Tuesday, 17 June 2025
Bills
Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025
Please do not quote
Proof only
Bills
Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025
Second reading
Debate resumed on motion of Enver Erdogan:
That the bill be now read a second time.
Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:27): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I know it is the most hotly anticipated bill being put forward in the entire Parliament this week. I know Minister Erdogan has worked tirelessly on this bill, with many painstaking and sleepless nights putting the final pieces on this bill for it to conclude here in this chamber. The bill purports to tidy up our regulatory landscape yet in truth finds another way, in classic Labor fashion, to dip into the pockets of ordinary Victorians. That is what I fear is before us today – another example of the Allan government’s addiction to taxation: taxation dressed up as reform, taxation dressed up as modernisation, taxation slipped quietly into the pages of a bill that most of the public will never read. They will certainly feel it once it becomes law.
The government tells us that the bill streamlines processes, makes life easier for applicants, and removes archaic language. Those are admirable aims, but they are not the core of this particular bill. At the heart of the legislation it introduces so-called premium payments on monitoring licences and public lottery licences. These premium payments are taxes in all but name. Clause 7 actually spells it out in quite plain English:
The premium payment … is a tax.
Those are not just my words; it is not a partisan flourish but the government’s own drafting. It is for this reason the Liberals and Nationals will seek to remove this clause from the bill, and if that is not successful, we will be opposing the bill in its entirety. I am happy to call for that amendment to be circulated.
Amendments circulated pursuant to standing orders.
Evan MULHOLLAND: A tax by any other name still takes hard-earned dollars out of local communities. Every hotel owner, every bowls club and every RSL across Victoria knows that when this Labor government imposes a new fee, levy or premium the buck stops with them, because they know – and bitter experience has taught them – that when a government hits $194 billion of debt it will look for soft targets, and community venues become the softest target of all. We certainly know the government has a track record of targeting particularly RSLs, and we saw that through the very aggressive pursuit by this government through the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission of RSLs, many in the northern suburbs like the Glenroy RSL, in forcing them to pay for licences that they could not actually use due to local government restrictions, and it was only after a local grassroots campaign that I ran that the government was forced to backflip on those licences and create a mechanism for those licences to be surrendered. That was a good outcome, but what was not a good outcome was all the money that those RSL had to spend on lawyers and legal fees to fight the government and its attempts to aggressively starve them of any sort of cash flow.
Consider first the premium payment on monitoring licences: for decades Victoria has issued single monitoring licences for a fixed 15-year period. The current licence, granted in 2012 and due to expire in 2027, provided certainty to the incumbent and equally importantly to every venue required by law to use the monitoring service. In these kinds of regulatory environments certainty breeds investment, certainty supports competition and certainty lets accountants run their spreadsheets and bankers approve their loans. The bill tears that certainty to shreds. The minister and the minister alone will decide whether the next licence runs for one year or 20 – no guidance, no ceiling, no floor, just ‘Trust me,’ and that is not regulatory clarity, that is what I would say is an invitation for regulatory confusion.
Business regards uncertainty like a virus. If an international firm is weighing up whether to bid for a licence, investing tens of millions of dollars into secure servers, data analytics, carded play technology and the skilled staff to run it, how can it justify that expenditure without knowing whether the contract horizon will be long enough to recoup the costs? A shorter horizon tilts the field towards the incumbent provider Intralot, which already owns the infrastructure and can outlast rivals. That is not how you foster innovation, that is how you discourage it here in Victoria.
The minister also gains the power to impose the premium payment up-front annually, in full or in instalments. Venue operators do not know whether they will be presented with one single eye-watering invoice or a drip feed that bleeds them month by month, but they do know that whatever the structure, the money must come from somewhere. Gaming revenue is fixed by regulation, so they cannot simply spin the pokies faster. What they can and inevitably will do is put an extra dollar on a meal or 50 cents on a pint or an extra $5 on a family outing; that is what will inevitably happen. If the government swoops in with a premium payment of even $2000 payable immediately, your local venue has a choice to make: do they jack up prices, lay off staff or just close their doors? That is the human face of this legislation – a face that is too often hidden behind Treasury spreadsheets, boffins and talking points.
Proponents point to the harm minimisation benefits, and I support evidence-based measures to reduce problem gambling – precommitment technology, mandatory breaks in play and robust self-exclusion registers. But let us be honest, this bill is not about that at all. The mandatory precommitment regime was legislated this year. Cashless card trials are expected to begin later this year or in early 2026. The substance of this bill is tax. The harm minimisation fig leaf cannot obscure the revenue-raising trunk.
Government members will also highlight administrative tidying, eliminating gendered language, allowing EFT rather than cheques for winnings over $1000 and streamlining licence transfers by removing the need for Governor in Council approval. These are sensible uncontroversial changes, and if they were the entire bill we could quite easily support this bill. I do not go to the pokies often, but if you are at the pokies it is a nice little threshold for you or one of your mates to get a cheque, to crack the feature on more chilli and get the cheque. It is a nice little threshold, but EFT will do for those who do enjoy the occasional flutter. I am not one who is a regular at the pokies; it is probably more of a once-a-year thing, if even that.
Unfortunately, while all of those things are fine, there is a poison pill in this bill which we cannot abide. Some will ask, ‘Why impose a tax on gambling at all? Surely collecting more from an activity that can cause social harm is defensible.’ Fair question. My answer is that taxation must still be transparent, proportionate and predictable, and at present the burden of these premiums will fall not on big business but on community venues and corner newsagents that are already paying some of the highest gaming taxes in the nation. To me, that is just not fair at all. Process matters too. This bill fixes no schedule of charges. It hands that power entirely to the minister. Parliament is asked to sign a blank cheque. Once the ink is dry, the executive may fill in whatever numbers it likes. In a state rightly criticised for project blowouts – you are up to $48 billion, by the way, over the life of this government – and secret side deals and retrospective fee hikes, why would any prudent business trust such discretion?
The Treasurer declared quite proudly in her budget speech that there would be no new taxes this financial year. Yet here we are debating another Labor tax, and again it is written in the bill. The premium payment is a tax. We heard in budget week that there are no new taxes, and we are here the following sitting week debating a new tax. This Labor government cannot help itself when it comes to taxes. Victorians are right to be very wary of Labor’s tricky word games. A tax called a ‘premium’ is still money taken; the government should tell the truth when it comes to that. The broader economic context really matters in this situation, because you begin to understand why the government would be interested in sneakily inserting new taxes into quite reasonable omnibus bills. That context is that net debt is expected to approach $194 billion within four years. Servicing that debt will soon eclipse the entire annual budget for the Department of Education.
When I talk about servicing that debt – $194 billion of debt, over $25 million a day and over a million dollars an hour – that is not to pay down the debt; that is just to service the debt. The paying of the interest on the debt is going to eclipse what we spend on the entire Department of Education. This is why budget management is so important. It is so important because this government cannot even fund things like opening the Craigieburn community hospital. At the Northern Hospital they are stitching up data to make their figures look better. The government has to tax our fire services and our farmers because it has run out of money. When the government wastes money – it has $48 billion of project blowouts – somebody has to pay for that, and it is ordinary Victorians that pay the price because this government cannot manage money. The spending just to service the interest on their massive debt again is eclipsing the whole spend for the Department of Education – what we spend on our kids’ schools. It is any wonder our public schools are falling over with ill repair, because this government cannot manage money and is looking for every way to tax people so it can plug its massive black hole that is needed to service this massive $194 billion of government debt.
Every charge is rationalised as necessary to protect frontline services, yet the cumulative effect strangles economic vibrancy. Small businesses hesitate to expand, international investors steer clear and regional towns watch young families drift interstate. The government insist the market can bear it, and I caution them: markets bear weight until suddenly they cannot. New Zealand’s hike in the point-of-consumption tax saw several wagering firms exit, taking jobs and sponsorship dollars. The United Kingdom’s aggressive clampdown on fixed-odds betting terminals decimated high street bookmakers, with thousands of redundancies. Policy devised in a Treasury boardroom can devastate livelihoods on the ground.
Transparency is another casualty. In 2011 the Liberals and Nationals government conducted an open tender for a monitoring licence with clear criteria, published guidelines and independent probity oversight. Stakeholders may not have loved every outcome, but they could not fault the process. Under this bill the tender may proceed without a defined term, without disclosure of the premium framework and with the minister empowered to vary conditions at will. That is regulatory quicksand. When we speak about how important integrity is – in the Parliament, in government, in the public service and in ministerial offices – one would think that not having clear criteria, published guidelines or independent probity oversights when the minister is deciding single-handedly if a tender may proceed, particularly when it has to do with gaming, is very important and something that all members of this Parliament should note. Crossbench colleagues should note a subtle clause: only one licence extension is permitted before a fresh tender must occur. Coupled with unlimited ministerial discretion on the premium, this lets the government extract a windfall from the incumbent at extension time, secure in the knowledge that if negotiations collapse, a new tender can be announced with another up-front payment. It is hostage and ransom legislation, and that is wrong.
The shadow minister, Tim McCurdy in the other place, asked whether a regulatory impact statement would be tabled. All he got was blank looks – no surprise. He asked what consultation occurred with the volunteer-run clubs and was told there had been ‘targeted engagement’, in government parlance. Targeted engagement means a phone call to a peak body two days before cabinet signs off. The people who cook the meals, slice the lemons and run the Thursday meat tray raffle – well, they were never in the room.
Let me be clear: opposing this bill is not a defence of poker machines. One can believe, as I do, that machines should be tightly controlled and venues must meet responsible service obligations while also believing that tax policy should be honest and proportionate – and the bill fails that test. I have been clear in my time in this place about my concerns about the social harm caused by poker machines, particularly in my electorate and particularly in our multicultural communities and vulnerable communities. There is a constructive path that would allow us to support this bill, which would be to strip out the premium provisions. We are hoping that our amendment will be supported, and then we would be in a position to support this bill. I suspect it will not, because this government has run out of money and it is ordinary Victorians that are paying the price.
We are going to hear from those opposite about their commitment to gambling harm prevention. I would remind those opposite to perhaps look up the Hansard from my contribution a few weeks ago, where I pointed out it was the Joan Kirner Labor government that introduced the wicked scourge of poker machines into Victoria, another government that had run out of money. When they talk about the social good they are doing on this front, it is important always to give them a history lesson, and I remind them to stroll across to the parliamentary library and do the research for themselves – that a Labor government was the government that introduced the scourge of poker machines into Victoria. We should always remember that fact.
What was the eternal Kevin Rudd quote about the beating heart and soul of the New South Wales Labor right? It could also apply to Victoria: ‘casino land’. It has got some element of truth to it. It does have some element of truth to it when you look at who is doing the lobbying and when you remember that it was a Labor government who started this scourge in Victoria. If the government refuses our amendment, we must vote no. We will do so not out of reflex but out of a principled defence of small businesses, volunteers and patrons being used as collateral in a budgetary shell game.
It bears remembering that this Parliament has watched a parade of efficiency bills in recent years – the road usage charge, the fire services property levy, the vacant residential land tax expansions – each modest on paper, each now baking hundreds of millions into annual revenue forecasts. This normalisation of the perpetual tax grab erodes public trust. We should be reversing this trend, not entrenching it. Moreover, the gaming industry already contributes over $2 billion a year to state coffers, far more per capita than comparable jurisdictions. That revenue funds hospitals, schools, police stations – nobody disputes its importance. But good governance demands a balance between collection and sustainability. Push the lever too hard and the machine breaks, venues close, employment falls, black market play fills the void and harm increases. We meddle with that equilibrium at our state’s peril.
I want to talk about the mandatory precommitment by 2028. The deadline is ambitious. Venues need clarity on technology, privacy safeguards and capital assistance, yet the government has been silent, occupying departmental resources in drafting the premium payment framework instead. Likewise, the promised statewide education campaign on gambling risks has stalled even as prime-time television is saturated with betting ads. If ministers were sincere about minimising harm, they might focus on those fronts rather than taxing regional pubs. Perhaps those that will follow from the Labor backbench when talking about their harm minimisation efforts could tap the minister on the shoulder and ask when the TV ads are coming or when the other important harm prevention measures are going to be introduced. This bill is not about modernising the statute book or protecting vulnerable gamblers, it is about revenue. It is about imposing new taxes on entities that can really least afford them. This sweeping power and a minister without adequate scrutiny inject damaging uncertainty into an industry that, like it or not, underpins thousands of Victorian jobs. We will seek to remove clause 7 from the bill, and we will be voting against the bill if not successful.
Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (16:52): I rise today to speak on the Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, in support of it. I will be speaking for a far shorter time than Mr Mulholland opposite, who took a very long time to say very, very little. I did think I was going to be standing up to say that in all that time talking about gambling he did not even find the time to talk about the hundreds of thousands of Victorians that have been historically affected by gambling harm, whether that is the impact on their financial wellbeing or otherwise. We know that a percentage of Victorians are significantly impacted by gambling financially, whether it is mental health or relationship issues, and the flowthrough of that on people’s jobs. When problem gambling strikes people, their entire lives can be impacted and indeed their families, and we can get to a situation of loss of life, which I have experienced personally, and it is incredibly tragic.
Although Mr Mulholland talked for 25 minutes, in typical conservative fashion, where they do not see such a thing as society, they do not see community in their conservative university clubs when they are there worshipping Reagan and Thatcher, there was no development of understanding or care for society, for community, for families and what things mean at the grassroots of Victoria. To hear them threatening to vote against a bill with premiums to be invested into the Hospitals and Charities Fund really brings you back to the point of the noalition. At every single point they will say, ‘No, no, no.’ You do not see in their contributions ideas or policies – policies that bring some sort of plan for this state, some sort of positive pathway that Victorians can rally around, because we know they do not believe in producing anything. They just believe in, as I said, saying no to things and ripping things to shreds. I, on the other hand, am proud to be part of a government that brings policies to the Victorian people, brings plans to the Victorian people and brings legislation like this to the Victorian people. I will come to the specifics of the bill shortly.
It follows on from work the government is doing in this space which I think is critically important: slowing down spin rates by 40 per cent on gaming machines, EGMs, from 2.14 seconds to 3 seconds; reducing load-up limits from $1000 down to $100; having closure periods from 4 am to 10 am to ensure that people are not able to go to staggered intervals of gaming venues and continue to gamble; and having precommitment systems with trials rolling out. The work that has been done by this government to minimise harm is work that I am proud of and work that will make a substantial difference to the lives of Victorians.
This bill will strengthen the regulation of gambling in Victoria and ensure the government can extract value from major gambling licences. This bill modernises Victoria’s gambling licensing framework, improves integrity safeguards and supports reasonable gambling initiatives. Of course for those opposite, the word ‘reasonable’ does not mean much, hence why we have seen them bring an amendment. These reforms ensure that Victoria’s licensing processes remain robust, transparent and responsive to new technology and community expectations. The Allan Labor government continues to lead the nation on gambling reform, as I have said, modernising licensing frameworks and delivering harm minimisation across the system.
The bill updates the frameworks for issuing the monitoring and public lottery licences, which are due to expire in 2027 and 2028 respectively. The minister will have more flexibility to set the term of these licences, aligning them with other major gambling licences and helping to secure long-term value for Victorians. Another key point that is lost on those opposite, that is lost on the National–Liberal coalition, is the word ‘value’, because they see value in nothing. I am proud to be part of a government that looks for that value and looks to deliver value for Victorians. This change gives the government greater flexibility to deliver better economic outcomes and modernise the way major gambling licences are awarded. The government will be able to require a premium payment for the monitoring licence and public lottery licence, ensuring licence-holders contribute fairly to the public good. ‘Fairly’ – there is another word you do not hear the Liberals use too often. Premiums will be paid into the Hospitals and Charities Fund, as I said before, supporting health and community outcomes.
The bill gives the minister stronger tools to manage monitoring licence integrity, including clearer powers to require information sharing and responsible gambling standards as a condition of licence. The bill also ensures the monitoring licensee can provide responsible gambling and compliance systems, including tools to prevent money laundering and enable precommitment. These systems will help reduce gambling harm and support better oversight of electronic gaming machine operations in clubs and hotels.
I have talked through the work that the Allan Labor government is doing to minimise harm to Victorians. I think the fact that this bill is looking to deliver value, benefits and outcomes for Victorians is to be commended. But of course to be condemned are the voices and the words – they do not generally take actions; it is normally just hollow words – of the National–Liberal conservative opposition. Acting President, I thank you for the time to be able to make the contribution. I support the bill, and I will leave my words there.
Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (16:59): I rise today to speak on the Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. This legislation proposes a number of changes to Victoria’s framework for gambling licensing. The bill amends both the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 and the Casino Control Act 1991 to provide additional powers to the minister in how the minister awards licences for both gaming machine monitoring and the public lottery and additional issues. In Victoria the gambling monitoring licence is the right to operate and maintain the electronic monitoring system that oversees all electronic gaming machines – EGMs, or poker machines – in venues other than the casino. This system tracks all activity across all EGMs in pubs and clubs; ensures compliance with gaming laws and tax obligations; detects suspicious behaviour, including potential fraud or tampering; and supports harm reduction tools, such as precommitment systems. The monitoring licence is exclusive, meaning only one provider is authorised to monitor all pokies in pubs and clubs across Victoria, and the Victorian Gaming and Casino Control Commission, the VGCCC, regulates the licence. The current monitoring licence expires in 2027.
Importantly for the Greens, and contributing to our decision to support this bill today, is that the bill makes amendments to be able to direct the monitoring licensee to provide precommitment systems. By requiring players to use a registered card to access poker machines, we can significantly reduce gambling harm as well as prevent money laundering and other illicit activities, which is a policy outcome supported by the Greens. We know that mandatory carded precommitment systems are already in place at Crown, so the introduction of a mandatory system across all other venues in the state will enable people to set their own limits on using poker machines. We understand that this bill does not achieve that in itself. The bill we passed last sitting week gave the minister the powers to do that, and I sincerely hope that the minister and his team can crack on now and get that implemented. This bill is one of the parts of the scaffold needed to implement and then manage an effective statewide carded play system.
Putting the gambling harm suffered by Victorians in context, each year approximately 330,000 people in our state experience gambling-related harm, leading to financial distress; broken relationships; family violence; mental health issues, including suicides; business foreclosures; and more. The economic cost to our state is estimated at $7 billion annually, although I do note we are awaiting the release of the research report that provides more up-to-date figures. These figures are not just statistics; they represent real people – our friends, family members and neighbours – whose lives are adversely affected by gambling addiction. Another positive element that this bill contains is the ability to direct the monitoring licensee to provide other regulatory compliance systems and mechanisms, such as anti-money laundering alert systems, to assist venue operators to comply with their regulatory obligations. The bill includes amendments to enable the continued operation of precommitment at the casino in periods of downtime, where the casino systems are unable to communicate with the statewide precommitment system.
The bill provides powers to the minister to enable the licence term to be specified in the licence, rather than the current fixed term of 15 years, which I have questions about for the minister during the committee stage. During a briefing from the minister’s office the rationale provided was that this was necessary to conduct commercial-in-confidence negotiations that required this shift. Given that the legislation will no longer set the term of the licence, we urge the minister to keep flexibility in mind, given the government’s commitment to implementing the mandatory carded play system across the state, and I particularly urge the minister to keep community interests at the forefront, not industry interests. This is relevant, noting the rapidly decreasing social licence of gambling in the gambling industry and the ongoing levels of devastation from gambling harm.
Victoria’s current public lottery licence expires in 2028. This bill also enables the minister to issue a longer term extension of this licence, and as an anti-money laundering measure we support the amendments that will ensure payment by electronic funds transfers is always a permitted alternative to payment by cheque. As an additional harm reduction measure, I note that the bill reduces barriers to voluntary exclusion at Crown by ensuring that the Melbourne casino operator is required to issue an exclusion order on request by a person. This is done by removing unnecessary paperwork that exists currently requiring that a voluntary exclusion application needs to be signed by a person who is authorised to witness a statutory declaration.
Lastly, I note that the bill removes gender references from both the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 and the Casino Control Act 1991, which is welcome to ensure terms in our legislation are more gender neutral.
In summary, the Greens are supporting this bill as it does progress a necessary framework to be in place rolling out mandatory carded play systems statewide, which is a longstanding and key Greens policy objective. However, while we acknowledge the likely passage of this bill, we must express concern over the postponement of the trial of mandatory precommitment and the carded play system initially scheduled for mid 2025.
Delaying the implementation of these reforms prolongs gambling harm that is inflicted across our communities. I will also make the observation that this bill does seem to continue a trend of powers being transferred from legislation, and therefore from parliamentary oversight, to ministerial powers by regulations or directions. We urge the minister to prioritise public health over industry interests. The delay in implementing the carded play trial does raise questions to me and to concerned individuals in the community about the continued influence of the gambling lobby and the government’s dedication to protecting that gambling lobby’s interests rather than protecting its citizens. We hope that the passage of this bill today takes us a step closer to having a mandatory precommitment and carded play system in place, which is the framework to reduce gambling harm in Victoria.
Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (17:06): I rise to speak on this Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. This bill seeks to amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 in relation to the monitoring licence and the public lotteries licence and generally to improve the operations of that act, and it seeks to amend the Casino Control Act 1991. I must say this is just another new big Labor tax on Victorians at a time when everyone is taxed to the hilt and can least afford it. We have over 60 new or increased taxes since the Andrews – now Allan – Labor government came into power a decade ago, and this bill helps facilitate yet another new tax to prop up their failing budget bottom line. At this stage, I will use some words from a well-known Australian, a successful businessman and entrepreneur: ‘If you’re going to create a new law, repeal an old one.’ I say to this government: if you are going to create a new tax, repeal an old tax. Those are words from the late Kerry Packer.
The Liberals and the Nationals oppose this bill for a few reasons: because we do not think another new tax is justified under the guise of tightening regulation in relation to the gambling sector, and because we believe in and are supportive of our community clubs and venues. I have listened to my community clubs in my electorate and have engaged broadly with these matters. Where I hear resounding consensus is that these changes lack detail and the cost of the changes to the monitoring licence will be passed onto venue holders, resulting in increased fees for monitoring and compliance. This is due to the introduction of the premium payment. This is something I will outline further in my contribution.
We oppose this bill because we believe in less government regulation and reducing red tape and costs, especially for our local venues, who are taxed enough as it is. We on this side certainly acknowledge and recognise the significance of the 2021 Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence, led by the esteemed commissioner Ray Finkelstein, and its findings of the casino being unsuitable to hold a Victorian casino licence, citing, amongst other things, breaches of legal and moral obligations, including money laundering and criminal associations. We also fully appreciate the need to address gambling harm and to implement stricter provisions to prevent harm to those in our communities who are vulnerable to gambling addiction. Crown Casino was given two years to clean up their act following these adverse findings, by way of reforming the operations under strict independent oversight, under special management who would oversee all aspects of business and monitor their progress. This work has been ongoing, and I want to acknowledge the initial measures to make sure this process is working.
In relation to this bill, it seeks to make a variety of alterations to the monitoring licence which would come into effect after royal assent. Amongst the changes is the removal of the 15-year term for a licence to one that is specified by the minister of the day in the licence. Effectively, what this means in real terms is the minister can decide how long he or she would like to issue the monitoring licence for before seeking interested parties. This limits competition and could result in a licence of any length of time.
The bill also allows for the minister to require the monitoring licensee to pay a fee of one or more amounts for consideration of the licence. The minister sets the premium and may decide whether it is taken up-front, before the licence term commences or as an ongoing annual payment during the term of the licence. This fee also extends to the renewal of such a licence and is clearly a new tax.
The introduction of the premium payment I mentioned earlier for the monitoring licence has been of particular concern on this side and has repeatedly popped up in my discussions with clubs, venues and other stakeholders. They are concerned about the potential flow-on costs to venues and clubs, who will be legally bound to pay for monitoring services. We do not believe this is fair or equitable as it will place prohibitive red tape and additional costs onto our community clubs and venues. The costs associated with the premium will be passed on by the monitoring company to the venues, resulting in substantial impacts on venues’ operating expenses, and will have a disproportionate impact on our rural and regional towns – in areas already doing it tough. This is just another blatant tax grab by the Labor government, doing anything and everything in their power to prop up their troubled budget.
There is also uncertainty around the term of the licence or the premium payment. Industry wants assurances on both so that they can operate. There is also concern that this will not be a market-driven process, as the government wants us to believe. There is no guarantee that this will be the case, nor will they put a figure on the licence term. We on this side support the market and know that industry-led processes achieve optimal outcomes for the community. These issues need to be rectified and clarified by the government with this bill.
There is a one positive thing I would like to mention in relation to this bill that has come to our attention from stakeholder engagement. We do not just criticise bills, we actually acknowledge what is good. The phasing out of cheques is largely welcomed and will be positively received by venues. This is a timely initiative as many businesses and organisations are moving away from the use of cheques, streamlining processes and making things easier for staff. So, I acknowledge that this is a positive in the bill.
The government needs to tighten up this bill so there is clarity around the change in the duration of licences. This government cannot continue extracting more revenue from recurring premium payments or limiting bidders when licences are up for renewal. This is uncompetitive and will weaken the tender process.
Like my colleagues, I have been speaking directly to local clubs and venues in my electorate, who I know are concerned about several issues in this bill. Some are the same issues that have been mentioned previously, but specifically they are concerned about the substantial impact on their operational costs from the introduction of a premium payment for the monitoring licence. They are concerned about the potential flow-on costs associated with this premium payment. I know my colleagues who represent our regional communities are particularly concerned about the impact these new provisions will have on some of the smaller venues in their home towns. These venues are the heart and soul of many small towns, and we do not want to make their lives even harder with this bill. I am personally concerned about the uncertainty about the term of the licence of the premium payment and the uncertainty for the industry.
The opposition opposes the bill in its current form, and I implore that the chamber and those opposite to us consider the amendment that will be put forward by my colleague Mr Evan Mulholland. We were hopeful that the government benches would do some more work to make it more acceptable and that the uncertainty for industry would be taken into account. I was also hopeful that some of the measures lacking in detail would be addressed and ironed out.
The costs of these changes and the flow-on costs to venue owners are quite unacceptable, and the increase in costs for monitoring and compliance I cannot support. Uncertainty around the duration of licences also is a serious concern, and the way the government can extract further revenues from recurring premium payments is an example of a government desperate to keep their hand in the pockets of venues to prop up their budget. On this side, with the state of the bill in its current form, we will not be supporting it.
David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:16): I would also like to briefly say a few words on the Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. This bill does a few things. I will start with some of the things that I do not have a problem with. Changes to the licensing terms: rather than being fixed 15-year terms, they can be specified in the licence now – I do not necessarily have a problem with that. It also makes it easier for transferring licences and expands the powers for the minister to determine an application and the circumstances around licence transfers – I do not have a problem with that. Also, it does something around allowing for direct payments, EFT payments, over $1000. Previously, any of these sorts of payments had to be made by cheque. I note that lots of banks are actually phasing out cheques, so I think this not only is a good thing but also will soon be a necessary thing.
On to the things that I do not like: a few weeks ago we debated a bill which is sort of linked to this around the pre-carded play, which I opposed. Many of the things in this are related to that. But the number one thing that I really do not like about this bill – and it has been noted by others in the chamber – is this new premium payment, which effectively is a new gambling tax, a new tax on operators. As I stated last time we spoke about gambling in this place, everyone stands up here and talks about the harms that gambling causes and how gambling addiction causes many problems in Victoria – and that is true, it does – but the number one organisation that is addicted to gambling is the government itself. Effectively running the machinery of government off the misery that is created is wrong, in my view.
I will not be supporting the bill if it has got this tax in it – effectively a new tax, and this is a big problem – which is unfortunate, because there are some other things in the bill which I think are sensible. But nevertheless I have taken a promise – in fact every Libertarian that has ever gotten elected in Australia has taken this promise – to never support an increase in taxes. This is an increase in taxes; therefore, I will not be supporting it.
Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (17:18): I am pleased to rise and speak on the Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, another piece of legislation in a series of bills that have been brought before the Parliament to deal with gambling-related issues. I think it is very clear from the legislative agenda this Parliament has had so far that the Allan Labor government is leading the nation on reforms to minimise harm from gambling, and this bill builds on the measures we have already delivered.
We have the strongest gambling regulator in the nation, the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, with enhanced enforcement powers. We have got mandatory carded play for pokies at the casino so that players can manage and track their spending. We have got mandatory closure periods now: all hotels and clubs must close their gaming areas between 4 am and 10 am to reduce extended gambling sessions. We have obviously passed legislation recently to further reduce gambling harm and money laundering, including account-based play across poker machines in Victoria; implementing load-up limits on the pokies here in Victoria to limit the amount that individuals can put into the machines; and making it mandatory for all new machines to spin at a minimum rate of three seconds per game, slowing the pace of the game down and limiting the amounts that can be lost. They are real measures that this government has put into place to reduce harm from gaming and particularly harm from poker machines.
This further bill does a number of additional things, including updating the framework for the future of the monitoring licence and public lottery licences, which are due to expire in the next couple of years, and makes some other changes, including to deliver better public value, requiring a new premium payment to be made. Very briefly, I know we talk a lot about the really serious issue that problem gambling is in our community. I commend the minister, who is in the chamber, for the way he is thinking about it.
We do have a lottery system in this state, and part of the important changes that are being made in this bill is to give some greater flexibility for the minister in terms of setting these licences and securing better value for the Victorian taxpayer. I think that is really important. The lotto is a feature of our community; it is a feature of our lives, and I just want to reflect on that. For many it is a weekly ritual that is controllable, that does not do enormous harm. It may not bring enormous winnings all the time. Certainly my experience was of watching the lotto with both Mum and my grandma on a Saturday night just to check, to see what numbers had come in. Some members of the family used to run the same numbers every single week in the hope that they would come up. They did not often, but seeing that ritual play out in the households of many Victorians I think brings many in the community a little bit of joy and a little bit of something extra in their day-to-day lives.
I think that through having a system around that that both puts in place necessary protections and delivers the kind of broader value to Victorian taxpayers it is something that we are capable of effectively regulating. I think this bill does make those important additional changes. It is not something that I think we need to demonise or talk down. A lot of people enjoy playing the lotto, and I think that is a good thing for them if it brings them some joy and is something that they can manage.
What this government has demonstrated is our absolute commitment to making sure that harm is reduced from problem gambling. Particularly when it comes to things like the way that our lottery system operates, what the minister is doing is trying to deliver back to the Victorian taxpayer the absolute best value that we can from these features of our community. I wholeheartedly support the bill.
Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice) (17:23): I take this opportunity to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I appreciate the considered contributions made in this chamber, and I want to acknowledge that there are a range of views on this issue. I thank Mr Batchelor as well for a good summary of the goals of our government in terms of minimising harm but also getting value from a public asset that can be reinvested in the Victorian people.
This bill is about ensuring that Victoria’s gambling laws are modern, consistent and capable of delivering public value over the long term. It creates a stronger, clearer framework for how major gambling licences are issued, supporting greater transparency, flexibility and integrity and securing public value for public assets. Importantly, it strengthens the government’s ability to embed harm minimisation directly into licence conditions, giving us the tools to respond to emerging risks, improve regulatory oversight and protect the community. These reforms will also support the government’s landmark account-based play reforms. More broadly, these changes complement the government’s nation-leading reforms already underway, from carded play at the casino to statewide mandatory shutdown hours and significant cuts to pokie load-up limits.
I want to acknowledge the constructive feedback from members across the chamber, and I thank all of those that have engaged with me and my office in good faith. These reforms are about building a framework that can respond to the future. That means long-term public value, stronger protections and a fairer, safe and sustainable system for Victorians. I commend the bill to the house.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Noes (14): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Richard Welch
Motion agreed to.
Read second time.
Committed.
Committee
Clause 1 (17:32)
Katherine COPSEY: I will ask all my questions at clause 1 if that suits the purposes of the committee.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is fine.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, in relation to the extension of time that this bill affords you discretion in relation to both the monitoring licence and the lottery licence, why are you seeking this flexibility and why are you not continuing with the existing 15 years or 10 years respectively that exist in legislation?
Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Ms Copsey for her question and interest in this matter. I think it is a really good question, because this is the first time we are removing that limit in particular, for example, for lotteries. I think what we are trying to achieve is also – as I said in my summing up speech – about capturing the best value for this public asset. So rather than locking in arbitrary limits, we believe decisions like licence length are best made on a case-by-case basis informed by expert advice, market interests and what delivers the greatest benefit for Victorians. It is really providing that flexibility to respond to where the market is at.
Katherine COPSEY: In relation to that, will the community interest in terms of gambling harm reduction and the availability of technology and, for example, practices in other states be a factor that could also be taken into consideration in determining the desirable length of licences, so we do not have practices locked out from being included in the monitoring licence that could lead to gambling harm reduction?
Enver ERDOGAN: In the drafting of this legislation I did look at what other jurisdictions have, and public lotteries was a good example because they have different term limits than other jurisdictions – much longer than ours. One of the purposes was to give us the flexibility to have something more in line with what they have in other jurisdictions, but I think there are a range of factors in issuing these licences. I guess we are talking about in today’s bill, in particular, two different types, the monitoring licence, which will be looking at a number of factors such as harm minimisation. I think that is key to the monitoring licence goal and community value but also service quality as well to make sure that the monitoring licence is operational as much as possible and at all times ideally. Also, one of the issues I have realised, and that the opposition have raised, is the cost impacts on venues. These are some of the factors for the monitoring licence. I think for the lotto licence, in terms of the timeframe, it is about flexibility but also looking at what other jurisdictions have done in the past to extract the best value.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, moving on to the provision in relation to what information can be published in relation to lottery licensing arrangements – this is at clause 35 of the bill. Clause 35 allows the minister of the day to determine whether information can be excluded from being published. What is driving this? The effect of this could be to decrease transparency around the lotto licensing arrangements. Why is this power being sought?
Enver ERDOGAN: The goal is not to limit oversight in this process. I think we want to secure a fair and transparent outcome for the community, and that is why we are trying to extract the best value in terms of the premium. The process is subject to strong probity and public accountability. There is that avenue in terms of the probity that we attach to these processes, but obviously in any negotiation that the government enters into – but more so in terms of these types of contracts – there is an element of confidentiality and commercial complexity attached to them, which does make that balance between the robust probity matters but also making sure that there are issues of commercial sensitivity at play that may not necessarily be in the best interest to be publicly available.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, would you be prepared to undertake in your capacity in exercising these powers to publish as much information as is practically possible?
Enver ERDOGAN: In short, yes. I think we should provide as much information as we can.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, moving to the disciplinary powers under clause 42, I just wondered if you could clarify for me how these work and how we can have confidence that the recommendations of the commission, if it makes a report under section 5.3.22 – how the public can have confidence – that the minister of the day is taking them seriously and acting in accordance with the commission’s recommendations. That is what I am seeking to understand around how these powers operate. That clause states that the commission can make a report, and that acting on that report the minister can either amend, suspend or cancel the licence, or if you consider that disciplinary action is not warranted, can remit the matter to the commission with a request that the commission consider whether disciplinary action should be taken against the licensee. I just wanted to understand whether those reports that are made by the commission are public reports.
Enver ERDOGAN: I might just seek some clarity.
The answer to that, Ms Copsey, is no.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, if that is the case, then how is the public to know whether the minister of the day is acting in accordance with or rejecting the recommendations of the commission when it comes to disciplinary action?
Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is important to understand that in the first instance there is a strong independent regulator in the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC). The VGCCC, as it exists with some of the existing operators in the gaming and gambling space, does already have powers to issue fines and disciplinary action. In terms of matters that would be, I guess, escalated to the minister of the day, there would be, at that level, a large amount of commercial sensitivity around those documents and around that decision-making. It would be difficult to be able to release them in that nature.
Katherine COPSEY: Minister, I think you can understand the thrust of my questioning here. If there is not transparency around whether the minister is accepting or, conversely, is not acting in accordance with the commission’s recommendations around disciplinary action, then how is the public to have confidence in the disciplinary mechanism that is outlined in this portion of the bill?
Enver ERDOGAN: The regulator would obviously provide an annual report into its investigations. But you are asking about the content of the advice to the minister; that would be protected by executive privilege.
Katherine COPSEY: Okay. I think I am understanding now then. There would be a section of the report that would indicate, for example, the numbers of reports the VGCCC had issued and then the outcomes of those as well.
Enver ERDOGAN: But not the advice to the minister.
Katherine COPSEY: Thank you. That clarifies things for me.
Evan MULHOLLAND: I will ask all my questions on clause 1 as well. Has the government undertaken or completed modelling or taken an estimation of the premium payment on the monitoring licence?
Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Mulholland, the government is committed to reducing gambling harm and ensuring that licensing decisions support long-term community wellbeing. Social impact is a key consideration of the design of any licensing framework, and policy development is informed by advice. In terms of the modelling that you are asking about, I think it is key that I do state that we will take a fair and balanced approach to awarding the next monitoring licence. Premium bids will be assessed alongside the overall value and service offering proposed by each applicant to ensure the best outcome for the state and the community. Based on the available evidence, we do not expect a material change for venues in terms of the price. I understand from your contribution during the debate, your concern was from the perspective of increasing costs to venues and therefore to the broader public who attend the venues, especially community clubs. But I do want to clarify that as well. I think this is an opportunity for me to also clarify that no venue or club will be responsible for paying the monitoring licences premium; that will be paid by the successful bidder. That is the kind of outlook, but ultimately this will be a fair and balanced approach to awarding the next monitoring licence.
Evan MULHOLLAND: What term will the government look to issue for the new licence – like, five years, 10 years, 15 years?
Enver ERDOGAN: We are saying, as I answered to Ms Copsey in terms of the time limit for these contracts or licences, it will be determined on a case-by-case basis, so we will be looking at the expert advice. Really, the market will determine that, so there will be a competitive process for the monitoring licence and we will look to maximise public value. But I do not want to predetermine that, because through that competitive process you might get different bidders that make offers based on different timeframes, so we are going to look at all the options to see what captures the best value for Victorians.
Evan MULHOLLAND: How many licence extensions does the government forecast issuing on the public lotteries licence?
Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Mulholland, I might get you to just clarify that question in terms of how many are we looking to extend – are you asking for the term of extension, or are you asking for how many times? Because I think in terms of public lotteries in other jurisdictions, I can say that they have much longer compared to Victoria in terms of their lottery contracts; I was looking at this as this bill was coming to be debated and in the drafting of the legislation. Therefore I would say that would be, again, something that would be determined through the market conditions at the time in terms of something that leads to a better public outcome. For a longer term, you might have a long contract, but if through that process we find that something shorter is in Victoria’s interest, that is what might be the case. But I do not want to predetermine that.
Evan MULHOLLAND: Can the minister outline the requirements around the phasing out of cheque payments and the path forward for businesses?
Enver ERDOGAN: Mr Mulholland, we are committed to ensuring that consumer protections are strengthened in Victoria’s gambling system. The removal of cheques is part of broader efforts to modernise the payment system and reduce risks associated with large immediate cash withdrawals. Moving to safer traceable methods can help prevent impulsive behaviour and support harm minimisation. We are committed to ensuring that there are secure and convenient payment options that are modern and protect consumers. The move away from cheques reflects broader changes in the way money is being managed across our country really. With EFT now the standard across most industries, I think most people will have an electronic account and cheques are being less and less commonly used and accepted.
Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 (17:49)
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Mulholland, I invite you to move your amendment, which is actually a suggested amendment to remove the clause.
Evan MULHOLLAND: As explained in my contribution, this is to omit clause 7 and the premium payments, which the bill itself says are a tax, so we are seeking to omit this tax from the bill.
Enver ERDOGAN: The government does not support Mr Mulholland’s amendment. Clause 7 empowers the government to request a premium payment for the monitoring licence and precommitment licence, just as it already does for the state’s other major gambling licences, including wagering, Keno and public lotteries. Premium payments are not new; they have been part of Victoria’s gambling framework for decades. The government’s ability to acquire a premium was codified in the Gambling Regulation Act 2003. That legislation also made it clear that such premiums are to be treated as a tax, Mr Mulholland. And you are correct, we have been very up-front about the treatment of these premiums as a tax: that is the way they are normally reported, which remains a longstanding and consistent legal approach.
Clause 7 simply brings the monitoring licence into line with all other major gambling licences, creating consistency across our licensing framework. It is not a new tax on venues, it is a way for the state to secure fair value for an exclusive licence to run Victoria’s monitoring and precommitment system. The premium will be paid by the successful bidder, not by everyday Victorians or venues. As a government, we stand for a modern, transparent and fair licensing framework, and we will not apologise for expecting a fair deal for Victorians.
Council divided on clause:
Ayes (20): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt
Noes (16): Melina Bath, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 75 agreed to; schedule 1 agreed to.
Reported to house without amendment.
That the report be now adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Third reading
That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.
Council divided on motion:
Ayes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Jeff Bourman, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, Michael Galea, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt
Noes (14): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Renee Heath, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Richard Welch
Motion agreed to.
Read third time.
The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Legislative Council have agreed to the bill without amendment.