Thursday, 20 June 2024
Bills
Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Repeal and Advisory Councils Bill 2024
Bills
Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Repeal and Advisory Councils Bill 2024
Council’s amendments
The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham) (16:05): I have received a message from the Legislative Council agreeing to the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Repeal and Advisory Councils Bill 2024 with amendment.
Ordered that amendment be taken into consideration immediately.
Message from Council relating to following amendment considered:
Insert the following New Clause to follow Clause 17 –
‘17A New section 44A inserted
Before section 45 of the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission Act 2011 insert –
“44A Review of repeal of Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Act 2011
(1) The Minister must cause a review of the repeal of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Act 2011 to be commenced within one year after the second anniversary of the repeal of that Act.
(2) The review must consider and report on –
(a) the efficiency, effectiveness, appropriateness and co-ordination of functions related to gambling harm across the Commission, the Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Department of Health; and
(b) the methods used to identify gambling-related matters to research, the independence of that research and the value of any gambling-related research that is conducted or commissioned by the Commission, the Department of Justice and Community Safety or the Department of Health; and
(c) whether the Auditor-General’s recommendations to prevent and protect the community from gambling harm have been fully implemented; and
(d) the availability, delivery and quality of gambling harm treatment services and gambling harm public education programs.
(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be laid before each House of the Parliament not later than 2 years after the second anniversary of the repeal of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Act 2011.”.’.
That this amendment be agreed to.
Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (16:06): I just want to say a couple of things about this bill wrapping up and the amendment that has been moved in the other place. I will probably not take the full 30 minutes, I think, at this stage. We are disappointed on this side that the upper house, particularly the crossbenchers, have supported this legislation. As indicated last time in here, we do not believe the government has made a case for the abolition of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation (VRGF), nor more particularly that its new model will actually deliver the services that are required for people who experience gambling harm. So it is disappointing that the Greens in particular have changed their position from voting against it in this chamber to supporting it in the other chamber. In the context, though, of that, the amendment that has been moved by the Greens and passed by the other place with respect to establishing a review of the new arrangements after two years and no less than three years we do think is worth supporting because of the fact that we do not actually believe that this will do the job that is required.
I might say the Greens in the other place indicated that they had come to a deal with the government, come to an arrangement on a number of issues that are completely irrelevant or certainly not related to the actual bill in question. That is a concern, particularly as it relates to other reforms that the government has proposed but has not yet actually delivered, with respect in particular to mandatory precommitment. The member in the other place indicated that the government had agreed to a $50 default limit for precommitment for mandatory carded play but that that can be changed, so I really do not understand what benefit that has delivered for people with potential gambling issues. Likewise there is a vague reference to some sort of reform of the community benefit scheme, which I do not disagree with. I think it actually does need to be looked at, but it is not clear to any of us what that will entail. Thirdly, I understand there was some discussion about gambling advertising, to which I certainly say, ‘Hear, hear,’ that we reform gambling advertising. But it seems to be that the minister is going to write to her federal colleague. That is the deal that has been done. So I do not think the Greens have actually got anything out of this in changing their position from what it was in this place.
We remain disappointed that the VRGF has been abolished. As I said, I do not think the government’s proposals will actually deliver what they intend to do, because they are sending gambling harm, research and management of gambling harm in three different directions and it will actually become fractured and siloed, which I think is not good. Nonetheless in that circumstance a review in two years as proposed by this amendment the Liberals and Nationals are happy to support.
Luba GRIGOROVITCH (Kororoit) (16:10): We understand and hear exactly what you are saying. We are very pleased to support the amendment that has been put forward, and we are pleased that it has gone through in the other place. I must say that the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, obviously, in its 12 years has done a tremendous amount of work, and we on this side of the house absolutely do not want to delete any of that work that has been done. It was headed up by Tass Mousaferiadis, who was a fantastic chair and is a really wonderful man. I have had many conversations with him, as I know the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation has also. There has been a lot that has come out of the VRGF that we should all be proud of, and it really is a wealth of knowledge and a body that has an understanding of harm minimisation and trying to do good for the community. We know well and truly that the foundation’s functions and related activities that were to be delivered will now come under this new model and will be fine going forward.
We are really strongly advocating on this side of the house that harm minimisation around gambling is of the utmost importance. I know as the member for Kororoit that we have the largest amount of poker machines in any LGA in the state, and it is just simply not okay that people are losing their money to gambling. It is a huge, huge thing in our community, and we want to make sure that harm minimisation continues. We want to support people who need the support, and we believe that this is the best way forward. Again I want to thank very much the house for the bipartisanship that has been shown, and I commend the bill to the house.
Sam HIBBINS (Prahran) (16:11): The Greens did have concerns, as did many members, in regard to the bill, which abolishes the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, particularly given the good work that they have been doing, and we also had broader concerns about harm minimisation when it comes to gambling and thought there were certainly many areas of improvement that the government could implement. That is why we were really pleased to get the default loss limit of $50 implemented and also to have the government have a really good look at the community benefit scheme, much of which seems not to have been used necessarily for community benefit.
Specifically, the amendment, which was put up by Greens MP Kat Copsey and passed by the upper house, requires a review of the repeal of the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation and requires a number of specific areas for investigation. Some of those areas were actually raised in the debate across the two chambers. In short, the review will be looking at making sure that the replacement agencies are performing the vital functions and ensuring that the research remains independent and of value. The Auditor-General did make a number of recommendations to protect the community from gambling harm, and these include recommendations that would have improved the work of the foundation. We really want to make sure that the review sees that those recommendations are still acquitted through those agencies that are now performing those functions, and we are also ensuring that harm treatment services and education programs are adequate.
Regardless of members’ positions on the bill overall, we have designed this amendment to address a number of concerns raised in the debate, and we hope it gets the support of the chamber.
Motion agreed to.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): A message will now be sent to the Legislative Council informing them of the house’s decision.