Tuesday, 18 March 2025

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

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Melissa Horne:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (17:11): I am pleased to rise to speak on the legislation before us, the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024, which has been a long time coming. It has taken me a little bit by surprise that it is up right now, but I will persist because we have been waiting for this for nigh on two years, since the government first announced its position with respect to reforms to the gambling sector. Those reforms were broadly that the government would introduce mandatory carded play; that it would introduce mandatory closure periods for gaming venues; that it would introduce a load-up limit on gaming machines, dropping it from $1000 to $100; and that it would introduce reduced spin rates on gaming machines. This legislation both does the latter, the reduced spin rates, and provides a framework rather than introducing the mandatory carded play.

One of the issues I have with this bill is that it actually does not introduce the mandatory carded play in full; it simply sets up a framework. This is a bit of a concern from an oversight perspective. The government is basically giving itself a head of power to introduce these reforms rather than giving the Parliament the opportunity to understand exactly what it is going to do and in what timeframe it is going to do it. I acknowledge the timeframe is listed in the second-reading speech, but we are already somewhat behind that timeframe given that the bill was introduced in November. Here we are in the middle of March, and we are only just beginning now.

I would like to say at the outset that those of us on this side, the Liberals and Nationals, acknowledge that there are issues with problem gambling in our state and indeed across the nation. There are also issues particularly with respect to poker machines, so addressing the harm that comes from gambling is really important. I am conscious of what others will say on the government side, but I believe we can acknowledge that there is harm and that we need to address and minimise that harm. But it does not mean that this is the way to address that harm. I certainly have a concern that the proposal to try and address gambling harm simply by making it mandatory to have a card to play does not necessarily address the issue.

As a basic principle, if a problem gambler has to sign up to a card and provide ID to continue to gamble, they are probably going to do it. What the issue will be is that for the casual punter who might go into a club or a pub on a Saturday night for a meal and then go and have a quick punt on the pokies afterwards, put $20 or $50 through, if they are asked to sign up to a card that their data is stored on, where their information and their ID are kept, and then their activity is tracked by a government agency, or the monitor in this case, there is a serious concern for many of those people. Many of them will probably simply say, at least in the short term, ‘I’m not doing that – too much hassle.’ That will have a big impact on our pubs and clubs, and I think that is a concern.

Another element with this is in terms of the process. I think I am right in saying this was announced on 13 July 2023. It was literally six or seven months after the state election, at which the government made no commitments about gambling reform. Not only did it not make those commitments at the election, but the government had just entered into effectively a 20-year licence arrangement with licence-holders of EGMs, electronic gaming machines – 10 years with a 10-year option. They had just set that framework, literally only in 2022, so we were about a year into it and the government changed the goalposts dramatically. I think that raises some significant sovereign risk issues for the government. It has basically said, ‘We’ll sign you up to a 20-year deal, you’ll go out and do your finances and work out with your bank or your investors or whoever how to fund the costs for these gaming machines. By the way, 12 months later we have changed the rules.’ This is not something minor. This is not just introducing a change to the green line in a venue or some additional regulations with respect to how venues must operate. This is a very, very fundamental change.

If you do not believe me, have a look at the experience at Crown Casino. We know that after this change was introduced and mandatory carded play was introduced on the gaming machines at Crown Casino there was a significant downturn, and we know that at about the same time a thousand jobs were laid off at Crown Casino. Crown Casino will be very keen to say, ‘No, that can’t be attributed directly to losses from the introduction of mandatory carded play; there were other factors. We’ve gone through a reform process, there was a downturn in foreign visitors and the like.’ While some of this may be true, there is no doubt that there was an impact from the introduction of mandatory carded play at Crown Casino.

I also have no doubt that Crown Casino is pushing the government to introduce this legislation and expand the rules that have been imposed on them across their competitors in the pubs and clubs world and RSLs. The pubs and clubs respond quite rightly by saying, ‘Hey, we didn’t do anything wrong. We didn’t have a royal commission or two royal commissions if you look at New South Wales as well. We weren’t the ones undertaking egregious behaviour. We weren’t the ones where there was a money-laundering problem’ – there are big questions as to whether there is a money-laundering problem in pubs and clubs – ‘and yet this is now to be imposed upon us.’ I think that is a legitimate concern from them because that is a significant issue.

We know that we already have a voluntary card system for gaming machines in pubs and clubs in Victoria known as YourPlay, and we acknowledge that it simply does not work. As a voluntary scheme it has had very few people sign up. As I travel around the pubs and clubs right around the state they often have YourPlay days, where they specifically go and try and get people to sign up and they all report to me that it is just a failure. People just do not want to do it. I found it amusing in the second-reading speech that the minister at the time referred to voluntary requirements having been stigmatising and euphemistically described the mandatory version as standardising its use. It is not standardising, former minister; it is making it compulsory. I did pick up on that euphemism.

As I said earlier, it is a concern to me that we do not have the evidence that this will actually address problem gambling. I will come to that because there are varying views on that and there is certainly strong support for it from some in the academic and the gambling harm sector as well.

I would make a couple of comments too that are important. The government uses a number of government studies in justifying this position that it is putting today. The second-reading speech quotes from the Victorian Population Gambling and Health Study 2023. The second-reading speech says that 29 per cent of people who played poker machines experienced some form of harm. Now, that is a concern – 29 per cent of people experienced some form of harm. When you go to the actual report though, the Victorian Population Gambling and Health Study, that harm might include a reduction in spending money or feelings of regret. Now, that is not particularly harm. If feelings of regret are harm, then I am harmed a lot on the mistakes that I make in my life. Again, that is not to diminish the impact. Absolutely, gaming machines do have a big impact on some people, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to sort of say a third of the population experience some form of harm when that harm might be feelings of regret.

In addition, the same report highlights – and this is important I think for those who are very concerned about gaming machines – that participation in pokie play has halved from 22 per cent of the population in 2008 to 11 per cent in 2023, so a significant reduction in people who are playing it. That is borne out as I travel around the pubs and clubs. It is very clear from talking to them that poker machines are not the golden ticket that they once were. They are certainly not as much of a goldmine as they were perhaps particularly in the 1990s when they were first introduced.

The other thing that I would highlight from that report, the Victorian Population Gambling and Health Study, is that it shows that while 8.5 per cent of the population are ‘at risk’ from problem gambling, only 0.9 per cent actually experience a problem per se.

Finally, the report also highlights that the highest rate of problem gambling actually occurs, in order, among bingo players, those who play Keno, those who play casino table games and then those who play pokies.

Anthony Carbines: Where is horseracing?

Danny O’BRIEN: Horseracing is not even on the list, Minister. I do find that rather curious, that the highest risk of gambling harm occurs among bingo players. Mind you, if you have ever been to a bingo game and you have seen how serious they are, you might understand it. But it is in that context that I am a little surprised at what we are trying to do here today. This is not a criticism of the government, but I think more broadly there is an attitude that pokies are the great evil and we must address them, and often it is at the exclusion of other forms of gambling. And as I just mentioned there are things like bingo, Keno, casino table games and the Minister for Police referenced horseracing or racing more broadly. The issue that is probably of most concern – and I know, having spoken previously to the then minister – is the issue of online gambling and the concern that if we make it harder in public venues like pubs and clubs and RSL clubs potentially we will just drive the gambling underground at home where it cannot be policed and where it cannot be oversighted by gaming venue operators, and that is a real concern.

I am very happy to add that having spoken to a number of gambling experts through the preparation for this bill but also through the previous Public Accounts and Estimates Committee report, they have suggested that if you are a poker machine player and you cannot or do not want to sign up for a card, for example, there is no evidence that you will go and bet on horse races on Sportsbet or Ladbrokes or whatever it is. There is the view broadly and the research shows that that will not occur. I must say, I am a little bit sceptical of that too. If you are a punter and you want to bet, the concern I have is that this legislation may just simply move people underground.

The issue that I have here, as I said, with the mandatory carded play aspect is the government says that it will work to reduce gambling harm. What comes with this bill is precommitment. It will be mandatory for a player to set a precommitment of dollars and time: how much they are prepared to gamble and how long they are prepared to gamble for. That I think is a good thing to be welcomed, but the government is not intending to set any actual maximum limits on either of those, unlike the previous policy of the Tasmanian government, which was to set some very strict limits on what can be gambled. I do not for a minute support that the government should be doing that either. I think if you want to gamble for 10 hours and spend $1000, that is up to you. What people do with their own money is fine.

I had a very good conversation with Associate Professor Charles Livingstone of Monash University, and his view is that the regular reminders that come with setting a limit, whether they are for how long you are playing or for how much you are prepared to gamble, will ensure those casual players are reminded of what they are doing and will be less likely to develop a problem. I accept his view on that. He also suggested to me that EGMs are designed to pull people in and that they are generally viewed as the most dangerous form of gambling. That was a view shared by the Monash Addiction Research Centre in responding to our consultation with them. However, as I said earlier, the government’s own research suggests otherwise that things like bingo, keno and casino table games are actually more harmful. There is a concern as to whether this reform will actually help.

What the government is proposing to do, as I said at the start, is to set up a framework with this legislation. There is a very large chunk – I think it is clause 11 – of the bill that simply sets up the items that can be addressed by regulation. Those regulations, as I am advised by the government, can be disallowed by either house of Parliament. I think that is a good thing. There needs to be some of that parliamentary oversight. There is a directive in there from the minister, though – which is a directive to the monitor – that would actually establish mandatory carded play. That is not reviewable, and I think that is a failing of this legislation. That directive and the things that flow from it should be reviewable by the Parliament, and that is one of the things that I would like to see the government change.

As I said, this provides the framework, and the framework, as outlined in the second-reading speech by the minister at the time, is that there will be a trial of mandatory carded play by some 40 venues around the state. Again, a problem I have with this is the government cannot tell us how this trial will work. I do not think there are going to be too many venues that are going to put their hands up and volunteer to undertake a trial, particularly when their competitors across the street or down the road will not be subject to mandatory carded play, because in that circumstance in particular I think there will be significant financial impacts on those clubs and pubs. I think it will be difficult for the government to work out how it is going to undertake this trial. That is for the government to answer, because in the bill briefing that we had and so far up until now we have not been told how the government actually intends to run this trial. The process the government outlined in the second-reading speech for that trial is that by the end of the year there would be a statewide rollout but still of casual carded play, so it would not be compulsory to provide ID and the like. Then at some time in 2026 or early 2027 it would be up to the government to implement mandatory carded play formally right across the state.

I think the government needs to be looking at other options, and it is not just me. As I said, Tasmania previously had a policy to do this and set limits. The Tasmanian government has abandoned its own policy to do that and is instead wanting to look at facial recognition technology and self-exclusion. The New South Wales Labor government also had a trial and had a look at mandatory carded play and just recently, a few weeks ago, abandoned that and established a trial, or a research project, looking at the use of facial recognition technology.

The South Australian government, over a number of years now, I think since 2019, has had a process of self-exclusion backed by compulsory facial recognition technology so that someone who is listed as excluding themselves from gaming venues will be identified. I have seen the facial recognition technology in action, and it is pretty impressive – certainly much more impressive than having a big folder with a whole lot of people who have put themselves on a list that, as it currently stands, staff have to look through every night before work and then try and remember the people they have looked at and tap them on the shoulder. The facial recognition technology, while there are some questions about privacy, is very accurate and makes the job a lot easier. I understand in South Australia too the law allows for third-party exclusions in certain circumstances, whether that be police or authorities, but also family members could actually exclude someone from a venue. I think the Victorian government should be looking at that too. I would really like to see from the government in this debate a commitment to actually doing that, potentially as an alternative to mandatory carded play, but certainly to look at what other states are doing.

One of the reasons that I want to highlight the issues with other states is the impact of this if it goes ahead and mandatory carded play becomes compulsory right around the state, and the impact that that will have on our border clubs in particular. I travelled last year right around the state, but particularly on a trip to the Mildura electorate with my colleague the member for Mildura, I went to the Robinvale Golf Club. Literally just across the river is the Euston club in New South Wales. If you are at the Robinvale club and you have to sign up for a card to play, you can literally drive five minutes across the bridge and play at Euston, and likewise in Cobram, Barooga, Corowa, Rutherglen, Albury–Wodonga, Mildura, Coomealla, Wentworth – all of those areas, not to mention the South Australia border as well in certain circumstances. There is an issue there that if this is introduced in Victoria but not elsewhere, it will have an impact on those clubs. And it is not just the impact on those venues per se – clubs and pubs – but of course the flow-on impact that will happen to the community groups, sporting clubs and the like that they all support. That applies across the state too of course, not just the border. I asked at a Public Accounts and Estimates Committee hearing and in the bill briefing about whether the government would consider, if this is to happen, some sort of border bubble. The government has not ruled that out, but it has not actually given any commitment to it either. I think that is something that they should do.

Another matter that I would like to mention is that the intention of this is to basically have mandatory carded play with magstripe technology. As everyone would be aware, with a credit card the technology has been around since the 1960s. We all know that is rapidly disappearing, that technology. Belatedly, but eventually, this government has introduced digital drivers licences. People are getting used to using digital technology, using their phones, putting their credit card on their phone, putting their drivers licence on their phone, and the notion that in 2026 we are going to introduce a new arrangement where people have to go back to using magstripe cards I think is very backwards, and particularly in a circumstance where this whole process will be run by the monitor, currently Intralot. The monitor licence actually comes up in 2027, so we will potentially have a situation where we would introduce this for one year and then a new monitor would come in and say they can introduce technology that will make this a far better user experience and we have to throw all of that out and start again. There are also serious questions more broadly, not just on the card technology but on the technology that is implemented that the government proposes, and there will be both technical challenges and cost challenges to do that.

I know it was a significant challenge for Crown Casino to introduce this across its machines. That is one venue. In trying to introduce it across 27,000 machines and – I cannot recall the number – some hundreds of if not over a thousand venues and have that all wired back to Intralot, there is a concern there about whether that is technically feasible in the short term but also what the costs of that will be and what costs there might be on the clubs and pubs. Those are some of our concerns, and that is why I would like to move a reasoned amendment to this legislation. I move:

That all the words after ‘That’ be omitted and replaced with the words ‘this house refuses to read this bill a second time until the government:

(1) provides evidence that its reforms will reduce gambling harm;

(2) evaluates and reports on the feasibility of new technology such as facial recognition technology and automated risk monitoring systems;

(3) delivers a process to protect border clubs from financial drift to interstate clubs; and

(4) improves parliamentary oversight of the reforms.’

I have mentioned all of those issues so far in my speech. The facial recognition technology and the automated risk monitoring systems are effectively what operate in South Australia. I have mentioned the border clubs, and with the parliamentary oversight I highlight the fact that the ministerial directive to the monitor to introduce this is not appealable or disallowable by either house of Parliament. I genuinely offer that reasoned amendment to the government not to go back to the drawing board but to make some amendments to this legislation and to have a look at the alternatives to ensure that what we are doing is actually going to address harm from gambling without having a massive impact on Victorian hospitality venues, which we all know are already under significant pressure. What we would be doing, particularly in the border regions, would be sending money and – I might say to the Treasurer too – revenue across the border as people go elsewhere. That is our concern with this legislation.

I note that the government has undertaken various other reforms in this. As I said at the start, the Liberals and Nationals are very keen to ensure that we do minimise harm from gambling. It was in that respect that the previous coalition government established the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, which has since been abolished by Labor and its functions swallowed up by various departments, where it will be much harder to understand and see what it is doing and how it is actually operating. I repeat that the government has no mandate for these reforms, having introduced them with no consultation and announced them with no consultation with anyone and certainly not at the election only six months prior.

As I said, there is no question that gaming machines can cause harm for a certain proportion of the population, and we in this place should be doing our best to ensure that we minimise that harm. I have not seen evidence from the government through this bill process, through the second-reading speech, through the briefings or through questions that we asked through the recent Public Accounts and Estimates inquiry, which was a follow-up of an Auditor-General’s inquiry, that this will work. We could say, ‘Well, it’s a world first. We’re leading, and we’re going to address this’, but I am very concerned that it is not necessarily going to do the job that it is intended to do and at the same time will have a significant impact on our hospitality venues, as I said.

The other issue that I mentioned is the sovereign risk issue. This is already having an impact on venues. There are venues that are facing challenges with finance because the banks are saying, ‘Hang on, we entered into an agreement with you based on these rules, and now your partner, being the government, is changing those rules.’ I think that is a serious concern for the sector as well.

I appeal to the government to consider our reasoned amendment and enter into discussions with us before this bill goes to the other place, because as it stands now the Liberals and Nationals cannot support the legislation as it is and will be voting against it here in this chamber, but we remain open to working with the government, the experts and the industry on what alternatives could be considered, what slight amendments could be made to give some more parliamentary oversight and particularly how we can deal with the concerns of border venues about how they will be impacted – and to talk to us about the process and the timeline as well. I think it is very important that the government understands the potential impact of this, whether it will work and, whether it does or not, what the impacts on Victorian pubs and clubs will be. I encourage members to support the reasoned amendment I have circulated and see if we can get a much better outcome for all Victorians on this matter.

Colin BROOKS (Bundoora – Minister for Industry and Advanced Manufacturing, Minister for Creative Industries) (17:41): I was just thinking, as the Leader of the Nationals was finishing his contribution, about all the things I might have been accused of over the years in my role as a member of Parliament, and I do not think I could ever be accused of being anti-gambling. I love a punt. I love the fact that people in my community can go to the races, have a punt, go to the TAB, go to their club or RSL and put some money through the machines. I think it is part of our society and something that many people in my community enjoy and value as part of their way of life. I recognise the important role of clubs and pubs in providing employment opportunities for people, providing a place where people can gather together and celebrate different occasions.

But I do want to highlight a concern I have to give some indication of my thinking around these gambling reforms and the broader gambling and gaming reforms that the government has embarked on and will continue to roll out. As I mentioned, in my local community I have three hotels and two RSL clubs that have poker machines in them. The two RSL clubs, Watsonia and Greensborough RSLs, are good community clubs. They run all the sorts of services that would be run at many other RSLs –

Brad Rowswell interjected.

Colin BROOKS: No cheese wheel, but great food and great beverages, and they provide a place for people to come together. Watsonia RSL, for example, has a couple of great function rooms of different sizes. They are not just available for hire, but many seniors groups use them for exercise classes and those sorts of things. These clubs sponsor sports clubs. They support local community organisations. They are genuinely community-based clubs.

There are also a couple of hotels that are not too far from my electorate office: the Bundoora Hotel and the Plough Hotel. I just wanted to mention those hotels. I do not have any particular problem with them, but I did want to note that those two hotels, each of them, over the last six months of last year generated some $13 million in gaming revenue, so if you extrapolate that over the four years – I am assuming around $26 million each – they are the top two gaming revenue venues in the state according to the information on the Victorian Gaming and Casino Control Commission website. They are working class areas; they are not the wealthiest areas in the state. So to have those two venues contributing the most gaming losses of any venues in the state obviously raises an issue for me from a public policy perspective as to what the government’s responsibility is to protect people from gaming harm but also – getting off this bill a little bit, Acting Speaker, with your grace – what those venues do in putting back into the local community. What is the responsibility of venues that take money out in terms of gaming to put that money back into their local community? As I said, there are a couple of RSL clubs that I mentioned that make around $3 million or $4 million in gaming revenue but put an extraordinary amount back into the local community. I just cite those two hotels. I am not having a crack at them in particular – they provide employment – but they are taking a lot more out in terms of gaming revenue and I do not see the same level of investment back into my local community from those venues.

So when I come into this place as someone who generally supports the option of gambling and gaming and people being able to exercise their rights in those areas and enjoy that as a legitimate pursuit, this creates a problem for me. It is a problem for me as a representative of that community. I do not see the benefits that I see from the community-based clubs when I look at those two venues, so I just want to put that on the record. That might look good in terms of a profit statement in an annual report for a large hotel organisation, but it does not do much for my local community.

The reforms that are set out in this piece of legislation today build on work that the government has done in the past, with the establishment of the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, Australia’s strongest gaming regulator. We have introduced mandatory carded play for pokies at Crown Casino, and that will obviously make sure players can track and manage their gambling. I think one of the really important reforms is mandatory closure periods, so since August last year that closure period of gaming rooms between 4 am and 10 am. I think we have probably all been at venues in the early hours of the night after a family function or something where we are seeing the gaming venue going into the early hours of the morning. I think we would all agree it is good to close the doors and make sure people go home or go somewhere else and have that break so they can break the streak that they are on in terms of playing the machines. That is a good thing that this government has done.

These reforms that are set out in this bill take the next step. I think they are an important next step. It is a shame to see the opposition move a reasoned amendment. I think the Leader of the Nationals did raise it. One of the important issues he raised was around the protection of border clubs in terms of drift over the border. That is, I think, a legitimate issue, which the government should consider his views on, but it is certainly not a reason to hold up this legislation and the important reforms that have been put forward.

This bill puts in place the framework in terms of legislation and provides for the regulatory framework to support the staged or phased implementation of mandatory carded play and precommitment on gaming machines throughout the state. That is an important framework for us to roll out and trial carded play. It also ensures that all gaming machines will be required to have a spin rate at a minimum of 3 seconds – again, I think, an important reform based on research that shows that change to the spin rate also changes the outcomes for problem gaming. The bill also strengthens existing anti-money-laundering protections and ensures responsible practices. The venue operators must verify identity before paying out credits of more than $2000, so that is an important issue on its own.

I just wanted to make a few brief comments there in terms of my contribution to this debate on this bill. I think we all have a responsibility in terms of problem gambling, but I also think there is that overarching responsibility where we have venues that are making significant profits from gaming. Certainly I highlighted those two examples in my community to make sure that we see those venues and those organisations acting as responsible corporate citizens and ensuring that those funds are ploughed back into supporting problem gambling and also supporting those local communities. I commend the bill to the house.

John PESUTTO (Hawthorn) (17:48): In reflecting on this bill, I have been thinking back to one of my first lecturers in economics at university. I remember at one of my first lectures this quirky professor asked all of us in the class – we were bright-eyed, really excited to be studying economics at university – ‘What do you think is the most important thing in managing the economy? What’s the most important measure?’ We were all excited and putting up our hands and yelling out things like terms of trade, the rate of inflation, the rate of interest, the balance of trade and the like. After we had exhausted all of our answers, he gave us what he thought was his answer. Obviously we deferred to him as our lecturer, but I have never forgotten it. What the professor said was ‘The most important thing is stability and certainty.’ It has stayed with me over the years – because that is the big shortcoming in this bill.

The shadow minister and Leader of the Nationals spoke eloquently about the need to mediate between the very pressing social purposes of minimising gambling harm and problem gambling with the recognition, which I think we all accept, that this industry is vital. It is worth many billions of dollars to the Victorian and national economies, it employs hundreds of thousands of Victorians and it is a vital part of our state’s prosperity and its future security and our entertainment – the ability for us to meet, gather, recreate in the company of others. We are confronted as policymakers and as legislators with two competing yet pressing objectives. The idea of minimising harm should not be seen as being so contrary to the need to support the industry that we should never take stock of the impact of measures which are well meaning, well intentioned and, it might be argued, very desirable, as we would with that recognition to protect the industry.

I think we are starting with the proposition, as the Leader of the Nationals spoke about, that this bill comes before the house and reinforces the uncertainty created by this government, as it does in many other areas, by shifting the goalposts. Having given 20-year licences – two lots of 10-year licences – but then removing the goalposts and replacing them creates enormous uncertainty. It speaks of a government, you have to wonder, that apparently does not consider what economic costs and consequences for employment and investment will flow from that. Venue operators and the investors that stand behind them invest millions of dollars, often tens of millions of dollars, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars in these venues, and when they are planning out the future of their venues over a 20-year profile, there is an enormous amount of investment, usually backed by borrowings which underpin those long-term commitments that they make. To change the goalposts is chief among the criticisms that we on this side of the house have about the process.

I will come to those measures in the bill – precommitment, carded play and spin rates – in a moment, but the idea of this bill seems to be predicated on the government saying, ‘Here’s a measure, but we’ll decide the outcome later.’ If you look, for instance, at the trial which the government has announced for the middle of this year for three months for apparently 40 venues, there is an assumption in that that people in the industry can plan for their own venues depending on the outcome of that trial. Who is to know how the trial will conclude? What findings will the government adopt as a result of that trial? Yet we are expected to support a measure, as well meaning as it is – and I do not doubt the government’s commitment, which is not dissimilar to ours, to want to minimise harm, ensure that people who partake of electronic gaming machines do so in a way which does not lead them into all of the ills we know about, which are well documented and supported by empirical and literary research on the impacts of problem gambling and the harms that we are trying to minimise. At the same time, how are people supposed to plan?

The government has not said that it has any modelling of the financial impacts for individual venue operators from the end of this year who will have to comply with the outcome of this trial and make the investments to support the machines and the technology to support the precommitment, the carded play and the spin rates, which will be reduced. That level of uncertainty and the modelling of this bill on the premise that the government will have a trial in the middle of this year for three months and then apparently we are supposed to know what that trial will eventuate in is not a very sound way to proceed with policy that will have far-reaching implications for the industry, as well meaning as it is, in circumstances where people need to plan. It goes back to my preliminary point about the need for certainty and to minimise dislocation in an industry that wants to do well. I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of people in this industry want to see the sector thrive and at the same time ensure that we treat the ills that come from problem gambling.

Remember, if you look at all of the data, it says that those areas that suffer from the highest levels of socio-economic disadvantage see the highest volume of losses. In the 2023–24 year, if you look at areas such as Mulgrave, Broadmeadows and Thomastown, between them in that financial year the losses were just under $300 million. There are many hundreds of EGMs in those electorates, but there were nearly $300 million in losses. We all get the need and support the need to address problem gambling.

When it comes to precommitment, the intention behind that is sound. It does not guarantee that people will not overextend on the time limits or the financial limits that they might adopt when they are participating in that framework, but still there is no harm in encouraging people to think more about the exposure when they are gambling. At the same time, with carded play we are looking at and are supportive of – I think all of us are – measures that will enable authorities to tackle the problem, which is persistent, of money laundering. We know that. In terms of spin rates, there is an enormous wealth of data which shows that slowing the spin rate slows down the ability of people to get caught up in and swept up in the gambling experience when they are participating in EGMs.

We do not need to be convinced of the possibility of those changes, but as the Leader of the Nationals pointed out quite eloquently, there are trials elsewhere in Australia which are likely to produce more effective outcomes by way of interventions. Why don’t we look at those? Instead we have got an approach from this government to say, ‘Well, look, we’ll do a trial. We don’t have the empirical evidence that shows that the three key changes in this bill will actually reduce the harms, will actually reduce the quantum of those losses in those areas in our state where socio-economic disadvantage is most acute.’ Why doesn’t the government do that? That strikes me as a far more effective way to tackle the interventions that are needed to minimise harm but also to ensure that the industry can be taken along on the journey. The industry wants to participate. The industry wants to see the social measures which this bill is intending to address achieved. I do not think we are on different pages either with the government or with the sector on that. I think the sector wants to see that.

The government’s approach is really one which simply sets up the framework and leaves the decision-making by the government for later. Many of the decisions that the minister might make are disallowable in the other place; some are not. The Leader of the National spoke about Intralot and the expiry of its mandate in 2027. Still we are confronted with a sector that has no certainty about how this will proceed. I echo the Leader of the Nationals’ call on the government to consider the amendments he has moved. In the interests of achieving both overriding purposes – harm minimisation and a sector that can thrive – if the government believes in those, it should consider these amendments.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (17:58): I rise today to speak in support of the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. I have listened to the contributions so far, and I would probably differ from everyone else in this place in that I feel incredibly strongly about gambling. It is something that I have spoken about many times in this place, and as much as I share many passions with the member for Bundoora, I do not share his pleasure of gambling in this way. In the contributions we have heard so far I have heard people talk about the industry and statistics. As many people know in this place, I and my family, my two young boys, are very much the living experience of gambling harm. I have spoken about it before and what it really has done to our family. I have been divorced now for over 10 years, and it continues to impact our family. Their father, I am sorry to say, continues to battle with gambling addiction, and that has impacted his ability to spend time with the boys and for the boys to feel confident in his ability to provide and be there for them. When we have these debates, I find it really difficult to sit here and hear about the concerns for venues and their earnings, because let us face it, their earnings are in fact the money from people’s pockets, from families like my own.

In Victoria in 2023–24 we lost $3.03 billion on EGMs – $3.03 billion. That is the highest it has ever been. We need to do more to curb that. I do want to acknowledge the previous minister for gaming, the member for Williamstown, for the extraordinary work that she has already done in this space. I applaud her for all of her work in changing the hours that venues could be open and introducing carded play in the casino, and now under a new minister we see that extended.

The member for Hawthorn talked a lot about the need for stability and dislocation. All I could think of was the instability and dislocation that was rent upon my family because of gambling addiction. My position on this has always been that it is a mental health issue, and I stand by that. My ex-husband grapples with a mental health condition which drives him again and again to gambling. If there are any reforms that we can make, then I support them wholly. I do not support the reasoned amendment, because I wonder how many more families need go through what we did while the proposed reasoned amendment is worked through.

I would say also that one of the points of the reasoned amendment was that they felt that there was no evidence base for the success of mandatory carded play. I would point the opposition to Sweden and Norway. Norway introduced mandatory carded play back in 2009, and there was really a marked difference in losses on the machines and people playing, so I think the evidence is out there. There was somewhat of a contradiction when the member for Hawthorn talked about the wealth of information that existed about the spin rate but then went on to support a reasoned amendment which says there is no evidence. The member for Hawthorn told us there is a vast amount of evidence to support changing the spin rates, which is one of the things that this bill works to do. I would ask that he perhaps provides some of that evidence to the member for Gippsland South so that we can get on and get this bill passed, rather than being caught up in what is a factually incorrect reasoned amendment. The facts are in on this in Norway and Sweden, and as the member for Hawthorn said, about the work on spin rates.

Many MPs will have received an email today from the Alliance for Gambling Reform, and they strongly support this bill. I stand with them. This is an incredibly important bill. The spin rates will make a huge impact. When I look at my own community of Ballarat, the losses in 2022–23 amounted to $64.4 million. That was the losses on those EGMs, and I think of what that money could have done being spent in the community by families for their families.

When we talk about gambling losses there is of course the money that goes through the EGMs, but there are the countless impacts on families and financial hardships. I really struggled. We had to sell the family farm at the end of my marriage to pay off some of the debts. Some were farming debts, but a lot of it was gambling. I was a single mum. I think I had $30,000 in superannuation when I left my marriage, and I had to try and find work to support myself and my children. When we talk about losses through EGMs, I just ask that people in this place consider that those losses are far-reaching. I am still paying for both of my boys’ therapists and will continue to, so the impacts really are enormous.

This bill takes another step towards trying to protect people from going through what I went through. I absolutely applaud every step that we take in this regard. I was interested that those on the other side wanted to talk about face recognition. I cannot wait, if that bill ever comes, to hear their cries of privacy being impugned. I think it is pretty funny coming from those on the other side. But on the reasoned amendment the evidence is out there, and to delay these measures longer in any form means that other families will potentially go through what I went through. I know in my personal situation, in talking to my ex-husband about the experience of his addiction, there are things like being made to stop and think. We have seen how great the closing hours are and the impact that they are having, and that is really about getting a gambler to take a break. When I talk to my ex-husband about it, it is like being in a drugged state. You are just kind of in this bubble and keep going. So anything that can just make them take a minute, for the person gambling to stop and think, is a fine thing. The carded play will give people that moment. I know my husband at one point tried to get himself self-excluded, and it was an incredibly difficult process having to go from venue to venue. Something like mandatory carded play means that at every moment the gambler will have to stop and think.

I know there was a discussion from the first speaker on the other side about the 29 per cent figure and that regret did not amount to gambling harm. I really want to call that out because regret is about having done something they did not want to do, and surely we need to support everybody who walks into a venue to be able to make a commitment and pull themselves up. Regret is gambling harm. I commend this bill strongly to the house.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (18:08): I rise to make a contribution on the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. As we have heard, this bill establishes a framework for the introduction of mandatory carded play and precommitment for electronic gaming machines among other things. As the member for Eureka leaves the chamber, I acknowledge her contribution and personal experience, which she has eloquently outlined to the rest of the chamber.

It is mandatory carded play that is the element of the bill I want to talk on briefly, because other elements of this bill are certainly far more palatable. I preface my comments by saying of course we have to safeguard against problem gambling as best we can both as a Parliament and as a community. Others have spoken before me about some of the concerns that were raised, and I want to briefly touch on them and bring another element to it. The first one is that our gaming venues very recently entered into negotiations around long-term arrangements for gaming machines.

Those negotiations took place in very, very good faith for 10 years with the option of another 10, so we are talking 20-year arrangements. Then within a very short timeframe we have had the goalposts changed by the government in relation to that. I am not sure how the minister can sit down and negotiate long-term contracts. Gaming venues do their sums – they work out what is viable for them ‍– and then within a very short timeframe they have the goalposts changed. It is disrespectful to those businesses who entered into those good-faith negotiations, and it is a sign that this government perhaps had not thought ahead, because any reasonable negotiation would have included a discussion around what they were intending to propose.

Across the sector the concern is that this will remove the casual gaming element. Some might say, ‘Well, that’s okay,’ but the people who have a problem with gambling – and we need to help them as best we can – will be the first people who will sign up to the carded play. What this is going to impact is the person who goes along to a venue and while they are waiting for their parma to come out or waiting for their friends to turn up will put $10 through the pokies – I guess to keep their interest before they engage in the primary activity that they attended the venue for. This casual gaming will not take place if they have got to sign up; they just will not bother to do it. What this means in our area is that if we put this hoop for them to jump through, it is going to end up in less revenue, less jobs in our gaming areas and – in the case of RSLs – less turnover.

We know that the RSLs – some better than others, our sub-branches, I must admit – provide an enormous amount of support to our veteran community. I am surprised that RSL Victoria perhaps has not been more vocal on this topic. I will be interested to see whether the Minister for Veterans contributes to this debate if she indeed comes into it, because with this downturn in revenue, how are they going to provide the same level of support to their veteran community as they have done in the past? I again repeat that some do it a lot more than others, but I know my local sub-branch in Bairnsdale does an incredible job supporting its veterans.

Victoria already has a voluntary card system. I note that the member for Eureka outlined her personal situation around the challenges that that has presented, but that voluntary system is in place where people can set time limits and set spending limits for their contribution to gaming machines. But under these changes no person can play the pokies unless they have signed up. It is funny; when I was growing up we never had gaming machines in Victoria but we had them in New South Wales, so I would often go up. You would go to the RSL in Merimbula or the fisherman’s club in Eden or the bowls club in Merimbula and you would play the pokies there, but you would never play them in Victoria. I still do that to this day despite having a number of gaming venues around me. I am not going to be bothered doing that if I have got to sign up to carded play. I am just not going to be bothered to do it.

Crown Casino are on the record as saying that when carded play came in there they lost a thousand jobs – a thousand workers were shed. Of course Crown want this in now to create a level playing field. They are saying, ‘Oh, no, look, there were other factors involved in that.’ But the reality of it is we had job losses, and this will occur again. We hear of the pilot program that is going to be run as a precursor to this. I would ask the minister to please, if you are running your pilot, stay away from Gippsland East, because we do not need another downturn. We have had the fires and then we had COVID. Other areas do not have the fires but they had COVID. We then had the timber industry removed from us. We do not need our gaming venues in our country communities in East Gippsland being faced with less turnover as part of a trial that will result in job losses. And I would say, wherever these trial venues are instigated, please underwrite them so that if that gaming venue suffers losses on what it did the previous year and the year before, it is subsidised for those losses so we do not have locals losing their jobs.

There is no doubt that gaming machines do cause harm, but I want to make some comments on whether this will actually rectify that problem. The second-reading speech quotes the Victorian Population Gambling and Health Study 2023, and it says that 8.5 per cent of the population is at risk from problem gambling. It also goes on to say only less than 1 per cent actually experience a problem and the highest rate is amongst bingo players, followed by keno and then casino gaming tables and then pokies. I think the lead speaker on this bill posed the question: if the majority of our gaming issues from a percentage basis are with bingo players, are we going to introduce carded gaming and ID approvals for everyone playing bingo, if that is where the major problem gambling lies per capita? It is an interesting scenario.

There is also concern that this policy will drive people underground. We saw over COVID the huge uptake in online gambling. If people are forced to do this, it is another incentive to gamble from home, where there are not those oversights in place and they can go about their ways. If it becomes problematic to attend your local pub and club, that is what they are going to do – sit on the computer at home. It is another incentive to do that.

Tasmania has dropped plans to introduce mandatory carded play. New South Wales, as we have heard from other speakers, is looking at facial recognition technology for excluded patrons. South Australia has already implemented that – which I am sure our lead speaker covered off – and there is genuine concern from border venues that patrons faced with having to register will simply go over. Now, I know that there has been some discussion from the government about maybe having a border bubble and the like, but that should be part of this bill. Why are we in here debating a bill where we have still got those elements of it up in the air? If we are going to have that border bubble if you like, for want of a better description, have it in the bill. Have someone talking about it in the second-reading speech so we actually know what we are voting on. But again, it is another bill where the detail is not sorted out.

There are better ways to help problem gamblers, and other states are looking at these areas. That is why I support the reasoned amendment as put forth by the member for Gippsland South. We need to see evidence that these reforms will indeed reduce gambling harm, not suspect they will. This is legislation being put in place that has the potential to hurt businesses and result in job losses in our towns. So we need to see the proof that this will help.

Point (2) of the reasoned amendment states:

evaluates and reports on the feasibility of new technology such as facial recognition technology …

Other states and other jurisdictions are going through that; surely we can see how that turns out before we impose this on Victorian businesses.

The third element of the reasoned amendment calls on the delivering of:

… a process to protect border clubs from financial drift to interstate clubs …

Hopefully before this debate is finished we can have a member of the government standing up and clearly articulating and outlining to us how that is going to work if this goes ahead. It would be very good if those trial locations avoid those locations, and please keep out of Gippsland East – we have had enough kicks in the guts with job losses. We do not need another state government policy that is going to hurt employment in my area.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (18:18): It gives me pleasure to rise today and speak to the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. I am really happy that these are the strongest gambling harm prevention laws in Australia that we are introducing and are a really big step in the right direction on gambling harm minimisation in our state. I am very proud that these long-awaited reforms before Parliament are under our Allan Labor government. We know that gambling does cause serious harm, where there is addiction, to both the person gambling and those around them, including family, friends and loved ones. It is why we need serious reform and oversight to protect our communities, particularly our most vulnerable who are doing it tough.

I have been in this place since 2018, and I have always had a bit of a soulmate who has been a very strong advocate against gambling through electronic gaming machines, and that is the member for Eureka. She has each and every time, when given the opportunity, always been so brave at telling her own personal story in this place in advocating for the sort of strong reform that we have seen here today. Like her, I have stood proudly since my inauguration speech in advocating for and indeed hoping that we would see these kinds of laws being eventually introduced, because it is those communities – those poorer communities, communities that I and others in this place represent – that are being most harshly done by when there are not these kinds of precommitment standards and mandatory carded play introduced.

I stand very proudly in being able to help see that this bill goes through in its whole form. It establishes the legislative and regulatory framework to produce the implementation of mandatory carded play and precommitment on electronic gaming machines in Victoria. The bill will see mandatory carded play introduced whereby a patron is required to insert a player card to operate a gaming machine, and the card gives people access to information about their gambling habits and allows them to set a limit on how much they are willing to lose, known as precommitment. From 1 December 2025 mandatory carded play will commence using the state government’s existing YourPlay framework, and the amount of money people can load onto a machine at any time will be reduced to $100, which is down from $1000, helping reduce the amount that can be lost. The precommitment card allows players to set voluntary limits that help prevent financial harm before it occurs and help people game responsibly.

The bill also amends the spin rate – that all-important spin rate – on EGMs. That is currently at 2.14 seconds, but after 21 December 2025 the spin rate will be mandated to be a minimum of 3 seconds. Research shows that higher playing speeds mean higher bets, longer play and a greater risk of impaired control. This reform will slow games down by 40 per cent and in turn limit the amount of money that can be lost.

These are excellent measures, and they are all measures which, again, as the member for Eureka has already said, have already been supported by the Alliance for Gambling Reform. Each and every time I speak to a gambling bill around electronic gaming machines in this place I will always give the Alliance for Gambling Reform a bit of a shout-out. They have recognised much sooner than everyone else that gambling addiction is like any other addiction and that it should be treated as such, as a public health issue. They have said in their release that members have received today that evidence shows that mandatory carded play with precommitment is the gold standard for reducing gambling harm from poker machines. As a result of the royal commission it was implemented at Crown from December 2024, and this legislation supports the remaining venues in Victoria with EGMs to have the same system for patrons to play. It is actually good to see that Crown Casino have already transitioned to that mandated carded play as a part of the legislative response to the Victorian Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence.

I did in fact recently visit Crown to inspect the new systems that they have implemented, and contrary to the member for Gippsland East’s assertions that this carded play system will mean that people will not register to play, in fact Crown advised me in my inspection of the site that over 400,000 people since December last year have already registered to play on their EGMs, but they are doing so with that precommitment play and mandatory limits that are in place. Anyone using gaming machines at the casino is required to use that YourPlay system to set both time and money loss limits. It is my view that the rest of the industry, like Crown, must get behind this legislation to protect Victorians.

I also know, like the member for Bundoora, just the losses on electronic gaming machines in the community. The average loss in my community over the last full financial year amounted to $13 million a month. It is the first time post COVID that we have seen that kind of average monthly figure. It is really disappointing for me to think that in the seven months that have already gone in this financial year that figure has moved from $13 million per month up to $14 million per month, and that is with another five months of the year to go. That is an enormous amount of money to be lost, and that is in the LGA of the City of Casey. What we are really saying here is that every single adult person in the City of Casey is actually just burning through $1000 a month on the pokies. We indeed know that we do not have every single adult person in the City of Casey who is playing the pokies. Sorry, that is $1000 in gaming losses per annum, not per month. They are still concerning facts and they demonstrate the need for gambling harm minimisation and the insidious impact of gambling on individuals, families and the community, and this is something we must all work hard at combating together. We know that the impacts of gambling are often concurrent with other factors such as declining mental health, increased use of alcohol or drugs and higher rates of family violence, and that is why this harm minimisation requires a holistic response and why we must work together on reducing harm in casinos and pokies venues.

We must also invest in services that support people who gamble or are at risk of gambling and those around them. The further work that the state Labor government has done in reducing gambling harm includes establishing the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, Australia’s strongest gambling regulator, with enhanced oversight and enforcement powers. It actually delivers some excellent data around each LGA and each venue, as well as the government’s work in mandatory closure periods, which were introduced in mid-2024, meaning all hotels and clubs must close gaming areas between 4:00 am and 10:00 am to reduce extended gambling sessions.

This is excellent reform that the government is introducing. I really do commend the work of the former minister, the member for Williamstown, and the current minister in ensuring that this bill has come to this place. I commend the bill to the house.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (18:28): I am happy to rise this evening to speak on the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. This is this is an issue that I have actually been speaking to venues in my vast electorate about for quite some time, given that we are on the border and New South Wales implemented a trial of a similar model. It must have been in 2022, I think; it may have even been before that. But of course some of the venues on the New South Wales side of the river – we are very, very close, we can see each other; we can even get there by bus ‍– were really concerned that it would affect their revenue, pretty much. ClubsNSW are a pretty strict organisation. They have some pretty clear guidelines as to what pokie venues and clubs need to adhere to in New South Wales. Part of that is they have to give away X amount of their takings to local clubs.

Some of the clubs in my region – Euston Club is one, the Coomealla club is another one, just to name a couple – give back a huge amount of money to all sorts of community groups. The concern was that it would really affect their bottom line and make their entire organisation less viable because if everyone had to give away their information, which some are very reluctant to do, then they would simply cross the river. That is what we are talking about here, which is why I am glad that the Leader of the Nationals moved the reasoned amendment with four different points. The third one is ‘delivers a process to protect border clubs from financial drift to interstate clubs.’ That financial drift that he talks about is not that far-fetched, and it does not go that far. From the Euston Club, for example, to the Robinvale club it takes about 6 minutes to drive, and they both have courtesy buses because that is part of how you get people in the door. You go to their door, pick them up, bring them, and it works cross-border. If only everything worked as well cross-border, it would be wonderful.

It is a real concern, particularly at this time of year. It is the busiest time of year in our region, with the nut harvest and grape harvest. There are a lot of itinerant workers and backpackers. The backpackers are finally back to do their 88 days. There are a lot of people that do not want to give any details at all to any organisation, much less a government organisation, so you can see how they would be reluctant to take part in this.

I am not a fan of poker machines, but I am a fan of the venues that house them. It was the Mildura Working Man’s Club, once famous for the longest continuous bar in Australia, and the Gateway hotel in Mildura that first raised these concerns. I have spoken about the very valid concerns that both CEOs from those venues had about exactly that, that financial drift that they would see going over the border should mandatory carded play be introduced, because it is very realistic and it is a very, very large concern. The CEO of the Gateway hotel, Gordon, raised a really good point, a really valid point. He understands the recommendations from the royal commission. He understands minimising gambling harm, as we all do. No-one is saying that we want gambling harm, but also no-one is saying that this is actually needed either. If we look at the New South Wales example, that did turn into a trial, and that trial did not really go anywhere. I think in Penrith there were 25,000 members at the Penrith club and 25 signed up, so that shows you how much want there is for this. Mind you, if problem gamblers want to gamble, they will give over details.

Gordon approached me first and foremost about this with some really valid points. He said he knows that there are venues that do not do the right thing, that do not practise the responsible service of gambling. He said that all the government has to do is start enforcing licences, so when a venue breaches the codes, suspend their licence for 10 days; second strike, 30 days; third strike, you are out. That would soon make sure that every venue adheres to the code. It is pretty simple, and it does not affect that cross-border issue, which is the one that I am really concerned about for obvious reasons, because there are many, many venues on the Victorian side. New South Wales are rubbing their hands together because they dropped it pretty much as soon as it began. They realised that no-one really wanted this; it was not really going to work, and they did not really know how to go about it. The volunteer trial that they ran had very little uptake. New South Wales would be very happy if this was to come in in Victoria because we are in a real bind, particularly on the border.

So I would hope that the government – this is really reasonable; there is nothing controversial in this reasoned amendment put forward by the Leader of the Nationals – provides evidence that its reforms will reduce gambling harm, because in this legislation there are not actually any proof points that say that mandatory carded play will. In fact when New South Wales ran the trial they dropped it because they could not make it work.

The reasoned amendment asks that the government evaluates and reports on the feasibility of new technologies such as facial recognition technology and automated risk monitoring systems – these are things we have already got; we do not need to reinvent the wheel; these systems already exist, pretty easy to implement – and delivers a process to protect border clubs from financial drift to interstate clubs and improves parliamentary oversight of the reforms as well, which is also key so we actually know what is working and what is not.

Again, no-one is saying that we do not want to reduce gambling harm. Of course we do. But the other risk we run with this is that people will stop going to clubs and will stop buying their pot of beer and having a meal, perhaps with family – the social gamblers. Like I said, I hate pokies, but if I am at a club on the way out I might throw some money in. I may as well drive past and throw my wallet out the door because I never win a thing, but it is that social element of the odd $10 here and $10 there that you will completely lose, as well as the interstate, cross-border stuff. But what will also happen here is we will push people to gamble online, where they can pretty much do whatever they want, so you will end up with those that need help most losing their homes in their homes. How is that going to be beneficial? Again, this needs much more clarity than where it is at now, because honestly it is driving people to gamble online. And they will.

There is sports betting as well. The advertising of sports betting surely needs to be – and I realise that is not our jurisdiction – legislated first, really, and done away with. I agree absolutely that that is what should happen first, but if we make carded play mandatory in Victoria, we risk the ultimate demise of pokie venues, which are already struggling. They have just signed a 20-year agreement for all of these machines; let us not forget that. We are one year into a 20-year agreement, and they are faced with this. That puts them in a really dangerous spot, these community clubs and other pub venues. But driving people to gamble – and they will, they will find a way – online in their home in a completely unregulated space is surely much more dangerous, and that needs to be dealt with first.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (18:38): I rise to contribute on the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. Of course this bill just continues the work of the Allan Labor government in reducing gambling harm while ensuring that the community clubs and the RSLs and the hospitality venues that have been referred to do remain an important part of the Victorian community.

Firstly, I want to mention that it is a bit disappointing that the opposition are voting against this bill when it fundamentally is all about reducing the harm of gambling addiction and money laundering. I make reference to the reasoned amendment from the member for Gippsland South. One of the reasons for that reasoned amendment was about providing more evidence. As the member for Eureka raised in her contribution, there is plenty of evidence from other countries that have introduced carded play, such as Sweden and Norway, and that evidence has been gathered since I think the early 2000s – 2009 I think she referred to – so there is plenty of evidence from other countries. But also, again, the member for Eureka in her contribution attested to the gambling harm that affects not just the person who gambles but also the loved ones and the families in total. I commend the member for Eureka for her fantastic contribution. She has done that against all gambling issues that have been raised in this house and she is consistent on that, and well done to her.

The most recent study of Victorian gamblers found that 29 per cent of people who played poker machines experienced some form of harm, with a record $3.06 billion lost on poker machines in 2023–24. So this bill will amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 and the Casino Control Act 1991 to implement the use of mandatory carded play and precommitment on electronic gaming machines across the state. It means that gaming machine players will be required to use a player card, which only they will have access to, in order to use those electronic gaming machines. Of course the card will give people access to information about their gambling habits, and I know the privacy of individuals has been raised, but again the fundamental issue in regard to this bill is trying to protect people from gambling addiction. It allows those people to set limits on how much they are willing to lose, known as a precommitment. Account-based play provides more and real-time information to patrons, helping them to take control of their own decisions. Account-based play and identity requirements also help prevent criminals from using venues and machines to launder money, and that comes as a result of the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence. Carded play was implemented at Crown Casino from December last year in an Australian first to introduce a voluntary statewide carded playing precommitment scheme for gaming machines, and this bill will ensure this scheme is implemented at venues across all of the state.

It also implements a minimum 3-second spin time on pokie machines. It does not sound like a lot, does it, but of course that is a 40 per cent increase on the current minimum spin time of 2.14 seconds. I cannot quite grasp that myself; I have played pokies before, but I did not realise it was only 2.14 seconds in between spins. I know sometimes when you are standing in front of a machine you are really geeing it up to try and spin faster, especially if you think you are on a roll where you have got a few collects, and then all of a sudden it is all gone. Anyway, the increase in spin time reduces the chances of risky behaviour, slowing down the rate at which a potential criminal could launder some money. Of course these reforms are about putting the power back into the consumer’s hands and supporting them to gamble within their limits, and that is really important.

Much like in all of my previous contributions to the many gambling amendments this government has made to reduce gambling harm to Victorians, I will admit that I have been a gambler and still am a gambler. As I say, I always have been, and I am sure I will continue to be a gambler into the future. I gamble on everything, even flies crawling up the wall. I do it within my limits – I think I do; my wife probably would not think that – but I use it as a bit of entertainment. For me it is a bit of a challenge. I am sure other people have said the same. I am certainly not an addict, but I do enjoy it at times. I try everything. I do not play the pokies very often. It is probably only the times when I am desperate for a drink at night and I have got nowhere else to go that I will go to a pokies venue if there is one close by, but it is only because they have got a bar, rather than for the gaming machines. So I prefer drinking rather than gambling, but I do not think I am addicted to it. You never know; you give it a try. I might have two addictions that I am not aware of, but I am working on it, so we will see how we go. Someone said before about the support services – maybe I will check them out too. But anyway, not to worry.

Of course gambling is very common amongst the Australian community, with 73 per cent of Australian adults partaking in some sort of gambling within the last 12 months, whether it is scratchies, race betting, pokies or any other form of gambling. We have less than 1 per cent of the world’s population, yet we have 18 per cent of the world’s poker machines, which are interesting stats and probably a good reason why so many people lose so much money. It is estimated about 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 of course relationship issues.

In 2023 a report from Federation University and Suicide Prevention Australia found that there were at least 184 suicides directly related to gambling and 17 suicides by those affected by someone else’s gambling. Of course these numbers do not include suicide attempts due to gambling addiction. When you look at those tragic numbers of people taking their own lives or attempting to take their own lives, it is really difficult to quantify the cost to our community of these tragedies.

In my electorate there are four main gambling dens: Mac’s Hotel, the Golden Fleece Hotel, the Melton Country Club and the Melton Entertainment Park. Of course, as I said before, these are facilities that provide local jobs, support local clubs and support local community groups, but there is an element of it where unfortunately we see people that go to these facilities that have a gambling addiction. We have got to try and find the balance here. These locations are where too many members of our community suffer at times. Since the last time I updated the house on the statistics of gambling in the Melton LGA, two years ago, things have worsened. In the last two years the amount of money spent on pokies in the Melton LGA has increased by over 40 per cent to almost $87 million per year. The Melton LGA has gone from the 13th to the 10th in terms of the highest pokies expenditure in the state, and that is despite still having the same number of pokie machines in the local government area as we did two years ago. As I say, it is a massive increase in gambling losses in the Melton local government area.

All new electronic gaming machines will be required to have a spin rate longer than 3 seconds. As I said, it does not sound like a lot, but it is a great increase on the 2.1 form, which is really just sucking money out of people’s pockets. Of course everyone would have got the email from Martin Thomas, the CEO of the Alliance for Gambling Reform, stating that:

The Alliance strongly supports and applauds Victoria’s decision to support mandatory carded play with pre-commitment …

It describes the changes in this bill as:

… sensible measures to limit the financial loss and in turn reduce the significant harms to family, employers and the impacts on the general wellbeing and health of our community.

This is an important bill and these are important reforms. It just adds to other things that the Allan Labor government has introduced, such as the establishment of the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, Australia’s strongest gambling regulator, and also the mandatory carded play for pokies at Crown Casino and mandatory closure periods. This is an important bill, and I commend it to the house.

Kim O’KEEFFE (Shepparton) (18:48): I rise to make a contribution on 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 necessary legislative and regulatory framework for mandatory carded play and precommitment on electronic gaming machines in Victoria. This side of the house are committed to reducing gambling harm. In our last term of government we established the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, now abolished by Labor. I was a member of the VRGF, and I saw firsthand the difference the foundation was making in addressing gambling harm, particularly in regional areas. It made no sense to shut down the VRGF. We had data and significant bodies of work that were making a significant difference.

Before I continue, I would like to acknowledge the member for Eureka’s courageous contribution in sharing her own experiences and her own impacts. I have a little story to share myself a little bit more into my contribution. But it does make you stop, and it actually really reminds you of the significant impact that gambling harm does have, and not just on the person but on the whole family, friends and those that can be impacted.

The major concern I have with this bill is that there has been no consultation or evidence that these reforms will minimise harm. Despite government claims, there is little evidence this policy will reduce problem gambling. Whether this bill is the best way to address harm from pokie machines is very debatable. Victoria already has a voluntary carded system that allows patrons playing on gaming machines to set time and spending limits for their play on pokies. YourPlay is widely considered to be a failure as few did agree to sign up. In the second-reading speech the minister claimed that ‘voluntary requirements have been stigmatising’ and described the mandatory version as ‘standardising its use’. It is not standardising, it is compulsory.

Under these changes, ultimately no person in Victoria will be able to play pokies without having to first sign up to a card system, requiring them to hand over and prove their ID. As you can imagine, many people have an issue with privacy. Whilst there are some changes in this bill that may reduce the amount of spending on pokies at venues, with slower spin times aiming to decrease the amount of money going into the machine over a period of time, we know there are many other ways to gamble ‍– and won’t a person wanting to gamble or with an addiction just find another way? Gambling harm is not just confined to the local pokie venues. Gambling can take place with the touch of a button on our phones and online and without any real legal oversight. This reform is patchy and misses the mark, as this is only aimed at a portion of those that are experiencing gambling harm.

I have seen firsthand how younger people are being impacted by gambling addiction on their phones. I have shared this story before in this place. One of my closest friends’ 18-year-old son was severely impacted by gambling harm. He was at university and was gambling on his phone. He ended up having to leave university due to his mental ill health, associated with the consequences of this addiction. It was alarming to hear that he said, particularly, as he was recovering and taking stock of what had happened to him, ‘So many others are doing it.’ It almost made it sound like it was the norm. Whilst this bill is only addressing gaming machines, the impact of gambling, as I said, is so much broader.

The bill also gives the minister the power to conduct a pilot of a carded play system. This will occur later this year and will take place for three months and across 40 venues. The government has not been able to explain how it will recruit venues for this pilot. This has raised alarm bells across the industry, and there is no indication of which venues are going to be selected and the extent of the financial impact that they will bear. Once the pilot has concluded, the mandatory carded play system will take effect and be rolled out across the state on all gaming machines by the end of this year. Industry was taken by surprise, particularly given pubs and clubs have not long ago begun a 20-year licence and sale period of 10 plus 10 in 2022. There is also genuine concern from my local venues that patrons faced with having to register to play pokies in Victoria will simply go across the neighbouring border, where they do not have to register. In some cases in my electorate this is less than a 30-minute drive. This takes us back to the 1980s, before pokies hit Victoria, taking revenue directly away from local businesses. Although the bill gives the minister power to make directions on a geographic basis, there is no commitment from the government on a border bubble or similar.

As I have mentioned, one of the main amendments that the bill makes is to introduce new spin rate limits on new electronic gaming machines in a bid to slow down the rate of play and player loss. The expectation is that players will make more informed decisions about their gambling behaviour by tracking their spending and setting limits.

This bill does give the government the power to set requirements for carded play on gaming machines in hotels and clubs. Under these reforms included in the bill, players will be required to insert a player card into an electronic gaming machine in order for it to operate. In addition, the precommitment system will enable players to set limits on their spending before they even begin gambling. We know that not all people attending a venue with pokie machines have a gambling problem, and many just go to the local pub for a meal and social connection. I think we just heard that over here from the member on his feet prior to me – and I think we might need to have a bit of a discussion; it sounds like he is having lots of fun. I think it is a good point. If we can manage, obviously, our gambling behaviours, that is the point, and I think we all have had the odd little flutter.

Just recently I was on a girls weekend. We were at Crown for dinner, and we thought we would go into Crown and put in our $20. I did not know you could not actually put cash into machines anymore. So I had my $20 in my pocket, knowing that that was all that I would spend, and then I had to go and register. I was actually quite surprised about the questions being asked: ‘How much do you want to spend?’; ‘How much time do you want to take to spend that amount of money?’ It was quite interesting for someone that has been there twice, probably, in 12 months. But there is social gambling, and it should be something that is considered. I think this bill does raise concerns with that, because at a lot of venues that have people coming in to socialise and just to have a night out, if people have to register, it may put them off actually going out and going to that venue or spending money. This is a big concern. Responsible gambling is something that is a reality, and we also want to see businesses succeeding and not suffering from these unexpected and unplanned changes. Many of these businesses put money back into our communities, but it is about the management and balance between responsible gambling and addiction.

We have heard from many other speakers of the impact that gambling addiction can have on people’s lives and families and the broader community. We know that gambling harm is not just an individual issue but a community issue. The ripple effects are felt beyond the person that is gambling or the venue in which they are playing. It is very different in local regional venues, I must admit, where attendants who work on the gaming floor or in gaming areas are also often locals who are likely to know many of their customers.

One of my sisters worked at one of the local clubs a few years ago, and to be honest she was often very surprised by who was regularly attending and gambling at the pokies and on other gambling platforms at the venue where she worked. It was interesting that she was aware that some of those gambling heavily on pokie machines were also known to be gambling in other areas, and I think that is the point.

We have heard many stories, and I have also shared one of my personal stories before in this place of a relative who has a gambling addiction. I wanted to say ‘had’ a gambling addiction, and that is our hope. The astonishing thing about this is that no-one knew – not his wife, friends, work colleagues, no-one – until it was too late. They lost their home, their life savings and everything. It was so awful when we found out. As a family, it is devastating to see someone who you love and care about and their family face the harsh reality of what has occurred. When someone close to you is so severely impacted, it does affect you, but you feel so overwhelmingly helpless. Often gambling addiction can be hidden and silent, but that impact eventually does catch up.

I recall a number of years ago now when my husband had money go missing from his business, and at the time there were a couple of full-time staff and a few casuals. Once you realise that something is going on and money is going missing, it is awful because you do not know who it is. The person who had the most access, with keys to the safe, and who was in a position to trust seemed to be the obvious person with the opportunity, and it was awful to start contemplating that scenario. He was loyal, great at his job, and guess what, it was not him. Surprisingly, it was a young casual staff member who was clever in accessing the safe keys and taking cash randomly. We set her up, and she took the bait. It was really disappointing, because this woman of 25 was lovely; everyone liked her and you would never have picked it. What we found out is that she had a broad gambling addiction. This cost our business thousands of dollars – we think it was around the $10,000 mark. But it was also the stigma on her and her family that was really quite devastating for everybody involved.

As we move forward, looking at this bill, it is the opportunity that we need to make change. There are a lot of broad things that need to happen, and I do not think that this bill goes far enough. I think we need to do more. There is so much more that we need to do, and we need to have more detail on this bill. It is fair to say that these reforms did come out of the blue – industries were taken by surprise. This bill will not stop people who want to gamble; they will just find another way.

I do support the reasoned amendment put by the Leader of the Nationals, and it does relate to some of the things that I have pointed out. Particularly, it delivers a process to protect border clubs from financial drift to interstate clubs, evaluates and reports on the feasibility of new technology such as facial recognition technology and automated risk monitoring systems, provides evidence that its reforms will reduce gambling harm and improves parliamentary oversight of the reforms.

Anthony CIANFLONE (Pascoe Vale) (18:57): I too rise to speak on the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Pre-commitment and Carded Play) Bill 2024. In doing so I would like to acknowledge the work of the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, his team, departmental officials and all the stakeholders that have been involved in bringing this bill to Parliament.

I would like to acknowledge our many community clubs, RSLs and hospitality venues, which all play an important economic, employment, community and social role across all of our neighbourhoods. For many, our community clubs and pubs are a place to catch up with friends and family, celebrate special occasions or just enjoy a night out. Many community clubs also make a significant contribution to local communities, employ dozens of local residents and support many grassroots sport, charities and social programs that benefit thousands of Victorians, including across my community.

That is why it is important that these reforms strike a balance in minimising gambling harm while ensuring that community venues remain safe and enjoyable parts of Victorian life, because while we recognise that gambling is a legitimate recreational activity which many Victorians partake in safely, enjoyably and sustainably – including through the Melbourne Cup, Spring Racing Carnival and other forums, and as the member for Melton pointed out earlier, in his local community, too – gambling can also very much have a darker side for many people and families that are vulnerable to exploitation. That is why, whilst gambling in its various legal forms and platforms is an activity engaged in by many, we must always continue to remain vigilant and work to ensure we continue to identify, mitigate against and address the risks associated with gambling harm across our local communities, because it is this gambling harm or gambling addiction that can have a terrible and devastating impact on people’s lives in our local communities.

Each year more than 500,000 Victorians experience gambling harm, whether it be through their own or someone else’s gambling. A 2017 study previously commissioned by the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation found that up to 30 per cent of people presented to primary care, alcohol and other drug and mental health services experienced problem gambling. According to the Alliance for Gambling Reform and Roy Morgan Research –

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am required under sessional orders to interrupt business now. The member will have the call when the matter returns to the house.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.