Second Reading
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 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, is that then their activity is tracked by a government agency, or the monitor in this case, and that 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 will 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 there is 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 (PAEC) report, they 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 looking 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 credit cards 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 PAEC 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. 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.