Tuesday, 20 September 2022

Bills

Casino Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Implementation and Other Matters) Bill 2022

Debate resumed.

Committed.

Committee

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I remind members that under sections 62 and 64 of the Constitution Act 1975, the Council does not have the power to make amendments to certain clauses of this bill that impose a tax or make appropriations from the Consolidated Fund. No question will be put on these clauses, and any proposed amendments must be in the form of a suggestion to the Assembly. Standing order 14.15 sets out the procedure for dealing with suggested amendments.

Clause 1 (13:55)

Obviously on clause 1 I can acquit any of my questions. My first question, Minister, is in relation to the Community Support Fund and the amount of funds that the government is receiving at this time. Within this bill is there any way of helping with the Community Support Fund, which the government has normally attached to gaming revenue?

This bill does not make any reference to the Community Support Fund, nor does it change any of its purposes or functions.

Minister, in section 3.6.12, ‘Payment to Community Support Fund’, which is subject to subsection (1A):

… an amount equal to the relevant pub gaming machine entitlement amount in respect of each period referred to in section 3.6.6A must be paid out of the Consolidated Fund into the Community Support Fund.

Am I right that the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 actually has that as a clause?

Ms PULFORD: Which clause of the bill are you referring to? Or are you referring to the principal act?

Dr CUMMING: The principal act, Minister—3.6.12, ‘Payment to Community Support Fund’.

As I indicated, the Community Support Fund’s operations and functions are not impacted by this legislation, so that is beyond the scope of the bill that is before the committee for consideration. It is also beyond the scope of things that I have been briefed on to bring this bill before this part of our proceedings on behalf of the government.

Under that part that I am speaking to in the principal act, it actually says in that section that the ‘average number of gaming machine entitlements has the same meaning’. Then it goes on to talk about the ‘average revenue per gaming machine entitlement’ having the same meaning in section 3.6.6A(4) of the act. Then it goes into the ‘relevant pub gaming machine entitlement amount’ meaning:

… an amount equal to 8⅓% of the product of the sum of all average revenue per gaming machine entitlement earned by venue operators and the sum of all of the average number of gaming machine entitlements in respect of a period referred to …

In other words, Minister, seeing that we are talking about Crown Casino, it obviously has gaming machines and it obviously receives amounts of money which under the principal act become payments to the Community Support Fund, as I brought up in the debate. It would seem that the last time the amount from the Community Support Fund was advertised was in 2018–19. I do not understand. In the time that this Parliament has sat, the 59th Parliament, where is the Community Support Fund, and where can I actually find it in the budget?

Again, this is beyond the scope of the proceedings before us today. I am conscious that we are in the last couple of sitting days before the Parliament expires ahead of the election, but I would encourage Dr Cumming to pursue that line of questioning with the minister through some of the other procedures that are available—perhaps in the adjournment this evening or, if you can navigate the constituency question set of rules, tomorrow the opportunity might present itself to do that in those ways.

I appreciate the minister’s response, but unfortunately for constituency questions and adjournment questions I do not seem to get answers from the ministers. They are not timely. They do not sit under the orders as to how the government should respect the questions received. This is obviously the last bill the government has felt is important enough to bring before us on its last day. It has been a concern of mine, even with my maiden speech, Minister, and the concern has been there over the last four years in the 59th Parliament. I understand there are other methods to get answers—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thanks, Dr Cumming. The problem is that it is outside the scope of the bill, so I cannot direct the minister. If the minister feels that she wants to be helpful to you in getting an answer, that is up to her. I cannot direct her.

Again, these matters are beyond the scope of the bill. I am conscious that the days are numbered for this Parliament and that there may be limits for the member in accessing that information. As I said in the summing up, a number of members spoke quite passionately about gambling-related harm and gambling addiction. Of course the Community Support Fund has been in existence for quite a long time and does take those revenues and ensures they are returned to the Victorian community for good purposes. So that we are able to move on but in trying to be helpful, notwithstanding the rules that we are operating under, if I could take that question on notice and if it is within our power provide some further advice from the minister to Dr Cumming in a timely way.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. And thank you for trying to facilitate that.

I am very mindful that on the amendments I am putting forward, which I believe will actually help problem gamblers in my area, I obviously am not able to ask questions. On clause 1, my question to the minister would be this: is there any room for this government to potentially look at the suggestions that I have made by way of my amendments and the way that the Tasmanian government is proceeding to look after problem gamblers or pokie machine users? Is this government looking to do further reforms in the future not dissimilar to the amendments that I want to make?

I thank Dr Cumming for her engagement with this issue, her line of questioning and her clear interest in gambling-related harm to people in her community. Perhaps also I might if I can take that question on notice and see if the minister is able to provide you with some further insights into the government’s agenda on gambling-related harm.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming, I just feel I do need to remind you that the questions need to be about the substance of the bill, so questions about the government’s future intentions and things are actually outside the scope of the committee. We do need to keep the committee tight to what is actually in this bill.

Thank you, Deputy President. I know we have a big agenda today. This will probably be one of the last questions that I will lay down in this committee stage. I am happy to hand over the historic yearly electronic gaming machine LGA expenditure data that I have got in my hand from the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation. It outlines the local government areas, which are, among Western Metropolitan councils: the City of Hume, the City of Brimbank, the Shire of Melton, the City of Hobsons Bay, the City of Wyndham, the City of Maribyrnong and the City of Moonee Valley. It talks about from 2010 to 2018 the amount of money lost and the revenue that has been gained by this government. It clearly shows that there has been a steady increase. The only data that I could see was the $601 593 888.53 that was received from all of the Western Metropolitan council areas in the year 2017–18, which this government has and which equates to a monthly revenue of $50 million. I will leave it at that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, do you wish to respond? You will take that as a comment.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (14:06)

I move:

1. Clause 6, after line 32 insert—

‘(4) For section 36G(4) of the Casino Control Act 1991 substitute—

“(4) The Minister must cause a copy of each report given to the Minister under this section to be presented to each House of the Parliament within 7 days after receiving the report or, if a House is not then sitting, on the first sitting day of that House after that period.”.

(5) In section 36G(5) of the Casino Control Act 1991, after “or the” insert “publication or”.’.

This amendment seeks to insert a mechanism to require the reports of the special manager to be tabled in the Parliament. This is something we discussed in the second-reading debate. We believe that, in the interests of transparency, having these reports made publicly available is a good thing.

I thank Mr Rich-Phillips for moving that amendment. I think Mr Rich-Phillips was here when I outlined the reasons that the government is not supporting this. The special manager’s full and final reports will ultimately be published but will be done in a way that will not provide Crown with right of reply and procedural fairness, as these have been explicitly removed through earlier reforms in response to this royal commission’s set of recommendations. We believe that it would undermine the special manager’s work and compromise the independence of the regulator, but we are also very conscious of the special manager’s need to provide summaries that do not engage those confidential matters so that people can be confident of the reform that is underway.

The Liberal Democrats will support this amendment. Transparency is a good thing. We always support transparency.

Committee divided on amendment:

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 7 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13—no question put pursuant to standing order 14.15(2).

Clauses 14 to 51 agreed to.

Clause 52 (14:16)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Cumming’s and Dr Ratnam’s amendments 1 and 2 are identical, and they are presenting competing propositions for amendment 3. Therefore I will call Dr Ratnam and Dr Cumming to speak to their substantive amendments before the house considers Dr Cumming’s amendments 1 and 2. Dr Cumming?

I move:

1. Clause 52, page 54, line 15, after “Subsections” insert “(1),”.

2. Clause 52, page 54, line 22, after “subsections” insert “(1),”.

My amendments are reflective of what the Tasmanian government is wanting to achieve, so they are in regard to making sure that for our most vulnerable in our community there are limits actually set so that they cannot spend more than $100 in a prescribed 24-hour period and that there is no more than $500 prescribed within a month and $5000 within a year. As I said in my earlier contribution, normally roughly around $5000 is what you would pay in land tax or council rates. I believe that when people have a very low income this is one way of making sure they do not lose their house, that they have got food on the table and that the government still gets some money in their coffers—but it is actually in and around gaming within your means. Those are my amendments.

I would like to move my amendments:

1. Clause 52, page 54, line 15, after “Subsections” insert “(1),”.

2. Clause 52, page 54, line 22, after “subsections” insert “(1),”.

These amendments are extremely simple. They extend the precommitment scheme that will apply at the casino to every gaming venue in the state. It means that nobody in Victoria will be able to play the pokies unless they have signed up to the precommitment system and set limits on losses and time spent playing. This is a really commonsense amendment that should have been included in the bill from the start. Gambling harm does not just occur in the casino; in fact it occurs much more frequently and at higher levels outside, within our community. Any harm minimisation measure must apply universally across all gaming venues in the state.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Alliance for Gambling Reform for their tireless work over the years pushing the government to do better on gambling reform and a number of the councils who are part of the alliance’s work. I know from experience that fighting for change can be a long and hard process, but it is thanks to their campaigning and the campaigning of those in our communities with lived experience of gambling harm that we have seen the reforms that we are debating today. I would encourage the government to continue listening to these voices and heeding their calls for change.

Could I just put our position on the record. We will not support these two sets of amendments. We understand the intent that Dr Cumming and Dr Ratnam have but also make the point that the vast majority of people that use electronic gaming machines are not problem gamblers, so this is going to have a large impact on a lot of people who are not in that cohort. Indeed there is substantially more gambling activity which takes place outside EGMs—be it wagering, lotteries et cetera—

Ms Crozier: Online.

Mr RICH-PHILLIPS: or online, as Ms Crozier says—which is not picked up within this scope. So while we appreciate the intent, I guess a similar analogy is people who have a problem with liquor consumption—alcoholics. We do not seek to restrict the supply of alcohol to everybody because there is a cohort of people that have difficulties with the supply of liquor. So while we understand the intention of this amendment, we will not be supporting it.

The government will not be supporting these amendments for the reasons that I outlined in the summing up. I thank both Dr Ratnam and Dr Cumming for their advocacy on behalf of their communities and people who experience problem gambling. The legislation as it has been developed is strictly in response to the recommendations from the royal commission and relate to the casino. These proposals go somewhat beyond that. We believe that this is not the most effective way by which to achieve the things that my colleagues here are seeking to achieve, so we will be opposing.

The Lib Dems will not be supporting this for the same reason that we are not supporting the bill. It is taking a bad nanny state move and making it worse.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I remind members before I call for the division that even though Dr Cumming’s and Dr Ratnam’s amendments later on are vastly different, this first block—amendments 1 and 2—are exactly the same. If you are intending to support either Dr Cumming’s or Dr Ratnam’s amendments, you should vote yes to these amendments.

Committee divided on Dr Cumming’s amendments:

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to; clauses 53 to 68 agreed to.

Reported to house without amendment.

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (14:30): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third reading

Ms PULFORD (Western Victoria—Minister for Employment, Minister for Innovation, Medical Research and the Digital Economy, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Resources) (14:30): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Read third time.

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.27, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the same without amendment.