2016-05-04
Motion in Parliament:—I move: That in accordance with standing order 11.01, there be tabled in the Council by 12 noon on Wednesday, 8 June 2016, a copy of the document prepared by Crown Casino for the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation in late 2015, which outlines the finding of analysis of player data, including as an indicator for punters who may have a problem with their gambling.
Problem gambling is a massive problem in Victoria. Conservatively it accounts for some $2.8 billion in losses from gaming per year. It is critical that we understand why people become problem gamblers and do more to prevent this from occurring. One way to do this is to analyse data obtained by venues via punters’ use of loyalty cards. Punters insert loyalty cards into gaming machines when playing. The cards record information including games played, bets and losses and time spent gambling. Roughly $1.8 billion is lost in total at Crown Casino each year, and that is a significant contributor to an industry that puts people at risk. This is invaluable information that would enable us to better understand gambling behaviour and identify problem gamblers, as well as identifying games, technology or specific features of games that are putting
people at higher risk of losing far more than they can afford.
Unfortunately this data is not publicly made available. It is my understanding that the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) requested that Crown Casino conduct a trial in 2014 and that this was reported to the regulator in 2015. This report contains information about player gambling habits at the casino based on the player data extracted from loyalty cards, with a specific focus on identifying problem gambling. Age journalist Jason Dowling asked for a copy of this report under a freedom of information request to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation, which was denied in March this year. The minister also said she would not release it, saying it was a matter for the regulator. The regulator denied it by arguing that the secrecy and confidentiality provisions in the act prevent the regulator from releasing the document on the casino. I would like to actually examine this claim.
Section 10.1.30(1) of the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 provides that: A regulated person— meaning a person from the VCGLR— must not, directly or indirectly, make a record of, or disclose to someone else, any protected information acquired by the person in the performance of functions under a gaming Act or gaming regulations Section 10.1.29(1) states that protected information includes: (a) information with respect to the affairs of any person; or (b) information with respect to the establishment or development of a casino;
The FOI rejection claims that the documents include protected information and also personal private information. If there is such information about specific persons in the document, the names could be redacted before providing us with the document. Considering the number of FOIs I have received recently that have had huge amounts of information redacted, I do not think it would be all that difficult to redact the names and other identifying information. We certainly have no interest in exposing the gambling habits of individuals. What we want to understand is the broad trends and the greater information about how and why problem gambling is arising. I am presuming there is nothing in the report regarding the establishment and development of the casino, so I cannot see how this could possibly apply.
The next reason provided for denial of the FOI application was that the material was obtained in confidence, which allows it to be exempt under section 35 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Again I do not see any good reason why this report should be confidential, if private, personal information is redacted—other than the fact that the Crown Casino stamped it with a big fat ‘confidential’ stamp. When examining the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation Act 2011, one sees there are few confidentiality requirements noted, other than those already discussed in relation to personal information and the establishment of the casino. In fact there are a number of sections in the VCGLR act that say quite the contrary. It states that the gambling regulator may conduct inquiries for the purpose of performing its function or duties or exercising its powers under the act, gambling regulations or liquor legislation.
Section 28 outlines that any inquiry must be done in a public capacity unless there are special circumstances why it should be done in private, none of which seem to be relevant in this case. Section 32(2)(h) also states that the regulator is empowered to investigate any matters relevant to the functions, powers or duties of the commission or the operation of gambling legislation or liquor legislation. There are no provisions requiring confidentiality in relation to the investigations. Now the question is, why did the regulator request this report from Crown Casino? Unfortunately neither the commission nor Crown Casino has been forthcoming with this content. But what is clear is that the commission’s functions are not those of a research body. It is not the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, set up to help people affected by problem gambling. One is forced to assume that the request for the trial and information was made specifically in the context of an investigation or inquiry relevant to regulation of gambling at the casino. Indeed it is likely that the commission might have been looking at regulation or approval of a specific type of gambling machine or game played at the casino. If this is the case, then such an inquiry should, according to the act, be public. At the very least, if there were an investigation, there is no obligation for the confidentiality clause. The only sense that this should be confidential comes from the casino itself, because it has stamped the document ‘confidential’.
The Freedom of Information Act is very specific as to why a document communicated in confidence might be exempt. It suggests that the disclosure of information under the act would be contrary to the public interest by reason that the disclosure would be reasonably likely to impair the ability of an agency to obtain further information in the future. So who is in charge here? Is it Crown Casino or is it the regulator? The regulator should and does have the power to request any information relevant to regulation, and Crown Casino must comply—end of story, as far as I read it—if the casino wants to continue to be approved for gambling.
There is absolutely no obligation relating to confidentiality in the VCGLR act; in fact there is a preference for public disclosure overall. Just that Crown wants information about problem gambling at its casino to be hidden does not mean that it should be. The casino has no right to withhold information from the regulator if the regulator requests it in the course of carrying out its duties. Thus there can be no exemption in this section of the FOI act that applies, as there is no threat that the casino would not comply with such a request for information in the future. It is their obligation to provide such information under the act.
So either the casino can do whatever it wants and the regulator is a rubber stamp that plays lapdog to the industry, or the regulator does what it is designed to do. This document is well within the powers of the regulator to release so long as individual private information is redacted, and the regulator should release it without concern as to whether Crown Casino has a hissy fit over this or not. At this stage, from what has occurred, it looks like the casino is in control of the regulator. If the casino says the document is confidential, then that seems to override all the regulator’s powers in the act.
We believe the minister must intervene in this situation and make an important report public and set the regulator straight on its feeble approach to regulating. Failure to do so would show a complete lack of commitment to tackling problem gambling at the casino. We already know that Crown Casino has an astonishing sweetheart deal with the government. It is time that the government stepped up and showed that it is not in complete sync with the casino. The government should intervene when necessary in the public interest, not just in the interests of the casino. We believe that this is a key test for the Andrews government. I encourage all members of this house to vote for this motion calling on the minister to release this important report into problem gambling rather than hide it.
The Motion passed succesfully.