Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

WILKIE () (): I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes that the Minister for Communications has responsibility for the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 and other relevant matters;

(2) further notes that the Minister for Communications has received gifts and donations from the online gambling industry while Minister, and previously when Labor spokesperson on online gambling;

(3) calls on the Minister to return to this place immediately and explain why she thinks her behaviour is acceptable and why she shouldn't resign as Minister, if that is her position; and

(4) calls on the Prime Minister to intervene if the Minister refuses to stand down by enforcing the ministerial code of conduct and sacking her.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Clark from moving the following motion immediately—

That the House:

(1) notes that the Minister for Communications has responsibility for the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 and other relevant matters;

(2) further notes that the Minister for Communications has received gifts and donations from the online gambling industry while Minister, and previously when Labor spokesperson on online gambling;

(3) calls on the Minister to return to this place immediately and explain why she thinks her behaviour is acceptable and why she shouldn't resign as Minister, if that is her position; and

(4) calls on the Prime Minister to intervene if the Minister refuses to stand down by enforcing the ministerial code of conduct and sacking her.

There is an urgent need to deal with this matter, not just because of the seriousness of the matter but also because the minister is right now involved in consideration and work to do with the online gambling industry and online gambling companies. She can't sit in her office a moment longer, doing her work and making decisions about companies like Sportsbet, when we learned today that, in the lead-up to the last federal election, she received a gift of almost $9,000 from Sportsbet and, days before last year's federal election, she received a cash donation of $10,000 from Sportsbet. We cannot let the minister stay in her office one moment longer, making decisions about companies like Sportsbet, when we have these revelations, thanks to the Sydney Morning Herald this morning.

Today's revelations are just the tip of the iceberg. When we look at the Register of Members' Interests for the interests of the Minister for Communications, we see a pattern of behaviour which, altogether, well and truly shows that she has poor judgement, has conflicts of interest and should not spend a moment longer as the Minister for Communications. For example, while she was the Labor spokesperson on communications, intimately involved in policy development about online gambling companies, she took tickets and hospitality from Tabcorp to go to the 2020 Everest event at Randwick Racecourse for herself and a guest. On another occasion, she enjoyed tickets and hospitality from Tabcorp for the 2019 Golden Eagle for herself and a guest. On another occasion, she enjoyed tickets and hospitality from Tabcorp to attend the 2020 Star Casino Hamilton Melbourne Cup. On another occasion, she received tickets and hospitality from Tabcorp for herself and four others to go to the Randwick races. She has enjoyed tickets and hospitality from the Star to attend Hamilton.

Since becoming minister—these are much more serious matters—she has enjoyed tickets and hospitality for herself and four other guests from Tabcorp at the 2022 Melbourne Cup Carnival race day at Royal Randwick Racecourse. She has enjoyed tickets and hospitality for herself and four guests to go to the Australia versus UK rugby game as guests of Tabcorp. I could go on, but I think I've made the point. I've made the point, I hope, as clear as it needs to be made that the minister is completely and utterly conflicted. Even if she weren't so patently conflicted, she clearly has made such grievous errors of judgement that, surely, she's not fit to sit on the front bench as a minister in this government.

It is so important that the minister come in here now and explain herself. Until she explains herself and perhaps successfully persuades us that all is not as it seems, we cannot have confidence in her as minister. We can't have her stay in her office a moment longer, making decisions about Tabcorp and the other gambling companies, when this cloud hangs over her. Surely, if the government is fair dinkum and the Prime Minister is fair dinkum about restoring integrity to this place—and I believe the Prime Minister is fair dinkum about restoring integrity in this place—then he will act decisively. He will act to dismiss the Minister for Communications from her portfolio if she doesn't have the good sense and, quite frankly, the honour to come in here and resign herself. And what about this code of conduct? Is that meant to mean anything? If the government does not act on that code of conduct—if the Prime Minister does not act on that code of conduct—when there has been such a serious breach of the code of conduct, then that code of conduct is worthless, completely and utterly worthless.

In closing, can I just make a more general observation about the approach of all of us to the gambling industry. How on earth can anyone think it's okay, time and time again, to take donations and gifts from companies that prey on some of the most vulnerable people in our community? We talk about tobacco companies. In New South Wales they talk about property developers. How about we ban gifts from gambling companies, because at the end of the day they prey on the most vulnerable members of our community.

How on earth the Minister for Communications thought she was acting with integrity to take $10,000 from a gambling company, Sportsbet, days before last year's election is unfathomable. It is absolutely unfathomable that anyone could be so naive about how that looks and how it really is.

I'll wrap it up there and hopefully leave some time for some of my colleagues to contribute to this suspension motion. I'm sure they will agree with me that there's an urgent need to act on this matter. There's an urgent need for the Minister for Communications to explain herself and to step down. There's an urgent need to get her out of her office and to prevent her from continuing to make decisions about companies like Sportsbet, Tabcorp and all of the others that she has a legal responsibility to oversee and to regulate—companies that have directly funded her lifestyle and directly funded her electioneering.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

DANIEL () (): I second the member for Clark's motion. I'd like to make the point that this is not in any way an effort to humiliate the minister or to create a witch-hunt. In my mind, this is about ethics, transparency and integrity.

There are credible reports in the press that the minister received the donations that the member for Clark has referenced. The minister was asked about this by me in question time today. The minister did not answer the question. My aspiration is to get an answer to that question for this House and also for those in our communities who are incredibly concerned about problem gambling, about online gambling and about gambling advertising. Indeed, I would say that this is one of the most hot-button issues that I discuss. Whenever I raise it I am avalanched with people saying, 'Yes, we must do something about this.'

In that context, with an inquiry on foot, it seems, at the very least, appropriate that we receive a proper explanation from the minister about these donations. Indeed, the opacity around the donations and the fact that the minister didn't have to declare them—we found out about them because of a declaration from the company that gave them, which was Sportsbet—says a lot about the system of donation transparency.

The concern, to state the obvious, is that these kinds of donations can have a potential influence on decision-making. That can be very subtle. When a member is attending the kinds of events over time that the member for Clark referenced, that can lead to personal relationships and a slippage of the kinds of ethics and integrity that I'm talking about. Is this okay? Are we okay with members of this place receiving these kinds of donations from companies who prey on the most poor and vulnerable in our community and, not only them, our young people?

I have a deep concern, and so do many members of my community, about the normalisation of gambling among our teenagers through online gambling, particularly through Sportsbet's broadcast advertising. These are the kinds of things that the inquiry is looking at. This is the kind of policy that the minister is going to have to make decisions on. Therefore, we need to get to the root of these donations and get an explanation from the minister. The minister needs to take this seriously. The minister needs to explain this not just to this House but to the Australian people.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to 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.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have enormous respect for the Leader of the House. I would like to quote clause 3.21 from the ministerial code of conduct:

Ministers must not seek or accept any kind of benefit or other valuable consideration either for themselves or for others in connection with performing or not performing any element of their official duties as a Minister.

I think it's really important here when we look at conflict of interest—and that's what we're talking about here: conflict of interest, whether it is perceived or real. I, as a member of the crossbench, believe this to be real. How can it be acceptable for the minister who is responsible for online gambling to be responsible on one hand—and, yes, I'm sure the minister has in her plans duties to strengthen anti-gambling measures—and then on the other hand accept tickets and hospitality on multiple occasions, including twice already during this short-term of parliament? I would urge the Leader of the House to reflect on clauses 3.21 and 3.22 of the ministerial code of conduct. That is where we have concern.

I commend the member for Clark for his work in raising this in the House. We want to see a parliament that is transparent and open. We want the Australian community to have confidence in us. Perhaps there is a desensitisation here, but it's incredibly important the minister has a separation between hospitality from gambling companies and her role as minister. I believe that clauses 3.21 and 3.22 have been breached in this regard, and it is a matter of urgency that the minister comes down to this chamber and explains herself.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Leader of the House said, the government will not be supporting this motion for the reasons he outlined. There's no demonstrated breach of any of the obligations we have as members of parliament, as candidates for election to the parliament or as ministers—the AEC disclosures, the disclosures in the register of interest and ministerial disclosure.

There are a number of issues that I suspect lie behind this. The Leader of the House has reflected and recognised the commitment to action against problem gambling that a number of the members of the House have—perhaps most notably demonstrated by the career of the member for Clark, but so many members of the House have a background in action against problem gambling. We can have debates about that, as is happening right now in the New South Wales election.

What also lies behind this is that a number of members, particularly on the crossbench, were elected on a strong agenda of transparency. Again, though, this is something the Labor Party has been arguing for for many years, going back to the Howard government. We have been arguing for strong reforms to AEC disclosure—unsuccessfully, I have to say, unfortunately—for lower thresholds for disclosure of donations and for real-time disclosure of donations. These are agendas that we as the Labor Party have been arguing for for many years. No person in this House has the sole responsibility for arguing for transparency. We've been doing this, and the Special Minister of State continues to say we will remain true to the commitments we have been making for years to improve transparency and disclosure of donations through the Electoral Commission legislation and the operations of the Electoral Commission.

We've also been making that very clear in the statement of ministerial obligations. The Prime Minister has made clear from the day of our election as a new government that he intends to lead a government that has much stronger standards around ministerial disclosure than, frankly, has been demonstrated over the past nine years. Our ministers have been true to those standards and I don't think there's anything in the arguments that've been made in this short debate that indicate that the Minister for Communications has done otherwise.

It is very clear: as the Leader of the House has said, she has not taken a backward step. It might not be the full action that the member for Clark and others on the crossbench would like around issues to do with gambling, and online gambling in particular, but she has not taken a backward step in this area.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for debate has concluded. The question is that the motion be disagreed to.