Thursday, 20 June 2024

Bills

Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Repeal and Advisory Councils Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Lizzie Blandthorn:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:33): I rise to speak on the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation repeal. It is pretty shocking that we have come to this, and the Liberals and Nationals will not be supporting this bill. Labor announced the decision to axe the VRGF in July last year and is now belatedly legislating it, returning to the former siloed arrangements that failed to offer support.

The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation was established in 2011 under the then Liberal and National government by my colleague the member for Malvern. Its role was to undertake a number of things: it was to look at prevention of gambling harms and the promotion of the risk of gambling harms and to undertake research, particularly into gambling harm and how it can best be avoided – all pretty uncontroversial. The government has given no justification for the axing of the VRGF; indeed it has not even tried to. Despite the government talking up a new integrated model, it will in fact just send the prevention of gambling harm to three separate agencies: the Department of Health, the Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS) and the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC). Sending the issue of preventing gambling harm in three separate directions risks haphazard, uncoordinated delivery of services, awareness and research.

Given the failure of the previous regulator, as exposed by the Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence, the Liberals and Nationals believe the VGCCC should be focused on regulating and not on running gambling harm awareness and prevention functions. They have got enough on their plate. Placing the Gambler’s Help program into the megadepartment that is health risks it being neglected, while giving the research function to DJCS brings into question the independence of research into gambling harm. The Liberals and Nationals do not believe the government has made the case that the prevention of gambling harm will be better under its new model; indeed we think that it will be worse. There is an argument that the VGCCC is a regulator and should be focused on regulation, not public awareness and the prevention of harm, especially in light of its predecessor’s failures on Crown Casino.

I want to thank my colleague Danny O’Brien for the work that he has done on this. I know he has consulted with a number of stakeholders, including the Alliance for Gambling Reform, Uniting gambling harm lived experience experts, the Monash Addiction Research Centre, the Monash University School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, the Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association, the La Trobe University Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, the Australian Hotels Association, RSL Victoria, Community Clubs Victoria, Crown Casino, the Club Managers’ Association of Australia and the Law Institute of Victoria’s liquor, gaming and hospitality committee.

There were no recommendations made in the Crown royal commission for the abolition of the VRGF. There have been no recommendations made in various Victorian Auditor-General reports that the VRGF has failed too substantially or should be abolished or reformed. There were not even, in the review of the VAGO reports by the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, any recommendations that the VRGF should be abolished. You would think with PAEC members in this chamber and the other chamber it should be looked at or they might have had a quizzical thought to make a recommendation or two, but no. While there were certainly recommendations from the Auditor-General and PAEC about how the VRGF could do its job better, there was no recommendation to abolish it and there was no recommendation that the system was broken and the model was broken.

Recently at the PAEC estimates hearings my colleague Danny O’Brien asked on what advice or analysis that decision was made to abolish the VRGF. He got a non-answer. The minister responded:

As you can appreciate, the VRGF – and I really want to thank them for their work. It is an organisation that has been going for more than 12 years, but as they recognised themselves, it was originally designed to be a responsible gambling foundation, which was about providing those counselling services but also the education services and research. We have moved on in terms of how we are now looking at it and looking at it in a much more multidisciplinary way to deliver those wraparound support services.

He also asked what advice or analysis was undertaken. Was there a review of the VRGF that indicated that it should be wound up? The minister responded:

There has been much work that has gone into that. It has been subject to extensive consultation with the sector, with industry and with the foundation itself.

Clearly no actual review was done as to whether this should be abolished. It seems like it is a political decision to abolish the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, because we have not seen any expert recommendations. We have not seen any Victorian Auditor-General reports. We have not seen any PAEC reports. This has come out of nowhere and seems to be a political decision by this government.

In terms of what the bill does, it is a short bill because it simply abolishes the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Act 2011 and makes some other amendments to send some roles to the VGCCC. In place of the VRGF the government says it will direct client-facing prevention functions, including Gambler’s Help, to the Department of Health. The justification for that is on the basis that there are significant comorbidities with problem gambling that often come with mental health issues, with alcohol and drug issues and with family violence. It will send gambling harm awareness and prevention programs to the VGCCC – the Victoria Gambling and Casino Control Commission – and the policy research and valuation functions. As I was saying, the abolition of the VRGF has not come from any recommendation, not from a Victorian Auditor-General’s report, not from any expert associations. But then you whisper around, and I know a lot of my colleagues do, ‘Who’s actually supporting the abolition of the VRGF?’ That would be the big wagerers. That would be some in the industry. Who is the government actually speaking to, what kind of agenda is it playing in abolishing a critical harm prevention body and why would it do that?

Coming into Parliament and being new, before I was elevated to the front bench, you do get an opportunity – I know they do not – on this side to speak out about issues that are really important to you. One issue I remain passionate about is gambling harm, pokies addiction and making sure that we can cycle people out of the horrible addiction to particularly pokies but all sorts of gambling. We know the cost-of-living crisis is making things worse, and we know that often people in the cycle of gambling addiction fall into all sorts of other issues with mental health, with family breakdown. It is destroying families in the northern suburbs. It is a massive issue in the northern suburbs and particularly a massive issue that I have spoken to many of our multicultural communities about as well. The functions we need are the functions that the responsible gambling foundation are doing a good job at. The other side of the chamber wants to align with the big wagerers.

Michael Galea: You know that’s not true.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Well, who is supporting this bill? It has come from nowhere. They want to split it off in three different directions. Seriously, you are expecting a government department to go out and do the advocacy services. Is a government department going to be able to speak out and speak to these people? You are splitting it off in three ways so that you can then reduce the funding to gambling harm and prevention services. That is quite clearly what you want to do. If you look at all the stakeholders that are supporting it, it is quite clear that the government’s intention on this is shady. It is quite clear. We need to support this body that was set up by the Liberals and Nationals and not split its functions off in three different directions. They want to send them off in three different directions, and we know that it is so they can have the levers on the funding. We know this government cannot manage money and cannot manage major projects, which are blowing out day by day. Every day there is a new major project blowout. If a body like this is split off in three ways in the department, they will be able to reduce the funding to pay for their cost blowouts, because they cannot stand up to the CFMEU bosses. It will create an uncoordinated delivery of services, awareness and research. It is just not a good idea.

The government might want to criticise the VRGF. All of our agencies can often be doing better, but where has the case been made for its abolition? Where? By whom? We know the kind of industry stakeholders that want to see the abolition of the VRGF, absolutely. But we need to ensure we are investing in the VRGF, we need to retain the VRGF, we need to support the critical work that it does and we need to get quite serious about gambling harm prevention. And getting serious about gambling harm prevention does not involve abolishing a critical body, splitting it off in three different directions so that the government can eventually, at the whim of the minister, reduce the funding – because that is what they will do because they cannot manage money, they cannot manage major projects and they will eventually need to find money from somewhere, as we have seen with so many cases.

So you have got functions going into the Department of Health, and the Department of Health in every direction across the state is telling hospitals to find savings. Are you telling me, given they are cutting services at community hospitals across the state, they are not also going to have a look at allocations from this and want to see that funding reduced? You can bet they will. Absolutely they will, and it will be Victorians that are paying the price. It will be Victorians that need that extra support that will pay the price. We have many people in my electorate but also across the state that need that support. Even just going into pubs across my electorate, as I do – Roxburgh Park Hotel, for example, and other hotels – you see people that are at their lowest. You see people in the pokies rooms that need that critical support, and I do not think abolishing a crucial agency like the responsible gambling foundation is wise. I do not think the case has been made. I think that we need to support the work of the regulator. We need to support the work of the responsible gambling foundation. They should not be put together. Putting a regulator together with a harm prevention function does not really make sense. They are both entirely separate functions.

So it is clear that some sort of shady deal has been done in the backrooms between the Labor Party and the big wagerers – it is quite clear – and Victorians will pay the price. Those that need help, those that need that support to escape the cycle of gambling addiction, will pay the price for this, because we know the government will eventually cut the budget. As I said, the Department of Health is cutting funding everywhere, it is finding savings everywhere. And yet we are meant to believe that they will not look at this new function coming from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation and think, ‘We can save some money here’? Absolutely they will – absolutely. The case has not been made – has not been mentioned in PAEC, has not been mentioned in an Auditor-General report, has not been mentioned anywhere. The case has not been made. The case has absolutely not been made for the abolition of the responsible gambling foundation.

I do speak to many in the sector in regard to these kinds of issues; I do take an interest in these issues and I am passionate about these issues. I know even gambling harm advocate – probably one of the most prominent – Stephen Mayne actually congratulated the Liberals and Nationals for taking a stand and opposing this bill, and I know many others in the gambling harm space are supporting the Liberals and Nationals in our stance opposing this bill. It is clear that there has been some sort of backroom deal done. We will stand with harm prevention advocates against this government’s attempt to abolish this, split it up in three separate directions and cut the funding, which is what they will do, because we know that the Department of Health is cutting funding everywhere. They will certainly get their mittens on the funding there and try to cut it. It is really important we all stand with harm advocates.

I want to quote from my colleague Danny O’Brien. In his lower house contribution, he said:

You do wonder whether perhaps this is simply a political angle, whether this is just a little bit of a political attempt by the government to trash the legacy of the former Liberals and Nationals government and remove something that we established in this space. There are hints about that. The minister’s second-reading speech says with respect to the justification for the historical structure that we have:

For example, the importance of engaging with people with lived and living experience was not considered when the Responsible Gambling Ministerial Advisory Council and Liquor Control Advisory Council were established.

Who said? Who said lived experience was not considered? That just seems to me to be a justification, and a fairly flimsy one, for abolishing … two advisory councils but also a broader question for the VRGF.

As I said, we are concerned that the government has not made the case to abolish the VRGF. It has not argued how sending the issue in three different directions will help a problem gambler, so one can only assume that this is a political decision and perhaps driven by something internal. Perhaps it has been speaking to stakeholders about its announced pokies reforms – before Daniel Andrews went off into the sunset – and cut a deal. Perhaps it has. We will not be supporting this bill. We will be opposing it. We do not think it delivers a response to the gambling harm we need here in this state. We will stand with gambling harm prevention experts every day while the government stands with big wagerers.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:52): I rise to speak on the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Repeal and Advisory Councils Bill 2024, and in doing so I wish to make a few comments about why this is a sensible bill and why this is a bill that actually supports people who are experiencing gambling harm, and I will take the opportunity to respond to a few of Mr Mulholland’s unfounded claims as well.

What this bill will do is repeal the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Act 2011 and also amend the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission Act 2011 and the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. This bill really, fundamentally, is about providing a public health response to the issue of gambling harm. It will do so by creating better connections between gambling health services, harm research and prevention and other coexisting conditions experienced by people with lived or living experiences of gambling harm. All too often we know that people who are actually experiencing gambling harm are not experiencing it in isolation. There are often other intersectional issues which come into play. That is why having a coordinated approach, having it integrated into, for example, the Department of Health, is actually providing us with the opportunity to provide better supports for people rather than having them remain in a silo, which is what the current system provides for.

I know that those opposite are very touchy about the reforms that were brought in by Mr O’Brien, the member for Malvern in the other place. I cannot say I am as concerned about his legacy as much as I am concerned about reforms that will actually achieve meaningful outcomes for Victorians, particularly those who are experiencing gambling harm. We know the impact that gambling harm has on our community. In my electorate alone, in the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region, in any typical year more than $500 million is lost on poker machines alone, and that does not to take into account other gambling forms such as online or sports betting. In Greater Dandenong $102 million is lost on pokies every year. In Knox it is $56 million, and in the City of Casey $114 million is lost on pokies each and every year. This is an issue which affects many Victorians, and that is why I am so pleased to see that this government is taking meaningful steps to address it.

I am also surprised that Mr Mulholland, who was so excited about lauding the reforms brought in by Mr O’Brien in 2011 which established the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF) as well as the VCGLR, the previous Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, was then so quick to slam the VCGLR and to say that it was a failed regulator – to say that Mr O’Brien’s preferred choice of model for the regulator failed. I am quite surprised that he would say that in this place, as I say, completely contradicting even himself.

The other thing I have to note is that there was quite a bit of discussion about the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee. I am a member of PAEC, and I had the opportunity to dive deeply into this issue last year. I have to say, of all the many interesting committee inquiries that we have undergone and that I have done already in this place, this was perhaps the single most illuminating and shocking inquiry to be a part of for me. We had round tables, we heard from industry as well as advocates, and some really powerful evidence was heard, and I would again like to thank those people that did speak before the committee.

The inquiry that we did was, as is customary for PAEC, actually a follow-up inquiry into three Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) reports into the regulation of gambling as well as liquor, because we did have that model previously – which has been found to be flawed – with liquor and gambling under the same regulator. The Auditor-General in one of those reports found that:

… the VRGF did not know whether its prevention and treatment programs were effectively reducing the severity of gambling harm.

While the foundation may help some people through its programs, it:

did not understand the broader impact … because it lacked an outcome-based framework to develop and measure the results of its programs.

In addition:

… while the VRGF funds research and program evaluation, it did not utilise this evidence to improve its program design and service delivery.

In that report the Auditor-General made eight recommendations to the VRGF. Only one of them was actually acted upon in full by the foundation. That was something that we found in our report last year.

There was a lot of commentary as well about PAEC not recommending that the VRGF be abolished, and I think it is important to look at the actual timeframe in which our report took place. By the time that we were conducting this inquiry, taking in submissions and hearing witnesses, this announcement had actually already been made. It was already announced that the VRGF would be dissolved and its functions transferred into the other agencies. So it is – I do not want to say misleading – not giving the full picture to say that PAEC did not recommend that. PAEC took the proposed reforms as the baseline, and indeed if we had made a recommendation around changing that – if we had thought that was the best way to go – I am sure I can say that we would have done so. The recommendations out of this report reflect the accurate nature of where we were at the time, which was a scenario in seeing that the VRGF would be dissolved. Interestingly enough, as members will know, in committee reports you can go back and look through votes that we have on committee deliberations and on recommendations, and if you go into that report you will not see Liberal Party members putting in those recommendations. So I am curious as to why the Liberal Party is now making a song and dance about it when back at the time when they had an opportunity to put that feedback into that report they did not even want to put it up for a vote – because there is no vote, as you can see, in there. Again, perhaps the members on the committee from the Liberal Party – perhaps Mr McGowan and Mrs McArthur – saw the need for what this government is doing.

Certainly people that did see the need for it included the Alliance for Gambling Reform. I know Mr Mulholland wants to say that there is no support for this, conveniently ignoring the state’s and the nation’s leading gambling advocacy network on behalf of problem gamblers, the Alliance of Gambling Reform, who were quite emphatic about their desire for this reform to actually take place. Our inquiry heard directly from the Alliance for Gambling Reform. It was very interesting evidence that they gave us. Reverend Tim Costello, who was representing that group, was quite emphatically in favour of this reform. The alliance also emphatically welcomed the $165 million over four years that this government is putting in to support these reforms and to support these gambling harm reduction measures, which is an important testament.

I have to say, when we were about to hear from Reverend Tim Costello – he is a fierce and passionate advocate on this issue, and I commend him for his advocacy – I was definitely not quite expecting him to be quite so complimentary about the government’s reforms, because he has been a very harsh critic of numerous successive state governments here and across Australia. I was genuinely quite surprised that, though not unqualified, he was speaking in favourable terms specifically for this reform and also for the work that the new regulator – the one that this government brought in, the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) – had been undertaking in replacement of, as Mr Mulholland might put it, the absolute failed regulator of the VCGLR that Mr O’Brien chose to put in back in 2011. That endorsement is perhaps the most emphatic you could get. To have the Alliance for Gambling Reform in favour of this change says to me that this is something worth supporting, if nothing else at all. Despite all the bluster from those opposite about it, we know that their opposition to this is really much more concerned with protecting the ego of Mr O’Brien than it is with protecting vulnerable people, such as those constituents of mine in the south-east who are dealing with pokies-related harm.

What will this bill do? Currently the VRGF has a number of functions. Broadly speaking, they are in three categories: firstly, prevention and programs – the funding and provision of preventative activities that address the determinants of gambling harm and the facilitation of programs of treatment and counselling services to those people experiencing harm; secondly, gambling harm awareness – the facilitation of education and information programs to raise community awareness of gambling harm; and thirdly, the research, evaluation and knowledge mobilisation – this funding of publication of research and evaluation activities related to its objectives. As part of the government’s method of applying a public health response to these reforms, it is looking at evidence-based best practice reforms.

I will make one other comment on the existing structures that were set up by the Liberal Party back in 2011, and that is the phrase ‘responsible gambling’. I see Mr Limbrick in the room, and he might strongly disagree with me on this point. The concept of and the term ‘responsible gambling’ – and this was put to us by Reverend Costello in the inquiry – is very effective branding that the gambling industry uses. He made the comparison that it is much as over in the United States, where gun manufacturers like to say that ‘Guns don’t kill people; people kill people’ – fortunately, we do not have this culture war in Australia – basically saying, ‘Don’t blame us for making and providing guns and making them accessible to people, blame the individuals.’ That is exactly what ‘responsible gambling’ as a message conveys.

That might not be the original intention, and this does not take away from the other good work that the foundation has certainly done, but the very name of the foundation is not helping; it is actually saying, ‘If you have a gambling problem, that’s your fault. That’s because you failed to do it responsibly,’ not because the poker machines are designed to be addictive or all the other things that we know as factual evidence about how gambling providers and marketers make their products as addictive as possible. ‘Not our problem,’ they say. ‘If you can’t do it properly, you’re not responsible.’ That is what the term ‘responsible gambling’ means, and that is exactly the approach that we are moving away from because this reform is about a health-led approach – providing health supports, because we know gambling harm is not a personal responsibility issue, it is a health issue. We do have a better understanding today perhaps than we did even 10 years ago, though I am sure a lot of people were making this point back then as well.

The functions of the foundation and some of the good work that is done will be improved by having this done in different ways, again referring to the lack of outcomes-based work that VAGO highlighted and that was the subject of that PAEC report. The services, in terms of gambling support, such as Gambler’s Help and various other support services, will continue to be provided across metro and regional Victoria through the Department of Health. The benefit again of that with that intersectionality of issues means that you have got the intersectionality of support. If there is a mental health issue or if there is a family violence issue, whatever the situation may be, the Department of Health will be better placed by not being in a gambling silo to provide support, referral and other accesses through those services. The delivery of community-based gambling harm prevention will also be done through that department, whereas the gambling harm community awareness functions will be transferred to the VGCCC, and again that is endorsed by the Alliance for Gambling Reform as a way to enhance their focus on regulation and harm minimisation. Surely, if harm minimisation is not the focus of regulation, what is the purpose of regulation? These will indeed build on what we found in the inquiry to be an already impressive track record of the VGCCC under its current leadership. This has been widely remarked upon to be the strongest gambling regulator in the country, with penalties including $250 million in fines levied against the casino as well as multiple disciplinary actions already meted out to other sections of industry.

Thirdly, the policy, research and evaluation functions will be transferred to the Department of Justice and Community Safety, including the lived experience consultative committee. It is important to ensure that these, again, very important functions will actually be able to directly inform that department’s broader policy work, which comes into contact with gambling in many different ways, shapes and forms. There will of course be consultation between the DJCS and the Department of Health throughout the implementation of this model.

We know that gambling harm can cause much distress for many in our community, and I do want to conclude my remarks in commending this bill to the house by saying that this is a bill that is designed to support those people, to support vulnerable Victorians and to support our communities who are already facing extreme levels of gambling harm. This is a bill that will improve our responsiveness to that, with it backed in by that $165 million of funding. I do commend the bill to the house.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (11:08): After careful consideration and productive negotiations with the government, the Greens will be supporting this bill today. The Greens want to see the impacts of the harmful gambling industry on people and communities across Victoria reduced. We acknowledge some of the questions and issues raised by stakeholders regarding the need to ensure the important functions of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF), such as independent research, harm reduction programs, educational resources and accessible data and reporting about gambling losses and harm, continue to be provided. I will be asking questions on the continuation of these important functions in the committee stage. I will also be moving an amendment requiring a review, which I will now ask to be circulated.

Amendment circulated pursuant to standing orders.

Katherine COPSEY: And I do apologise to my colleagues for not circulating this earlier. It is a review clause that I will again speak to further in the committee stage. But in essence it nominates some important areas to investigate to ensure that the functions performed by the VRGF continue, though they have been delegated to different agencies. The review will also consider whether the Auditor-General’s recommendations to prevent and protect the community from gambling harm have been satisfied. As I said, I will speak to it further during the committee stage. The expertise of people with lived experience of gambling harm is also vital to tackling stigma and the harm of this predatory industry, and I will also be asking questions relating to the bill’s outcomes in relation to advisory committees during the committee stage.

As a result of this bill, the VRGF’s functions will be distributed to the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Department of Health. There have been mixed reactions to the government’s decision to abolish the VRGF. The Alliance for Gambling Reform has welcomed the move, with then CEO Carol Bennett remarking:

We welcome the fact the budget – $165m over four years is unchanged, and the functions of the disbanded Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF) will now reflect more of a ‘whole of government’ approach incorporating them into departments of health and justice as well as expanding the role of the regulator …

There is also a greater focus on prevention and education through the regulator, the research that has been done by VRGF will be retained and we welcome changes to improve the advisory role to the minister and abolish the defunct Responsible Gambling Ministerial Advisory Council.

As has been remarked by the government contributor on this debate so far, Mr Galea, the involvement of the Department of Health in tackling gambling harm is welcome given the importance of recognising that this is a public health issue regarding regulation of a harmful industry. Other voices have urged caution to ensure that the good work done by the VRGF does not lose focus, visibility or independence through this transition, and I certainly agree this is a vital consideration. On this point I would like to thank those stakeholders who have engaged with my office on this matter. I also want to acknowledge the outreach and the advocacy of Michael O’Brien and Danny O’Brien in the other place, who have communicated the value and the importance of the VRGF’s work, and Mr Mulholland did so in his contribution today as well. I also thank the minister and her office for the considerable time and genuine engagement with the Greens and my team on this issue.

In speaking to this bill today I also want to put on the record my appreciation of the VRGF and acknowledge the good work that it has done over many years to practically reduce harm from gambling and inform and guide the public conversation around the best ways to advance our efforts to protect our community. We know far more now about the harms of the gambling industry and particularly of predatory poker machines than when they were introduced in Victoria more than 30 years ago in an experiment that has gone on to have catastrophic consequences for people across our state. The understanding of gambling harm has advanced significantly, and the VRGF should be very proud of the contribution they have made to that increased understanding and to elevating the public conversation, as Mr Galea mentioned, and increasing understanding of stigma and the ways that we talk about this harmful industry and the impacts that it has on our community. That is all vital work that the VRGF has contributed to. Most importantly, the VRGF has made a huge impact on the lives of many people affected by the predatory gambling industry, providing that support, reducing stigma and, I do not doubt in some situations, saving lives.

At a personal level, before I came to this place I had the privilege of working in advocacy to reduce harm from gambling – I should disclose, for the Alliance for Gambling Reform – and in that role I was lucky enough to engage with the VRGF. I referred regularly to the high-quality materials and research that they produced, and I had the great pleasure of dealing with VRGF staff, who without exception were dedicated and passionate about sharing their work to understand and appropriately respond to gambling harm. I thank them for their invaluable contribution. As the Alliance for Gambling Reform remarked in their response to the bill, the context in which the VRGF or its successors operate is also important, and we need to see more progress on the reform agenda that was announced by the government almost 12 months ago now. I will add that the announced reforms, including uniform overnight closure of venues, mandatory precommitment and carded play across the state, are very welcome but could be strengthened even further.

I will turn now to the discussions the Greens have had with the government in relation to this bill. The Greens have been working constructively with the government to secure some strengthened outcomes. The first one is support for this amendment requiring a review of the act. What is most important as we move forward is that the functions of the VRGF continue effectively, so the review amendment I have circulated is designed to ensure we monitor this and confirm it is the case. It will make sure that the changes from this bill do not get in the way of addressing gambling harm. It will check that the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, the Department of Health and the Department of Justice and Community Safety are working together efficiently and effectively on reducing gambling harm. It will check on the quality of gambling harm treatment programs and education. In other words, it will make sure that even without the VRGF these tasks are done and still done properly.

As I said earlier, plans are currently underway to introduce mandatory carded play to poker machine venues across the state and precommitment, meaning that before you start playing you need to put in a card and a maximum amount that you are willing to lose. But how much is too much? This week the second agreement that the Greens have secured from the government is to set a $50 default limit for poker machines across the state. This welcome commitment will mean that by default people will lose no more than $50 a day when mandatory carded play is implemented across all venues. There will still be scope for an individual to change this amount manually, but when presented with a default what we know is that many people go with it. This is a real, practical reform that will have a real impact in curbing the horrible impacts of predatory poker machines on Victorians. The Greens would also like to see a hard limit on the maximum that you can lose – a binding precommitment – and we will continue to push the government for strengthened reforms as part of the precommitment and carded play implementation across the state. In the meantime, this $50 default limit will make a real and concrete difference to the amount left in household bank balances for people across Victoria who use poker machines.

The third change we have negotiated is very welcome progress on addressing the much maligned and frequently rorted community benefits scheme. The minister has written to me agreeing that the system is in need of an overhaul and inviting my participation in a process to identify improvements to the scheme. At the moment in Victoria clubs, but not hotels, can claim a lucrative tax deduction if they give enough of their poker machine profits back to the community, but frequently the community is not benefiting. Clubs are spending funds on themselves, on everything from beer and gas to venue decoration and paying for television subscriptions. The Alliance for Gambling Reform has calculated that more than 77 per cent of this community benefit money was spent on clubs’ own operations in the last financial year, and that is more than $240 million which could have and should have gone to the community, who pay the price of profit-hungry poker machines. It is time for this to change, and we look very much forward to working closely with the government to overhaul this broken scheme.

Finally, the minister has undertaken to continue advocating to their federal colleagues for more effective regulation of gambling advertising. Gambling advertising is detested, with poll after poll showing that the community wants more restrictions on gambling ads, and that is just what a federal parliamentary committee has recommended, calling for a total ban on ads for online gambling after a three-year transition. That inquiry report was released nearly a year ago. It is about time federal Labor responded, and we certainly welcome the minister’s ongoing advocacy to her colleagues on that matter. These are important changes which will make a difference to people’s lives, but there is much, much more to be done to stop poker machines and online gambling from sucking money out of the communities who can least afford it. Predatory poker machines are designed to exploit people, and we must do everything in our power to tackle that.

In closing, I do just want to briefly acknowledge the long history of work to wind back the harm that gambling does to our community by my predecessors in this place. Back in 2009, in the very first term of Parliament that there were Greens MPs sitting on these very benches, my Greens colleagues negotiated a ban on ATMs at poker machine venues. This would mean that people had to leave the venue when they ran out of money, meaning a brief engagement with the world outside, away from the flashing lights and the soporific atmosphere of the poker machine venue. For lots of people this meant re-evaluating how much they were willing to lose. I dearly hope that the precommitment that has been indicated by the government and in fact the default limits that we secured a commitment to this week will have a similar impact. The Greens will continue to stand with communities to make sure that community wellbeing is put first, not gambling profits.

David LIMBRICK (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:18): I also rise to speak on the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Repeal and Advisory Councils Bill 2024. Mr Mulholland asked earlier who is supporting this repeal, and I will put my hand up – the Libertarians are. I am always open-minded about repealing government agencies, and I am glad to see the Greens have got some libertarian tendencies as well. We are going to save only a little bit of money here, unfortunately, on property expenses and I think some staff are going, but it is a good thing that we are getting rid of this agency and integrating it into other departments. I think that this is a very good thing.

Mr Galea spoke earlier about addiction and that sort of thing. I would like to make the very obvious point that the government itself is addicted to gambling taxes. They do not seem to want to get rid of that addiction at all, so we will continue on with it, it would appear.

One of the arguments made by the opposition for not repealing this agency was that it was based on VicHealth. That is not a very good argument to make with me. I would make the point that due to the advice and advocacy of groups such as VicHealth we still exist in a situation where we have a vaping prohibition in this state, and I think we are up to about 80 arson attacks so far. Because of people like this who have been pushing for this prohibition – and it is not a harm reduction measure that VicHealth has been promoting, it is prohibition – we have had the government lose control of tobacco regulation in this state and now organised crime runs tobacco regulation in this state. I will give you a very good argument why the government should be considering abolishing VicHealth as well. If you look at tobacco harm reduction, organised crime at the moment is doing more for tobacco harm reduction than VicHealth is, and I will tell you why: because they are supplying vapes and helping people get off tobacco, unlike VicHealth. At the very least I think we should be sacking the CEO and getting different advice, but preferably we should consider abolishing VicHealth completely and integrate some of their functions into other departments or something.

This is a good thing. We need to start looking at downsizing government. I have got many, many ideas on other repeal bills the government could be putting forward. Top of mind, and very topical at the moment, is the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 – that could go. I think we could also talk about the Gender Equality Act 2020, the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021, maybe the Heritage Act 2017 – I would even consider planning as well. Let us get serious here. We can save some real money and open up this state.

But for the moment we are doing something that is quite small. It is not going to save a lot of money, but it will save some money on real estate assets, so that is a good thing I suppose. The Libertarian Party will be supporting this bill, and I urge the government to look at bringing forward more repeal bills. I always get excited when a bill is titled ‘repeal’ – it gets my attention – and I encourage the government to do more of this. I will leave my contribution there.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:22): I rise to speak to the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Repeal and Advisory Councils Bill 2024, and I want to commend my colleague Mr Mulholland on his contribution in highlighting the issues that surround this important bill that we are debating this morning in terms of our position on why the government has failed in this area.

The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF) was established by the Baillieu government. I want to commend the minister responsible, the then Minister for Gaming Michael O’Brien, who set it up to ensure that we tackle the serious social problems caused by problem gambling. A media release at the time said:

Mr O’Brien said key components of the establishment of the Foundation would be its own legislative charter and its responsibility to the Parliament and the community rather than to the government of the day.

He said the coalition:

… recognises the community interest in separating the regulation of gambling (including its taxation and licensing) from the provision of problem gambling support …

The model would mean that:

… programs and services will be made independent of government, and the Foundation will decide what programs and services are provided and how they are delivered.

The government, as we know, are scrapping that. They are going to do their own thing and report back. They intend to reallocate the work of the VRGF between the Department of Health, the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission. But the government has not provided any justification as to why the VRGF should be scrapped.

The Department of Health, let me tell you, has got a lot on its hands at the moment – an enormous amount. With this very important issue being put back into it, I am not sure how they are going to cope, because they are not coping now very well with the huge crisis that we have in health around our hospitals, the mental health crisis, our paramedics and all sorts of things going on. The government has failed spectacularly in these areas and is putting more pressure on the Department of Health.

I want to make the point that this bill’s reform process has been put together in a very haphazard manner, which is demonstrated by the fact that the statement of compatibility uses the wrong title for the bill. It erroneously called it the Gambling Legislation Amendment (Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Repeal and Other Matters) Bill 2024.

Melina Bath interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: It is so sloppy, Ms Bath. I mean, this is a government that says it is on top of things. It clearly is not. It cannot even get the title of a bill right on an important issue like this. That is how useless and hopeless this government is on these important reforms. They have lost control of all manner of governing in this state, and we have seen that through the issues around John Setka calling the shots. The Premier herself is so weak on calling that out. But this demonstrates just where every element of government is failing. They cannot even get the title of this bill correct. It is beyond sloppy; it is absolutely hopeless. As a result, it is the Victorian taxpayer who is paying the price for this gross incompetence and the ongoing mismanagement, whether it is in this portfolio area –

Melina Bath interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: or other very important areas, as Ms Bath said.

There is much to say on this. This is an important issue around gambling problems, particularly around young people. Too many are hooked on social media and driving that issue. We need to be educating more on that. There is some excellent work being done. I think it just shows that the government, again, has been asleep at the wheel for years on this very important issue. As I said, they cannot even get the bill title right, so what hope is this bill going to have with any proper ability to address these very important issues on responsible gambling?

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (11:27): I rise to make a contribution to the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Repeal and Advisory Councils Bill 2024. As the title suggests, the bill seeks to repeal the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF) and the advisory council. By a long chalk, gambling is Victoria’s most costly addiction. Per capita Victorians spend some $1300 on betting every year, and we lose over $3 billion annually to poker machines. My region, Western Metropolitan, has borne more than its fair share of these losses. I have stood in this chamber on a number of occasions and noted that Brimbank holds the grim title of the local government area with the highest poker machine losses in the state, with losses of more than $1.29 billion over the last 10 years.

The harms associated with gambling are not restricted to financial losses. These harms can have a ripple effect: from the detrimental impact on an individual’s health and wellbeing, causing stress, depression and insomnia, through to the destruction of relationships and family. Domestic and family violence is a known harm associated with gambling, with higher rates of perpetration and victimisation found among individuals with gambling problems. The harms of problem gambling are disproportionately felt by those living with financial and other forms of stress and people with mental health issues and addiction problems.

This was recognised by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office in its 2021 report asking, ‘Is the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation effectively reducing the severity of gambling?’ The report found that problematic gambling does not happen in a vacuum and that there needs to be an approach that enables gamblers to address the underlying causes of their gambling addiction. In its report VAGO identified a siloed approach in the VRGF, with no integration between gambling harm and broader health, mental health and alcohol and other drug issues. While acknowledging the good work undertaken by the VRGF, it found that the foundation was not effective in discharging its functions and did not know whether its programs were effectively reducing the severity of gambling harm, stating that while the programs may have helped some people, ‘the foundation lacks an outcome-based framework to develop programs’ or to measure if it has reduced harm in the community. The report also acknowledges that the foundation had produced some good research, but that it did not always use the evidence to improve program design and service delivery. While seven recommendations in the VAGO report were accepted by VRGF, only one has been actioned in the three years since the report’s publication.

This bill disbands the VRGF and redistributes its functions across several government departments. Under the new proposed model of service delivery, services related to Gambler’s Help will be contracted through the Department of Health, research services will be contracted through the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the education and advertising functions will be contracted through the regulator. We are advised that the Responsible Gambling Ministerial Advisory Council and the Liquor Control Advisory Council will be replaced with new committees that have stronger representation from community advocates and people with lived experience.

At the end of the day the VRGF essentially contracts service providers to deliver services, and these services will now be contracted by other agencies. The VRGF staff will be transferred across to the new agencies. We are pleased to see that the current level of funding will be maintained, with additional funding to deliver suicide prevention training to gambling helpline staff and financial counsellors. There will also be a review of the delivery of these programs by the Department of Health. Stakeholders, including the Alliance for Gambling Reform, broadly support these reforms and believe that they will lead to better service delivery through the health sector. Stakeholders were, however, concerned at the government’s delay in rolling out its 2023 reforms. Whilst we have received an assurance that the legislation to enable this will be introduced in this session of Parliament, there does not appear to be any great urgency on the government’s part to get on with it. Please, get on with it.

The biggest concern is the state’s continued reliance on gambling revenue. The projected revenue in this year’s budget from poker machines alone is expected to be $1.4 billion. We know this revenue comes at the expense of those who can least afford it, and we also know that the social costs, the emotional and psychological costs, the impacts on relationships and the loss of productivity are estimated at $7 billion a year. I have spoken about this conflict of interest before. It is hard to determine how serious the government is about protecting vulnerable Victorians from gambling harm when it continues to be so dependent on the revenue generated from gambling. The government has said that the recommendations of the VAGO report will be actioned by the government agencies taking on the VRGF’s functions. We would like to see a timeline for these recommendations to be actioned.

I do hope we will see more ambition from this government and more care for those Victorians who are at the severe end of gambling harm, including implementing mandatory precommitment limits on poker machines in pubs and clubs around the state. These are the types of reforms that will have an actual impact on gambling harms and also might start to see the government deal with its own gambling addiction. Legalise Cannabis will be supporting the bill, including the amendments proposed by the Greens.

Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (11:34): I commend the government for changing the dialogue from the joke that is ‘responsible gambling’ over to gambling harm. Let us be clear: all gambling is harmful, whether it be harm to the person’s own finances and mental health or from the alcoholism that often comes with it; harm to their family, who have to bear the burden of it; or the harm and death caused to animals that are routinely bet on in this state. In fact there is a strong, proven correlation between gambling and family violence. On that note, for those who are not aware, Ms Payne and I recently posed quite explicitly for a calendar which is available for purchase to raise funds, and that calendar highlights the days on which gambling harm increases and family violence increases as well. It is good to see that the government is acting in line with its promise to address violence against women by calling gambling what it is: harmful. What I take concern with is that this bill claims to be having an integrated response to gambling harm, and yet it has divvied up the responsibilities and roles across three departments, hoping they will act in harmony for every individual. What I envision is a whole lot of handballing between departments, excessive delays and an inability to help heal those suffering from gambling.

We know from the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee’s 2023 inquiry on gambling and liquor regulation that the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation was fraught with ambiguity, having no measure for its own impact, and concerningly was not using its research to inform its treatment services. These are not insignificant misgivings. This has contributed to the level of gambling remaining consistent for the decade the foundation has run, and the Liberals are right in questioning the significant conflicts of interest with the government – who raised $3.5 billion from gambling tax in 2022–23, accounting for 7.6 per cent of its revenue that year – now overseeing the minimisation of gambling harm. The two cannot coexist. There can be no genuine effort made in the reduction of gambling when the government profits from its very existence.

This transferral of power into government departments seems to be a running theme for the government, with their Sustainable Forests (Timber) Repeal Bill 2024 also before us transferring the rights and responsibilities directly and solely into its own hands. What this bill should have created is an independent body, one filled not with members of Parliament from any party but with experts in the field who are trained and specialise in responding to the financial, mental health and relationship impacts of gambling for individuals.

We cannot keep churning out TV ads for Sportsbet, horseracing and greyhound racing encouraging people to place bets followed by a short ‘Gamble responsibly’. This oxymoron is disgusting, and it is irresponsible. It reveals the intention to maintain the gambling industry and increase profits. Not one of us can genuinely believe anyone has been deterred by this 1-second caveat. If we want to minimise gambling harm, we must start at the source of gambling. We must address the extortionate industry and the sheer volume of its presence towering over us in this state. It is not enough to treat the symptoms of gambling harm after that harm has occurred; we must stop it at its source.

I myself am not concerned with the legacies of the Labor or Liberal parties. I care about the Victorians and the animals who are also on the other side of these bets. Horseracing and greyhound racing would simply not exist but for their surviving off the exploitation of gambling harm, profiting off the destruction of people’s livelihoods and, while they are at it, the horrific abuse of animals. Twenty-one greyhounds have already been killed on Victorian racetracks this year, not to mention the thousands of puppies killed off the track who do not meet the racing expectations of breeders. A further 1327 greyhounds have been injured on the track, and this is only the information the industry is willing to disclose itself. It does not account for the hundreds dying from malnutrition, abuse and injuries off the track. One in every 38 horses raced last year in jumps racing also died – all dead, all for the profits of the gambling industry. It is an unacceptable price to pay.

What must come with this bill is a strong reform package, as the government has alluded to. This state needs practical measures with real impacts on minimising gambling harm by eliminating access to gambling the way that it currently is. As quoted by the 2023 inquiry on gambling and liquor regulation, the role of racing authorities in the regulation of Victorian bookmakers is no longer fit for purpose due to regulatory overlap across licensing, monitoring and enforcement activity and the conflicts of interest in its regulatory function when it is their own bookmakers that they chose to license who offer the wagering services to other betting rings. This inquiry recommended that all Victorian licensing, monitoring and enforcement of bookmaking be transferred to the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission. Currently the granting, enforcement and monitoring of licences is in the hands of Racing Victoria, Harness Racing Victoria and Greyhound Racing Victoria. All those directly profiting from gambling are the ones deciding if anyone has breached our gambling laws. It is entirely inappropriate and nonsensical. The inquiry also recommended that the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission review the bookmaker licences awarded by these bodies against the harm minimisation assessment tool. By implementing these reforms we would have real independence and true transparency in licensing and have control over the outrageous gambling rates of the state. If the government truly wants to minimise gambling harm, I hope to see these further changes in its reform package.

Nothing good comes from animal abuse, nothing good comes from gambling, and it is even worse when the two are tied together. While I will be supporting this bill today, we still have so much more work to do.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (23): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, David Limbrick, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Noes (13): Melina Bath, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Motion agreed to.

Read second time.

Committed.

Committee

Clause 1 (11:49)

Evan MULHOLLAND: Minister, was there any review, audit or analysis undertaken of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation’s (VRGF) performance before the decision was made to abolish it?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: The VRGF has been subject to independent scrutiny in the form of a Victorian Auditor-General’s Office audit, and this decision to proceed with this bill is supported by advocates and service providers, including the Alliance for Gambling Reform. That VAGO audit was obviously critical in (1) going down this path and (2) achieving that support.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I note that VAGO reports are very often critical of government departments, including many that we have seen recently, but we do not exactly go around abolishing government departments. Again, what was the reason for abolishing the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: All VAGO reports are given the due consideration that is appropriate that they be given, and that was the case in this instance as well. Absolutely there was consideration of the best way to deliver the functions contracted by the VRGF, and that includes things like Gambler’s Help, research and campaigns. Extensive consultation was undertaken, and the new model of service delivery is based on that extensive consultation.

Evan MULHOLLAND: The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation’s funding will now go to three different agencies: the Department of Health, the Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS) and the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC). But the budget allocation only goes to the Department of Justice and Community Safety. How will the funding reach other agencies?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It is certainly envisaged that the way in which the functions will be spread across the three departments will improve service delivery, absolutely. The new model will have research sitting with DJCS but subject to oversight of an independent departmental committee, which includes the Department of Health and the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing as well as the regulator. This will in turn improve the ability of departments with a stake in gambling harm to have input into the agenda. There will be oversight. The Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation will be responsible for the whole of the portfolio. There will also be an interdepartmental committee chaired by DJCS, which will include DH, DFFH and VGCCC reporting to the minister. Whilst it will be across three departments and funding might be in specific places, there will be that collective holistic oversight.

Evan MULHOLLAND: So the functions will be in some departments, but the funding will be kept with the Department of Justice and Community Safety.

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: My advice, Mr Mulholland, is that the minister responsible can allocate funds to the other departments as well.

Evan MULHOLLAND: With respect to the funding of research, will the minister have any decision-making power as to which research is funded?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: As I said previously, Mr Mulholland, in my earlier more fulsome answer to your specific question, the new model will have the research sit with DJCS, subject to the oversight of an interdepartmental committee, which includes those other departments as well as the regulator. It improves the ability of the departments with a stake in gambling harm to have input into that research agenda. The Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation will be responsible for the whole of the portfolio, and there is that interdepartmental committee.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Will the Department of Justice and Community Safety be required to publicly release all taxpayer-funded gambling research?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: My advice, Mr Mulholland, is that all research will be published.

Katherine COPSEY: I want to ask the minister: lived experience input is obviously vital in terms of addressing the harm caused by gambling; how will the input of those with lived experience of gambling harm continue to be guaranteed to inform policy given the bill’s impacts on the advisory committees?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Yes, of course lived experience is critical in this, as it is in so many areas of reform. In terms of the consultation that has happened and ongoing consultation, groups like the Alliance for Gambling Reform, Anglicare Victoria, Arabic Welfare Incorporated, the Australian Vietnamese Women’s Association, Banyule Community Health, Star Health, Child and Family Services Ballarat – and my list here goes on. For the benefit of the house I will not read out the whole list, but there has been extensive consultation to date, which has included a number of organisations which obviously include lived experience within the views that they put forward. That remains an ongoing important part of any social reform, including this.

Katherine COPSEY: If I could just go a little further on that – specifically given the ministerial advisory committee is ceasing, what mechanisms will there be in the future for those voices to have direct impact and input to policymaking?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: It should also be noted that the Responsible Gambling Ministerial Advisory Council as well as the Liquor Control Advisory Council are in the process of being replaced with new committees that have stronger representation from community advocates, including the likes of those I mentioned previously and including people with lived experience. As I indicated, substantial work is already underway in this space. On gambling policy specifically, the Department of Justice and Community Safety has stood up a community advisory group that meets bimonthly. This group includes academics and people with lived experience that were not previously involved in the RGMAC. So there will be those further avenues in which people with lived experience can contribute.

Katherine COPSEY: On the issue of funding, does the implementation of this bill represent a funding cut to gambling harm reduction efforts?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: I would say at the outset that the government is investing more in Gambler’s Help services, research and campaigns over the next four years than any previous Victorian government. It is not intended to reduce the commitment that we do have as a government to ensuring that we provide support, including investment for Gambler’s Help services. That is certainly not the intention here.

Katherine COPSEY: One specific concern that has been raised through the course of debate is that the VRGF obviously secured, I believe, four-year rolling funding agreements, and so some of the concerns that have been raised during debate are that now there will be an annual process instead to determine departmental budgets and so on. What certainty can you offer the chamber that the government will continue to invest at the level that was previously provided to the VRGF – or indeed higher?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: There is a four-year funding arrangement in this budget. It is $165 million, and as I said, it is more than any government has previously budgeted.

Katherine COPSEY: Minister, on the topic of research that will be commissioned under the new arrangements, how will the independence of research and the selection of research topics being undertaken independently be ensured under the new model?

Lizzie BLANDTHORN: Obviously the research is a critical aspect of the work that is being undertaken here. As I indicated, the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation will be responsible for the whole of the portfolio that includes that new model and for the research sitting with DJCS but subject to the oversight of the independent committee. This also improves the ability of departments with a stake in gambling harm to have an input into the research agenda. And there will be that interdepartmental committee as well, including DJCS, including DH and including DFFH and the VGCCC, which will also report to the minister.

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.