Wednesday, 4 October 2023
Bills
Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2023
Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2023
Statement of compatibility
Melissa HORNE (Williamstown – Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Local Government, Minister for Ports and Freight, Minister for Roads and Road Safety) (10:42): In accordance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 I table a statement of compatibility in relation to the Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2023.
Opening paragraphs
In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, (the Charter), I make this Statement of Compatibility with respect to the Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 (the Bill).
In my opinion, the Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, as introduced to the Legislative Assembly, is compatible with human rights protected by the Charter. I base my opinion on the reasons outlined in this statement.
Overview
The Bill amends the Casino Control Act 1991, the Casino (Management Agreement) Act 1993 and the Gambling Regulation Act 2003.
It will deliver gambling harm reforms and improve the implementation of recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence (the Royal Commission).
Human Rights Issues
The human rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to the Bill are:
• privacy and reputation (section 13);
• right to property (section 20); and
• right to presumption of innocence (section 25(1)).
Section 13 –Privacy and reputation
Section 13 of the Charter provides that every person has the right not to have their privacy, family, home or correspondence unlawfully or arbitrarily interfered with.
Clause 7 of the Bill engages this right by requiring a person to have their identify verified before the casino operator may pay out winnings over $1000. The regulations set out processes for verification of identity and the collection, storage and use of information provided by players. Improved identification was a recommendation of the Royal Commission and is intended to address money laundering through the casino.
If an interference with the right to privacy is lawful and not arbitrary, it does not come within the scope of section 13. In this case, the requirement for identification will be required by law and is not arbitrary as it will apply to all patrons at the casino. The information will only be collected in accordance with the law following the prescribed requirements. Therefore, this clause does not limit the right to privacy in section 13.
Section 20 –Property rights
Section 20 of the Charter provides that a person must not be deprived of their property other than in accordance with the law. This means that where a limitation is prescribed by law, there is no need to demonstrate that it is ‘reasonable’ and ‘demonstrably justified’. A deprivation of property will only contravene the Charter right where it is done unlawfully. The term ‘property’ is not defined in the Charter but can include both real and personal property including land, shares, leases and other rights and interests.
Clause 4 of the Bill appears to engage the right to property because it increases the powers the statutory manager has over casino property.
New section 22I provides the manager with priority over the casino operator in the receipt of net earnings while new section 22L restricts the ability of a third party to enforce rights in relation to managed property, including the ability to terminate or exercise rights adverse to the casino operator in relation to particular classes of contract. Finally, new section 22M provides for managed property to be vested in the manager before the appointment of an external administrator, depriving a liquidator or administrator from accessing the property.
The third parties contemplated by these amendments are unlikely to be natural persons. To the extent that the provisions might restrict a natural person from enforcing their interests or otherwise restrict their rights with respect to their property, these provisions may be regarded as a limitation on that person’s property rights.
Clause 4 is aimed at strengthening the statutory manager regime to ensure casino operations are not disrupted by possible licence surrender, suspension or cancellation. It is designed to make the statutory management scheme more workable. While the amendment might impact upon a natural person in very limited circumstances, as the restriction is lawful, there is no breach of the Charter.
Section 25(1) –The right to be presumed innocent
Section 25(1) of the Charter provides that a person charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. Any new offence that includes an exception, exemption, excuse or other defence may affect rights under section 25(1).
Clause 4, at new section 22K(2), inserts an offence provision creating an obligation on officers of the casino operator to facilitate the conduct of casino operations and provide the manager with access to the casino premises. While this offence captures natural persons, as it does not include an exemption or defence it does not engage the Charter.
For the reasons set out above, I consider that the Bill is consistent with the Charter.
Second reading
That this bill be now read a second time.
I ask that my second-reading speech be incorporated into Hansard.
Incorporated speech as follows:
On 16 July 2023, I announced Australia’s most significant package of gambling reforms. These reforms will improve the protections afforded to all Victorians that gamble, with a specific focus on helping those who experience harm.
Our reforms include:
• mandatory closure periods for gaming machine areas outside of the casino,
• a reduction in load up limits on gaming machines from $1000 to $100, an increase in spin rates to slow the rate of play on new gaming machines, reducing the speed at which money can be lost or laundered, and
• state-wide mandatory pre-commitment and carded play, putting the power in the hands of patrons through an important safeguard to prevent people spending outside their limits, and stopping money laundering in its tracks.
Today, we introduce legislation to deliver on the first of these reforms. This legislation will make sure that all electronic gaming venues outside the casino are closed between 4:00–10:00am. There will be no more staging of closing hours, providing people with an important break in play.
The government is currently consulting with stakeholders, including harm reduction stakeholders, academics, law enforcement and industry to make sure these reforms are effective as possible.
We need to make sure we get this right, and they are delivered as quickly and effectively as possible and I look forward to providing more information about the next stages of these reforms soon.
The announcement follows the introduction of some of the strongest casino laws in the world which implemented recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence.
The reforms coming out of the Royal Commission were complex and we knew that work would continue beyond the major legislation I introduced last year.
The Bill will enhance the workings of the Casino Control Act 1991 to strengthen the role of a statutory manager in the event the casino licence is cancelled, or the operator becomes insolvent.
Finally, it makes technical amendments to the payment of winnings and to provisions governing the casino operator’s liability for network outages.
I now turn to the provisions of the Bill before the House, which marks the beginning of a significant package of gambling reforms and the continuation of the important work of implementing Royal Commission reforms.
Minimising gambling harm in Victoria by extending and standardising closing periods
While the law requires venue operators to provide no more than 20 hours of gaming each day, we have seen that some gaming operators have been staggering their opening hours to allow patrons to move between venues in one area and continue gambling.
Research shows that gambling late at night is strongly associated with gambling harm. Having a break from gambling is an important gambling harm reduction measure, as bringing a person ‘out of the zone’ increases their awareness of the decisions they are making.
The Bill will stop this practice by extending the time that venues must be closed for an extra two hours and standardising the hours they must be shut. It will prohibit gaming venues from operating between 4am and 10am and introduce penalties for those gaming operators who break the law.
Extending contingency offences to interstate gaming providers
While the Minister currently has powers to ban betting on contingencies with a wagering service provider, offences relating to the ban are limited to activities in Victoria. This prevents the prohibition from being enforced in relation to interstate events that are not in the interest of Victorians.
We have seen wagering service providers offering bets on minors and amateur sports. This is clearly out of step with community expectations. Most of these wagering service providers are licenced outside of Victoria, with these events occurring outside Victoria.
The Bill will extend the offence provision to capture betting on events that take place outside of Victoria. This will allow the Minister to respond to betting contingencies that are not in the public interest, even if they are offered interstate.
This legislative change will ensure betting practices that are not in line with community expectations cannot be offered to Victorians by giving the Minister the power to respond to emerging inappropriate practices in the wagering industry.
Cleaning up complex legislation to make sure the regulator is not impeded in any decisions on casino suitability
The Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence outlined shocking behaviour from Crown Melbourne. The government moved swiftly to implement the 33 recommendations of the Royal Commission.
The work has not stopped there, and as we move towards the gambling regulator’s decision on the suitability of the operator, we need to ensure they are unimpeded in their ability to make their decision.
I want to be clear that this does not indicate the likelihood of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ decision. The independent gambling regulator will make this decision by themselves.
The Bill will ensure the casino is able to keep operating if the current or a future casino licence is cancelled, suspended or surrendered.
It includes provisions that:
• vest managed property in the manager to facilitate operations following the appointment of external administrators,
• protect the manager from third parties who might enforce a security interest over managed property,
• protect the manager from exposure to legal action and personal liability,
• allow the manager to be paid out of net earnings before the casino operator, and
• provide the manager with access to shared services across the casino complex.
Clarifying ‘payment of winnings’ provisions
As Members would be aware, the Royal Commission uncovered significant failures by the casino operator to address money laundering and other forms of financial crime.
Amendments passed last year restricted the payment of cash winnings to a maximum of $1,000 in a 24-hour period.
To improve the workings of these reforms, the Bill will amend the payment of winnings provisions so that they commence at the same time as carded play on all games at the casino, including table games.
This will ensure the casino has time to implement the world-leading technology required to track cash across the whole gaming floor – including world first technology for table games which needs to be invented.
These amendments align with the intent of existing legislation.
Managing downtime
From December 2023, any person who plays a gaming machine at the casino will be required to track their play using the pre-commitment system, YourPlay.
Recent reforms introduced significant penalties for where the casino operator fails to implement mandatory pre-commitment framework.
This will leverage the state-wide pre-commitment framework – YourPlay – which is provided on every gaming machine in the state and is operated by a third-party licensee.
As we have moved towards the soon to commence start date, there is a need to update the existing framework to account for ‘downtime’, when technical outages occur in the system which are outside the casino operator’s control.
The Bill will ensure that the casino is not unfairly impacted in the occurrence of a period of downtime that is outside their control.
This would be enabled through a Ministerial Direction, which will provide strict directions around when such periods may be approved to ensure the framework only applies in limited circumstances.
This is not a reform, rather an administrative fix that needs to be addressed in the new legislative environment.
Conclusion
This legislation is a first step at implementing our recently announced major gambling agenda, as well as making technical amendments to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
Although this is a significant step, there is more to come.
This government is serious about addressing gambling harm and I look forward to working with Members, harm reduction stakeholder, people with lived experience and industry as we progress our gambling reforms.
I commend the Bill to the house.
Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (10:42): I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
That the debate be adjourned for 13 days.
James NEWBURY (Brighton) (10:42): Two days into a new government and we have seen this new government show their true colours. Thirteen days – what an outrage. We thought that when the Premier resigned from Parliament – the former member for Mulgrave – the lack of integrity that he would show to the Australian people would not be displayed by the new government. Two days into this government – two days in – we have seen –
Members interjecting.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I think we can do this quietly.
James NEWBURY: I can understand why the government would be trying to hide the fact that they are trying to ram through bills in this place. I can absolutely understand why the government would be trying to do that. That is what they are trying to do. It is sneaky. It is sneaky to be pushing bills through this chamber without allowing Victorians the chance to see them. And haven’t we seen it this week: a raft of new taxes that the government was not even aware of, that the Premier was not even aware of. Outrageous!
Now we have a bill introduced into this place and the government is trying to ram it through. This government sells itself as a new government with a new Premier, and all the problems of the past supposedly have been washed away. Well, we have seen today that is absolutely not the case. This week we have seen that is absolutely not the case. We have a bill that has just been introduced into this place. This bill may include many measures that the community would embrace, that the whole chamber would support. I do not know, because the bill is so hot off the press it is still warm in my hands. It has come off the photocopier hot. It is warm. We are all warming our hands on this new bill that has just been printed off the photocopier. It was handed to me one second before I stood to speak. We have not had the chance to see it. And that is the point. The point is the community deserve the right to see what the government is proposing to do to them. It is not a big ask to consult with the community.
It is not a big ask to consult with industry groups – and haven’t we seen the lack of consultation with industry groups in the last 24 hours? We have seen the property industry talking about the burning, the torching, of the government’s relationship with the sector – outrageous. Two weeks after signing an agreement with industry, they have torched it. That has got to be, I would say, record time to burn – not my words, theirs – a relationship. And if you think those words are too strong, another peak body described the decisions of this week as ‘disgusting’. I mean, these are words that you do not hear from peak groups.
So we stand here today saying the government has an obligation in terms of consulting with the community. It is not too much to ask for. The parliamentary historical precedent of this place has always been to do that, but it is not just this place. For the best part of 100 years our Westminster system has ensured that bills are laid on the table for two weeks so that the community has an opportunity to see them, so that affected people have an opportunity to read them. That is not too much to ask for. That is why it has been a precedent for the best part of 100 years – until the Andrews government, until the Allan government. We are seeing an outrageous abuse of parliamentary process. Only two days into the parliamentary sitting under a new Premier we have seen the government display the same behaviour as the former member for Mulgrave in terms of the way that this government and this Parliament are run. It is outrageous, and the opposition will be opposing this attempt to ram through what could be important changes to the community without allowing the community a chance to read it.
Darren CHEESEMAN (South Barwon) (10:47): It is with some disappointment that I have to rise to make a very small contribution on this particular matter. For those that are listening to this debate, this is a very narrow debate as to whether this bill will lie on the table for 13 days or 14 days. It is a very, very narrow debate. The reality is that this piece of legislation is important. The government considers it appropriate that the bill be on the table for 13 days. That provides a more than appropriate amount of opportunity for legislators in this chamber to go out and consult with a very limited number of stakeholders.
This bill deals with some very, very important matters and very, very important law reform to ensure that we have a system in place around gambling and gaming that is appropriate. We know that globally a well-regulated system provides fairness and appropriateness both for the sector and also for those that wish to wager and gamble, and we think 13 days is more than appropriate to consult with the Victorian community and the very limited number of participants in this sector. The reality is of course we know that the sector is broadly supporting this bill. We think 13 days is more than appropriate. What I have constantly said –
Members interjecting.
Darren CHEESEMAN: If the opposition want the opportunity to determine 13 days or 14 days for these bills, go and get some seats. Go and win some seats and become the government.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a procedural debate, not an appalling opportunity to somehow boast about the Parliament. This is a tight procedural debate, and I would ask you to bring the member back to the question.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would encourage the member for South Barwon to come back to the procedural motion.
Darren CHEESEMAN: This procedural motion of course sets out whether we ought to be dealing with it for a 13-day debate or a 14-day debate, by which time people can go off and consult. The point that I want to make is that this is a government chamber. That is the reality. Those that can muster 50 per cent plus one get to determine the agenda for the sitting week and the agenda for this Parliament. That is and has always been a hallmark of the operation of this chamber. If the opposition wish to determine whether it be a 13-day debate or a 14-day debate, the point that I was trying to make is, go and get sufficient numbers to do that and be the government.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, speaking in the people’s chamber, which this is, I would ask you to ask the member to adhere to your ruling.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue on the procedural motion, member for South Barwon.
Darren CHEESEMAN: The procedural motion is very simple. It is whether it be a 13-day debate or a 14-day debate. The government has determined that 13 days is more than sufficient time for them to consult. I would encourage the opposition not to, as they do almost every week, frustrate the legislative passage of important matters through this chamber by these frivolous and unnecessary procedural debates.
Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (10:53): I rise to make a contribution to this procedural debate, which seems to happen more often than not. I think what we have is a period of adjournment which typically, for 90 years, has been 14 days.
James Newbury: Not just here.
Cindy McLEISH: Mostly here it has been that – for 90 years, 14 days, unless there is a good reason. And we need a real reason, not just because the government thinks it is appropriate. Why do they think it is appropriate to ram this through? Why do they think it is not appropriate for the typical 14-day period? This is really disappointing, because we have just commenced a new premiership with Premier Allan. We had hoped that things were going to change, things would be a little bit tighter and things would be more organised and more transparent, but we can see that, no, that is not at all the case. It is the same government and the same lack of organisation and a lack of regard for this place and the processes that have been in place for a very long period of time.
We cannot see that there is a real reason for this to be 13 days and not the conventional 14, other than that the government are just not organised. They have had a four-week period over September, which they knew about. They brought a couple of bills in before we went on the break, but they probably should have brought a few more in so that they have got something to talk about, because we know in the other place they have got nothing to talk about because of the lack of bills that are coming through. The government need to be organised here, and it should not be that the conventions of the house are compromised because the government is just not organised. The contribution from the member for South Barwon, who really did not tell us much at all, is making me think that what is happening is that they want to change the conventions of the house. They want to change that 14-day convention and bring it back to 13 days. We have seen so many times, all too often, when it has been 13 days. We have had six days as well, when they have been really disorganised, and even worse than that, on 30 May, with the State Taxation Acts Amendment Bill 2023, one day. We had not even seen the bill and the government were wanting us to pretty well front up and debate.
As we have seen here with this bill, it is hot off the press. It was actually warm when it was given to us not so long ago, probably 13 minutes ago. We have not had a chance to look at it. We do not know what is in it. We need to have a look at it, we need to go through it and then of course we need to start the process of stakeholder consultation. What does that entail? That is a two-way process. Stakeholder engagement and consultation is not what the government think it is – that you tell them what is happening. Stakeholder consultation means you get feedback. You go to the stakeholders – and there will be various stakeholders – and you ask them, ‘Can you please have a look at the bill? Look at the gremlins that are invariably hidden in there. Look at the things that are nasty that might not work well for you or might work well for you.’ We need the pros as well as the cons with every bill, and we need to determine that. Now, it is not always possible for the stakeholders to come back to us in that period of time. They often need a longer period of time, which makes it very difficult for us as an opposition to land on a position, because we do need to be landing on a position here. But sometimes we get at the very last minute the information back from the stakeholders, because they need time.
It is not a simple process to digest a bill and to go through it clause by clause. I can tell you right now the government members do not go through these bills on a clause-by-clause basis. I know if I am leading a bill’s debate it is something that I do. You go through each clause. You understand the bill. You look for the gremlins. This is what you need to do. The government members do not do that work. I bet none of them have done that work. I can see the member for Bentleigh is champing at the bit, ready to jump up and speak, and I bet he has not read it and I bet he is not going to read every clause in this bill and understand what they mean and why they mean that.
A member interjected.
Cindy McLEISH: I usually do. If it is my bill, the ones that I lead, I do. I think that the government here are just continuing to show their lack of regard for conventions of the house and lack of regard for stakeholder consultation and Victorians. We will be opposing this certainly.
Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (10:58): Thank you, member for Eildon. I was champing at the bit to get up on this. Once again in this august chamber we are finding ourselves debating the merits of 14 days over 13 days. For those listening at home, it might sound mundane and dry and unimportant, but here we are. We are talking about introducing the Gambling Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, so I am going to put a wager that the government is going to win this division. The government will win this vote, and the reason why the government are going to win this vote is because our seats start over there, they go right around and they end way over there.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a tight procedural debate. This is not an opportunity for the second government speaker to prove how arrogant they are.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would appreciate if points of order were succinct. The member to continue on the procedural motion.
Nick STAIKOS: The frivolous points of order from the member for Brighton just keep going. The point I am making is that this stunt – they are talking about needing more time – is actually wasting their own time. If you need that extra day, do not waste your time on a stunt when you are going to lose this vote anyway. Get to work. Have you ever heard of that? Actually get to work. Here we go.
James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this debate is an opportunity for both sides to debate the question before the Chair. The member has not even come to that question. I would ask you to bring him back to it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order on that.
Nick STAIKOS: I am speaking consistently on the question at hand, and no amount of frivolous points of order from the member for Brighton will change that. The member for Eildon talked about consultation, but who on earth talks to this opposition? Who actually talks to this opposition? I mean, this is the worst opposition in the history of this state.
Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, I understand the member for Bentleigh is disappointed at not making the ministry, but for him to turn a procedural motion into an attack on the opposition is entirely inappropriate. I ask you to bring him back to the question before the Chair.
Steve Dimopoulos: On the point of order, Speaker, you may have been watching from your office, but the lead speaker on this on the other side was far, far more offensive in many respects than the current speaker.
James Newbury: On the point of order, Speaker, for the 5-minute contribution I note the member did not stand up and make a point of order at any time. The current speaker has not yet spoken to the question, the tight procedural question before the Chair, and I would ask you to draw him back to the question.
The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order, Manager of Opposition Business. However, on the member for Malvern’s point of order, I would ask the member for Bentleigh to come back to the procedural debate before the Chair and remind members that these procedural debates are not an opportunity to have a sledging match across the chamber. They are about a procedural matter.
Nick STAIKOS: Thank you for that guidance, Speaker, and I believe I have been speaking consistently on the question at hand. We are debating the merits of 14 days over 13 days, and what I was just demonstrating was that this stunt is absolutely wasting the Parliament’s morning. And you know what – I am doubly offended by this because I want to get stuck into the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Salute Prohibition) Bill 2023. My electorate has a significant community of Holocaust survivors, so my electorate is very, very interested in this bill. I want to give a contribution on this bill because this bill is very, very important for frankly the cohesion and the safety of minorities in Victoria. So I absolutely want to get stuck into debating this bill, and I am interested in hearing well-considered contributions on this important piece of legislation from both sides. That is why I think that this stunt is just a stunt. It is wasting the Parliament’s time. There is little difference between any outcomes that could be brought about in 13 days as opposed to 14 days. I think that this is just a stunt from the opposition, and we are used to seeing these stunts from this rabble of an opposition.
Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (11:03): I am pleased to speak on this and reiterate our objection to the shortening of the consultation period. If the member for Bentleigh wants to get on with the Summary Offences Amendment (Nazi Salute Prohibition) Bill 2023, he should have spoken to his side of government and said, make sure we adhere to the forms, traditions and processes of the house. Fourteen days has been the tradition of this house for 90 years, as the member for Eildon said, and what this is about is a complete disrespect for this chamber, disrespect for the stakeholders involved in this particular piece of legislation and disrespect for the people of Victoria.
We are seeing it here today again. Despite what we said, the member for Brighton and I get very disappointed. We spoke yesterday on the government business program, and we were surprised that at long last we actually had three bills to debate. After an entire year where we have been filling the government business program with motions, we have some bills this week. But one day later they have reverted to type. They are so disorganised, this government, that they are having to break the conventions of this house and shorten the period of consultation.
To highlight just how all over the shop the government is, not just on this management of the house but on indeed these reforms that the government is talking about, these reforms were actually announced on 16 July by the then Premier. That was more than three months ago. The government has had plenty of time to prepare this first tranche of the legislation. But what are we seeing in the interim – we are seeing now the government trying to rush this legislation through. Just last month stakeholders received an email from the department about this legislation six weeks after the Premier had made the announcement about these reforms. It indicated an attached policy paper, and it said this paper will:
… assist with the early stages of policy development.
How can you have the department saying they are trying to help with the early stages of policy development six weeks after the Premier has already announced what the government is going to do? It is just emblematic of what a chaotic government this mob is in terms of actually introducing policy, giving the community the opportunity to understand it and giving stakeholders the opportunity to provide their feedback, and now we get this disrespect for the chamber and we get this disrespect for the stakeholders and disrespect for the people of Victoria through abusing the forms of the house, just because it is so disorganised that it does not have a legislative agenda to go ahead with.
I would like to take up the member for South Barwon’s commentary. The government was elected to govern; it was not elected to rule. It is not here as a dictatorship. It is not here is an opportunity to say, ‘Well, we’ve got all the numbers, so we’ll just do whatever we want’. This is a Parliament.
Danny O’BRIEN: As the member for Nepean indicated a moment ago, this is the people’s chamber. This is the chamber where the people of Victoria get to have their say – not where the government simply rules over us from on high. It is an opportunity for the government to share with the people of Victoria its agenda and to socialise its ideas and indeed its legislation. We get this government time and time again abusing the forms of the house and abusing the traditions that the Parliament has adopted for decades, and now we have to put up with this rubbish because the government is so disorganised. They are so disorganised on that side that they cannot actually deal with this properly.
The government should treat this Parliament, this chamber and it should treat the stakeholders involved in this industry, the entire industry, those who have businesses that are involved in gaming and also those in the gaming reform area – they need the opportunity to properly access the legislation, to assess it and to understand what the implications of it are, because this is not simply about a change in opening hours. There is more to this legislation, which was not previously announced by the government until a press release yesterday. What the government is doing is a sign of its chaotic nature, its disorganisation and indeed its disrespect for this chamber. I strongly oppose the government’s decision to try and short-circuit the consultation period on this legislation. As the shadow minister, I want the opportunity to look at it properly. The government is in chaos, and I do not support the adjournment of this for a 13-day period.
Assembly divided on motion:
Ayes (51): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Darren Cheeseman, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Gary Maas, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson
Noes (31): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Gabrielle de Vietri, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, Sam Hibbins, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Tim Read, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, Ellen Sandell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Kim Wells, Nicole Werner, Jess Wilson
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned until Tuesday 17 October.