Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

The government won't be supporting the resolution that's in front of us. I have enormous respect for both the mover and the seconder and understand their long-term commitment, both of them, for the whole time they've been here—and one of them, the member for Clark, has been here for a long time—to issues concerning problem gambling. In fact, one of the first things we heard about the member for Clark before the seat was renamed, after he'd been elected, was about acting on problem gambling. So, I have the deepest respect for the members.

But I have to say, I think the conclusions that have been drawn in the speeches so far completely fail the test. I really do. And let me explain why. When you say that the minister has breached the Code of Conduct without quoting from the Code of Conduct, that's a bit of a giveaway. The minister was asked on the floor of the parliament and has already answered that every single requirement under the code that a minister has to abide by with respect to disclosure has been met, that every single requirement under the code that a minister is obliged to follow has been met. All donations that the minister receives are compliant with the disclosure requirements of the AEC, are compliant with the disclosure requirements of the Register of Members' Interests and are compliant with the disclosure requirements of the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Just as I have deep respect for the mover and the seconder here, let me say without a doubt that the Minister for Communications is a person of extraordinary ability and impeccable integrity. I have known the minister for many, many years. But also the test to the argument that's being put to the House is: how has the minister behaved with respect to problem gambling since becoming the minister? In every action the level of protection that the government is providing in terms of delivering stronger harm minimisation is something that is being led by the minister.

So, the government is committed to reducing harms from online gambling. And who is the person leading that debate within the government? The Minister for Communications. The government strongly supports the implementation of the National Self-Exclusion Register. Who's the person leading that charge on the Self-Exclusion Register within the government? The Minister for Communications. We are committed to getting it done, and the Minister for Communications is the person driving that, making sure that we get that done. BetStop will allow consumers to exclude themselves from licensed phone and internet wagering. It's a critically important reform. It's something that I suspect the different donors who have just been referred to are not mad keen on. But the minister, as a person of integrity, driving an agenda within the Albanese Labor government, has not altered the principles that she holds one bit—not one bit. Nor is there any argument from the movers and the seconder of this resolution that she in fact has.

The minister is also delivering reforms to reduce harm. The Minister for Communications has given her department clear and specific direction, which emphasises that the principle underpinning each stream of work must be about minimising harm. These sorts of principles are exactly the sorts of principles that I heard in speeches when the member for Clark first came into this parliament in 2010. And no-one has heard the Minister for Communications say anything different. For the allegation to be put, that simply because all disclosures had been met with—the fact that nothing was hidden, the fact that everything's been made public and the fact that she has pursued an agenda that has only taken policies of the Australian government further on harm minimisation—makes the case as to why this resolution should not be supported.

The Minister for Communications is committed to guaranteeing that online gambling takes place under a robust legislative framework with strong consumer protections, including through the continued implementation of the national framework. For every issue that's been raised in the speeches, people have said, 'But the minister is responsible for this issue.' Yes, and she's doing more on harm minimisation. Then we hear, 'The Minister for Communications is responsible on another aspect of issues affecting gaming and gambling and problem gambling.' Yes, and what policies has she taken? In every sense, the policies that were the policies of the government of Australia before the last election have only been strengthened under the Minister for Communications.

In terms of wanting to put this sort of resolution, which is an extraordinary resolution—normally we get to this point with some sort of a case having been built against someone, but the case is the exact opposite. If we had a minister who had been hiding information—and we've had a few debates like that over the years—that would be one argument. And yet we have no argument whatsoever that there is anyone who has fallen short on the disclosure requirements. We have no argument from anyone that a syllable of the code has been breached. We have no argument from anyone that there has been a moment in time when the Minister for Communications has made life easier for the gaming companies. If you can't make a case that the minister has behaved improperly in either the obligations that you have as a member or as a minister, and the only actions the minister has taken are the opposite of what the donors might have wanted, how on earth do we get to the point where we have a resolution like this before the parliament?

There were many occasions over the last nine years when this question would come to me: 'Are we ready to move a resolution against this particular minister?' There were lots of times when we got there, but it was never a situation where they had kept every obligation under the code. It was never a situation where they had pursued the exact sorts of policies we wanted them to pursue. So to now be in a situation where someone of impeccable integrity and extraordinary ability is being subjected to a resolution like this, I simply have to say to the members who have moved and seconded this, for whom I continue to have the deepest respect, I do not see how this passes the tests that we have applied in this parliament for such a long time. I just don't see it.

I respect absolutely that the members who have spoken so far and, I suspect, the members who will speak subsequently are members who are deeply passionate about the parliament wanting to do more on problem gambling. That is a right and proper thing for a member of parliament to want to pursue here in this place. I have no doubt about the integrity of the members who have spoken already and who will continue to speak in this debate, and about how they will take every opportunity to continue to pursue that cause to get a better deal for a whole lot of genuinely vulnerable people who are hurt by gambling.

But this is an attack on minister where we can't actually find that they've done anything wrong, where we can't actually find any part of the code that the minister has breached, where we can't actually find any time when the donations that are being referred to actually had an impact on behaviour, where we can't find a single moment in time when a single disclosure that is obliged to occur failed to occur. Why on earth are we having this debate at all? By all means, move a suspension about problem gambling. Move a suspension putting pressure on the government and the opposition to do more on that issue. I get all of that. But this particular attack on the Minister for Communications fails none of the tests of merit that the crossbench traditionally would be decent adjudicators of. I respect absolutely the calls that have caused people to want to shine a light on problem gambling. But the Minister for Communications is a person who deserves better than this resolution.

See this speech in context