTube. The algorithm picked up on COVID information. So clearly there is something – for people that maybe attend venues – in language, and there is work to be done in the way we get digital information out as well as physical material. I think there are opportunities really for partnerships. Some of the grassroots work we did was really instrumental during the pandemic, when I reflect on directly engaging those community groups – I am talking the faith groups, the community groups, and having them work and send a message about gambling harm. They already do that anyway, as you and I both know.

I think one of our friends, Joseph Haweil – he is an advocate in the Assyrian community in the north. When he was mayor of Hume city, he talked about these issues in his community. So I think there is a lot of work to be done in this space, and I think these should be explored. Again, I do not want to pre-empt the passage of the legislation today, but once the legislation is through, we can do that work. Then we will have a firm commitment of this legislation being in place and we will need to do this work to line it up with implementation. I think gambling harm affects so many people. I will say on record that 10 per cent of Victorians play pokies, but obviously there are other forms of gambling. It is a legal industry, I will add, but the actual harm element is very serious and very real, and that is why today’s bill is so important.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, you have spoken positively just now about the use of facial recognition technology in venues. Can you please confirm that during the trial rollout period you are going to have measures available to users of poker machines who do not wish to be subject to facial recognition surveillance so that they can still access the benefits of the government’s mandatory carded play scheme?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think in terms of the initial trial we are committed to doing a trial into carded play. The goal is: later this year. I have always been sensitive as well, with the balance, that we will not have it during the Christmas period, because that is the peak season for a lot of the sector – the peak holiday season, effectively – but will try to do it this year with carded play and thereafter, at some stage after, look at other technologies and see what is happening in other jurisdictions. Facial recognition has been one option that has been raised. There might be other technology options available, but facial recognition technology seems to be one. I think there are definitely privacy concerns, and there are a lot of court cases. There is a court case in regard to these issues. That is why we need to look at what has happened in other jurisdictions to see how it could be trialled here at venues. I think that needed to be worked through, about how it would be put in place to make sure the safeguards were there, before that trial went ahead. We were much more prepared for the carded play trial because obviously that was initially supposed to happen now, but now it has been pushed back to later this year. For the other technology options, I think more work needs to be done before that trial can roll out.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, you have discussed the timeline, and I think it is worth also noting that this bill was introduced in November last year and is only now being debated, meaning the government have missed on their deadline for trialling some of these changes. Is the minister happy to provide reasons for this delay?

Enver ERDOGAN: As I outlined in my summation of the legislation, it has been a bit of a journey. I know that since the announcement many of the stakeholders have shared their concerns with me about the time – that the initial announcement was obviously in late 2023, legislation was to be approved late last year and now we are here in May. It is important to understand that with recent developments in technology, given where we are in the year and with the evolving approaches of bordering jurisdictions, we do need to look at our implementation plan. Initially there was some talk of New South Wales going down the same angle as us. Now they have taken a different approach, so we need to consider that as well. As a member of the upper house, Ms Payne, you would appreciate we have had a very busy legislative agenda in the upper house during this time. We have only had a few sitting weeks, but we have had quite a few 2 am, 3 am finishes in between our tough new bail laws and our fire services levy debate amongst many others, and planning discussions on housing. There have been a lot of long debates in this chamber. It is not from a lack of wanting. We have been wanting to debate this legislation. I know you have been very keen also. But I am glad we are here today, and without pre-empting the debate, if we can pass this legislation today, then we can get on with it.

In the meantime, we have already done a lot of work in harm minimisation, I might add and remind the chamber about. It was our government that set the closure laws for pubs and clubs from 4 am to 10 am. I think that was really crucial, because we had heard stories, and many of you I am sure had heard them as well, about clubs having different closure times so people could hop between venues. We have ended that practice in our suburbs and our city and our state. Now we have got the next stage of this work, which is the implementation of the account-based play and precommitment.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, thank you for your response there. You just raised the fire services levy and more broadly questions of budget. The recent state budget assumed that there would be an uninterrupted flow of taxes generated from poker machines. This revenue was projected to grow to $1.5 billion by 2028–29. Was the budgetary impact a determining factor in delaying the passage of the bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Payne, that is an interesting question. Broadly speaking, I feel like budget discussions are outside the scope of this legislation and that we will have that opportunity in the coming year. I know that it is being debated in the other place as we speak, so we will get an opportunity. I do not want to pre-empt the debate in this chamber, but what I will say is from my point of view there were no budgetary considerations. It was all about the implementation and to make sure we strike the right balance. I want to be very clear: this delay is not about budget. To be black and white, this is about delivering on our commitment to work with industry and stakeholders to ensure the reforms are effective and stand the test of time, and that is why I talk about an account-based and also a technology-neutral approach.

Rachel PAYNE: Minister, thank you for your response there. You mentioned timeline earlier, and the timeline provided for in the second reading of the bill included a pilot for these changes in mid-2025, an introduction of carded play requirements on all poker machines by the end of 2025, a statewide evaluation by the end of 2026 and consideration of further changes to things like non-binding precommitment limits in late 2027. Can the minister advise by how long each of these stages are likely to be delayed, and when will the updated timeline be published?

Enver ERDOGAN: In relation to the timeline, I think our second-reading speech did provide an indicative timeline, but I have got a nice quote from it to show that today’s reforms are reflecting the second-reading speech. The former minister in the other place said:

In recognition of the weight and complexity of the reforms, the Act enables the Minister to conduct pilots, learn from the implementation and be responsive to these lessons.

In this way, the amendments provide maximum flexibility for implementation of the reforms, embedding the opportunity for continuous review and improvement …

Then she goes on. I believe that was indicative, but since then obviously the landscape has changed and we are in a different timeframe. But I still want to see the first trial of carded play at a number of venues in a geographic area this year. I think we still stick with this year. What will come out of that is really difficult to predict, because we also want to have an evaluation following that process. We also want to try some of the other technological options that are available and that are being implemented across the country. There will be further work on a timeline. It is always difficult to predict. I do not want to pre-empt that work of the initial trial evaluation, but we will have a new timeline.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Just a couple more questions. How do you envisage the trial will run and how will you get venues to take part?

Enver ERDOGAN: What I have seen is that there is strong support from the sector for the harm minimisation efforts of our government, particularly in terms of minimising harm for patrons so they can gamble responsibly. I do want to thank the sector for their feedback in relation to that. Responsible venue operators know how important it is to be involved in these reforms. I think these reforms also give them an advantage of learning the lessons from this kind of technology and also an opportunity to engage with patrons during that time. The department is still working through the detail. What I envisage from early discussions, because we have not settled any of this, is that we would pick a geographic area or areas and focus on a rollout of carded play with venues in a geographic area. But the final call on how many venues or how many locations has not been made yet. Following the passage of this legislation that will be something that the department will make recommendations on.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Obviously new technologies, cards and facial recognition trials do not pay for themselves. Who pays for these reforms? Is it the government or is it the clubs?

Enver ERDOGAN: As I stated earlier, we will be working with the industry to implement these reforms. We already have carded play and the technology in place in Victoria, so that will be a bit more straightforward, because the venues have that existing technology in place. But we will take into account options to leverage existing technology, and that is what we will do. That is why the first set of trials will be a bit more straightforward. We should not need any kind of infrastructure investment, so to speak, because that technology is in place. But I think it is important that we do work with the sector. I want to work with them about what are the best options, and obviously there is a potential for costs if we go for some of the other technological options in terms of the trial, and those details are to be worked through. We have not made a decision about any other technologies. But the carded play one will be a minimal cost to the sector because that technology is already in place.

Just on that point, Mr Mulholland, I think it is important to state that we will avoid the peak season. I know this sector is very cyclical and seasonal, and I think it is important that we do avoid the Christmas period, which is obviously very busy and their peak season for earning an income, so we need to take that into consideration too. So avoid the peak periods, leverage the existing technology for the first trial, but going forward there will be an ongoing discussion.

David LIMBRICK: I have a question about the amendment that was circulated earlier if that is okay. One of the main things that this amendment does is allow parliamentary scrutiny through disallowance. My question is: can the Governor in Council exempt these regulations from disallowance motions under section 28(1)(ab) of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am advised no, Mr Limbrick.

David LIMBRICK: Thank you; that is good to know. I have another question, and this will probably be figured out in the trial I imagine, but we have, as Mr Mulholland pointed out in his speech, casual players. I would also point out there are many tourists that use these things, and they may find that the barrier of signing up for a card and precommitting and all that is all too much. Will the effects on tourism be taken into account in a trial like this? It seems to me that it would have some effect on tourism at these venues.

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, I think the venue with the greatest implementation of some of these reforms is Crown Casino. Obviously we had a royal commission which was quite damning of the casino. As a result of that we have implemented some stringent gambling harm minimisation measures but also money-laundering measures. As part of that I know at Crown they do have now a requirement for non-Australian citizens to provide photo ID, which usually means a passport, and a lot of tourists will not necessarily carry that with them. It has had an impact on their bottom line. That is the only example I can refer to. We have not had this in place in clubs or pubs before, but we have had it in place in Crown, and it has had a big effect on the casual tourist looking for entertainment.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, you spoke a bit before about evaluation of the trial. Will there be an independent evaluation of the carded play trial? Who will conduct it, and will the results be tabled in Parliament?

Enver ERDOGAN: The intention is that the evaluation will be conducted by the Department of Justice and Community Safety. There is also a consultation group that is supporting the implementation of these reforms, and they will be consulted on details of the trial. This is not something that would normally be tabled in Parliament. I would not expect it to be, in the normal course of events.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, would you make an undertaking to make the findings public?

Enver ERDOGAN: I cannot commit to that, Ms Copsey, as we are still working through the details of the implementation plan in light of the revised way forward.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, how are you going to be defining success of the trial? What will be the key metrics? Will they include, for example, reductions in gambling losses, in help-seeking behaviour from users and in suicidality, or will there be other metrics?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think those factors will still be worked on, but it is clear that the primary focus is about making sure that the technology and the monitoring system can work together as intended. We need to understand as well for the purpose of this legislation that these are legal sectors; it is about providing harm minimisation so that people can make informed choices. That is why precommitment is an important part of it. People setting their own limits is also part of that, as well as the slower spin rates, to minimise where people can get caught in that cycle. Ultimately the focus of the trial is about ensuring that the technology and the monitoring system can work and support an effective transition for venues and players.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, can you explain how people will be protected from predatory tactics or inducements to override or increase their precommitment limits once they are at a venue? What safeguards will be in place to ensure that people are encouraged to set and stick to their precommitment limit?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is envisaged that gaming machines will not be permitted to operate if they are not connected to the precommitment system. I think it is also important to understand, as part of this trial, that we see what is the best way forward in relation to those precommitment systems. I do not want to speculate, but I think we have already made reforms that in terms of creating load-up limits from $1000 down to $100 create that break for players to consider their actions. In terms of people setting limits, that is why I like account-based play. Some gambling sites already have this in place, where you have to set a limit before you play. How we implement it in terms of the technical details is something to be worked on through the next few phases and through the trials. But the initial trial will be focused on mandatory carded play. That will be the initial trial before the precommitment trial. I think we need to work through the stages before we get to what is the best way to implement that.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, can you confirm that when people set limits on their cards this will be aggregated and applied across different venues should they go from one venue that has got carded play to another?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes. I think that is definitely a really good point, Ms Copsey. I think the goal is to have one card linked to a central system that could be used at all venues. I asked this of the department the other day just to check. If you have got one card at one club, it will be across the whole state system, except for Crown, because Crown actually has a higher level of verification for you to be able to get one of their cards, in light of the royal commission. So, yes, it will be one card across the state, so if you have spent $100 at one venue you cannot go to the next venue and spend another $100 if your limit is $100.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, what safeguards will you be putting in place to prevent the misuse of player data by operators for marketing or behavioural targeting to try and get people to gamble more?

Enver ERDOGAN: That is a really good question. I think Mr Limbrick has got an interest in this issue, because he made a point of it during the debate. But I will say that all necessary steps are being taken to require that only the minimum level of personal information is collected while ensuring the effective operation of the precommitment system. As I understand it, there are already strict data restrictions on this stuff, and the precommitment system will be subject to the Australian government’s Privacy Act 1988 – the Commonwealth legislation – and relates to the Australian Privacy Principles, which regulate the way personal information is handled in Australia. This includes the requirements for collection, storage, use, disclosure and destruction of personal information. The Gambling Regulation Act 2003 also protects precommitment information where money laundering or other illegal activities are detected. De-identified data will also only be used for specific purposes such as research. Any data access by the government is de-identified. Individuals will not be contacted based on this data about their gambling unless they opt to receive their annual activity statement via post or email, so that will only be if they opt in for information about how much they have spent throughout the year. But it should not be used for marketing or any other purpose.

Katherine COPSEY: I think you touched on my next question there, which is around the de-identified data and its availability. Will limited de-identified data be made available for public health harm reduction researchers? If so, what kind of governance and ethics framework will govern the release of that information for research purposes?

Enver ERDOGAN: We already fund a number of research projects in relation to this area. Let me just get clarification on whether this data is already provided for research purposes strictly.

There already exists a data committee, which is a combination of the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) and the department, and for people undertaking research in this area there is an existing right to apply to get that data – in a de-identified way of course.

Katherine COPSEY: Thanks for checking that. I just want to ask quickly around some of the anti-money-laundering aspects that this system can assist with. Have you already consulted with AUSTRAC, or will you undertake to consult with AUSTRAC, and how will the mandatory carded-play system support or integrate with AUSTRAC’s efforts to track suspicious gambling-related activity?

Enver ERDOGAN: I can confirm that the department and the VGCCC consult and cooperate with AUSTRAC as we speak. That work is ongoing; it is not just a one-off. My expectation is that that would continue with the rollout of carded play. Information from the monitoring licensee can be used to support AUSTRAC’s efforts. These reforms obviously will make that more effective, because if there are more people on the system that use account-based play, then AUSTRAC can monitor those accounts. At core that is a matter for AUSTRAC and VGCCC. They are the main regulators in this space and they are responsible. This bill will help their efforts to stop money laundering, and that is their work. VGCCC and AUSTRAC will do that work. Having account-based play will make it easier for them to track where there is unusual activity.

Katherine COPSEY: There are no stronger anti-money-laundering reforms in this bill, such as banning cash input entirely or requiring ID to be provided at lower transaction thresholds. Why have you chosen not to pursue those within this legislation, and are they the sorts of measures that could be investigated as well through the trial period?

Enver ERDOGAN: I would say there are very strict money-laundering measures against cash in this bill. You would notice that one of the amendments we make is a $2000 limit. If you want a payout of more than $2000, you have to show photo ID. Beyond harm minimisation, that is an anti-money-laundering scheme that we have put in. Anything above $2000, you have to show ID. I think that will assist. I do take your point that there is always more that can happen in this space, but I think account-based play, in that direction, does make the job of AUSTRAC and the VGCCC a lot easier in itself.

You were talking about cashless play, but we are setting limits of $100 at a time. That is quite onerous. There has been no proven money laundering in pokie venues. I must admit there was at the casino, and there have obviously been some anecdotes from other jurisdictions. In Victoria we saw that this was an issue especially at Crown Casino, but there has not been any proof of that in our pubs and clubs across the state. I think the $100 limit in itself, reduced from $1000, is harm minimisation and it does reduce the risk of someone trying to use this avenue to money launder.

Katherine COPSEY: In rolling out these reforms will local governments or public health partnerships have any role in oversight, monitoring or implementation of carded play and associated education at venues within their region or area of operation?

Enver ERDOGAN: I need to be clear that the bill does not change the role of local governments. The state’s monitoring licensee has the formal role to monitor EGMs across Victoria. The independent regulator, the VGCCC, also has a role in enforcement, and the department’s own community advisory group does include representation from local government peak bodies such as the MAV and VLGA and community organisations. They will continue to play that role. I think they play a really important role. Some of the lead advocates in this space are from the local government level; Mr Mulholland touched earlier on Hume City Council’s role. I know Monash City Council has been very vocal. There is definitely a role for them, and it will continue as is.

Katherine COPSEY: Just a couple more questions now on regulation, offences and accountability. What enforcement mechanisms do you expect or predict will apply to venues that fail to comply with carded play or precommitment obligations? Will penalties around that be automatic or will they be discretionary?

Enver ERDOGAN: From the outset, I think gaming machines will not be able to operate without being connected to the central precommitment system. There will be penalty units that will apply, and the VGCCC will have other enforcement powers as well, and discretion as to how they exercise those powers and to what extent. Of course the VGCCC has quite wide-ranging powers. It is, I would say, the toughest regulator in the nation, so that could mean people losing their licence to operate – but that would obviously be for quite a significant breach, if that were found. But the VGCCC will have the tools it needs to penalise people.

Katherine COPSEY: Just on the VGCCC’s resources and powers: will the VGCCC be fully resourced and empowered to audit, investigate and penalise noncompliance under this scheme? And can you share – this is an increase to their remit; do you plan to resource them accordingly?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think the scope and operation of the VGCCC is something that obviously will need to be reviewed as part of this. It is a relatively new entity and is coming into the role at a unique time, so we have just seen the growth of the entity. Definitely a review of purpose and a review of resources is something that I know the department will work on with the VGCCC. It is an independent body, but I think it is something that needs to be looked at, especially considering the workloads that this may bring upon that agency.

Clause 1 agreed to; clauses 2 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 (16:27)

Katherine COPSEY: I move:

1. Clause 11, lines 30 and 31, omit “A direction under subsection (1) may include a direction” and insert “On or before 1 December 2027, the Minister must give a direction under subsection (1)”.

I will speak briefly to both amendments, which are similar in their intended effect. Essentially, as I spoke to in my second-reading speech on this bill, the Greens are very supportive of the government exploring carded play and mandatory precommitment, which we know is a proven harm reduction measure and has been called for by advocates for years. We are similarly concerned, like other members who have made contributions in this debate, at the slippage we have continued to see since these reforms were announced in July 2023. These amendments were an attempt to come to an agreement with the government about a date by which we would be able to see carded play implemented in Victoria. The date that we were in discussions with the government about was on or before 1 December 2027. As has become clear through discussions today, I gather that the government is not in a position to commit to full implementation by that date.

We have had some more clarity from the minister about the government’s current intended timeline. I must say, though, it is concerning to hear this assertion that we are now starting from a fresh start. Actually, the government’s commitment to these reforms is over two years old. I understand the minister’s contributions that the Parliament has had other pressing matters to deal with and that the chamber has been kept busy. That may be the case, but these are really urgent reforms. I outlined in my speech the losses in the hundreds of millions that are occurring within LGAs such as Hume – $122 million – within the minister’s own electorate. We know the harm has been going on for decades and is compounding every month that we fail to see these reforms implemented.

Mechanically, the way that these amendments work is to require the minister to provide directions by 1 December 2027, and also to require the regulations to come into effect by 1 December 2027. That was the form and the intent behind the Greens amendments. Just in closing on this topic, I really urge the government to redouble its efforts and its commitment to implementing these reforms. The powers are in your hands now, Minister, and the only way that communities will actually see the benefit of these reforms is if carded play with account-based, ID-linked mandatory precommitment is rolled out across venues across this state. I urge you to get to that task with haste.

Enver ERDOGAN: I just want to thank Ms Copsey for her amendment. I will state that the government does not support this amendment. We believe we have struck the right balance here in this bill. As was the initial purpose with the second-reading speech, we feel that the current legislation provides flexibility for implementation of the reforms. I think it is important to also note that our commitment always was to roll it out in consultation with stakeholders in the industry. We will have a new timeline, but I think it is important that the harm minimisation work does not end today. I think the point I was trying to make was that I guess this is a fresh start in terms of a new stage of that work, because I would say that a lot of the work has been continuous, especially the work we have done on the closure times that we have already implemented for clubs and pubs across our state. I think the increased spin rate and the load-up limits coming down from $1000 to $100 at a time will all have a big impact from 1 December, and we will see that hopefully reduce harm. But there is a lot of work to be done.

I do want to make sure that we have legislation in place and a system in place that do stand the test of time and look at the technologies available. But I do hear your point about the need for account-based play. It already exists in many other forms for people that might have app-based gaming. So there is a way forward, but we have got to make sure it is done with the right technology and implemented so it stands the test of time. So unfortunately the government cannot support the amendments proposed by Ms Copsey. As I said, I think I have already touched on the point that it will reduce load-up limits and spin rates. I feel like we have struck the right balance with our legislation as it is.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will not be supporting this amendment either. I do not think I have ever seen a government IT project run on time, so I think the government even completing this project will be a triumph of the government. So enforcing a shorter timeframe I think only causes even more trouble. The Libertarian Party will not be supporting this amendment.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that Ms Copsey’s amendment 1, which tests her amendment 2, be agreed to.

Council divided on amendment:

Ayes (6): Katherine Copsey, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Sarah Mansfield, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell

Noes (30): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Harriet Shing, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Amendment negatived.

Enver ERDOGAN: I will keep it very brief, just to say that this is a targeted amendment that reinforces the purpose of the bill and seeks to address the concerns raised by stakeholders and in the Assembly by the opposition. This house amendment puts it beyond doubt by ensuring that all relevant powers are individually subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This is a targeted amendment designed to clarify and improve parliamentary scrutiny, and I commend it to the house. I invite members to vote against this clause.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will be supporting this amendment. We think allowing disallowance of these regulations is a good improvement, and hopefully if the government of the day comes up with something which is considered by Parliament to be a bad thing, such as poor use of facial recognition technology or something like this, then it is good that it can be disallowed. So the Libertarians will be supporting this.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will be supporting this government amendment. We take on board the government’s statements that this is a clarifying amendment and that the revocation would have still been possible; however, I think it is good for clarity to put that beyond doubt.

Evan MULHOLLAND: As per our advocacy in the Assembly and in the Council, the Liberals and Nationals will be supporting this amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister is actually seeking to omit the clause, so the question will be put about the clause standing part of the bill, and if you are supporting the minister’s amendment, you need to vote no to the clause.

Clause negatived.

Clause 12 (16:43)

Enver ERDOGAN: I move:

2. Clause 12, line 9, omit “section 3.8A.13A” and insert “sections 3.8A.13A to 3.8A.13C”.

3. Clause 12, after line 11 insert –

‘“3.8A.13A Direction for player accounts

(1) The Minister may, by instrument, direct the monitoring licensee to ensure that a person cannot play a game on a gaming machine in an approved venue unless a player account has been established for the person.

(2) A direction under subsection (1) must be –

(a) given to the monitoring licensee; and

(b) published in the Government Gazette.

(3) It is a condition of the monitoring licence that the licensee must comply with a direction under subsection (1).

(4) A direction under subsection (1) may apply on different days in relation to different geographical areas, different venues or different gaming machines.

3.8A.13B Tabling and revocation of direction by Parliament

(1) The Minister must cause a direction under section 3.8A.13A to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days after the direction is published in the Government Gazette.

(2) A direction under section 3.8A.13A is revoked in whole or part if –

(a) notice of a resolution to revoke the direction is given in a House of the Parliament on or before the 10th sitting day after the direction is laid before that House; and

(b) the resolution is passed by that House on or before the 12th sitting day after notice is given under paragraph (a).

(3) If a direction under section 3.8A.13A is revoked under subsection (2) –

(a) any provision of a previous direction under section 3.8A.13A that had been revoked by the direction comes back into operation from the beginning of the day on which the direction is revoked; and

(b) any provision of a previous direction under section 3.8A.13A that had been amended by the direction takes effect without that amendment from the beginning of the day on which the direction is revoked as if the amendment had not been made.

(4) The Minister must publish a notice of the revocation of a direction or part of a direction under subsection (2) in the Government Gazette.’.

4. Clause 12, line 12, omit ‘“3.8A.13A’ and insert “3.8A.13C”.

5. Clause 12, lines 15 and 16, omit “referred to in section 3.8A.2(1A) is in force” and insert “is in force under section 3.8A.13A”.

Amendments agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (16:43)

Enver ERDOGAN: I move:

6. Clause 16, page 9, line 10, omit “3.8A.13A(3)” and insert “3.8A.13C(3)”.

Amendment agreed to; amended clause agreed to; clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.

Reported to house with amendments.

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (16:45): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (16:45): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendments.