Wednesday, 13 May 2026

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:31): I move, on behalf on Mrs McArthur:

That this house:

(1)   notes that:

(a) on 6 May 2026, the Treasurer announced a 40-year extension of Victoria’s exclusive public lottery licence to Tattersall’s Sweeps Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of the Lottery Corporation, to 30 June 2068;

(b) The Lottery Corporation described the contract award process as ‘exclusive, bilateral negotiations’;

(c) by contrast, the previous licence was awarded for 10 years, after a 20-month open process;

(d) the arrangement involves a $1.145 billion upfront premium;

(2)   in accordance with standing order 10.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council, within three weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, the following documents held by the Department of Justice and Community Safety, the Department of Treasury and Finance and the Department of Premier and Cabinet, and relevant ministerial offices, from 1 January 2024 to 6 May 2026:

(a) all briefs, submissions and advice concerning exclusive or bilateral negotiations rather than a registration-of-interest process, tender, or other open market process;

(b) all valuation advice or financial modelling concerning the 40-year licence extension and $1.145 billion premium;

(c) all records of meetings, in person or otherwise, including diary entries, agendas, file notes, minutes, electronic communications including SMS and encrypted messaging applications, and any other correspondence between the government and the Lottery Corporation and related entities concerning the arrangement;

(d) all advice, reports, assessments or recommendations provided by the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission; and

(e) the executed public lottery licence agreement, including side letters or ancillary agreements.

Everyone is aware that a budget operating surplus is not the same thing as a cash surplus and that effectively it is just an accounting conjuring trick to create a budget surplus using the operating budget. We also know that, in effect, whilst the state’s financial position continues to deteriorate significantly as we rapidly head towards $200 billion in debt, there is no genuine plan for how we arrest that slide into debt. There is no genuine plan to arrest the accumulation of interest liability that we have. In fact the fastest growing line item in the budget is interest payable. It is rising at a rate faster than state revenue; that is clearly an unsustainable situation. The ability then to present to the public, as if we are making progress, an operating surplus is obviously a fudge, and it is a fudge of a particularly misleading kind. The community’s worst suspicions about that fudge come when you look into the elements by which the surplus was actually achieved. The extension of the lottery licence for no less than 40 years is one such fudge.

Let us examine it a little bit. It says it is to accrue $1.4 billion in revenue to achieve the budget surplus, but the net present value of that money over 40 years would be substantially less than that. So while the community are looking for solutions – they would like to see lower tax burdens upon businesses and residents and homes and people’s incomes – the only way they can be achieved is if we actually manage our finances better. But as we slide further and further into debt, the government’s only plan for this is either to go further into debt itself to fund these things or to tax us deeper, and that is clearly unsustainable. You cannot tax your way to prosperity, and you cannot borrow your way out of debt. Everybody knows that.

What we would like to see is we would like to get some clarity around this extension of the public lottery licence to Tattersalls. We would like to understand what public tender took place. Was this genuinely true value for it? It is very hard to do that if there was not an open marketplace in which it could be considered. The previous licence was awarded for 10 years. That is pretty appropriate, and that was after a 20-month open process. So if this was done with probity, if this was done with proper due process, there would surely have been clear market consultation and a clear invitation to others to perhaps tender a better deal for Victoria. None of that seems to have occurred.

In accordance with the standing orders, we would like to see the Leader of the Government table in the Council, within three weeks of this motion being agreed to, the following documents held by the Department of Justice and Community Safety, the Department of Treasury and Finance, the Department of Premier and Cabinet and the relevant ministerial offices from 1 January 2024 to 6 May 2026: all briefs, submissions and advice concerning exclusive or bilateral negotiations and –

Ryan Batchelor: You’re doing well. You’ve got 1½ minutes to go.

Richard WELCH: Thank you – all valuation advice and financial modelling concerning the 40-year licence extension and the $1.145 billion premium; all records of meetings in person or otherwise, including diary entries, agendas, file notes, minutes and communications; all advice, reports, assessments or recommendations provided by the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission; and the executed lottery lease agreement, including side letters or ancillary agreements.

We also note – in the last minute I have got – that although this was all done behind closed doors, it was also done in conjunction with a major Labor Party donor, so all the more reason for probity and for public confidence in the process that it should be open and transparent. But it is a yet another deal done by the government behind closed doors where the public do not get to see the terms and conditions, where we do not get to understand whether it represents true value for money for the Victorian people and where we do not get to see that in a context where the state is heading to $200 billion of debt, where we pay more on interest alone than we pay for police, ambulance and kindergartens combined, with a billion dollars left over. In that sort of environment we are entitled to clarity, and these documents would at least bring a modicum of that clarity.

 Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:37): I am pleased to rise on this motion. I will acknowledge that there were a few rather large, gaping holes in the arguments that Mr Welch was making. However, I will at least give him some credit that once again we have seen the continual train wreck that is the Victorian Liberal Party, and the broken tyre of the car bouncing down the steps of Parliament and down Bourke Street as a result. Mrs McArthur did not bother to turn up to read in her notice of motion and did not apparently think it serious enough to warrant her presence in the chamber, so I will at least acknowledge Mr Welch for jumping in enthusiastically. Perhaps he can be forgiven for not being entirely across the detail because he was led astray and left asunder by the recalcitrant Mrs McArthur. I am not sure where you were, Bev, but it is good to see you here in the chamber now at the very least.

We have had a lot of conjecture from members opposite, and once again the defeat-seeking missile that is the Victorian Liberal Party in search of a problem when there are perfectly sensible, straightforward answers that have already been provided. The Department of Justice and Community Safety and the Department of Treasury and Finance undertook the comprehensive assessment of the public lotteries market as part of this process, as is their due process. That included the market sounding of potential interest in the next licence from domestic and international participants and their ability to deliver lotteries. It was also overseen – as I am pretty sure the Treasurer outlined yesterday in question time – by an independent probity adviser and the independent review panel which was appointed under the Gambling Regulation Act 2003.

It does align with practice in other states. The 40-year deal is the same number of years that we have seen in both New South Wales and South Australia, while in Queensland their current deal is a 65-year deal. I would point out for the benefit of members trying to draw comparisons to other states though, that the Victorian lotteries contract does not in fact and has never involved the sell-off or the sale of assets. Unlike in some other jurisdictions where there was a state-run lottery system at some point or another, Victoria has not had that since the 1950s when the first Tattersalls licence was established – I believe in 1954. Any comparison would need to be mindful and cognisant of that.

I would also acknowledge and point out that this deal does provide for more certainty and surety for the many, many hundreds of small business operators who do rely on this contract as well, indeed, with a 10-year retail licence extension – most other states only provide five-year certainty; we in Victoria provide 10. And of course we do retain the 79.4 per cent lottery tax as well, which funds many essential services.

But there are two points in particular that Mr Welch touched on which actually ignore the basis of what we are talking about here. Trying to claim that this is in any way related to the Labor government’s successful delivery of the operating surplus completely disregards the facts. It actually flies in the face of Australian accounting standards, specifically accounting standard AASB 15, which provides that the revenue gained from this contract is not taken into the budget as some one-off hit right now. For the purposes of counting towards a surplus this is actually recognised each year over the 40 years of this contract, so that figure is diluted then by 40. But it also starts when the contract starts, which is in 2028–29. So to say that one-fortieth of an amount that is not even going to start until 2028 is being used by Labor as a creative trick to achieve the operating surplus in 2026 is, quite frankly, laughable and ridiculous on the face of it. What it does do, however, is provide that amelioration towards our net debt from later this year, meaning that we can obtain the net debt benefit. However, in terms of the claims of Liberal Party members – and we have seen social media videos as well – once again they are not bothering to engage with the facts, but just go out and run with something without recognising the fact that if you are going to talk about this, it is probably appropriate to get your heads around it. I will give Mr Welch leeway; of course, he was not given any warning. But as well, when you are talking about the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission it is quite remarkable indeed for the Liberal Party to be coming in here questioning the probity that they have done when they are at the same time including the VGCCC on their list of cuts announced just last week. I would love to go into this in greater detail, but I believe I am out of time.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (10:43): I rise to speak on this documents motion, which is at its heart about transparency, integrity and public trust. Parliament has a responsibility, and in fact we would say in this place it is one of our primary responsibilities, to scrutinise government decisions. And the public has a right to understand how major decisions such as the one in question are made. That is especially so given sky-high rates of gambling harm in Victoria that have persisted under this government, and decisions involving valuable public licences, long timeframes and gambling regulation.

Just last week the Treasurer announced that Victoria’s exclusive public lottery licence would be extended to Tattersall’s Sweeps, a subsidiary of the Lottery Corporation, until 30 June 2068. A licence running to 2068 is not just a routine administrative decision; it does lock in the structure of Victoria’s public lottery system for decades, and it will outlast this Parliament, this government and many future governments. The government has announced a $1.145 billion up-front premium. It is a very large sum of money. In and of itself, though, it does not prove that the public has gotten the best deal out of this arrangement. It does not explain how that figure has been calculated. It does not explain what alternatives were considered to this award, or whether an open, competitive process could have delivered better value for Victorians.

Yesterday the minister was asked in this place directly about the contradiction at the heart of the decision, where the Premier has characterised the process as full and open, while the Lottery Corporation itself has described it as exclusive bilateral negotiations. The minister’s answer did not come near to resolving that contradiction. The minister referred to market sounding, commercial advice and assessment of industry participants, as Mr Galea just has, but ultimately just said the best value was achieved through negotiation with the existing licence holder. When asked to table the relevant market testing or tender documents, the minister then relied on commercial confidentiality and legal privilege, which is exactly why this motion is needed.

The government says that this was a full and open process. It should produce the documents that show that. If the process was in fact an exclusive bilateral negotiation with the incumbent, Parliament and the public are entitled to know why that path was chosen, especially in the context of this award having happened to a large donor to the Labor Party. The documents sought by this motion go directly to those questions: advice about the negotiation process, valuation advice and modelling, records of meetings, regulatory advice and the executed licence agreement. This is not just about the money and the budget bottom line, although that is extremely relevant in the weeks we find ourselves in. This is also about gambling policy. When the state grants a monopoly gambling right for 40 years, Parliament should be able to see the evidence, the risk assessment, the regulatory advice and the public interest rationale, if that is what the government says is the reason for choosing this path. The Greens support this documents motion because transparency should not be optional. If this was the best deal available, as the government asserts, they should have no difficulty producing documents that support that.

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:46): I thank my colleague Mr Welch for moving the motion in my name. Victorians deserve to know how a 40-year monopoly lottery licence was awarded, why it was awarded behind closed doors and whether the public got full value for one of the most significant gambling licences in this state’s history. On budget day the Treasurer announced that Victoria’s exclusive public lottery licence had been handed to the Lottery Corporation (TLC) for 40 years – not 10 years, as in 2017, not after a competitive tender and not after a public registration of interest; 40 years to 2068, through what the company itself told the Australian Securities Exchange were ‘exclusive bilateral negotiations’. ‘Exclusive bilateral’ is pretty clear. It means no other parties. It means one-to-one. It means a closed-door deal without any competing bids, the largest gambling licence decision in this state since 1993 settled between the government and a single company with no public process whatsoever.

Compare that with last time: in 2015 the government published a formal registration of interest. There was a probity investigation. The Secretary of the Department of Justice and Regulation reported to the minister. The process took 20 months. This time no ROI, no competing bids, no 20-month evaluation, and the announcement came not from the Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, but from the Treasurer. Why? Because this was never about gaming regulation. It was always about plugging the black hole at the centre of Labor’s budget. Did Victorians get value for money? Well, we have not yet seen any public evidence that the government obtained an independent valuation. If it did, now is the time to produce it. If it did not, this government sold a 40-year monopoly without knowing what it was worth. What we do know is that the Lottery Corporation told the Australian Securities Exchange that the deal ‘significantly lowers the risk profile of the business’ – clearly a win in their eyes. The Premier says the matter went through an appropriate process. Very well, table the documents, show us the tender, show us the market testing. Something is wrong here because, by definition, a process cannot be both full and open, as the Premier claims, and ‘exclusive bilateral’, as Mallesons, the TLC lawyers, describe it.

Then there is the question of donations. The Lottery Corporation has donated at least $132,000 to the Australian Labor Party since 2022. A company that donated to the governing party has received a licence projected to generate more than $600 million a year in lottery duty for 40 years without a competitive tender. The minister told me yesterday in question time that the donations were completely irrelevant. I am not sure that passes the pub test. I make no allegation of corruption because I do not need to. The perception alone is enough. In 2021 the Finkelstein Royal Commission into the Casino Operator and Licence exposed catastrophic regulatory failure. In response this government established the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC), a dedicated independent regulator with a statutory mandate to oversee the licensing, supervision and control of gambling businesses.

That was barely three years ago. Yet when it came to the biggest gambling licence decision since Crown, where was the VGCCC? There is no public evidence the commission was consulted or that it conducted any investigation. It was not involved. The government has not said so. If it was not involved, then the government created an independent regulator and immediately excluded it from the decision that mattered most.

This motion seeks the documents. If the process was clean, produce them. If the valuation was fair, produce it. If the VGCCC was consulted, produce the evidence. The government says this was done with appropriate probity. Appropriate probity is just two words, and Victorians – (Time expired)

 Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:51): Twenty-five seconds is not much time to get to the point. This deal is the best lottery deal, coming in for Victorian taxpayers, that we have seen across the country. It is quite remarkable that the Liberal Party is standing up here today and criticising the government for getting a good deal for Victorian taxpayers. That is absolutely flabbergasting.

Motion agreed to.