Tuesday, 16 May 2023

Bills

Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023

Second reading

Debate resumed.

Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (14:51): Before the break I was speaking on the ‘no less favourable treatment to the industry’ requirement. I now want to move on to an issue that is more pertinent to the wagering and betting licence, and that is the issue of the intellectual property held by the joint venture – that is, Tabcorp and the Victorian racing industry – in relation to the current licence. There is a dispute, as I understand, within the industry as to who in fact owns some very commercially valuable IP, and that is effectively the data of many thousands of customers that have been –

Danny Pearson: You always were a big data guy.

Danny O’BRIEN: Not like the minister at the table, the Minister for Government Services; I am sorry. But this data is a significant part of the bid. Basically there are a whole lot of customer details that currently sit with Tabcorp and the joint venture, and there is debate as to whether that data should go forward.

Clearly Tabcorp has one view; potential bids have another. What I want to raise here, and we certainly are not taking a view either way, is this is likely a technical and legal issue in respect to the intellectual property rights and who owns what – there are potentially privacy issues – but nonetheless it is quite fundamental, in our view, to the awarding of a new licence. I can go to a report in the Australian of 16 February this year by John Stensholt. The headline is ‘Tabcorp’s rivals cry foul over customer data rights in Victorian betting licence process’. The introduction says:

Tabcorp is in the box seat to retain its exclusive Victorian wagering licence, potentially at a company-friendly price, as doubts emerge about the bidding process due to question marks about customer data ownership.

It goes on to say:

Without access to a customer database – which Tabcorp claim it owns – then Tabcorp’s rivals are increasingly unlikely to join in a competitive bidding process …

The irony, in the context of this legislation, is the intent of this bill is to increase the competition in this process and make sure that both the state of Victoria and the Victorian racing industry get a better deal. That will all be for nought if we do not have some clarity on this issue of intellectual property. There is, as I said, clearly debate as to who owns the IP. There are some questions potentially of privacy with respect to customers of Tabcorp now, and what we have seen is the government has been completely silent. I am calling for the government to provide some clarity to the public and to the market as to this situation because, as the article in the Australian indicates, there is a potential loss to the state of Victorian and the racing industry if this issue is not dealt with. The article goes on to say:

A lack of competitive tension for the licence could in turn put pressure on funding to Victorian racing, which is locked in a bitter battle with counterparts in NSW for public and wagering attention on their biggest race days of the year.

Tabcorp would not comment –

of course –

The Victorian government was approached for comment.

In other words they did not give one, so nothing was said. It continues:

Racing Victoria chairman Brian Kruger told Melbourne radio this week that the “longer [the bidding process] goes on and the longer we don’t have [funding] certainty, it will make investment decisions challenging for us.”

That is what this is about. This is about providing certainty. As I said, this legislation before us today is about providing increased competition in the process and ensuring that we get the best value for money for the Victorian taxpayer and for the Victorian racing industry. We on this side support the intention of that, but what we think is absolutely pertinent for the government to address is this issue of IP.

Now, I mentioned that there may well be a reduction in competition. Let us not be under any illusion: there are not 30 or 40 bidders for this licence, there is a very, very small number – perhaps three, perhaps four at best. One of those bidders I believe told the government on Friday that it is withdrawing from the process because this issue of the IP has not been addressed. I understand that if the issue of the IP is addressed and there is clarity on it, then the likelihood is that that bidder will go back into the process. But we have heard nothing from the government on this. My colleague the member for Gippsland East, who has joined me in the chamber, asked in the bill briefing about this issue and whether it would be addressed by the government before the process proceeds – before this legislation proceeds – and we got zip; we got nothing. There is no commitment for this issue of IP to be addressed. It is curious in the extreme I think to have legislation designed to increase the competitive tension in a public bidding process for a publicly allocated licence, to seek innovation, to seek a better return for the Victorian taxpayer and to seek a better return for the Victorian racing industry but, on the other hand, not actually address the issue that is fundamental to that competitive bidding process.

The government has, as I said, been silent on this. If it has got information that suggests the matter of the intellectual property and ownership can be settled one way or the other, it should be telling the market that, because at the moment it is leading to the situation where there will be less competition in the bidding process. We can have this legislation before us now – this bill before us now – that actually allows the minister to allocate two licences. There may not even be two bidders if they do not address this issue. We also do not want to see a situation where the current monopoly provider is left holding all the cards, basically having the government over a barrel and able to submit a lower bid to get what it wants.

As I say, I am not passing any judgement on what the legal situation will be with respect to this intellectual property. We do not have access to the government’s legal advice. We certainly do not have access to the potential corporate bidders’ legal advice. But what I say to the government is: you should sort this out, because until you do, this legislation before us is unlikely to have any impact. It is important that we have the competitors being able to put in the best possible bid for this wagering and betting licence and that we make sure that we do get the best returns for the Victorian taxpayer and the Victorian racing industry.

The government did advise in the briefing that the government expects a decision to be made on a new bidder by the end of 2023. So the clock is ticking. We are heading towards the end of May. There is a process afoot, but the government really does need to address that issue or risk messing this up. We saw it messed up in Western Australia, where the Western Australian Labor government attempted to sell its TAB over there. It had three bidders – probably some of the same bidders that will be active here. Ultimately one pulled out at the last minute, having been awarded the licence, and the TAB is staying in public hands, contrary to what the government had intended. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, and I encourage the government to do so.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that we are not opposing this legislation, because its intent is good. I hope the Greens will not try to torpedo this bill and the other one – we will support the bill if it comes to that – and I look forward to further debate.

Anthony CARBINES (Ivanhoe – Minister for Police, Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Racing) (15:00): In my enthusiasm to make a contribution on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023 with my racing portfolio hat on as opposed to my police portfolio hat – although the two do cross paths at different times – there are a few different elements that I want to touch on.

Firstly, to draw myself across to perhaps more of the racing content of what I want to capture in my contribution today, I will just go to a couple of the amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, in particular the amendments to the licensing structure for the wagering and betting licence to permit multiple licences after the expiry of the current wagering and betting licence, which we have heard about from the lead speaker for the opposition, the member for Gippsland South; providing the minister with the discretion to determine any periods of exclusivity for future wagering and betting licences; and the removal of the ‘no less favourable’, NLF, requirement, which is the requirement to enable the minister to issue future wagering and betting licences without being required to determine that the licensee has entered into an NLF funding arrangement with the Victorian racing industry.

This brings me to some of the elements that I want to touch on today. The government has recognised that the current wagering and betting licensing arrangements reflect market conditions that just no longer exist. The gaming landscape has changed very significantly. Those changes, particularly over the past decade, have led to developments in technology and the associated growth of online gambling we have seen – subjects perhaps for other debates and other discussions, but all the same still matters that need to be regulated and still matters that have an impact on and input into the racing industry in particular.

As a result of those changes what we are seeing is that wagering and betting markets have become a national market and that wagering and betting licensees are subject to far greater competition from bookmakers licensed in other states and territories. However, the NLF clause has also provided vital funding and certainty for the racing industry, ensuring it gets its fair share of the funding generated from wagering on its product – a very significant product across the three codes.

Importantly, as part of the removal of that clause from the GRA, the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, the government has provided a long-term commitment to and long-term certainty for the racing industry. Certainly not wanting to pre-empt the debate in relation to our other bill, the Gambling Taxation Bill 2023, I think it is still reasonable to draw attention to some public statements that I was able to make on behalf the government on 2 May. In our media release ‘Supporting Victoria’s racing industry’ we touch on the fact that:

The Government is also removing –

which we are doing in the discussion and the debate in relation to this bill –

the “no less favourable” requirement which has required the wagering and betting licence holder to enter arrangements with the racing industry that are no less favourable than those in place under the previous licence.

Changes in the wagering market –

we just touched on. Then we go further to probably the last point I want to make, which just draws the distinction between and also the alignments of the legislation we are debating now and through this week:

The long-term certainty provided via the wagering and betting taxes is one key element of a proposed new industry funding framework supported by an MOU between industry and Government that will be delivered by the renewal of the State Wagering and Betting Licence which expires in August 2024.

That draws those elements together. We have a betting and wagering licence process dealt with by the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, and I would not be surprised if the member for Gippsland East in his contribution as Shadow Minister for Racing notes there is a very strong element here that requires the engagement and involvement of and is critically important to the racing industry. In securing those agreements and that work with the racing industry and with the support and the work of my colleagues, the racing industry and its leadership, what we then want to be able to do is to start to make those legislative changes, which is in part a two-step process: the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill before us today and the further work that we will be able to do with the Gambling Taxation Bill.

Also, as I said before, we are going to be able to ensure that those wagering taxes in the other bill, which we will get to later in the week, are in line with other states and that our racing industry has a framework to ensure its long-term sustainability. I have touched on, again, how those increases in the wagering and betting tax to 15 per cent of net wagering revenue, with half of that revenue to be shared of course between the racing industry, will ensure it remains a strong and healthy industry into the future. Again, having long-term certainty for the industry will also ensure it continues to be funded from the wagering generated on its product. That is what we are doing here across those bills but in particular the two elements in the agreements with the racing industry. One relates to this bill and the removal of the ‘no less favourable’ clause, amongst other elements that are in the amendment bill, but it is the one to which I particularly wanted to speak, and then there is the funding certainty that will come further to light through the discussions and the debate we will have on the Gambling Taxation Bill.

When we talk about the racing industry as a major contributor to the state economy, there are a couple of key elements that I want to mention in relation to that: $4.7 billion in economic activity for our state’s economy and 34,900 full-time equivalent jobs. These things are not made up; they are absolute facts. They come from a range of research, from the IER report but also on an annual figures basis. But you only need to visit regional communities to see that, and we did that just recently with the Warrnambool carnival, and we were in Ballarat just last week with many of our colleagues in relation to the work that we are doing on a range of jobs programs to support the local industry in Ballarat, which obviously has a very strong history and tradition and is a strong provider of jobs to the industry of racing.

Also right across the state what we have seen is how you can break down that $4.7 billion to the different codes and the contributions they make: the thoroughbred industry in Victoria, some $3.43 billion of economic activity in the state and over 25,000 full-time equivalent jobs; the harness racing industry, some $600 million in economic activity that is generated and nearly 5000 full-time equivalent jobs locally; and Greyhound Racing Victoria and the greyhound industry, $643 million generated in the Victorian economy and helping to sustain some 4700 full-time equivalent jobs. These are significant, and I have met those people – many of us have in our communities – who work in these industries, who rely on these industries, and the investment we were able to make more broadly through our $72 million Victorian Racing Industry Fund makes sure that the quality of the services and the infrastructure in rural and regional Victoria and in metropolitan Melbourne keep our participants safe and those workers safe and makes sure that we are able to provide quality facilities for those in the community who may not have a direct interest in racing but may also want to deal with using those facilities for other community activities. We have seen some really significant examples, with some 650 community organisations and not-for-profit organisations that are able to use those racing facilities, and the investment that we are able to make is really significant in making sure that racing, which is at the heart of so many rural and regional communities and of course across metropolitan Melbourne, has an opportunity to continue to play that role.

That is what really brings us right back to some of the amendments and particularly around the removal of the ‘no less favourable’ clause in this bill and why it is so critical, because again the removal of that clause will allow the wagering and betting licensing process that the minister needs to take forward over the coming months and over the coming year to take the next step forward. But in doing that we have been able to reach, as I touched on just earlier, a broader MOU and funding agreement with the racing industry that secures those 35,000 full-time equivalent jobs right across the state and also continues to secure that economic output that we get, that $4.7 billion in economic activity that the racing industry generates across the state.

When I touched earlier on our $72 million Victorian Racing Industry Fund, that is also money for infrastructure that creates jobs for people to do the building works, whether that is new tracks, grandstands or other infrastructure and investment that goes in, so you are seeing that contributed in the industry as well across the state.

What is really important is for members to also understand that it is not just about some technical, ‘no less favourable’ amendments in the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill, it is also about how we release opportunities to affirm again and deliver on the broader funding agreement that the government has with the racing industry to secure in advance the industry’s role in the community as an economic driver – a significant economic driver in our community – and to secure those 35,000-and-growing jobs that mean so much to families right across Victoria. There is a broad suite of amendments in this bill, and I commend them to the house.

Tim BULL (Gippsland East) (15:10): It is a pleasure to rise and talk on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023, which allows the government to issue more than one wagering licence, as my colleague the member for Gippsland South has gone over before, and removes the requirement for the racing industry to receive ‘no less favourable’ treatment under the new wagering licence. Finally, after all this time and all sectors of the industry wanting some action on the wagering licence, we have got something on the table. We have obviously still got a long way to go, but it is pleasing to see that we actually have some movement, because many stakeholders in this field have been asking for some movement for quite some time.

We have obviously got two bills in the chamber this week – one that relates to the wagering licence, which we are talking on now, and the other that relates to the point-of-consumption tax. Obviously those two are very heavily related bills because they go to the heart of the core funding that the industry receives, and we need to look at these two bills in a similar context to provide the security that our industry needs. The issue with the other bill of course – and I will talk on this tomorrow when that bill comes into the chamber – is that not all of that rise in the point-of-consumption tax is going to the industry. The government is clipping the ticket on the way through, but we will talk a little bit more about that one tomorrow.

We have got this history: whenever we have a racing bill come into this chamber, we have a little group that sits up the back here that wears a different shade of green than I do and that tries to use these sorts of bills, which support a magnificent industry like we have in Victoria, to make commentary about how bad it is and to make commentary about how it should not exist. I just hope, and I notice the Greens on the bottom of the speaking list here, that we do not have that sort of rhetoric when they come into the chamber.

As we heard from our lead speaker, the member for Gippsland South, there is a considerable amount of conjecture over who owns the IP in relation to the current joint venture arrangement. It was a bit disappointing that the Minister for Racing – I know it is probably not technically under his portfolio, but it goes to the heart of his portfolio – in his 10 minutes could shed no light on the issue that all stakeholders who are interested in securing the new wagering licence are keen to know about. I find it extraordinary that the government is at a stage where it is bringing in this bill today to talk about the wagering licence but we still have that very basic question unanswered about who owns the IP. When we are talking about IP, we are talking about the details of the current Tabcorp account holders. Does it belong to the current operator? Is there provision in there for it to be shared with a new licence-holder? All the stakeholders in the game here want to know the answer to that basic question, and there are some fairly strong views with some fairly strong arguments on this matter. We need a statement from the government to provide clarity not only for the current licence-holder but for those that are thinking about it and the many, many people who are account holders. They want to know that the information they have provided in setting up their accounts is indeed secure, so I hope that the government very, very shortly will have some more detail on that.

In the bill briefing – and I thank the people who provided the informative bill briefing to us – we were told that the government hopes to have the wagering licence settled well before the end of this year. Well, we are halfway through May, and we have not had a decision on the IP. I think we were told that late September or October was the goal to have the wagering licence settled. By the middle of May we should have all this detail on the table.

The current operator should know; those who are interested in securing the licence should know. It is appalling, and it is embarrassing for the government. We know the government has to maximise its income from this licence, and there are many ways that the government can do this. Obviously who owns the IP is one, but there are a number of other ways the government can do this that I really do not think it is considering in the detail. I have not heard any commentary in the second-reading speech or from the racing minister about how they are going to secure absolute maximum dollars out of the wagering licence. There are just a couple of areas I will mention in this contribution. For a start, we cannot really have all the corporates using the TAB derivatives. I know the member for Nepean puts on the odd quadrella from time to time. If he puts that on with a corporate bookmaker, they just use the TAB dividends. Nothing is paid. All the corporates use the TAB dividends on quaddies, quinellas, trifectas, trebles – on all the exotic bets ‘We’ll copy the TAB’. There is an IP issue there where the TAB is running its tote and the corporates are coming in and getting a free ride. If the corporates had to pay for that element of that, whether that is to the TAB or whether it is through another arrangement, that would derive more income from the wagering licence. We have people going into a TAB – there is one down the road in Bourke Street that I might have been into just on the very odd occasion – and you can go and sit in a TAB, watch the races on the telly and bet with a corporate bookmaker. The technology exists that if you are in a venue, you should be betting with that TAB and for there to be exclusive options to only bet with the licence-holder, whether that be the TAB or whether it be anyone else who wins the licence. That is another way that you can maximise the returns ultimately to the industry – by making some simple arrangements around exclusivity, if you like, in venues.

There are just two areas of a whole range. We went through the poker machines sale some years ago. The government completely stuffed that up and did not get the money out of that that it should have. I just hope that they explore all the options, talk to people in the industry who know what they are talking about and whoever is the winning bidder the government maximises the price that they can get. The concern we have is that they do not maximise the price. The racing minister in his speech spoke about a memorandum of understanding, or side letter or whatever it is you want to call it, saying that the government will stump up to 90 per cent of the funding. The first point I will make on that is if the government is looking at spending taxpayer dollars to top up what it maybe does not get out of the wagering licence, that memorandum of understanding should be made public, because taxpayers would have an interest in that and they would want to know what the arrangements are – if the wagering licence falls short, that memorandum of understanding kicks in.

We will discuss the point-of-consumption tax tomorrow. The government is hanging on to 1 per cent of that, which we think equates to about $30 million a year based on previous figures. When we talk about that, they say ‘We’ll hang onto that because the punters and the racing industry should make a contribution to schools and hospitals and roads’ and da da da. That is an insurance policy. If the wagering licence does not get the value that they would hope it is going to get, that money will be going back to the racing industry. I will be very interested to see how that plays out and how much does make it into the health and education budgets.

We also have the issue that as we transition from the current joint venture arrangement to the licensing arrangement we need to make sure that there is no shortfall in funding during that transition period. As we cross over from the joint venture to the new wagering licence we need to make sure there is not a gap or there is not a little black hole there where the industry is not funded to the current level.

Before I finish up I just want to make a point. We read this glowing media release from racing industry spokespeople when this announcement was made about what a great deal this is and how happy they are. I just make the point that when New South Wales fires its next missile in relation to prize money levels, if this is a great deal and the racing industry is happy for the government to click the ticket and take $30 million out of the point-of-consumption tax increase, please do not come back to government and us as politicians and say ‘New South Wales has got a better deal. We need to stump up more money for our racing industry here in Victoria’.

Our government should not be involved in this petty prize money war, and I think it is incumbent on the racing industry to work really hard – it is a great industry and I am a really strong advocate for it, but they need to also work on establishing their own revenue streams to maintain their overall income, not be coming cap in hand to government when New South Wales increases its prize money. So as our lead speaker said, we have a ‘not oppose’ position on this bill and we will support it if we have a silly division from the Greens.

Gary MAAS (Narre Warren South) (15:20): I too rise to make a contribution to the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023. I note at the outset that the bill will make changes to Victoria’s wagering and betting framework and that the changes are there necessarily to provide flexibility to government when awarding the next wagering and betting licence to maximise the benefit to the state through the licensing process. The bill primarily has two proposed functions – namely, to make amendments to permit the award of multiple licences with exclusivity periods determined by the responsible minister; and secondly, to remove the ‘no less favourable’ industry funding requirement for the wagering and betting licence.

The amendments in this bill are in essence technical changes, but you know it would be remiss of me not to talk about gambling harm whilst speaking to this bill. I raise that in the context of a government which sees where reform needs to be made. Indeed it sees what the operating environment is, it sees where that operating environment is going and it is not scared to make the changes and to have the sort of engagement that it needs to have with all stakeholders before it comes to forming a bill. On that scale or at that level I also see the Gambling Taxation Bill 2023, which is about to be debated in this house. That enhanced taxation framework for Crown is in essence a result of the recommendations which came out of the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence. I see the stakeholder engagement that is happening with the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. It was only back in 2019 that there was a budget allocation by this government for four years to really attack that nub of those who were experiencing or were at the risk of experiencing gambling harm. There was some $153 million that we can be very proud this government put towards that over four years, and it represented the nation’s largest commitment to addressing gambling harm. The foundation delivers great communication and education strategies, commissions research and works with gamblers help agencies to deliver counselling and treatment services to people experiencing harm from gambling.

I usually give a shout-out to the Alliance for Gambling Reform as well when speaking to these bills, and this time is no exception. For those who do not know the work that the alliance does, I can tell you that they play an absolutely pivotal role in reducing gambling-related harm, and I am very proud of our government’s engagement with them. Their public health approach to a problem that has grown in my community of Narre Warren South has reduced the stigma that comes with gambling addiction, and I congratulate them personally on their evidence-based information and particularly their use of story and education programs that assist many, many people in my community.

I also note that in this Parliament, the 60th Parliament, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee has launched an inquiry into the follow-up report on regulating gambling and liquor and the report on reducing the harm caused by gambling tabled by the Auditor-General in the previous Parliament. I know government members will be engaging very strongly in that committee process as that takes place.

I turn now to the substance of the bill. The bill will amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to permit multiple wagering and betting licences and remove the ‘no less favourable’ racing industry funding requirement for awarding a wagering and betting licence. The current wagering and betting licence is held by Tabcorp and commenced on 16 August 2012. It expires on 15 August 2024. The licence permits the licensee to conduct authorised betting competitions, defined as ‘wagering’; approved betting competitions; approved simulated racing and a betting exchange; and to operate the only off-course wagering and betting retail network in Victoria.

The bill amends the act to enable the minister to determine the number of wagering and betting licences and any exclusivity periods for future licensing processes. Currently the act only permits one wagering and betting licence to be in operation for the duration of the licence term. This bill removes the restriction on the options the government can consider and present to market as part of the wagering and betting licence award process. This additional flexibility will allow the state to attract greater interest in the licence and maximises the value of the licence to the state. The bill substitutes in relevant sections the words ‘the wagering and betting licensee’ with ‘a wagering and betting licensee’ and prohibits the awarding of an additional licence while the current licence is in effect.

In terms of exclusivity periods, the bill will provide the government with the discretion that it needs to determine any periods of exclusivity for the next licence or licences. Having an exclusivity period means that the government would not be able to issue another wagering and betting licence during that period, and changes to the act that add the flexibility to determine periods of exclusivity mean that the government will be better placed to maximise the value of the wagering and betting licence.

The act currently stipulates that before granting a licence application the minister must be satisfied that the applicant has entered or made a binding offer to enter into arrangements with the Victorian racing industry which are ‘no less favourable’ to the Victorian racing industry than the arrangements under the current wagering and betting licence. That ‘no less favourable’ requirement arose from the concurrent privatisation of the TAB and the introduction of gaming machines in Victoria. It addressed concerns from the racing industry that it would be disadvantaged by the privatisation of the TAB and lose out on wagering revenue previously provided to the racing industry by the Victorian TAB.

The government does recognise that the current wagering and betting licensing arrangements reflect market conditions that no longer exist, which is why this reform is necessary. There have been significant changes in the gambling environment over the last decade, and these have included developments in technology, the growth of online gambling and the removal of advertising restrictions on bookmakers who are licensed in other states and territories. As a result of these changes, the wagering and betting market has become a national market and the wagering and betting licensees are subject to far greater competition from bookmakers licensed in the other states and territories. These changes have resulted in significant changes to gambling expenditure, consumer preference, product offerings and the types of gambling products that are available to consumers. It is necessary that this section of the act be removed as it is a significant barrier to the awarding of the next wagering and betting licence.

Further, the Victorian licensee or licensees will be subject to the strongest regulator in the country. On 1 January the government established the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission to provide stronger, more focused regulation of Victoria’s gambling industry. There is oversight of all gambling and gaming activities within Victoria, from pubs and clubs through to the casino.

In conclusion, the amendments that are made in this bill are important amendments as they provide for a more competitive wagering and betting licence process and greater flexibility for government in awarding the licences. Ultimately they should also lead to a much greater financial benefit for the state of Victoria, so I commend the bill to the house.

Cindy McLEISH (Eildon) (15:30): Gambling and horseracing are very intertwined. I think everybody in this place will understand that relationship, which sometimes is complex and at other times is not. We have had a licence in place for quite some period – since August 2012 – which expires on 15 August 2024. Tabcorp have had the licence here in this space for a considerable period of time. In the middle of next year it is going to expire, so the government have to have a look at what they are going to do. There has been considerable change in the gambling space over quite a period of time. It has become more and more complex with the increased number of players through the introduction of online betting that people can do very readily on their phones or on course. The landscape has changed quite a lot even in the on-course gambling associated with this. What we have here is a bill which is not particularly voluminous and that only makes a couple of changes. The changes are related to the government being able to issue more than one wagering and betting licence at a time. It also removes the requirement for the racing industry to receive ‘no less favourable’ treatment under the new wagering licence.

There are a couple of things that are quite important here. Being able to have multiple players in this space changes things quite significantly. Tabcorp have had this licence, and in 2012 they paid $410 million for that right. As they have operated as the only operator in this space, that means that they have had certain advantages that have come over that period of them doing business. We have got a bill here now that is looking to open this up to a greater number of licences. A lot of the changes relate to changing the wording from ‘the wagering and betting licence’ to ‘a wagering and betting licence’. It has been no secret that the government are looking at multiple players. There are not many, many players; there is less than a handful of people who might operate in this space. But things are getting a little bit testy in that space at the moment, and this is something that the government really needs to get a good handle on because at the minute I do not think that they have that great a handle.

Racing, as the Minister for Racing and the Shadow Minister for Racing have outlined, is particularly important in the Victorian economy. Picnic racing and regional racing have been at the heart of my electorate for quite some period of time. Then we have larger events in the city, with the big tracks and spring carnivals and things like that. Looking at the certainty that my picnic clubs in particular are after from the government, it is certainty about the number of days each year that they are going to be able to hold a meeting. It is really difficult for people to put on a meeting consistently when they are subject to so many challenges. That can be abandonment through heavy rain and that can be problems with a track that has opened up because of the age of some of the drainage systems underneath. There have been a lot of issues that have really put pressure back on the clubs. I note, during National Volunteer Week, that all of our picnic clubs rely very heavily on volunteers to do the work.

One of the issues, though, is the funding that they receive. For me, having ‘no less favourable’ treatment makes sure that they still have access to the supports that they need from the government. Too many picnic clubs are worried about the changes that the government might make. I would like to think that with ‘no less favourable’ they take this into consideration and that they really do look to the survival of smaller picnic clubs in particular, who do not have the facilities, the toilet blocks, the ability to have permanent fixtures for their bookmakers and things like that, like at some of the larger tracks such as Yarra Glen. They have got different systems and set-ups, and the volunteers do an amazing job. I just want to give a quick shout-out to the Healesville Amateur Racing Club and the president David Purcell, which for the last year, the 2021–22 racing season, was the racing club of the year.

One of the other really important elements of this bill – other than what I have just outlined, ‘no worse off’ – is that of the intellectual property. So as I have said, Tabcorp have operated in this space on their own for the last decade. First of all, we are not sure of the terms of any new licence – so the time period that a licence may be issued for. We do know that the second-reading speech refers to an example of awarding a 20-year licence with an exclusivity period of 10 years, after which it will award additional licences. So does that mean that they are looking at saying ‘Okay, Tabcorp, you’ve got your 10 years, and then we’ll issue it to a couple of the other small players that are in that’ or not? But I guess that is part of the uncertainty that exists at the moment.

The lead speaker, the member for Gippsland South, referred to an article by John Stensholt in the Australian in February this year. I have a different article which covers similar material from the Casino Guardian,and the author of this is Daniel Williams; it was at about the same time. Tabcorp has been the legitimate operator over the last decade, and:

According to reports, Tabcorp is currently in an advantageous position to retain its exclusive betting licence in Victoria, potentially at a company-friendly price, as more doubts regarding the bidding process have emerged because of some uncertainty in terms of customer data ownership.

Tabcorp during their normal course of operations have collected data on customers, and this is very key to any business that relies on customers. Their customer relationship management model, the data that they use and how they connect with and engage with those customers is critical to business success. So Tabcorp have this, and Tabcorp claims it currently owns this customer database. For the operators who may want to enter and may want to come in, well, what does it mean for them? They are looking at this major advantage that Tabcorp have and how they will get to compete in that space. If you are doing your due diligence about whether or not you want to operate in this gambling and betting space, if you are looking at how it is going to work for you, you have got to crunch all the numbers and have a look at the models that you need to operate. If you need access to a good, strong customer database – you may have a database already, but you might not have that one – it is unlikely that you have that to the extent that Tabcorp have, because they have been operating in that space. So it is really up to the government to get a move on and create some certainty or greater clarity in this space so the process can go ahead, because at the moment we have already heard – I think last Friday – that one of the major players is looking at withdrawing from this process. As I said at the start, there is only a handful of players, maybe even less than a handful, and if they drop out one by one, the more that they drop out then Tabcorp is certainly in a particularly strong position. Further quoting from this article, there have been reports:

… that Tabcorp’s rivals have been vigorously protesting about the aforementioned customer data issues, with many of them sharing that they see almost no point in bidding for the licence without having any access to customer information originating from the current joint venture.

I know that the government need to issue the new licence because it is about to expire next year, but they will want to maximise the revenue for the state. They want to make sure that we have clubs that are, you know, no worse off. So there is a lot that they want to do, but at the moment I do not think that they are fully addressing the issues.

They know about these issues – absolutely they know about the issues – but they need to give it a lot more serious attention, because the longer it drags on, the more difficult it is for others to say ‘We should really be playing in this space’ because of that uncertainty. The opposition here are not opposing the bill. The industry are happy to accept it, the racing industry accepts the situation and there are no real concerns with the bill itself. The concerns are with the ownership, the IP I guess you would call it, of the customer database and the advantage that that gives Tabcorp as the incumbent. I encourage the government to get a wriggle on and to make sure that this can happen effectively and quickly.

Juliana ADDISON (Wendouree) (15:40): Once again the member for Eildon is doing the heavy lifting for the opposition. She is just on her feet, isn’t she? She is up and about and on her feet, and she did not need any protection at all this time, so it was very, very good.

I welcome the opportunity to stand and contribute to this debate in support of the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023, and I am pleased that the opposition are supporting it. I would like to thank the Minister for Racing and the member for Narre Warren South for their contributions. As many people know, I am a big fan of racing. I am a member of the Ballarat Turf Club and I am a member of the Ballarat & District Trotting Club, and I am pleased to be supporting this Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023 that will provide certainty for the Victorian racing industry.

This bill will amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to permit multiple wagering and betting licences and to remove the ‘no less favourable’ racing industry funding requirement for awarding a wagering and betting licence. This bill will also make consequential amendments to references to the wagering and betting licence in the Casino Control Act 1991 and the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. I would really like to thank the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, her office and the department for the work they have done to bring this bill to the house.

Racing is a major economic driver for Victoria, contributing $4.7 billion annually and supporting more than 34,000 jobs, including more than 700 full-time jobs in Ballarat. It was great to have the Minister for Racing in Ballarat just last week, meeting with the Ballarat Turf Club, Ballarat greyhounds and the Ballarat & District Trotting Club.

The bill before us today alters the phrasing of several definitions and clauses within the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to facilitate the possibility of multiple wagering and betting licences operating simultaneously. Phrasing in one section of the Casino Control Act 1991 and one section of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 are also similarly amended.

The bill itself does not prescribe an exact number of wagering and betting licences to be issued. Instead, it inserts a new provision in the Gambling Regulation Act that assigns this decision to the minister. The minister may also decide upon periods of exclusivity for future licences, which at their discretion may be set for a shorter amount of time than the overall length of the licence. If this exclusivity period is applied to a licence, then no new wagering or betting licence may come into effect during that time. Exceptions are allowed for incoming licensees to undertake necessary preparation with certain constraints before their licence comes into full effect. Together, these proposed changes will facilitate a move from the current framework, where only a single wagering and betting licence can be in effect at a given time, to one which allows for multiple licensees to operate concurrently.

In light of this, this bill specifies that if a licensee seeks an amendment to their licence, the minister may require them to notify any other licensees that may be adversely affected. Any objections may be lodged in writing within 28 days of notification and must be taken into account by the minister when considering the amendment proposal. Alterations are also proposed to the criteria that must be met before a licence is granted. Existing provisions require a proposed licensee’s arrangements with Racing Victoria and the racing codes to be no less favourable than those before them. But this now poses an insurmountable obstacle to the awarding of future licences. As such, for any licence taking effect after mid-August 2024 the minister will no longer be required to consider the funding arrangements between the licensees and the racing industry. Removing the ‘no less favourable’ requirement is vital to ensuring a competitive licensing process. The requirements reflect market conditions from past decades, prior to the entrance of bookmakers licensed in other states and prior to the proliferation of online betting.

In the current market, this hampers the state’s ability to award a licence that will provide Victoria with the greatest possible benefit. It also poses the real risk of no licence being in place after 2024, which would (1) negatively impact employment (2) forgo significant government revenue and (3) see wagering activity shift from retail locations to online services, where the risk of harm is even greater. The ‘no less favourable’ funding condition is no longer tenable, and as such this bill proposes that it be appropriately removed from the act. A transitional provision is included, which will apply to the forthcoming licence expiration only, ensuring that arrangements between the existing licensee, VicRacing and Racing Products, must have the opportunity to conclude satisfactorily. Additionally, this house this week will be debating separate legislation to provide vital long-term funding certainty for the Victorian racing industry. It is very important that that is before the house this week. If passed, the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023 will commence the day after royal assent. However, the bill does stipulate that any future licences cannot come into effect before the current licence expires, which, as I have mentioned previously, is due to occur in August of next year.

The Andrews Labor government is committed to a strong and sustainable Victorian racing industry that makes a positive contribution to Victorian communities, including in Ballarat and the electorate of Wendouree, home to the Ballarat Greyhound Racing Club and the Ballarat & District Trotting Club in Redan. I visited the Ballarat Greyhound Racing Club on Thursday 11 May 2023, just last week, with the Minister for Racing and the member for Ripon to announce the allocation of funding from the Victorian Racing Industry Fund to support the upgrade of the kennel buildings at the Ballarat greyhound racecourse. I wish to thank Ballarat Greyhound Racing president Craig Fletcher, board member Paul Armstrong and club general manager Jodie Faralla for warmly welcoming us to the club.

Ballarat Greyhound Racing Club holds 125 greyhound race meetings annually, and approximately 100 trainers operate out of the venue, with 527 greyhounds in training. The new purpose-built facility will set a standard for greyhound care in Victoria, prioritising animal welfare and the health and safety of trainers and participants. The project will deliver a fully enclosed building that is more energy efficient and provides improved accessibility. The design provides more natural light and includes 112 kennels, wash areas, a swab kennel bay, private isolation kennels, a stewards room and storeroom and a grassed outdoor area. I am pleased that local builder CIQ Construction Management is delivering the project and supporting local subcontractors and local jobs. Further supporting infrastructure projects, such as the new kennel building upgrade at Ballarat, ensures greyhounds and participants have the necessary facilities to be working in a safe environment.

The Victorian government is also investing in Victoria’s racing industry in Ballarat and across Victoria through the Jobs Victoria Ballarat racing project and the Jobs Victoria statewide racing project. I am very pleased that the Victorian government is investing $3.1 million through Jobs Victoria to fill 200 roles in the racing industry with disadvantaged jobseekers. Significantly, 100 of these roles will be filled at the Ballarat Turf Club, with Skillinvest delivering the remaining 100 elsewhere in regional Victoria and in metro Melbourne. Roles on offer through the Jobs Vic Ballarat racing project include stablehand, track rider and grounds management. These projects include paid pre-employment training, including Racing Victoria’s employment start project, and participants can also complete certificate-level qualifications for racing stablehand or racing track work rider roles.

It was fantastic to be at Cumani Racing at the Ballarat Turf Club on Thursday with the owner Matt Cumani, the Minister for Racing and the member for Ripon to meet stablehand Nyandeng Sallivanmusyoka, who is a participant in the Jobs Victoria racing project. Nyandeng and her family arrived in Australia as refugees, and she has now commenced a new career with the support of the Ballarat Regional Multicultural Council and Jobs Vic. We are delivering great outcomes for the people of my electorate in Wendouree and in Ballarat and the state. I commend the bill to the house.

Roma BRITNELL (South-West Coast) (15:50): I rise to speak on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023, and I do so because, as most people would know, South-West Coast has a very proud history with the racing industry of all codes. The bill seeks to amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, the Casino Control Act 1991 and the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. I do not oppose the bill, but I call on this government to cooperate more with the racing industry in rural and regional Victoria to ensure transparency in the bidding process. The silence on the issue of ownership of the IP has been outlined already by my colleagues who have spoken in this place, and some of the issues there are quite concerning – particularly the silence.

Thoroughbred, harness and greyhound racing all play a significant role in the cultural and economic landscape of South-West Coast. The sports are not only popular pastimes but also major contributors to the local economy, providing employment, attracting visitors and generating revenue. It may be a surprise to some in this house that Australia’s unofficial anthem, Waltzing Matilda, owes its origins to the 1894 Warrnambool May races. In 1895 Christina Macpherson was staying with her brother near Winton in Queensland and played a tune she had heard the previous year at the Warrnambool races. Banjo Paterson was present, and it was to this tune that Banjo set his famous words.

Racing in all its forms contributes over $112 million to the South-West Coast economy annually. Racing provides direct employment to over 900 people in South-West Coast and indirectly employs many, many more. South-West Coast’s veterinarians, accountants, feed merchants, fencing contractors, hospitality venues, accommodation providers, milliners and fashion shops all benefit from racing. The value of the social interaction gained from a day at the races cannot be underestimated. Large numbers of regional and rural Victorians are engaged in agriculture. Farming by its very nature is largely a solitary pursuit. Leaving the farm or the workshop for a day at the races is significant for the mental health of many rural Victorians, and we need to preserve this important outlet. I was just recalling that we actually moved our calving date because it was the first day of May, which often meant we could not get to the races and continue to successfully calve. So that is how significant the May races are to many people in my community.

The continued success of the three strands of racing in South-West Coast through world wars, pandemics, fires and floods is testament to the stewardship of generations of committees, presidents and volunteers who have sought to improve the facilities of their clubs, the welfare standards for their animals and the benefits to the wider communities. Stewardship must be a key consideration for this government if the bill is passed. The bill is unclear on how the government will handle the bidding process and what will happen if more than one licence is issued. Transparency is not a strong point of this government, and the people of Victoria need to be assured that the bidding process will be aboveboard and that this will not be yet another example of government awarding contracts to their mates, because Victorians really do deserve better.

With the livelihoods of over 900 people in South-West Coast alone directly impacted by this bill, it is imperative that this government provides clarification on what will happen if more than one licence is issued. The ability to issue multiple licences is one of the main objectives of this bill, and it is disappointing the government has not treated the people of Victoria with sufficient respect to detail what will happen if more than one licence is issued. It is reasonably foreseeable that multiple licences will be issued, so it is equally reasonable to expect that the government will provide a road map for this scenario. A failure to plan is a plan to fail, and when Victorians are paying $10 million a day to service this government’s debt, Victorians cannot afford for racing to fail.

Racing is one of the few industries in Victoria that generates a profit. The funds generated by racing must not be squandered or frittered away. Unfortunately waste is part of this government’s DNA. This government has created a financial emergency for which every Victorian is now paying. Victoria is the highest taxed state in the Commonwealth, with a debt greater than those of New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania put together. With this record, you can understand my concern that the funds generated by the issuing of multiple licences may be squandered on more projects that never get finished and eye-watering interest payments. Waste and spin, spin and waste, are all we get from this government. At the last election the Premier stated that he would govern for all Victorians. I know it is just six months since the last election, but it is time the government started walking the walk, because they are so good at talking the talk.

Racing is part of Victoria’s vibrant and diverse social fabric. Its contribution extends beyond the financial; it has a distinct cultural legacy and unites Victorians from all backgrounds. Victoria has a great racing heritage, and it deserves to be protected. I do not oppose the bill, but I call on the government to finally do the right thing and ensure that there is transparency with the bidding process and the road map for what will happen if multiple licences are issued.

Tim RICHARDSON (Mordialloc) (15:56): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023 and to follow the member for South-West Coast. I hope the member for South-West Coast was down at the ‘Bool. It was a big event, I think, during that time –

Roma Britnell: We were in Parliament, I think.

Tim RICHARDSON: Oh, you didn’t get away? Oh, well, maybe next time.

Roma Britnell: I think we were here.

Tim RICHARDSON: Yes. I mean, the contributions weren’t stellar, though. There were not too many second-reading speeches, so maybe some of the crew could have got down there, but who knows? Even though this bill is quite technical in its scope, we heard about debt and everything else from the member for South-West Coast. That was an extraordinary contribution for what is really a narrow bill and reforms that apparently are supported or not opposed – or whatever language the opposition likes to use. But then the member for Eildon and the member for South-West Coast went through all of their oppositions to the bill. Can you pick a position on the bill and what you are going to do rather than picking bits out? Line up with your shadows, and work out what on earth is going on, because when you come in and you actually listen to some of the contributions they are just truly extraordinary, contradictory and make absolutely no sense. This is quite a narrow change to how licences in the current wagering and betting arrangements are provided. Of course Tabcorp at the moment are the licence-holder. That was issued on 16 August 2012, and that expires in August 2024. The changes, as members have outlined, are about providing greater flexibility to look at multiple licence-holders and what that means and the flexibility that that creates for any revenue that is sourced.

In my contribution on this bill I want to reflect on some of those changes but also to acknowledge that in any change in gambling reform that we bring before the Parliament there needs to be equal if not disproportionate thought given to those that are impacted by the harm of gambling. Over 70 per cent of Victorians gamble. In the last 12 months on average it has been that 70 per cent number. About one in five, though, are at risk of experiencing gambling harm, and as the Parliamentary Secretary for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention I think it is something that we need to reflect on each and every day. Four in five of that 70 per cent number are not subject to that risk or that progression of risk, but one in five are, so in any reforms that we make we need to make sure that we are supporting those that experience gambling harm or have a risk of gambling harm over time, because about 39 per cent experience comorbidities with their gambling harm, and that also intersects substantially with mental ill health.

I obviously acknowledge the contribution that gambling makes across sports, and we see that across communities, we have heard about how that interacts with sports, the racing industry and other things. You can even bet on politics these days and get your odds about how you are going on who will be the next Leader of the Opposition. You can actually track that right now. Sportsbet and Tabcorp will give you those odds, I think. It could be the member for Berwick. The member for Nepean does well on Postcards – in one take he does pretty well – but maybe he has got some tickets on himself. The member for Brighton – you can get odds on him. He is a bit of a long shot, but when he is fronting up to doorstops with the Prime Minister at the Brighton hotel, it is very interesting.

Gambling and odds are part of a range of different things, but we need to make sure that there is support and care for people experiencing mental ill health, because if we are not treating those challenges and those issues, as played out substantially in the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System, then we are failing Victorians. Thankfully the Andrews Labor government has an extensive program of support. I am really proud to see the increased awareness and increased scrutiny, some of which has arisen from the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission changes. Some of that stems from what we have seen with some of the atrocities at Crown and then that broader application across the sector. On behalf of my community I am really proud to see that Victorian licences and licensees will be subject to those stronger regulations across our state. They are nation leading in that support, and they provide a stronger, more focused regulatory arrangement for the Victorian gambling industry and its oversight of all gambling and gaming activities within Victoria – from pubs and clubs through to casinos and licence-holders. That is a really important thing. We have heard people talk about the impacts on gambling harm and those changes as well.

This bill intersects with the racing industry, which is a significant employer in Victoria. I do not know; maybe I have missed the program or maybe I have missed those contributions of members of the Greens political party. They have averaged one bill, one second-reading speech, across the four of them in the month of May – one. I know they subscribe to a four-day working week, but they do not even turn up on things that they grandstand on to support and stand up for their communities. They barely rock up to votes. I am not sure if they are around the patch. Luckily Parliament does not sit on a Friday; we would not see them. Where are they on these particular bills and these interests? They are a substantial part of this Parliament now – it is nearly 5 per cent that they make up – but they do not make 5 per cent of contributions in this place, and they have not contributed on where they stand on this bill, on the racing industry and people that are employed in my electorate and the ancillary industries that are supported. It just cheapens the Parliament and our democracy when political parties grandstand for 5 minutes and then come into this place and do not even contribute – literally one bill second-reading speech. We do not see anyone ever in this chamber making those contributions. Maybe they will step up and talk about some of the intersections with employment and jobs and outcomes across our sector.

The racing industry and its contribution to Victoria is substantial – $4.3 billion annually. It supports nearly full-time equivalent 34,000 jobs, and more than 21,000 people are directly employed, volunteer or participate in the racing industry. The member for Wendouree summed it up substantially. The member for South-West Coast on the other side talked about the impact on and the benefit to her community as well. They are key tenets of some of these reforms, and other legislation that will come forward this week will provide that longer term funding certainty and support.

I note some of the comments around the ‘no less favourable’ test that has been changed and removed. That is to obviously create greater flexibility in awarding those licences. There might be multiple ones or it might be exclusivity that is provided as well. It goes without saying that the Victorian government has made substantial investments in the racing industry. At the last budget estimates hearings the former member for Keysborough and Minister for Racing Martin Pakula, a passionate racing advocate, had been down at the ’Bool – he took probably about 300 selfies according to Twitter – but when you look at his budget estimates contribution you see the substantial investment over eight years that the Andrews Labor government has made through the Victorian Racing Industry Fund with capital project after capital project, supporting regional and rural communities. You cannot look at the bill in isolation without all the other actions the Victorian government undertakes to support this industry – tens of thousand of jobs, many millions invested to support those communities in regional and rural areas into the future. Going to the ‘no less favourable’ test, on a point that was made by the member for Eildon and touched on by other members, it should not be read in isolation but considered with the substantial work that we do. I have seen from his Twitter and Facebook accounts that the current Minister for Racing is out and about supporting communities. He is a really significant contributor as well.

This bill makes a couple of key technical changes that allow for greater flexibility and a change in the revenue mix as well, at all times considering along that journey the harm – the disproportionate harm – to people who are at risk of experiencing gambling harm and its comorbidities. As I said before, one in five of the 70 per cent of Victorians who gamble experience that impact, and 39 per cent have comorbidities. There is a huge presence of mental ill health in there as well. So we need to, for any gambling bill that comes forward, always pay attention to the impacts and make sure that we are protecting Victorians because 70 per cent gamble anyway, and that is a part of a number of different cultural things, whether it is sport or whether it is other outcomes. But I am really pleased that the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation has been funded by this government with $153 million over four years.

Now, this is separate to the online gambling issue, and that is something that is so much more far-reaching, impactful and invasive in our communities. We need to do more in the online gambling protection space, whether it is off-page advertising that impacts or whether it is betting during certain times and exposing people. We know that there has been a federal review, and that might lead to greater discussion of the Victorian jurisdiction as well and the work that our government has done. We have got a great track record of supporting communities when it comes to the impacts of gambling harm, but we know that the online betting scene is really so much more dynamic and impactful than some of the changes here, and that is an important thing to note in the framework as well.

So it is an important bill, and I am glad it has the passage of major parties, but where on earth are the Greens? Rock up!

Sam GROTH (Nepean) (16:06): I rise to make a contribution on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023, and I want to thank first of all the member for Gippsland South for the work that he has done on preparing this and mention as well the contribution from the member for Gippsland East, with his thorough knowledge of the racing industry. And I thank the member for Sandringham for his work on the Gambling Taxation Bill 2023, which we are going to talk about later in the week. I do not want to pre-empt debate, but these bills are very closely related.

This bill amends the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to allow the government to issue more than one wagering and betting licence and removes the requirement for the racing industry to receive ‘no less favourable’ treatment under the new wagering licence. The Victorian wagering and betting licence allows the licensee exclusive rights to conduct several gambling activities. It is basically the modern equivalent of the old TAB – and for those that do not know, my old man actually ran a TAB for 10 years, so I am very, very familiar with the way that works in the racing industry. We know that the licence is going to expire in August 2024 and that Tabcorp paid about $410 million to the government up-front in 2012 for this licence.

The primary purpose of the legislation is to allow the government to issue more than one wagering and betting licence – and the 29 pages pretty much go through changing a lot of the words ‘the wagering and betting licence’ to ‘a wagering and betting licence’ – and it affords the minister important flexibility when it comes to the awarding of these licences, but the government has not fully explained the potential arrangements around the concurrent issuing of multiple licences. The new legislation will allow for the issuing of multiple licences to any number of licensees, and we know that process is ongoing at the moment. The second-reading speech indicates there may be exclusive agreements for some licence periods, for example – and we heard the member for Eildon mention it – 10 years of exclusivity in a 20-year licence. But the exact arrangements around how many licences will be managed have not been fully explained either through the briefings that we have had or through the second-reading debate. It is important for industry to have this conversation, because we need to have a full understanding of this new commercial landscape.

We have heard a lot about – and I know the Minister for Racing touched on it – how the racing industry has entered into a confidential memorandum of understanding with the government. Unfortunately, up until this stage the government has been less than forthcoming with those details. We were advised in the briefing that that had been entered into and we understand these things are confidential, but I think the public, the taxpayer, deserves to know what exactly the agreement is that the government has entered into with the racing industry. We also understand that this memorandum of understanding guarantees the racing industry at least 90 per cent of its current level of funding, but the ministerial staff that we spoke to have not confirmed any other details of this agreement. That leaves significant uncertainty around the assurances that have been given to the industry and what facts we can rely on when assessing this agreement.

We know the bill, as well – as we mentioned – seeks to remove the ‘no less favourable’ clause from the legislation. This is a change accepted by the industry. Although on its face this seems like a negative change for the industry, seeing that they may only get up to 90 per cent, it does not reflect the new commercial reality in the wagering and betting marketplace. This change been accepted by the industry as a necessary step in the broader reforms that will take place in licensing across the sector.

One of the big points that has been brought up in this debate, though, is in relation to the intellectual property that Tabcorp currently holds. You can understand a company the size of Tabcorp would love, I am sure, to hold onto the licensing. I am sure it is a big profit maker for them, and they have got a great arrangement with the racing industry. But there is a big dispute right now over the ownership of Tabcorp’s customer data and whether this should be connected to the current licence. Tabcorp of course is refusing to release the data to the new licensee, which has forced a couple of the players to question whether they want to stay in it. We understand that at least one player has already dropped out because of this data and the question around the IP ownership. I think that it is actually fundamental to the bidding process and also to the people of Victoria to know whether their data is going to be shared if a new licensee comes on board or whether Tabcorp is going to hold onto it. They should probably also be reflected in the price that is paid for this new licensing.

The racing industry is always continuing to improve and adapt. I think we have got to recognise the changing commercial conditions that they are dealing with. They have had to adapt in recent years with the welfare of horses and jockeys. We know about major initiatives like the MRC Foundation’s Stable Wellbeing program, in conjunction with Link Health and Community. However, as the industry adapts on all these fronts, it has also got to adapt to the changing commercial landscape around wagering and betting. The realities are reflected in some of the changes made by this bill and they are accepted by the industry as part of its changing face in Victoria.

I do not want to pre-empt debate, but I know we are going to touch on the other bill that will come across, with the increase in the point-of-consumption tax from 10 to 15 per cent and how 4 per cent will go back to the industry and 1 per cent back into the government’s consolidated revenue. We understand that will go back to industry, and hopefully it covers off some of that drop in revenue that could come from the 90 per cent no worse off for the industry. We also understand the government has to maximise its income from this process, but that is really no excuse not to provide the market, the taxpayer and the Victorian people with the basic, important details and the things that we have been missing so far. While on many fronts the government can maximise the licence, I do not think they are considering some of these things at present.

The other thing to note around the intellectual property is that at the moment – and we heard the member for Gippsland East touch on this – a lot of the bookmakers and the other licensees, the other corporates, take their odds on the exotic bets straight from Tabcorp. Has that been included as part of the licence? Are they going to need to pay a fee to take that intellectual property around what gets paid out on a trifecta or a quinella? I think there are still a lot of questions around those parts of this bill that have not yet been answered. I did think that the member for Gippsland East made a great point. I do not know if anyone here bets, but when you do go into a TAB you can turn on venue mode. With everyone now betting on their phones, with so many different bookmakers, you could log on now and have a bet while you are sitting here in Parliament. Hopefully no-one is; I know the member for Mordialloc likes to think that on our side we were checking the odds on what is happening, but there are a few other important matters at hand. I wonder whether that actually needs to be looked at, the exclusivity around in-venue betting for some of those online bookmakers as they move forward.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Sam GROTH: I’m not sure. You might know. I’m not sure if you have looked it up.

Tim Richardson interjected.

Sam GROTH: Oh, jeez.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Through the Chair.

Sam GROTH: On the wider industry front for racing, there are a couple of points. We know with this 90 per cent of revenue that the government is going to stump up the 90 per cent. I think the extra 1 per cent, which we will discuss tomorrow, will go back into industry. We would like to see it go obviously into consolidated revenue for hospitals and schools and roads, the things that we are currently missing out on, but I think it will end up going back into the racing industry when this licence is signed. Just because of the way the betting market has changed over the last period of time, this licence cannot be worth as much as it was in the past. You know, people are gambling in a different way. I think overall the bill covers off a lot of these things.

Look, we are not going to oppose the bill. The member for Mordialloc made a point: why do we bring up all the negatives? I think it is our job to scrutinise the bill and go over it. While this bill is widely supported by industry and we will not oppose it, there are a few questions around the intellectual property with Tabcorp and how that is going to be managed and making sure the Victorian people get the most out of this that they can. We do not want to see either the industry, which supports so many jobs right across this state, or the Victorian taxpayer miss out.

Overall I think it is a great bill that we will not be opposing. I just want to thank everyone, including the member for Gippsland South for the work that he has done on this bill so far.

Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (16:16): I rise to speak today about the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023, but before I get there, with the indulgence of the Acting Speaker, I would like to make mention of the board of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. It was an absolute honour for me to be elected to the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation two weeks ago in a joint sitting. We had our first board meeting on Friday just past, and I am also joined on the board by the member for Shepparton Kim O’Keeffe and the member for Malvern Michael O’Brien.

The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation is a statutory authority created by the Victorian Parliament specifically to address the challenge of gambling harm in the Victorian community. It funds research and other activities that add to the knowledge and understanding of gambling harm. It works with partners and communities across Victoria to inform people about the risks of gambling and to provide support to those who need it, including people affected by someone else’s gambling. As the member for Mordialloc mentioned, the Andrews Labor government provided the VRGF with $153 million over four years in the 2019–20 state budget. This represents the nation’s largest commitment to address gambling harm.

It is a privilege for me to represent the Labor Party on the foundation’s board, and I give my word that I will use my seat at the table to advocate to the very best of my ability. It was kind also of the member for Narre Warren South to give the VRGF a shout-out, along with the member for Mordialloc. Anyone, including family or friends, who is experiencing any harm from gambling should reach out to the VRGF.

Problem gambling, or gambling addiction, is a blight on our community. Its social costs and impacts are enormous, and it is simply devastating. It tears apart families, and too often it destroys lives. I will be blunt and say that I absolutely loathe pokie machines because I have seen firsthand the destruction that these stupid machines can cause. In my teenage years I worked for a while in a hot chicken and chips shop in Williamstown. It was called Hot Wings. It was right next to – and it still to this very day has great chips and chicken – Williamstown’s high-rise public housing estate. It is also next to the Williamstown RSL. Every day that I worked there, elderly people from the housing estate would come in for a meal. These were people who were completely dependent on the age pension to get by. They would come to the shop for a meal as soon as they had cashed their pension allowance. The first time that you saw them after they had cashed their pension, they would order a full meal: chicken, vegetables, salad, you name it. The next time they came in they would simply order the $2 chips. Why? Because it was all that they had left. In the meantime they had gone down to the RSL. They had had their pension in their pocket, and they had lost all of their money at the pokies – every single time, and it always broke my heart.

Kororoit is a diverse community, picking up Deer Park all the way to the cusp of Melton. We take in two local government areas, Brimbank and Melton, and it goes without saying that we are one of the most disadvantaged areas in Victoria. Some of you may not know that Brimbank has the highest losses to gambling of any local government area in Victoria. That is correct. We are ranked number one, literally number one in the state. It is not a stat that any LGA wants to achieve. Gamblers in Brimbank LGA lost almost $104 million to electronic gambling machines in the first seven months of the financial year alone. Almost half a million dollars a day are being lost to these pokie machines. It is terrible in our community. This means that urgent action to tackle problem gambling in my electorate is needed now.

That preamble brings me to the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill, which is before us today. This bill makes changes to Victoria’s wagering and betting framework. These changes are necessary to provide flexibility to government when awarding the next wagering and betting licence and to maximise the benefit to the state through the licensing process. The bill will make amendments to permit the awarding of multiple licences with exclusivity periods to be determined by the responsible minister and will remove the ‘no less favourable’ industry funding requirement for the wagering and betting licence. The current wagering and betting licence is held by Tabcorp and commenced on 16 August 2012. It expires on 15 August 2024. The licence permits the licensee to conduct authorised betting competitions defined as wagering, approved betting competitions, approved simulated racing and a betting exchange and to operate the only off-course wagering and betting retail network in Victoria. The process for awarding the next wagering and betting licence to operate from August 2024 is currently underway.

Legislation in Victoria currently only permits one wagering and betting licence to be in operation for the duration of the licence term. By amending the law to permit the awarding of multiple licences with exclusivity periods determined by the minister and to remove the ‘no less favourable’ industry funding, the state will be able to consider a broader set of options for the market. This additional flexibility will allow the state to attract greater interest in the licence and maximise the value of the licence to the state and is consistent with the provisions for the public lottery licence and keno licences.

The bill will provide government with the discretion to determine any periods of exclusivity for the next licence or licences. An exclusivity period means that the government is not able to issue another wagering and betting licence during the period of exclusivity. Changes to the act that add the flexibility to determine periods of exclusivity mean that the government will be better placed to maximise the value of wagering and betting licences. For example, if it maximises value to the state, the bill will allow the government to issue one wagering and betting licence for a set term that concludes before the licence term ends. After this the government could issue additional licences. This is achieved by the bill inserting a provision in the principal act that allows the minister to specify one or more periods of time as the exclusivity period for a wagering and betting licence.

The act currently stipulates that before granting a licence application the minister must be satisfied that the applicant has entered into or made a binding offer to enter into arrangements with the Victorian racing industry which are no less favourable to the Victorian racing industry than the arrangements under the current wagering and betting licence. The ‘no less favourable’ requirement arose from the concurrent privatisation of the Victorian TAB and the introduction of gaming machines in Victoria. It addressed concerns from the racing industry that it would be disadvantaged by the privatisation and lose out on wagering revenue previously provided to the racing industry by the Victorian TAB.

The government recognises that the current wagering and betting licensing arrangements reflect market conditions that no longer exist. Significant changes to the gambling environment, including developments in technology, the associated growth of online gambling and the removing of advertising restrictions on bookmakers licensed in other states and territories, have occurred over the last decade. As a result of these changes the wagering and betting market has become a national market and the wagering and betting licensee is subject to far greater competition from bookmakers licensed in other states and territories. As such, it is unlikely that a new licensee will be willing to purchase a Victorian licence if it is required to enter into a ‘no less favourable’ funding arrangement with the Victorian racing industry.

The Victorian licence is principally oriented towards the provision of retail betting due to the highly saturated market for wagering. Noting that online wagering is considered more harmful, the granting of multiple Victorian licences will not increase participation or player losses. Research indicates that there is a higher risk of gambling harm associated with online wagering. If the state is unable to award a new licence, those who shift to online for the first time or increase their online gambling activity will be at higher risk of harm than if retail wagering is retained.

The increased risk of harm for those people is likely to outweigh the benefits from the estimated small proportion of retail-only wagering customers who are likely to stop all wagering if retail wagering is not available. Further, the Victorian licensee or licensees will be subject to the strongest regulator in the country, the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, otherwise known as the VGCCC. The VGCCC has oversight of all gambling and gaming activities in Victoria, from pubs and clubs through to casinos. It is required to undertake activities to minimise gambling harm, and harm minimisation considerations are central to their work.

I commend this bill to the Assembly. I will work to ensure the state regulation of the gaming industry will continue to be strengthened under this government, and I will have much more to say in the area of gambling reform in this place during my term.

Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (16:26:166:): I am delighted to rise and make a contribution on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023 with a few comments that I have here. As we have heard before, this bill amends the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to allow the government to issue more than one wagering and betting licence and removes the requirement for the racing industry to receive ‘no less favourable’ treatment under the new wagering licence. The Victorian wagering and betting licence allows the licensee exclusive rights to conduct several gambling activities, including parimutuel and fixed-odds betting, operating the only offcourse wagering and betting retail network in Victoria and establishing and operating a betting exchange.

The bill, as we know and we have heard in this house, is a fairly straightforward bill consisting mostly of amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act to change the wording from ‘the’ wagering and betting licence to ‘a’ wagering and betting licence, and this obviously allows the minister the flexibility to issue more than one licence, maximising competition and potential returns to the state. A new tender process is underway, with the successful organisation or organisations as they might be – there might be multi – to be announced in the near future, and this will potentially have huge consequences for the racing industry. It is important that the government provides certainty to the racing industry and the financial security to continue employing a huge number of Victorians.

In Wangaratta, in my electorate, there is the local turf club, and it provides huge direct and indirect economic benefits to the local community through their grounds team, their catering team and their administration as well as supporting local businesses through purchasing food, groundskeeping supplies and other day-to-day materials. But the turf club, for example, is not just used for racing; it is a venue that is used for many other activities as well. So when we continue to support our racing industry, we continue to support the community. As someone who enjoys a punt, I am always keen to make sure that the racing industry is in a sound financial situation because of the benefits it brings to the rest of the community.

The Wangaratta Turf Club, as I say, was supported extremely well by the Napthine government from 2010 to 2014, and, as I have said before in this place, Minister Pakula as racing minister did an exceptional job to make sure that Wangaratta stayed current and up-to-date and had the improvements that it has today. I was very impressed with Minister Pakula, and I do hope the current Minister for Racing, Minister Carbines, can make time to get to Wangaratta Turf Club in the near future and meet up with Sean Barrett and those of the turf club, because they really are going from strength to strength. Bill Carlisle and the board have ensured that racing is family friendly. It is a safe environment, but it also appeals to the whole community. And that is what you are trying to create – a social atmosphere that is not just for punters; it is for people who go out and enjoy horses and social activities. It is a great opportunity for people to get with others and enjoy what the Wangaratta Turf Club has on offer.

As I say, it has built a supply chain around Wangaratta, creating more jobs and delivering positive outcomes for the community. Cutting funding would be detrimental to the local economy in Wangaratta but also in other communities that have got vibrant racing clubs like we do. I also know that for those in the Ovens Valley who enjoy race days it provides an opportunity to come together and for the community to enjoy themselves. It is a good revenue raiser for the government through taxes on these gambling companies, but I also see a fair amount of money reinvested back into the industry. Even the smaller communities get a massive lift out of picnic days. For example, Dederang, up in my electorate, out near Mount Beauty, have a one-off picnic day. Although it was cancelled this year, I am sure it will be back in all its glory next year, and I look forward to that.

Currently only one wagering and betting licence can be operational at one time, and this restricts the competitive nature of the licences and the ways the government can gain more interest when they are tendered, which they are in the process of now. This bill introduces the ability to issue multiple licences and incorporate exclusivity periods with a licence to ensure that increased competition for the 2024 wagering and betting licence or licences. We are advised that this approach is consistent with provisions for the public lottery licence and the keno licences, and the idea of exclusivity, hopefully, will provide an incentive for the gaming companies to provide a competitive tender process before extra licences can be issued to drive competition in the industry.

However, there are some concerns that this could lead to some issues around the database and the ownership of said databases, and if that database is considered owned by the licensee, will this database be transferred, or will this allow smaller licences access to the database? We do not know that. I do note a few more concerns with the bill and the broader process that is yet to unfold. I understand that that is currently in dispute about this database, and my concerns are that the TAB or Tabcorp believes it is their data – and it could very well be their data – whereas any other bidder or potential bidders will want access to this data if they are going to put in a significant bid for this licence.

My colleague from Gippsland South – who I may say is an excellent advocate for his community; he is a very hard worker and also across his portfolio – has confirmed that there is a genuine chance that competition for this licence or licences could be severely reduced due to the concerns around this IP. We have already had one withdrawal, I understand, from the bidding process due to the uncertainty around who owns this IP and will this come with a licence or will it not. The Victorian government appears to have been very silent on this, and I implore the government to speak up now so that Victoria has a genuine chance to receive the highest bids so that revenue base and selling that licence will be a benefit to all Victorians.

As someone who has stepped off the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, which I was a founding member of, I am very proud of the achievements of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. It is a foundation that works very hard, and it is in an extremely competitive environment with all the bookies and the advertisements that we have got. I will mention that in just a moment. I have certainly handed the baton over to the member for Shepparton who, again, is a tireless worker for her community, and I think she will do a wonderful job in the gambling foundation. I feel it is in good hands.

As a passing message I will say also that the gambling ads that we see on TV – I know it is a federal issue, but it is just crazy, the amount of gambling ads that we see on TV. I think we should all in this place, whether it is a federal or state issue or whatever it is, put our heads together to make sure that we can certainly put some restrictions on the amount of gambling ads that are out there and have restrictions about whether it is on when sport is on. We do not need our kids and our families to be having to sit through that pile and pile of gambling ads. I mean, there is a time and a place. It is just that I think it has got a bit out of control. And from the gambling foundation perspective, there is no way they have the resources. If you doubled the amount of resources of the gambling foundation, you still could not compete with the betting agencies.

I also want to quickly cover the ‘no less favourable’ aspect of issuing a new licence. Whilst the removal of the requirement should open up the process to a more diverse range of companies and allow for a more competitive process, there is also a very real risk that the overall investment from the licence could be less than when the last licence was issued, and this could then have a flow-on effect in terms of government funding to the industry, particularly in some of the smaller regional towns where the facilities and race day events are not as popular as others. I do note this clause was not removed, and it may have led to the licences falling over due to not meeting the legislative demands. The main cause of this seems to be the prevalence of online gambling which, understandably, helps to avoid the queues at the TAB – I get that – but also has greater access to data and special offers at the touch of a button.

With the trend to online gambling most likely to continue, I do wonder whether the government has factored that into consideration of the next licence tender process after the current ongoing one. In 10 to 20 years time we may not have TAB booths at the grounds. The banks in our regional towns are disappearing very, very quickly, and this could happen with TAB booths as well. I think we need to be very mindful about that. We would need legislation to reflect that situation and to ensure that there is some financial gain for the industry.

In conclusion, this is a relatively straightforward bill, as I have covered. It does cover some important areas for the racing industry. As with all things this government does, I want to see the outcome of the licence process, and I hope it does not go terribly wrong. The intentions are good – to get multiple licences if need be – but sometimes things tend to go wrong and I want to make sure that there is the best financial benefit to Victorians. We are not opposing the bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

Meng Heang TAK (Clarinda) (16:36): I am delighted to rise once again today to speak on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023, another important bill and another gambling-related amendment being delivered by this government. As we know, a great deal of the legislative program this week is being directed and dedicated to gambling-related legislation, which is great to see.

This is not my first time speaking on such a bill. In fact over the past five years I have had the honour of making contributions on a number of gambling-related amendments. Last year we had a number of casino, gambling and liquor legislation amendments. It is testament to this government and its commitment to this issue, and it is testament to the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation for her great work. We have seen this government’s strong commitment to delivering on the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence, its strong oversight of our gambling institutions and the casino and its commitment to addressing problem gambling. We see that again here this week with this bill and the legislative program this week.

Again I have to take the opportunity to acknowledge that problem gambling continues to be a real issue in my community in the south-east. As has been mentioned – I heard the member for Kororoit – the City of Greater Dandenong in particular continues to suffer, and the statistics are quite alarming. In 2021–22, $103 million was lost to pokies in the 14 gambling venues in the City of Greater Dandenong. That is very high considering the socio-economic formation of this local government, with some of the highest rates of pokies loss per adult in Victoria. Since the introduction of pokies in Victoria in 1992–93 over $4 billion has been lost in the City of Greater Dandenong alone, the equivalent of more than $77,000 per household. As we know, the highest gambling losses are generally experienced by the least affluent communities, which we have seen in the City of Greater Dandenong, where residents of this community with one of the highest levels of gambling losses are also among the least able to bear such a financial loss. We heard from the member for Kororoit, who spoke about people on the pension who would go to an RSL, for example, and the next day were left with only enough for the $2 chips, which is very difficult to comprehend.

In addition to pokies losses, an estimated $150 million is also lost by City of Greater Dandenong residents each year to other legal forms of gambling, bringing together an annual loss of approximately $206 million. We see the financial impact but also the social, emotional and health impacts to the community, as well as the associated family breakdowns and family violence stemming from problem gambling. I am sure that we have all come across family members, friends or people in the community who have suffered such losses due to gambling issues.

There is some great work happening in the community – and I have spoken about Make a Difference Dingley Village. I have also mentioned the work of the Cambodian Association of Victoria and the work of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation’s prevention partnership program. They deliver an impactful project engaging the Cambodian Buddhist temples in gambling prevention partnerships throughout the south-east. This project involves delivering training and community events to build the capacity of Cambodian community leaders and community members in the south-east to raise awareness of gambling harm.

There is also some really important work taking place in partnership with councils. There is the Libraries After Dark program, with the City of Greater Dandenong taking part in that. The program focuses on reaching at-risk communities and those most vulnerable to social isolation, a known risk factor for gambling harm. The mayor, Cr Eden Foster, is also a passionate advocate in this space. I am also looking forward to working with these groups, individual community leaders and our council to do what we can to tackle problem gambling in our community and mitigate its effects. The City of Kingston, just on the southern side, are also doing powerful work under their Gambling Action Plan. They are campaigning and supporting services.

We are committed to tackling gambling problems as a government. We have seen this in the delivery of the royal commission and in the delivery of the recommendations of the commission. As mentioned, we delivered some really positive legislation last September, with a strong focus on harm minimisation and improved oversight, and we are delivering again here this week with this legislative program, which includes both the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023 and the Gambling Taxation Bill 2023.

This bill here makes several amendments, and I would just like to take this opportunity to spell them out. In terms of the amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, the bill will amend this piece of legislation in several ways: firstly, to make amendments to the licence structure for the wagering and betting licence to permit multiple licences after the expiry of the current wagering and betting licence; further amendments will also provide the minister with the discretion to determine any periods of exclusivity for future wagering and betting licences; and lastly, the bill will also make consequential amendments to references to the wagering and betting licence in the Casino Control Act 1991 and the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.

As we have heard, the changes will enable a flexible market approach to attract interest in wagering and betting licences and enable government to effectively respond to the latest market conditions as we move on into the future. They are positive and sensible changes that I am very happy to support here. More broadly I am happy to support further legislation that improves and strengthens Victoria’s gambling framework. We have seen the government has shown its commitment to better regulating gambling more broadly, with strong oversight and strong frameworks. This work continues here today and will continue across the sitting week. A consistent overview and oversight of the industry has a positive effect on gambling-related harm. It is really important that we have strong frameworks in this space to protect Victorians from all communities, including migrants and diverse communities, to ensure comprehensive oversight. This is particularly important to my community in Clarinda and to the south-east.

I would like to thank the minister for her work. We have seen her commitment in delivering strong legislative changes over the last four years, delivering on recommendations of the royal commission and improving and strengthening oversight of the industry. I have been so proud to have the opportunity to make a contribution on some of the many gambling-related amendments that have come through the Parliament. It was an exciting part of the debate last year, delivering legislation that implements most of the remaining recommendations of the royal commission, delivering legislation with a real focus on harm minimisation and improved governance.

Lastly, I would like to again thank the community organisations working to deliver services and support to vulnerable community members and working to address and mitigate problem gambling in our community. These include all those working in the interconnected services, particularly those related to family violence. I commend the bill to the house.

Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (16:45): It is my pleasure to rise today to contribute to the debate on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023. Gambling regulation is not a bad thing, obviously, in fact possibly we need more of it. I do not mind a punt. I do not mind going to the country races in particular. I do not mind going to the city races either, and I do not mind betting on sports, but we will get to that little bit later. There are some venues, particularly racing venues in my electorate and indeed throughout regional and rural Victoria, where the culture of racing is alive and well and it not only contributes on an economic level but it is part of the very social fabric that holds these communities together, particularly when times are tough. You will see this during a trip to the Manangatang races, even when drought –

A member interjected.

Jade BENHAM: Manangatang! Even when drought was rife and the ground was dry, the Manangatang races offered an outlet for that community. The Manangatang races hold their own place in Mallee folklore, so I would invite everyone to have a weekend in Manangatang in October. It is a sight to behold.

The Mildura Racing Club, too – they have actually been underwater. We go from drought to flood. The Mildura Racing Club has been underwater for three or four months during the floods. They are right on the river in Mildura, and because of that they have now lost all of their races for this year. They have lost their buildings as well. Obviously they are insured and are waiting for things to rebuild, but because of the water and the waterlogged situation there the shadow minister and I visited the Mildura Racing Club recently and had a look at that. However, even though they have lost all their races for this year, they are playing host to the Mildura Field Days this Friday and Saturday, which will be a wonderful day out, and it is an event that the racing club can still hold there.

There are other events at racing clubs, such as Derby Day in the Country at the Wycheproof turf club, also one of our favourites. Birchip is not only known for the best vanilla slices in Victoria but they also have a very, very rich racing history. They are currently actually seeking support to dedicate what could be the newest piece of silo art, after Walpeup, to Ray Neville. Ray Neville won the Melbourne Cup at just 15 years of age on Rimfire in 1948. Tomorrow we will debate the Gambling Taxation Bill 2023, of course, and maybe this would be a perfect community project that the proposed extra 4 per cent going back into the industry could support – things like that.

The racing industry is still very, very supported in country Victoria – all codes. The Charlton harness races of course and the Mildura Harness Racing Club – again, the shadow minister and I visited the Mildura Harness Racing Club recently. They are now having 45 meetings a year, with an average prize pool of 85 grand per week. That is 45 weeks per year out of 52 weeks per year. They do not have enough stalls. There are drivers and horses that come from as far away as Bendigo and sometimes Geelong, depending on the meet. They do not have enough stalls to accommodate all of the horses and drivers and everyone that comes with them to stay there the entire night. Again, this is industry infrastructure that could be funded with the taxation bill that we will debate tomorrow. Now the interest and the influx, I suppose, or the growth, of female drivers means that the old drivers change rooms for females that were built for one to four people cannot now house comfortably the nine female drivers that they get on average. So there are some ways to invest in the gambling industry. They need investment urgently, and that is another great way to invest that proposed extra 4 per cent that will go back into the industry. While we are talking about country racing it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge and pay my respects to the family of Dean Holland, who was killed in a fall at Donald on 24 April. I send Dean’s wife Lucy and their four children my sincere condolences.

We are speaking about gambling regulation, however, so let us talk about it. Let us talk about gambling advertising regulation, like the member for Ovens Valley spoke about earlier. It is always a conversation. It is even a conversation in my house when we are watching our beloved Melbourne Storm, our beloved Richmond Football Club or even Hawthorn now, seeing as I have got a son who has decided to jump ship to the Hawks thanks to his father and probably Seamus, so thanks for that. But I do not need a five-year-old and an eight-year-old asking what the odds mean or what the bloke riding a rocket on the ad means or what that is all about. And I do not need to hear stories about an 11-year-old kid going to the football with his dad and saying, ‘The Tigers are going to win this today, Dad; they’re odds-on favourite.’ That is not what kids should be worried about. When kids are watching sport on TV they should be watching their sporting heroes and idols and enjoying the movement, colour, discipline and all that kind of stuff rather than worrying about what the odds are, who is odds-on favourite and all of the sports gambling ads that absolutely bombard us. Mind you, Richmond probably have not been odds-on favourite all year to win; it was just luck and hard work that won us the game on Saturday.

David Hodgett: Friday.

Jade BENHAM: Friday. Thank you. It was a good start to the weekend after a Storm win and Richmond. But we do not need to be bombarded for hours when watching sport with our kids. I do not mind betting on sport, I do not mind betting on international sport. I enjoy a good punt. As the member for Mordialloc was saying, you can bet on politics, and I was paying decent odds at this state election, which paid off. That is fine, but we do not need to be bombarded with these ads all the time, particularly during hours when kids are watching sport. Even the banners around the ground – there has to be more regulation. I know it is a federal issue and is not to be debated in here, but it is something that we do need to talk about.

Like I said before, I do enjoy the races, especially the country races, and I really do – from the winter racing carnival down the road and the Spring Racing Carnival that happens right through the Mallee, the Southern Mallee and into Mildura to the Mildura harness races that happen all year round. We are not opposed to this bill that we have heard many, many members speak on. I think there is still a long way to go with gambling regulation, and this is a good place to start.

Michaela SETTLE (Eureka) (16:53): I rise to speak on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023. The wagering and betting industry has changed considerably in recent years with the entrance and proliferation of many online bookmakers. The bill makes important changes to the structure of wagering and betting and will provide the necessary flexibility for government in awarding future wagering and betting licences in order to yield the greatest benefit for the state. A wagering and betting licence is issued under chapter 4 of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003. The current wagering and betting licence was awarded in 2011 and is due to expire on 15 August 2024. It is worth noting that Tabcorp first came into existence in 1994 when Kennett privatised the Totalisator Agency Board – another privatisation from those across.

Many people in this chamber know about my personal experience. I talk about it quite often, and whenever we discuss gambling I choose to talk about it because I think that it is only through listening to people with lived experience that we can really see change. So it comes as no surprise to anyone who knows me that talking about gambling for me is really talking about gambling harm. It is interesting, because this bill specifically focuses on racing, and racing was the bête noire of my ex-husband. To this day, I cannot listen to the sound of the calling of races. It quite literally causes me a great deal of pain. But I understand that for many people it is a pleasure, and I absolutely understand the importance that this industry has. It is the betting that I have problems with, and I am looking towards harm minimisation rather than the industry of racing itself.

I know that so many people and their families rely on it for their livelihood. From happier times, my own experience of the Ararat races was of how incredibly important it was for regional communities. In my electorate obviously many people work and enjoy racing at the turf club in Ballarat, but there is also the Ballan racing club, which meets in Geelong. I did listen keenly on the impact that racing has on our economy. Of course it was with great interest that I listened to my good friend and colleague the member for Wendouree – there you are – and her contribution really acknowledging the visit that we had from the Minister for Racing but also the incredibly important jobs that came out of that announcement, or will come out of that announcement, for jobseekers who most need our support. I did not go along to those events, because the reality is that the harm that gambling did to my family is still – 10, 11 years later – incredibly raw.

Despite my personal experience, I understand that this industry has a place in our economy and a place in many people’s lives. In this instance, I have got to agree heartily with the member for Gippsland East in his fervent hope that the Greens do not oppose this bill. I care deeply about minimising gambling harm, but I do also appreciate that many people’s lives rely on this industry. I do not want to see the kinds of holier-than-thou stunts that we get from the Greens around this stuff. Just last year I was on a panel event, as someone with lived experience, for Gambling Harm Awareness Week. A local Green – my friend the member for Wendouree will know who I am referring to – had the audacity in that panel situation to call out that if I really cared, I would do more. I did want to bop her on the nose, but I did not; I was civil about it. But we come again and again to the Greens in this space, with their thinking they are kind of holier than thou. It is the middle-class doctors who are so happy to ride on their high horse of morality and forget that there are people out there whose livelihoods depend upon it. Alcoa left Anglesea, where my parents live. They are very, very keen environmentalists, but they were also aware that there were jobs in Alcoa and that it was about making sure that we had a just transition. In the same way, I know that the Greens can – as this particular woman did – stand up and say ‘Why don’t we pull out all the pokie licences?’ Well, that is grand, but it does not pay heed to the very, very important thing that we should all know in politics: this is the art of compromise. As Camus said, democracy really is about defending the minority, not just going with some sort of majority.

As much as I have suffered from gambling harm, I also appreciate that it has a very real and important place in other people’s lives. To that end, I really want to acknowledge our current Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation. She has done some extraordinary work, and she meets with me whenever I ask to look at gambling harm minimisation. This is the space that we have got to work into rather than some sort of rainbow-like, unicorn idea of the perfect, where we get rid of all these things. Let us work towards looking after people that are experiencing gambling harm.

There has been some really important work done by this government. The national consumer protection framework for online wagering from the Commonwealth and the states is replacing gambling responsibly with new evidence-based messages. It is one of those things: if you are not really in this space and do not think it through in detail, things like gambling responsibly sound all right but they are not. It is a very hard thing to hear when you have watched a loved one really suffer at the hands of gambling harm to have some sort of suggestion that perhaps if he had been a better person he would have gambled responsibly. So things like that language change are very, very important, and I am delighted that the minister gazetted some of those changes. You see those ads now. We are all talking about the television advertising, but I am pleased to see at the end of those online ads a black screen with some pretty punchy messages: ‘Chances are you’re about to lose’ or ‘You win some. You lose more’. That kind of messaging is very important.

I know other people in the chamber have talked about the $153 million to the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation over the next four years. It is of course the largest commitment to address gambling harm. This government has done what it can do in the advertising space, and I was delighted back in 2018 when there was decisive action taken to ban static betting advertising within 150 metres of schools or public transport infrastructure and on public roads and road infrastructure. So where we could step in in the advertising frame this government did that. It certainly did do that. There are many other reforms that we have seen under this government around gaming venues: prohibiting ATMs in venues – Victoria is the only Australian mainland jurisdiction without ATMs – capping the total number of gaming machines in the state and improving responsible gambling codes of conduct. All of these things may not be, as I say, the unicorn ideal for the Greens, but they are about making sure that we continue to support people who are experiencing gambling harm without demonising them or creating a moral position against other people. I think that is incredibly important to remember.

Finally, I really want to acknowledge the many players in this space, the people that have worked so hard – from the cafes in Ballarat who support people right through to the Alliance for Gambling Reform, the indefatigable Anna Bardsley and all of those people who work so hard to support people who have experienced gambling harm. I will continue to fight for more to be done in this space, but I support this government’s work to regulate this industry.

Tim READ (Brunswick) (17:03): The Greens will not oppose this bill, which gives the government the ability to award multiple licences for offcourse betting and other activities rather than only a single licence. Monopoly frameworks in any commercial industry are generally bad policy. We also support removing the requirement that new licence arrangements be no less favourable to the animal racing industry than current arrangements, as most policy settings for animal racing under this government are already extremely preferential.

However, the most important aspect of this bill is what is missing. There is no reference to, let alone any attempt to improve, gambling harm reduction in this bill. The Greens are concerned that multiple licensees risk increasing the amount of gambling advertising that we will see. We know more ads and more innovative ways to format and deliver ads increases gambling harm. The community is sick of the gambling ads that infest our screens and plague our commercial sporting environment, so I am heartened to see some discussion at a federal level about regulating gambling advertising, and I encourage Labor with its federal and state majorities to use this opportunity to put an end to gambling advertising across all media.

We all know – and if we do not know, we should take this time to remind ourselves – that Australians, including Victorians, are the world’s biggest gamblers. We lose an average $958 per year, more than any other citizens on the planet. We lose way more than Hong Kong residents, who lose $768 per person per year; than Singaporeans, who lose $725; than the Finns, who are next at $515, and so on, compared to Australia – $958.

These per capita averages, however, do not tell you about the spread of these losses across the community. The Australian Gambling Research Centre recently published findings that 38 per cent of Australians, almost two in five, gamble at least weekly and that almost half of all Australian gamblers are at risk of gambling harm. We should remember it is the policy settings that governments choose that allow so many of our citizens to be harmed, and a bill to regulate gambling is the opportunity to change those settings. Let us also remind ourselves that gambling harm causes people to lose their homes and relationships and sometimes even their lives. We know there are direct connections between gambling harm and family violence and mental illness, and we also know that for every person directly experiencing gambling harm it is estimated at least six more people connected to them experience some impact. We are talking about an issue that affects an extraordinary number of Victorians.

In a briefing last week the minister’s office stated that increased ad saturation as a result of this bill was unlikely given there is a declining consumer base from retail betting and that gambling behaviour has shifted online. The Alliance for Gambling Reform disputes this analysis, pointing out that already 56 per cent of Tabcorp’s revenue is generated from online products and that the only way for multiple licensees to make enough profit to justify the investment in the licence is to grow the market through advertising. If there are multiple licences awarded under the provisions in this bill, it is reasonable to expect that increased competition across licensees will see more predatory marketing dedicated to growing the market and customer base, not merely competing within the existing market. The subsequent harm from gambling can therefore also be expected to increase. So while an effort to increase state revenue is to be supported, it is basically a move that could increase gambling harm unless a concurrent serious push for harm reduction is undertaken.

The landmark Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence was scathing of Crown’s behaviour and its failure to keep patrons safe from gambling harm, and in response this government has actually embarked on a reform program within the casino. But it is disappointing to see that reform that reduces gambling harm is being limited to just the casino rather than employing a statewide approach across all gambling types. The state and federal gambling ministers are meeting in July and will discuss national consumer protection, although it is unclear if a comprehensive harm reduction framework is on the table. But what is clear is that Victoria is lagging behind other states in reducing harm from gambling.

South Australia has legislation in place for better regulation of gambling advertising. Both Tasmania and New South Wales have announced plans to introduce mandatory precommitment and cashless gaming on all poker machines, not just those in the casino. For example, the precommitment cards can set maximum daily limits on how much can be spent and lost on any one day, they can require users to preset their own limits on losses or time spent using a poker machine and they can limit how much money can be loaded onto a card at any one time. This kind of mandatory precommitment and these kinds of limits on losses statewide could be a game changer for reducing gambling harm in our state. It is the ambitious reform that the Victorian Labor government should be embracing.

In the last 30 years successive governments have completely failed to introduce any meaningful statewide reform of the industry, letting Victorians lose record amounts at the poker machines year on year and allowing the gambling industry to expand its power in this state, which is already too significant. We are being shown up by the rest of the country. If Victoria had a progressive government, it would do better, and it is not too late to start now.

Paul HAMER (Box Hill) (17:09): I too rise in support of the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023. I would like to just start by thanking the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation for bringing this important regulatory change to the Parliament and for the number of other reforms that she has made in that space. I also want to acknowledge the contribution from the member for Eureka, who has often spoken very passionately on this topic. I recall a particular matter of public importance that was brought to the house in the last term by the former member for Morwell, on which the member for Eureka also spoke. It actually moved me to – I would not say the word confront, just to discuss with someone quite close to me the issues that they were having, and from what I can see I think that has made a real difference. So I really want to thank the member for Eureka and the former member for Morwell for really exposing me to some of the issues and challenges that people deal with every day and how, the member for Eureka might have said at the time, it is a life sentence not just for the individual but also for family members and loved ones involved.

So these changes, as has been mentioned previously, are fairly technical changes. They are mainly dealing with the wording of changing ‘the’ to ‘a’ in a lot of the definitions throughout the legislation, with the intention to make the necessary arrangements to permit the award of multiple licences with exclusivity periods determined by the minister as well as removing the ‘no less favourable’ industry funding requirement for a wagering and betting licence. It is timely that this bill and amendment be considered at the moment because the current licence held by Tabcorp is due to expire in August next year and the process for awarding the next licence is already underway. By making these changes the state will be able to consider a broader set of options from the market and will be able to extract the most value out of the licensing process and increase the viability of the licence or licences that are awarded.

It does have quite an interesting history in terms of these offcourse betting agencies. Go back 100 years ago and it was only oncourse betting that was allowed; there were certainly many reports of a lot of offcourse activity that was taking place, and that culminated eventually in the 1960s with the establishment of the Totaliser Agency Board or the TAB that was designed to, really in the same way as we are introducing other regulation here, regulate that industry, which had for many years been operating underground. And of course we have heard about how since those times over the last 60 years there have been major changes to the industry. Thirty years since the privatisation of the TAB, and particularly in the last 10 years since the last licence was issued, there has been a huge rise in the ability and availability of online gaming. Now, I am not really a gambler in any shape or form. I do not think I have ever been into a TAB retail outlet. But I remember that the member for Gippsland East mentioned that even in the current retail outlet you are able to bet live on your app, on your phone, while you are in the retail outlet. I know we do have a retail outlet which is located very close to my office, and it advertises on the front of that: ‘Download the app and play today’. So it is sort of encouraging that transfer to online betting even in the presence of the retail outlet. I know there has been a lot of discussion about gambling harm, and I want to talk a little bit more about online gambling, but I do not think that this regulation works counter to what the government has acted upon and the reforms that it has made to try and minimise gambling harm and also obviously the supports that it has put in place.

The real challenge has been in the rise of online gambling and, as mentioned before, the proliferation of the ads just telling you about how easy it is to bet on every form of sport and what the latest odds are on any particular game. And I see that even with my kids, who are just still primary school aged, watching the sport and just talking about the odds of a particular game and who is more likely to win the footy on the weekend. While I know they are very mathematically inclined and I like to think that they might be somewhat interested in the mathematical concept of it, I am concerned that they are actually talking about it in the context of odds rather than the context of just enjoying the sporting context for the sake of the sporting context.

In terms of the move to online gambling, I did some research and found a report from the Australian Gambling Research Centre, and it talked about the impact of COVID-19 and how that hastened the transition to online gambling platforms. Obviously during that time retail betting agencies were closed, and many people found that they had extra time on their hands and did transition to online gambling or started online gambling. One of the key findings was that almost one in three participants in the survey that the research centre had done signed up for a new online account during COVID-19 when one in 20 started gambling online.

Generally the findings were that the number of people who were gambling online increased and the number of times that people would gamble online increased, and this is where the challenge for us as policymakers and the challenge of gambling reform really comes. It is really in this online space, and it is particularly in a cohort of people. As the report went on to find, it was young men aged 18 to 34 that were the subpopulation most likely to sign up for a new account or to increase their frequency and monthly spend on gambling. You can see this through the way that the ads are targeted and the nature of the people in the ads and the messaging that they are trying to send out. So I think this bill represents a suite of programs that the government and the minister have introduced to reform gambling in Victoria. For that reason I do support the bill, and I commend the bill to the house.

Martha HAYLETT (Ripon) (17:19): I rise today to speak on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023. This bill will enable flexibility when awarding the next wagering and betting licence and maximise the benefit to our state through the licensing process. This bill makes amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to permit the award of multiple wagering and betting licences. The exclusivity periods of these licences will be determined by the responsible minister. The bill also removes the ‘no less favourable’ racing industry funding requirement for awarding a wagering and betting licence.

Currently our state’s wagering and betting licence is solely held by Tabcorp. It commenced back in July 2011 and will expire next year, on 15 August 2024. For more than 10 years only one retail wagering and betting licence has existed in operation. This bill will change this to permit the award of multiple licences with exclusivity periods determined by the minister, which will allow the state to consider a broader set of options from the market. This will make sure we can extract the most value out of the licensing process as possible and will also allow a flexible market approach to attract interest in the wagering and betting licence and ensure government can respond to the latest market conditions. Having an exclusivity period will mean the state would not be able to issue another wagering and betting licence that has effect during the period of exclusivity. For example, the state could issue one wagering and betting licence for a term of 20 years with an exclusivity period of 10 years. After this point – after 10 years – the state could issue additional licences.

Removing the ‘no less favourable’ requirement will also remove barriers to awarding licences and increase competition. Historically this requirement was needed to show that before granting a licence application, the minister was satisfied that the applicant was entering into arrangements with the Victorian racing industry that were no less favourable to them than the arrangements under the current licence. This dates back to when the Victorian TAB was privatised and gaming machines were introduced. And we all know on this side of the chamber that it was Jeff Kennett who privatised the Victorian TAB, because those opposite me today have never seen a thing they did not want to privatise, cut or slash. Our community in Ripon still feels the impact of Jeff Kennett’s privatisations. As is so often the case, it falls on Labor governments to clean up the mess of privatisation. Jeff Kennett himself said that he regrets privatising the TAB, and I thank him for his honesty. However, I will note that we still have not had that admission from the former Premier about the privatisation of the SEC. We have not had that admission about shutting down the Maryborough and Ararat train lines, which will never, ever happen under a Labor government. We have not had a sorry for closing down our schools and TAFE campuses and slashing funding from our hospitals.

Michael O’Brien: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, accepting that the member is a new member to the house, she still required to speak vaguely on the bill, and I would encourage you to draw her back to the bill.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Jackson Taylor): I will rule on the point of order. It has been a wideranging debate, is my understanding. The member has been on the topic of the bill. In that context, I will ask the member to come back to the bill, but I do not uphold the point of order.

Martha HAYLETT: I am glad that Jeff Kennett admits that privatisation is not the answer to every single problem for those opposite, just seemingly most of them. Before Kennett privatised the TAB, my father-in-law worked for the TAB in Ballarat in 1967 for four years as a ticket sorter. He was only 15 years old when he started. He used the funds to put himself through university once he turned 18 and moved to Melbourne. You would not see a 15-year-old working in a TAB anymore, and rightly so. It was a different time back then, but some things have not changed. Ensuring the government is getting the policy settings right to enable the best outcome for the community is still so important. Previously the ‘no less favourable’ requirement aimed to address concerns from the racing industry that they would be disadvantaged by the privatisation and potentially lose out on jobs and wagering revenue previously provided to them by the Victorian TAB. These conditions have now changed, with the current wagering and betting licensing arrangements reflecting market conditions that no longer exist.

Over the last decade alone the gambling environment in our state and nation has changed significantly. Technological advancements have seen online gambling grow, and there are no longer advertising restrictions on bookmakers licenced in other states and territories. As a result, the wagering and betting market has become a national market and the licensee is subject to much more significant competition from bookmakers licenced in other states and territories. Removing the ‘no less favourable’ requirement will free up future options in a changed market whilst also getting the balance right to support the racing industry that adds $4.7 billion annually to our economy and 35,000 full-time equivalent jobs, including across my electorate of Ripon. These changes will ensure our proud racing industry continues to be funded from wagering generated on its product, helping the industry to back jobs and events that benefit our rural and regional communities.

Speaking of jobs, I was so proud to join the Minister for Racing and the member for Wendouree at the Ballarat Turf Club in Miners Rest last week to announce a $3.1 million investment by the Andrews Labor government to deliver 200 jobs in the racing industry through Jobs Victoria. One hundred of the jobs will be at the stables in Ballarat, which the Ballarat Turf Club are over the moon about. The roles are open to people who face barriers to employment, such as people with disability, young people under 25 and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

The racing industry is a major economic driver for Victoria, we all know that, and it is a significant economic driver in my electorate of Ripon. In Ballarat alone it supports over 700 full-time jobs. This government will always support each rural and regional Victorian working in the racing industry, whether they are working at the Avoca Shire Turf Club, the St Arnaud racing club, the Ararat Turf Club, the Wedderburn harness racing club, the Maryborough Harness Racing Club or any of the other clubs across our region.

We are a nation of punters. Whether you just put 20 bucks on the nose for the race that stops the nation or are a more frequent customer, punting is a legitimate activity that many people enjoy, but of course it is not without its complications. We know that problem gambling can be extremely harmful, and this is why it is also important to stress that the Victorian licensee or licensees in the future will be subject to the strongest regulator in the country. On 1 January 2022 our government established the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission to provide stronger, more focused regulation of our state’s gambling industry. It has oversight of all gambling and gaming activity within Victoria, from pubs and clubs through to the casino. The commission is required to undertake activities to minimise gambling harm. We also have the nation’s largest commitment to addressing gambling harm, with $153 million over four years to deliver communication and education strategies, research, counselling and treatment services to people experiencing harm from gambling. I want to thank the member for Eureka for all of her hard work and continued advocacy in the space.

As previously said, we are getting the balance right with this bill. We are getting on with what matters. We are ensuring our community benefits even more from future wagering and betting licences and that our state gets the best financial benefit. We are also supporting our proud racing industry that gives back to many of our rural and regional communities, including across Ripon. It is important that we continue to support the industry well into the future, as many livelihoods depend on it. We are also making sure that we address gambling harm and support those in our community who are struggling with its effects. I thank all the members who spoke before me for their important contributions today, and I commend this bill to the house.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (17:29): I am very pleased to rise to speak today, and I just want to pick up a point from the member for Eureka. I am very pleased that she raised the famous author Albert Camus; I was very excited about this. I read Les Justes at university, The Just. Principally the question was whether the ends justify the means. Without going into the depths of that particular play – I think it was a play, from memory; it was a long time ago, at least a century ago, that I was at university studying French literature – in any case, it does raise an issue: do the ends justify the means? When you are looking at this delicate balance with regulation, this is something that we always have to grapple with, if you like: that delicate balance, particularly in the space where we are talking about wagering and betting, you might say. I am not proffering that I can in any way answer that question in its fullness to the extent that probably we would like to when we are discussing someone such as Albert Camus. Nevertheless it does draw to one’s attention that fine balance in regulation, particularly relevant in the context of the debate that we are having here today, and that is about ‘How far do you go when you’re making change and when you’re trying to balance the various interests across the state?’, in particular noting that thousands of people are employed in this industry. Therefore there are those elements that are very important when we are looking at the issue of employment.

Coming to that issue of regulation – and I think that much has been said about the nuts and bolts of the bill per se by other learned colleagues with regard to the technical changes that are being made – something that is particularly important, noting some of the criticisms that I have heard across the chamber, is that the Victorian licensee or licensees will be subject to the strongest regulator in the country. Contrary to some comments that I have heard across the chamber, I hope that does provide some reassurance in terms of the seriousness with which this industry is being regulated.

On 1 January 2022 the government established the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission to provide stronger, more focused regulation of Victoria’s gambling industry, and of course it has oversight of all gambling and gaming activities within Victoria, from pubs and clubs through to the casinos. Therefore it is very much within the ambit, and I should say stronger than the ambit, within the frame of our government, to have a very significant and serious focus when it comes to the regulation of this industry. Further to that point, the technical changes that are being undertaken here, as has been said, will not jeopardise measures to minimise harm from gambling. I think that is really important as well, because when we are talking about the delicate balance here that has been discussed by many in the chamber in terms of the fine balance between gambling in a measured way – and there may be various interpretations as to what that means – versus gambling in a way that is causing harm, there are probably a couple of limbs to that level. There will be those who may be concerned about what people are gambling on, and that is a separate issue altogether, and then there is the issue of actually making a bet.

I suppose what we are really talking about at its core is addiction and the ability to manage something that can be deeply emotional – I am not a psychologist, but suffice to say I think we are all familiar with what the term ‘addiction’ generally and broadly means – and have very considered and incremental measures in place to be able at worst to contain addiction. But ultimately we obviously want to curb addictive behaviour, and in this context that would be harm from gambling. I do not wish to be overly critical. Again, coming back to ‘Do the ends justify the means, and what is the balance, the delicate balance, in this context?’, addiction can span many things. People can be addicted to food, to alcohol and to so many aspects of life – to shopping, you name it. It is broad and significant in that way, and that is not in any way to diminish the significance for those who unfortunately can succumb to really harmful gambling activity that can render them in a position that is arguably very severe financially and emotionally and antagonise relationships and more. I am probably understating the ramifications of gambling when it is not undertaken in a way that is controlled or contained. But on that note, I think it is very important to emphasise that we are serious. We are absolutely serious about harm minimisation in our state and for those experiencing or at risk of experiencing gambling harm. For instance, in the 2019–20 budget the government provided the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation with $153 million over four years.

You mentioned big figures; what does that actually mean? Sometimes the numbers can become white noise and blur, but the reason I am mentioning that is because it is a significant investment and therefore attests to the fact that we do take this issue very seriously. I should say, again to further offset and perhaps allay some of the concerns from the Greens that were mentioned earlier, this represents the nation’s largest commitment to addressing gambling harm, and that is really, really important. The foundation delivers communication and education strategies, commissions research and works with Gambler’s Help agencies to deliver counselling and treatment services to people experiencing harm from gambling. That is really, really important work, and it is work that has to be ongoing. I think probably with each and every day with the research that is going into this space, apart from the various ramifications that can flow from gambling, it is actually looking at how gambling that is not managed, so to speak, can impact on an individual’s life. So very important work is being undertaken there.

With regard to regulation, we can see that there is very considered and concerted work, providing some technical changes that reflect the changing of the market, which is essentially what this bill is delivering, not in a way that will exacerbate current issues that have been addressed in the chamber with regard to gambling harm or otherwise. So it is not undermining the various very significant measures that have been implemented for some time and are ongoing in order to curb the worst impacts and ultimately to bring about much better outcomes in terms of the ability of Victorians who wish to gamble to be able to manage their finances and manage their inclination when it comes to taking a bet on a particular event.

To round the discussion, I would like to say, coming back to Albert Camus: do the ends justify the means? Ultimately, it is a question of balance. How do we define balance? Well, that is a debate all of itself, but I would like to think that there is certainly a significant and serious commitment to finding the right balance, and we can see the various measures that I have spoken to today. On that note, I commend the bill to the house.

Bronwyn HALFPENNY (Thomastown) (17:38): I also rise to speak on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023. At the outset I want to acknowledge, as others have in this chamber, the harm that gambling can cause and the devastating effects that can occur in families and society. That is one of the reasons why we do need to regulate all forms of gambling: in order to minimise that harm. I guess the debate about that is about to what extent there should be regulation and to what extent there should be curtailment of gambling. I suspect that many of those that, for example, think this bill does not go far enough are also maybe people that probably think that no gambling should be allowed.

Of course we also have to say that while we hear some of the most terrible stories about the effects of gambling on some people, on the other side, for a number of people it is an industry of jobs and employment, an income to feed families as well as a recreational activity that many individuals and families enjoy, whether it is at the social event of a country race meet or any of the other aspects of horseracing or greyhound racing or whatever it is. Whilst gambling is part of that, it is also the entertainment, the interest and the thrill rather than something that then can in some ways control a person’s life.

The legislation we are talking about is quite narrow, and the reason that we are talking about it and that it is being introduced now is that the current wagering and betting licence is going to expire in 2024 – next year – so there needs to be further legislation. There has been a lot of change within the industry with, for example, the introduction of online betting. That does change things, and therefore legislation needs to respond. As we know with legislation that is introduced into the Parliament, while some of it is about making really huge differences to society – and on this side of the chamber we believe that the legislation that we introduce does often make really big and important contributions to making peoples lives better – other legislation is really about bringing things up to date. Society is always changing. There is technological change at a fast pace. Often the legislation that we are talking about is about making sure that legislation has adapted and responded to the changing nature of society, or whatever the issue is that we are talking about, and has some requirement for a legal framework.

This legislation, as I have said, is around wagering and betting licences, and that licence is going to expire in 2024. This change really is about making some amendments to that licensing framework in order for the government to get a better deal out of it – the government and therefore the people, because this is also all about trying to maximise the benefit to the state. This legislation is about making sure that with the licence that is coming up in the future it will provide the state government with further flexibility in negotiating that licence and introducing some more competitiveness into it so that the gains to the state are improved.

As I have mentioned, we are often required to talk about legislation that makes changes. This bill is not about making massive changes to the industry; that is not what is about. It is about making certain changes for particular reasons. Other work, as we know, has been done in terms of providing better funding for programs to minimise gambling harm as well as work with the federal government to introduce frameworks to look at the way we manage gambling harm and to set up a system that better regulates the industry and also tries to provide some consumer protections. But again, in many cases it is a matter of at what point the regulations and the protections meet. As I think the previous speaker, the member of the Albert Park, was saying, it is about a balance. We have to accept that there are many people that engage in this activity as a form of recreation and entertainment. That should be able to continue, but we also have to be mindful that in other circumstances it really is a terrible situation that people find themselves in.

I also think the member for Kororoit mentioned, you know, pokie machines and how terrible they are, and I know that the Thomastown electorate is similar. It might not be first on the list of losses, but it is certainly quite high, and the devastation as a result of that is just terrible – but in this case we are talking more about racing as a legitimate form of entertainment that people can enjoy and get involved in. Of course we also need to be mindful, and the government will continue to sort of monitor and look at how the gambling system works in Victoria and look at ensuring that it is managed and regulated in a way that does, one, give the most benefit to the state as well as ensuring that the strongest protections can be introduced while other people still continue to be able to partake in the recreation.

We also have to be mindful of the employment and the jobs that are generated. If we look at the racing industry, for example, we know that it generates a lot of income for the state. It also generates a lot of jobs, a lot of attractions and tourism. We just have to look at the Melbourne Cup races, for example, and how popular they are. We have people coming from all over not just the country but other parts of the world. These sorts of activities are part of, I guess in some ways, the fabric of Victoria as the sporting capital, as we like to think, of Australia and maybe beyond.

This legislation is quite narrow. It is looking at the licences that the government issues, and this is I think what we need to talk about as opposed to other aspects – which we will of course acknowledge, but they are really things to be subject to other debates and discussions and future legislation. This legislation is quite narrow. It is about the licensing system as part of the regulatory framework, and I finish in support of the bill.

Dylan WIGHT (Tarneit) (17:48): It gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to contribute on the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023. Just before I go into the crux of the debate I will outline for everybody what these amendments seek to do. The bill, obviously, as others have said, makes amendments to the licence structure for the wagering and betting licence to permit multiple licences rather than the current situation where there is only a single licence-holder. It will also provide the minister with the discretion to determine any periods of exclusivity for future wagering and betting licences and will remove the ‘no less favourable’ requirement for issuing future wagering and betting licences.

Essentially what this bill seeks to achieve is to introduce a level of competition into this sector of the industry that has not existed previously. Now, as we know, that is an incredibly good thing for punters and for people that like to have a bet on racing, and I know the member for Nepean during his contribution earlier reeled off the stat that 70 per cent of Victorians at some time or another like to have a bet during the course of their lives. So it does that, and it is a bill that is fundamentally good for our racing industry in Victoria.

As you would imagine with an amendment of this nature – and every time we introduce a bill of this nature into this house – extensive consultation has been undertaken prior to us introducing the bill in this place. I will note that the racing industry in this state is overwhelmingly supportive of the change that we seek to make with this bill, and that is incredibly important. The racing industry in this state provides or creates a significant amount of economic benefit to Victorians – $4.7 billion of economic activity per annum, to be exact – and about half of that is household income. So this is an industry that literally sustains Victorian families and an industry that those on this side of the house are more than happy to support. It also creates 120,000 full-time equivalent jobs, from race day staff to trainers to stable and kennel hands. I know firsthand that it sustains hundreds of jobs down in my patch in Wyndham, through the Werribee Racing Club and race day events but also the facilities adjacent to that racing club – think about the breeding facilities that exist down there in Werribee, the equine facilities and the scanning and veterinary and medical facilities, as well as the Werribee quarantine facility, where most of the international raiders that come over to our Victorian Spring Racing Carnival start their journey. So it is also an industry that is incredibly important to the City of Wyndham.

Under the current framework, as I spoke about earlier, having a single licence-holder is incredibly restrictive. The act was passed in 2012, when the way that people liked to have a bet was very different, and I will go into that in a little bit more substance shortly. The act, which was created back then, only permits one wagering and betting licence in operation at the same time. This limitation obviously restricts the state’s ability to attract market interest and to potentially maximise the value from the licensing process. We believe in this particular instance – not always but in this particular instance –that further competition will provide for better products, better odds and a better licensing system. The current system also limits, as I said, competition within the wagering and betting industry. In short – and I think perhaps the member for Brunswick touched on this – we currently, under this licensing system, have a monopoly, and we think in this particular instance that to open that up to competition is something that would benefit the industry, benefit the state and also benefit the consumer. So that is really the main aspect of this bill and a really important reason as to why we are introducing it.

Another important fact is that the current act does not provide the minister with the authority to set exclusivity periods for future wagering and betting licences. This lack of flexibility can obviously limit the effectiveness of the licences to potential applicants. As I spoke about earlier, the current licence held by Tabcorp, which came into effect in 2012, expires on 15 August 2024, and the bill before the house at the moment will give the government the flexibility to issue licence arrangements to reflect the current betting trend.

That is something else that is incredibly important and something that I touched on briefly before. When the current arrangement came into effect in 2012, whether they be betting on sport or racing or anything else, the way that people engaged with that and the way that they had a bet was incredibly different to the way that the majority of people do it now. Once again, the member for Nepean – because I heard his contribution – spoke about the fact that his father owned a TAB, and if we wanted to have a bet in 2012 the vast majority of us would have walked into our local TAB or our local pub TAB and would have had a bet on an electronic betting terminal or up at the bar. That has changed seismically in the last 10 years, and these changes will further reflect that changing market.

So just quickly, towards the end of this, I will discuss the ‘no less favourable’ requirement and its effects on the betting market. The act includes a ‘no less favourable’ requirement at the moment, mandating that any licensee must enter into funding arrangements with the Victorian racing industry that are no less favourable than the existing arrangements. This requirement that is currently in effect can most certainly act as a barrier to entry for other potential licensees, for the potential entry of competition and for the potential entry of licensees that may better reflect the market as it is, given that the value of the licence may change due to shifts in consumer preferences and market dynamics, particularly, as I said, with the growth of online gambling. This requirement arose from the concurrent privatisation by those opposite, in 1994, of the Victorian TAB and the introduction of gaming machines – electronic betting terminals – in Victoria. It was designed to address concerns by the racing industry that it would be disadvantaged by the privatisation and potentially lose out on wagering revenue previously provided to the racing industry in Victoria.

Just to conclude, I would love to thank the minister for their incredibly hard work on this bill, and the department as well, and I commend it to the house.

Steve McGHIE (Melton) (17:58): Before I move to the bill, I just want to make a comment about an incident that occurred this afternoon out Exford, down at Melton South. Around about a quarter to 4 there was a bus and truck accident, with about 30 schoolchildren involved. The bus rolled. There have been eight children transported to hospital in a serious condition. A number of other kids have injuries but have been stabilised and are still on the scene. I know all of us from this chamber extend our sympathies to the kids and wish them well but also to the teaching staff that are all on scene, both from Exford Primary School but also from Eynesbury Primary School, and of course to all the parents. We are thinking of them right now, and we hope that their kids are safe and will mend quickly. Our thoughts and prayers are with that school and with those families.

I will move on to speak about the Gambling Regulation Amendment Bill 2023. The bill will amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 to allow the award of multiple wagering and betting licences and to remove the ‘no less favourable’ industry funding requirement for wagering and betting licences. I want to make reference to and pick up on what the member for Albert Park made comments about, and that was about addiction to gambling, alcohol and food. I tick all those boxes. I thought she was talking about me when she made that reference, but anyway – I certainly make sure that I enjoy myself, I will tell you that now.

I would like to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Racing and of course the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation and all the stakeholders involved in our fantastic racing industry. Melton is the home of Tabcorp Park, which is a world-class harness racing and entertainment facility. I have been to many excellent community events at this facility and also many harness racing events. Tabcorp Park consists of a 1040-metre harness racing track. It has a hotel, a conference facility, function rooms, a 300-seat bistro, a sports bar and a TAB and gaming room. It hosts around about 80 race meetings per year as well as concerts, corporate functions and other events. Harness Racing Victoria recognised Melton as the most attractive region for this facility because of our population growth, being well placed for the land and because we are home to the highest proportion of standard breeds in Victoria.

Tabcorp Park is an incredible facility. It is an asset in our community, and that is why in May 2022 the Andrews Labor government’s Victorian Racing Industry Fund provided more than $1.63 million to upgrade Tabcorp Park. The harness racing industry in Victoria generates $600 million for the economy and helps sustain around 4300 jobs. Victoria needs the racing industry for the economy, for the jobs and to allow us to have a great day out at the races. About two weeks ago I was at Tabcorp Park with the Minister for Racing opening up the new owners lounge, which is a great facility that we have contributed funding to. This lounge is for the owners of harness horses when they have a win at Tabcorp Park. It is a beautiful lounge for them to relax in and enjoy their winnings. It is a great facility to have opened only a couple of weeks ago.

Over the years I have been to many, many races at many, many racetracks all over the state and also interstate. I love the races of all kinds – thoroughbreds, harness and the greyhounds – and they are all very entertaining. I am sure all of us here, or most of us, have placed a bet at a race meeting, in particular probably the Melbourne Cup. We will all have engaged in either betting on the Melbourne Cup or being in Melbourne Cup sweeps. Some of us have been more successful than others, and I can say I have never been successful in betting on the races. That is probably why I ended up in Parliament. Anyway, we have had our moments over the years.

Again I say I have been to many, many race meetings at both country Victoria and metropolitan Melbourne racetracks, and I find the facilities terrific. That does not mean to say we cannot upgrade some facilities in some local regional areas. I find the hospitality amazing and of course the families that are involved in racing. It is a fantastic industry to get involved with. We know that racing is a family matter in rural and regional areas, and it is fantastic for local regional communities and economies. Victoria leads the way with our racing industry even though a number of states are trying to take our mantle. Good luck to them, but I think they are a long way off from doing so.

In Victoria land-based wagering and betting can only be conducted under a licence issued by the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation. This licence allows a business to conduct wagering and approved betting competitions, unlike businesses located elsewhere in Australia who can only accept Victorian bets online and by phone. The Victorian licensee can also accept bets on racecourses and through an off-course retail network like pubs or standalone agencies. I am sure not all but a lot of us have been into the old TABs. Now they are all modernised in these big gaming places and the eateries that go along with them. I know that there are some in Melton – at the Melton Country Club; the two hotels, Mac’s and the Golden Fleece; and at Tabcorp Park. They are set up for these quite different agencies than what they were previously, like the old TABs where you would walk in and there would be a thousand tickets on the ground from all the losses. Now they are all modernised and electronic, so it is quite different.

For almost 11 years Tabcorp has held the single permitted wagering and betting licence in Victoria. In light of this licence expiring in August 2024, we need to amend the act to support the issuing of a new licence. We have been given the opportunity to have a think about what is best for our state, our economy and anyone engaging in wagering and betting. Instead of the single wagering and betting licence permitted at one time, the bill will allow the minister to exercise discretion and determine how many licences can be issued in Victoria, similarly to how the public lottery licence and keno licences operate. This will ensure the licence will maximise value to the state by attracting greater interest in the licence.

In addition to this, the issuing of a licence will include an exclusive period, and this means that the government will not be able to issue another licence during that period. For example, the government could issue one licence for a term of 20 years with an exclusivity period of 10 years. After this 10-year period the government could issue additional licences. As it stands, the act states that the minister must ensure that the licence applicant has made arrangements with the Victorian racing industry before granting a licence application to ensure that the licence-holder has an agreement with the Victorian racing industry that is no less favourable than the previous licensee’s agreement. The ‘no less favourable’ requirement arose from the concerns of the Victorian racing industry, given the introduction of gaming machines in Victoria and the concurrent privatisation of the Victorian TAB. This was around about 30 years ago.

Of course with the introduction of gaming machines we have seen the introduction and increase of addiction, and I do have some concerns about access to gaming machines. I have always said that in Melton anyone that is in a gaming den after midnight is either an addict or so desperate to get a drink into themselves that it is the only place they can go. I can never understand why some of our clubs and pubs extend their licences to allow gaming to go until 3 o’clock or 4 o’clock in the morning. That cannot be any good for anyone, and I would have thought that the majority of people that are in those places after midnight are addicted to gambling and we should be doing something more to stop that. I am supportive of having limits that can be pushed onto those machines, and I think we need to deal with that in a far stronger way.

This bill is an important bill for our state. I do thank the minister and her staff in regard to this bill. I do commend this bill to the house and wish everyone well in their future gambling.

Lily D’AMBROSIO (Mill Park – Minister for Climate Action, Minister for Energy and Resources, Minister for the State Electricity Commission) (18:07): I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Ordered that debate be adjourned until later this day.