Second reading
Danny O’BRIEN(Gippsland South) (12:27): I rise to support the member for Evelyn’s motion to adjourn this debate, and I would like to point out a few of the facts about what this bill is actually about. Firstly, the motion is to adjourn debate on the Casino and Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. The government members seem to be under some misapprehension about what the casino bill is actually about. I have the utmost sympathy and empathy for the member for Eureka for her personal circumstances with gambling. This is actually legislation that delays introducing further reforms to protect people from problem gambling – delays it by two years. Government members do not seem to understand that about this bill. Those of us on this side are supporting this legislation, as we did two years ago when it was first brought in. But please be under no misapprehension, anyone who is watching this: this legislation is not acting swiftly to reduce gambling harm, it is actually delaying it for two years.
To the member for Yan Yean, who is so upset and sad about the undermining of democracy: this is what democracy is. This is the opportunity for the chamber, the people’s chamber, to actually debate issues. It is an absolute right of any member of this chamber to stand up at any time and move an adjournment motion, as the member for Evelyn has done, to tackle the issues that are important to Victorians, to tackle the issues that are important to regional Victorians.
Those opposite speak about respect and disrespect – ask the people who were protesting at the bush summit in Ballarat a couple of weeks ago, or on the steps of Parliament on the day of the budget, how much respect they are getting from this government on issues like the emergency services tax, when farmers were facing a 150 per cent increase in the bill that they are getting; when every single household, every single resident, every single commercial property is getting their bill right now with a 100 per cent increase in the rate of the emergency services tax they are paying; and when every industrial property is facing a 64 per cent tax increase.
The member for Eureka, the member for Yan Yean, the member for Ripon – everyone on that side supported the legislation to approve that tax. They stand condemned, and we should be debating issues like this. At a time of a cost-of-living crisis –
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order on relevance, Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Nationals is now talking about issues that have nothing to do with the motion that is before the house. I ask that you rule him out of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Nationals had, I think, just mentioned the word ‘adjournment’, and I encourage him to continue on the adjournment procedural motion.
Danny O’BRIEN: In debating the matter before us, I am explaining why I think we need to be adjourning this legislation, to go on to other matters of importance – matters such as the government’s complete failure on energy, not just what it is doing in the energy sphere but what it is doing to regional Victorians with its steamrolling attitude.
Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, again on relevance, the motion is to adjourn the debate to talk about a specific issue, none of which the Leader of the Nationals has raised in his contribution.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Especially in this debate that has become wider than it probably should have been, the Leader of the Nationals is allowed to rebut other members and also contrast his reasons for adjournment.
Dannyn O’BRIEN: The actual debate is about why we want to adjourn, and that is exactly why I am saying it, Deputy Speaker, so I thank you for your ruling.
We look at the energy sphere. As I said, the government talks to us repeatedly about how it is getting prices down, down, down. We all remember that from the minister. Yet every single household and business is seeing their prices just go up, up, up at the same time that the government is actually disrespecting regional communities, removing the right of them to appeal at VCAT if they are opposed to a renewable energy or transmission project. It is just extraordinary that a government led by a Premier supposedly from regional Victoria who got elected on the back of discontent, she readily reminds us, is actually taking away the voices of regional Victoria. The Nationals and Liberals will give that voice back. That is the sort of thing that we should be debating. We should be actually talking about that, because that policy was introduced by regulation. There was no legislation. This chamber did not actually get the opportunity to even debate that. We would actually make sure that we will give the voice back to regional Victorians, whether it is on things like the VNI West project, whether it is on transmission lines through my electorate and things like offshore wind, whether it is renewable energy projects in general. The government is stifling the voice of regional Victoria. The Nationals and Liberals will give it back. Those are exactly the sorts of things that we should be debating in this chamber.
Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (15:33): I rise to speak on the Casino and Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. It is a bit back to the future for me, having dealt with a lot of the legislation with respect to gaming and gambling over the last couple of years as the previous shadow minister, and I guess it highlights an issue that is sometimes lost by those who wish to see gambling curtailed or removed from our society. I understand the harms that come from gambling and casinos – there is no question that there are harms – but I also note that in the couple of years that I had the portfolio there was a lot of legislation with respect to the casino but also gambling and electronic gaming machines more broadly. That was partly as a result of the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence, but it also highlights that there is a lot of regulation and that this is a heavily regulated sector with a number of agencies oversighting different levels and different parts of the sector, and this is just one further part of it.
Previous speakers have all mentioned the royal commission, and it is important to remind the house that the government at the time had to be dragged kicking and screaming to actually take action on the nefarious activities that had previously been going on at Crown. Indeed they only came to light because of a royal commission in New South Wales, and my predecessor in the role, the then member for Euroa, was very strong in raising concerns that the government and particularly the then regulator, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, had been asleep at the wheel. That led to significant reforms that the government implemented to address the concerns at Crown.
What I have always objected to is that some of that regulation that was brought in to, quite rightly, bring Crown onto a tighter leash and ensure that it was doing the right thing – removing criminal activity, reducing gambling harm, all of the issues that we all support – was unnecessarily extended to smaller operators, particularly the clubs and pubs, when they had done nothing wrong and when there was no evidence in some circumstances that particularly the money laundering and other activity was happening in clubs or pubs. So I was pleased that the legislation that passed a few months ago was far more reasonable than was originally intended when it came to mandatory carded play, because we know that our pubs and clubs, particularly in our regional areas, are really important parts of our communities. They provide employment, they provide a social outlet for people and they provide somewhere warm and welcoming for many vulnerable people, the elderly and the disadvantaged, who enjoy the company going there. They sometimes go and play the pokies. Personally, I do not understand that; it is not something that I find interesting. I really quite dislike them, which made it an interesting issue being the shadow minister. But I also take the view that these machines are legal, they are heavily regulated and people are entitled to go and enjoy them if they choose to do so.
With respect to the legislation specifically that we are dealing with today, I do have a little bit of a desire to say ‘I told you so’ on some of this. The government at the time a couple of years ago was implementing the royal commission’s recommendation faithfully to introduce carded play not only on electronic gaming machines but also on table games. I had discussions, obviously, with the government at the time and also with the casino. I actually went to the casino at the time, and they gave me a tour around and an overview of how they were to implement the new legislation. I did ask the question: are you going to be able to deliver the technology to have carded play on table games by the December 2025 deadline? And the answer was, ‘It’ll be tight because it doesn’t exist anywhere in the world, but we can do so.’ I feel I was a little sceptical at the time. Again, I am not an expert, certainly, in gaming technology, but it did seem to be that it would be a very difficult task to implement such a raft of recommendations and regulation, and it was probably no great surprise to me when we got called in for a briefing a couple of weeks ago with the member for Ovens Valley, highlighting that this legislation was being introduced to extend the deadline by another two years. We do not see this as a sweetheart deal for Crown; we see the pragmatic reality of it. But it is a little bit amusing in some respects that this was seen to be very achievable two years ago. We were assured that it would be, and it has turned out not to be the case. We are dealing with, as I understand it, pretty much a world first in terms of the technology that is being used, and so we understand that there needs to be some flexibility in it.
I think it is also important that the government gets this right, because we know how big the casino is. It is not just a gambling operation, it is an entertainment venue and a significant attractor for the city of Melbourne, whether it is people coming in specifically to play, the high rollers or others, or more particularly those who come to the city for our events, for our activities, for tourism, for holidays and then choose to go to Crown for the food, the entertainment, the gambling or whatever it might be. We need to make sure, firstly, that the casino operator is fit and proper and that they are doing the right thing and that crime and organised crime in particular are minimised within and around the casino precinct but also that we are protecting it as a venue and as a major tourism attraction for the city and for indeed the state.
I note also the legislation makes a change to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, which increases the cap on gaming machine entitlements for clubs. To be honest, I am a little surprised there has not been more opposition to that publicly – maybe it is still to come. That is largely about the bigger club operators – not single venues, but operators that have multiple venues. Currently the cap is 840 EGMs, and the legislation increases this to 1260. Whether that is necessary or appropriate remains to be seen, but I do know there are many clubs around the state who have a small number of machines who are struggling and are not really able to afford them. The machines are not the goldmine they once were, that is for sure, particularly for clubs. Some clubs are in a situation where they really would like to offload them, but there are not too many alternatives to sell them to. The lifting of the cap will give some of those bigger operators the opportunity to pick up some of those entitlements, which is a benefit for the community if it means that smaller clubs – whether they are bowls clubs, golf clubs, tennis clubs, whatever they might be – will actually have the opportunity to get out.
I think there is a case for us providing some sort of secondary opportunity at some stage to actually reduce the number of EGMs across the state and, if there is demand for it, to have some sort of surrender scheme available. I know we had that. Mr Mulholland in the other place ran a very strong campaign with respect to the Glenroy RSL, which had purchased new entitlements but was then knocked back ultimately by the Supreme Court from actually expanding and installing those entitlements, but the state was still forcing them to pay for them. Eventually the minister agreed that there would be a surrender scheme for those circumstances. It took a while, but it was good work by Mr Mulholland and certainly is one that needs to be considered more broadly. We will certainly see. Let us hope this two-year extension allows the technology to develop and the casino can continue to implement the gambling harm reduction measures that are required.