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

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Banks be agreed to.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've already spoken twice on this bill so I don't propose to speak at length. The opposition broadly supports this bill, which makes sensible changes such that gambling using a traditional credit card, a credit card via a digital wallet or digital currency would be prohibited in the future. We think that is sensible. We note that much of this started in the inquiry led by the member for Fisher back in 2020, which made recommendations which have broadly been adopted by the government. So we broadly support this legislation but we have one amendment before the House at the moment, and this is specifically in clause 15 of the bill. In addition to the methods of paying for gambling which are prohibited by the bill, that clause also states:

(d) a method of a kind determined by the Minister by legislative instrument for the purposes of this paragraph

Basically, that means any means of exchange determined by the minister in the future could be prohibited.

We are concerned about that for a number of reasons. Firstly, something of that significance, where we are seeking to restrain Australians on how they use legal currency, is something that generally should come through the parliament. We think, as a point of principle, that's the right way for this to be done. If there is a proposal in the future to ban another form of legal exchange, it should come back to the parliament because it is a significant thing to do to affect the rights of Australians in that way.

We particularly note that this is a question of ministerial discretion, so ultimately we must consider the facts before us. Were this to come into place, the Minister for Communications would have that discretion. We're concerned about that in general but particularly concerned given that we have seen, on numerous occasions, failures of judgement by this minister—and that judgement is effectively what comes into play here through clause 15. We have seen that failure of judgement most notoriously in relation to the misinformation bill, where the government has begun the process of walking that back, of delaying the bill, of taking provisions out of the bill because it is, frankly, one of the worst pieces of legislation ever put before this parliament. That was a judgement of the minister because the minister published that legislation, and you don't publish legislation because you think it's a bad idea; you publish legislation because you think it's a good idea. That was the judgement of this minister, so we are anxious about that judgement.

We're also anxious about the judgement, as we said, as it pertains to the Mobile Black Spot Program—a tremendous program created by the coalition, that has helped thousands of Australians to access vital mobile connectivity in regional and rural areas. We saw this minister shamefully politicise this program, with some 74 per cent of sites being allocated to Labor electorates, even though Labor held only a third of seats in rural and regional Australia. It was patently wrong, and so much so that it has really captured the attention of the Auditor-General, who is now very carefully going through all of the facts and all of the information in relation to this program. He said he'll come back by May next year. He is conducting a very thorough and forensic investigation into this very sorry episode relating to the Mobile Black Spot Program. That goes to judgement as, indeed, does the minister's inexplicable decision to fail to implement the eSafety Commissioner's recommendation to implement a trial of age verification software to protect children from dangerous content online. The eSafety Commissioner wanted to do that. The pornography industry doesn't want that to happen. They welcomed the minister's decision not to proceed with that trial, but the minister has been roundly condemned by dozens of experts.

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

Order! I don't like to interrupt the shadow minister, but this is the detailed amendment stage. He is going around the world. I ask him to refer his remarks specifically to schedule 1, item 15 on page 6, line 24. I've given him some leniency, but the way this works is that we've had the debate, so return to the detailed amendments.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly. The reason that we don't want that clause in this bill is that it gives the minister unfettered discretion. We have no confidence in this minister to exercise unfettered discretion, and that's why we oppose this specific provision, whilst we do welcome the legislation overall.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Speaker may be aware, I didn't get an opportunity to speak on this bill. I will try and confine my remarks to the amendments that's being proposed by the member for Banks—a sensible amendment—but I think it's also important that I give some context, as the author of the report which led to the bill being drafted in the first place.

I want to acknowledge the government for picking up this report. I was the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services that undertook the review into this issue because, as you would be aware, you can go to the track, but you can't gamble there using your credit card. If you put your credit card into an ATM at the track, at the TAB, at an RSL or at a surf club, you cannot use your credit card. That is for very good reason. State and territory governments acknowledge that a great deal of harm can be done when people use credit facilities to gamble.

The committee heard some very concerning, alarming evidence in its inquiry. Approximately $25 billion a year is lost by Australians when they gamble. If people want to gamble with their own money, that's a matter for them, of course. But when they gamble with borrowed money, particularly using a credit card, then they're paying north of 20 per cent interest on that credit card. Once upon a time, when you gambled and lost all your money, you walked out. But now you can use a credit card and you can keep going down; you can keep sinking and you can keep getting further into debt.

I have to say that, in terms of the evidence we received, the pushback that I got from the banking sector was just unbelievable, as was the pushback from the gambling sector. Anybody would think you were dealing with big tobacco in the eighties and nineties. They did not acknowledge that this was a problem. In fact, the peak body, Responsible Wagering Australia, changed their position, with a 180-degree turn in relation to the use of credit cards for gambling, the day before they were due to give evidence before the inquiry. So at least they came to their senses, but they had to be dragged, kicking and screaming.

And the banks were worse. The banks told me there was nothing that they could do. They were very cognisant of the damage that was being done in the community, but they refused to lift a finger. I think that that is a great shame. Shame on the banks, and shame on the Banking Association for doing very, very little. I congratulate the government for picking up on this issue, because it is an important issue.

The amendment that's proposed by the member for Banks is a very sensible amendment, and I would call upon the government to consider the amendment very closely. The amendment would remove the ability for the minister to determine, by legislative instrument, the ability for a member of the public to use some other form of currency. The amendment is to remove that power. The power that's currently contained within the bill is too broad. It's an overreach, effectively, by the government. The opposition calls upon the government to remove that position. No minister should have the ability to effectively do what the government is empowering the minister to do in this instance. It's overreach. It's quite a folly, in my view.

If the government wants to do this, it should come back and do it by way of a parliamentary amendment, if and when the opportunity arises. The minister, irrespective of who's sitting in that seat, should never have the ability to just make their own decision on this. It should go through the appropriate parliamentary processes.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the amendment moved by the member for Banks in the proposal to remove paragraph 15C(4A)(d) of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023. When the honourable member has the time, he might want to read the Interactive Gambling Act and note the many other provisions in the act which give the minister discretion to do certain things that are subject to disallowance. When he has finished that, he might want to read the Telecommunications Act and see the same sorts of provisions, right across the sphere, in the communications space.

But I'm pleased that the member for Fisher has acknowledged that the government has picked up this 2021 report. It is important, because, quite frankly, people should not be betting with money that they do not have. That is the case for land based gambling and it should be the case with gambling online.

Section 15C(4A) of the bill lists the methods of payment that wagering providers would be prohibited from accepting under section 15C of the Interactive Gambling Act. These are credit cards; credit related products, like digital wallets; and digital currencies, such as cryptocurrency, and the provision that will be removed, through the member's amendment, a method determined by the minister by legislative instrument.

Subsection 15C(4A)(d) of the bill would provide the responsible minister with the power to nominate additional payment methods for prohibition, via disallowable instrument. So the notion that this is unfettered is completely wrong. It's a disallowable instrument that is subject to scrutiny. This provision is to make sure that this legislation is able to be responsive to future developments in credit card payment technologies and prevent them from being used to circumvent the bill. This is about closing those loopholes to prevent future harm.

Importantly, the department undertook targeted consultation on the bill in August, with banking and payment system and wagering and harm reduction stakeholders, as well as Commonwealth, state and territory officials. Stakeholders unanimously supported the bill. I want to be clear that no objections were raised in relation to the proposed minister's power under paragraph 15C(4A)(d).

As I said, the future legislative instrument will receive the normal disallowance scrutiny process to enable the parliament to have oversight of any new payment methods that would be proscribed. The government, along with stakeholders, recognises the importance of this power, in light of the rapidly changing payment, credit and wagering environment. The drafting of the legislative instrument is, as I said, also consistent with various other provisions in the Interactive Gambling Act. These provide the minister with discretionary power to determine certain conditions through legislative instrument, such as section 8A(4), excluded wagering services; section 9A(1), designated country; and section 10A, what is or is not a sporting event.

On 14 September, the Senate referred the bill to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October. The committee's report did not raise any issues in respect of the paragraph raised by the member. In submissions to the inquiry, stakeholders—including Financial Counselling Australia, the Australian Gambling Research Centre, the Australian Institute of Family Studies and the Uniting Church of Australia Synod of Victoria and Tasmania—specifically mentioned their support for the provisions.

So I thank the member for bringing these amendments forward. We will not be supporting them.

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

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Banks be agreed to.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the time being 6.31, it's after 6.30.

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

It was 6.30 when I put the question.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was after 6.30, with respect, Mr Speaker. We can check the time. It was after 6.30.

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

I'll just refer to the Clerk. We're just waiting for the live minutes to update, but in an abundance of caution, in light of it being at 6.30, I will defer the division, just to be on the safe side. In that case, we shall move to the next amendments.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (7) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 7), after "wagering", insert "or lottery".

(2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 13), after item 2, insert:

2A Section 4

Insert:

lottery service means a service covered by paragraph (c) or (d) of the definition of gambling service.

2B Subsection 8D(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), subsection (1) applies to an electronic form of:

(a) scratch lottery; or

(b) other instant lottery.

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 19), after "wagering", insert "or lottery".

(4) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 24), after "wagering", insert "or lottery".

(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 7), after "wagering", insert "or lottery".

(6) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (lines 16 and 17), omit paragraph 15C(1A)(a), substitute:

(a) intentionally provides a regulated interactive gambling service that is:

(i) a wagering service; or

(ii) a lottery service; and

(7) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraph 15C(3A)(a), substitute:

(a) provides a regulated interactive gambling service that is:

(i) a wagering service; or

(ii) a lottery service; and

These amendments seek to close a loophole that remains in this legislation. The legislation, in substance, bans the use of credit cards and cryptocurrency for online gambling, and I acknowledge this is long overdue. This bill delivers on the government's April commitment and implements recommendation 2 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. Some 80 per cent of Australians believe gambling with credit cards should be restricted or banned. That is from clear research by the Australian Banking Association. Warringah constituents want to see action taken by all levels of government to reduce gambling harm.

I am, I should note, concerned at the slow implementation of recommendations from that joint standing committee and other committees, including those in the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs' aptly named report You win some, you lose more from June 2023. Numerous recommendations came out of that, and we absolutely need a national strategy in cooperation with states and territories. We know that through COVID gambling took on a whole other dimension, and it had a significant impact on communities. We saw a huge increase in online gambling, and the government is only just catching up. So it is really important that, when we are addressing our use of credit cards in relation to gambling, we do so in relation to all forms of gambling, including lotteries, which may lead to addicts engaging with unsecured and small creditors such as payday lenders, pawnbrokers and family members.

This bill is welcome because it prevents people from gambling money on credit—money they do not have. But it fails to close all the loopholes, thus undermining its efficacy. The use of credit cards for online lotteries should also be banned, and this is what these amendments go to. Financial Counselling Australia noted recently:

Lotteries are now operated by corporate giants with multi-million-dollar salaried executives, mega profits and online platforms. They have a slick online marketing model with tickets available 24-7. KenoGO's online lottery offers a draw every three minutes! … KenoGO is showing us the future of lotteries, where it is possible to buy a $20,000 basket or more every day of the week.

This will be able to be done on credit cards unless we close this loophole. Financial Counselling Australia went on:

This is a product that will cause some people to lose their homes and relationships.

The Alliance for Gambling Reform echo these sentiments. They also oppose the carve-out for online lotteries, and say the harm from online lottery and keno products is being understated. As outlined in their submission to the Senate committee:

On the Lott app you can easily spend $10,000 on tickets immediately, and Keno is a maximum of $1,000 every 3 minutes—

using credit cards, so it's clear these are still tools for harm. If credit cards are allowed to continue to be used in these instances online, we are still feeding a beast and we are still leading people into to great harm.

Amidst a cost-of-living crisis, allowing people to incur further debt via their credit card through online lotteries is a major problem and is frankly irresponsible. Their marketing is compelling. It's drawing people into thinking they will win big—that these will be the lucky tickets. But the odds of winning a division 1 lottery are one in 8,145,060 and the odds of winning a larger keno jackpot are one in 8,911,711, so clearly very long shots. Meanwhile, people are incurring those debts on credit cards and paying high interest rates on those debts.

Online lotteries absolutely need to be included in this bill, and I urge the government to support these amendments. I appreciate some are saying the issue is the not-for-profit sector. They rely on the sale of raffle tickets and often use of credit cards, so they are concerned this will curtail their fundraising abilities. But I would say to the minister the problem is that classifying online raffles, for example, in the same category as these big multinational lottos and kenos, with their slick marketing campaigns, is very dangerous. I ask the minister, who is here, to either support these amendments or tell this place and the Australian people what the government will do to protect our gambling addicts from excessive spending via their credit cards on online lotteries and keno products.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Warringah for the amendments. I acknowledge the member for her ongoing engagement on matters relating to harm minimisation. The member approaches this issue with the best intentions. The government will not, however, be supporting the amendments in their current form. The 2021 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services inquiry recommended banning online gambling operators from accepting credit card payments, excluding lotteries. Lotteries, including those offered by charitable organisations, are excluded from the ban, as they present a lower risk of gambling harm. In its report handed down last month the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee acknowledged concerns by stakeholders about lotteries, specifically around keno-type lotteries, and recommended:

… that the Minister for Communications undertake a review over the next 12 months into the regulation of keno-type lotteries under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001.

I assure the member I am taking forward this recommendation, and I have asked my department to investigate the regulation of keno-type lotteries. The government will consider this advice and act accordingly.

Question negatived.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

The amendments were unavailable at the time of publishing.

The amendments I'm moving today have six objectives, but the overarching purpose is to draw attention to the fact that the bill has real room for improvement. It could do so much more to address the concerns of the community. I do not object to the changes being made by the bill and will happily support it, because we need to stop credit cards being used for gambling, but the bill could have and should have gone much further and delivered more of the changes the community wants to see from this government on gambling.

My amendments will deliver some of those changes. The first is a comprehensive ban on advertising by online gambling businesses. In our daily lives we are inundated with gambling advertising, from branding on sports jerseys and signage across stadiums to constant reminders about odds during sports and news broadcasts. It's absolutely everywhere.

A comprehensive ban was one of most important recommendations of the recent House inquiry into online gambling and one that I personally believe we need to see swiftly implemented. The government and opposition have both said the status quo needs to change, but we have yet to see real action on legislative reform. There is no time to waste when real lives are being impacted.

The first step should be a total ban on online gambling and then a move to prohibiting inducements, preventing odds being reported during sports broadcasts and phasing out team sponsorships by gambling companies. Secondly, we must ban political donations by online gambling businesses. In an ideal world, businesses that engage in harmful practices would not be able to exert influence over our political process through donations or favours. We are a long way off this world, but we can take a step in that direction by prohibiting donations from gambling businesses.

The third step is to have Treasury look at how GST distribution is affected by state gambling policies and, at the very least, ensure states are not penalised for stricter gambling regulation. It is an incredibly narrow, technical issue which nonetheless shapes the incentives of state and territory governments when it comes to gambling regulation. Those governments are more reluctant to take action if the loss of gambling tax revenue is compounded by the loss of GST revenue as well. We should reform current distribution arrangements so that it's no longer a problem, and we should consider providing incentives for those governments to take sensible steps to limit harm and problem gambling within their jurisdictions.

The fourth step is to establish a federal gambling regulator. As a House inquiry has shown, online gambling is regulated at the state and territory level, but, as the activity is online, the businesses can be based wherever they please. This creates a regulatory race to the bottom, where states can offer weaker regulatory frameworks and lower tax rates to attract businesses and gambling tax revenue to their jurisdictions. We should establish a national regulator to: ensure that all businesses are subject to a robust regulatory framework that emphasises the importance of consumer protection; support those at risk of problem gambling; impose minimum standards across all operators; and ensure that gambling businesses pay an appropriate amount of tax.

The fifth step is to require the government to make a formal response to the House inquiry into online gambling. This inquiry was a substantial piece of work. It received 160 submissions from across the community, held 13 public hearings and made 31 recommendations. The final report was tabled back in June, but we are yet to receive a formal response from the minister.

The last of my amendments would prohibit gambling businesses from employing politicians or senior public servants after they leave office. There is a huge potential conflict of interest for anyone who is responsible for overseeing and regulating these businesses. These decisions can have a massive influence on the profitability of gambling businesses, and those decisions could be influenced by the prospect of a high-paying appointment. We should act today to introduce rules that prevent this behaviour and protect the integrity of our political and regulatory frameworks. My amendment would prohibit any parliamentarian or senior public servant from taking up employment with a gambling business for two years after they leave office or five years if they have had direct responsibility for gambling policy or regulation.

These are six things the government could do that would go a long way towards improving integrity and delivering on community expectations about how gambling activity should be regulated and controlled. I strongly encourage the government not to underrate the depth of feeling in the community about these matters. A huge number of people genuinely feel that the prevalence of gambling promotion is ruining their enjoyment of sport and is ruining people's lives. This is felt particularly strongly by parents, who want to watch football or cricket with their kids without the constant references to gambling odds.

I suspect the government will not be supporting these amendments, so I invite the minister to address each of these issues I have raised. I would particularly encourage her to commit to responding to the online gambling inquiry before parliament rises for the summer.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of these amendments. As I said during the last parliamentary sitting, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Credit and Other Measures) Bill 2023 in its unamended form is a small but significant step towards addressing the harms of gambling in Australia. Prohibiting the acceptance of credit cards, credit related products and digital currency as means of payment for online gambling services is necessary but not sufficient.

The amendments proposed now by the member for Wentworth go further towards addressing the reforms needed. We've been waiting six months for the government to respond to the strong recommendations in the You win some, you lose more report from the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, of which I'm a member. We need to see a consistent regulatory framework across the country. We need measures to address the pervasive advertising associated with online gambling, a coordinated public education campaign, a mechanism to monitor and develop consumer protection for interactive gambling and simulated gambling, and the banning of all political donations from gambling companies. If the government won't draft its own legislation to address these matters, then it can start by accepting these amendments.

In mid-2022, a survey showed 71 per cent of Australians supported a ban on gambling ads. All of the research is telling us that the immersive technology platforms not only mean people can gamble whenever they want 24/7 but that these interactive platforms are becoming more and more sophisticated with their targeted, invasive advertising strategies on social media and direct messaging. This is why the amendment to ban advertising by interactive gambling businesses is necessary and urgent.

These amendments also prohibit providers from making political donations. We read in the AFR today that the communications minister, who regulates gambling, was taken out to lunch for her birthday by the gambling lobbyists, after a long history of receiving hospitality and donations from gambling companies and gambling lobbyists: tickets to the races, shows at Crown casino and hosted fundraising dinners. None of these things are against the currently overly lax rules, but they're just wrong. I can't imagine that many Australians would be happy about this.

My restoring trust bill, introduced into this House in August, includes a proposed reform banning donations from any company inflicting social harm. The very broad consensus, supported by alarming data, is that gambling does a great deal of harm, not just significant financial harm but psychological and social harms as well. In 2022, gambling and alcohol companies contributed $2 million to major parties. Sportsbet donated $278,000, including a donation of $19,000 to the communications minister in the week of the election. We clearly need to remove the influence and perception of influence of gambling companies from the political arena.

These amendments would also prevent online gambling providers from employing senior government advisers. This is important. A revolving door between government and gambling companies will not fill us with confidence that the government is making decisions in the best interests of the community. It gives gambling companies inside information and increases their influence. The many people across Australia experiencing gambling harm just do not have this type of influence. Government should be looking out for them, not for the companies that inflict the harm and may employ them one day.

Another proposed amendment goes beyond the interactive gambling inquiry and requires Treasury to fix the GST problem when it comes to gambling. WA has banned pokies. We're very proud of it. This has had bipartisan support for a long time in WA. As a result, the WA government earns no revenue from pokies, and we wouldn't want to change that. We look at the other states, and we see how hard it is to get rid of pokies when you're already getting a cut of the profits. This is yet another example of how money influences decisions in this gambling space.

We need governments to be making decisions in the interests of communities, not gambling companies. I support these amendments wholeheartedly. If the government is not willing to accept them—communities across Australia will be watching very carefully, expecting to see these types of changes announced. Next week marks six months since the committee report came out. This is the period during which government is expected to respond. Time is up. We must clean up online gambling in Australia.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wentworth for bringing these amendments to the parliament. I don't doubt the member's good intentions. The fact is that this is a broad-ranging set of proposals which deal with everything from taxation to issues that fall within the ambit of the Special Minister of State and, perhaps, even beyond the Commonwealth to state rules and regulations. Whilst I do appreciate and acknowledge her right to bring this forward, I note that this is the first time that the government is seeing this and that we will not be able to support this amendment at this time.

I thank the member for Curtin for her contribution. This is a government that will be judged on its delivery when it comes to harm minimisation, and I invite the honourable member to identify which incoming government has done more in the space of harm minimisation in 18 months than the Albanese government? We have before us an important bill, to ban the use of credit cards for online gambling, to bring this in line with land based gambling. The harm of this has been known for nearly three years. It is time that this legislation was passed. It is time that we moved forward with a ban so that people cannot bet with money they do not have in the online environment. It is time to get this done. This government has picked up a report that lay dormant under the previous government and is taking it forward.

I also invite honourable members to consider the fact that it's under this government that we have implemented the final stages of the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Wagering in Australia and, most importantly, in relation to implementing the National Self-Exclusion Register. As I said, this is a government that will be judged on its delivery, and it is my signature, as minister, that is on the proclamation commencing BetStop. Let's look at what BetStop stop has done in the relatively short time since August 2023. Over 10,000 Australians have voluntarily registered themselves with BetStop. More than 80 per cent of those registered are under 40 years of age. And, so far, a third of people have registered for lifetime exclusion. The actions of this government are changing lives.

This is a multifaceted problem which had been left dormant for some 10 years under the previous government. The last time they tinkered with the advertising rules, it actually resulted in an increase in advertising in some aspects of broadcasting. We are going to get this right. We know the time and care that have been put into this report by the House of Representatives. It has 31 recommendations, which we welcome and which we're considering holistically. We're also assessing them to ensure that we get this done and that we get it done and implemented effectively.

I also note that, as a government, we have implemented the final phase of the national consumer protection framework when it comes to updating taglines. The outdated 'gamble responsibly' taglines are being replaced. We've also had, under myself as minister, changes to the classification rules. In some aspects those have, again, been left dormant for some 25 years. This will enable and update the framework to ensure that we have proper classifications for computer games or online games that contain simulated gambling or loot boxes. We know from our engagement with harm-minimisation experts, advocates and clinicians that this is a critical aspect of harm minimisation.

This government, and myself as minister, will be judged on our delivery. We understand the importance of this to the Australian people, but, most importantly, we understand that it is multifaceted—that it needs to be done carefully and implemented properly to get it right and to get results.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to ask the minister when we should expect from the government a full response to the report. I acknowledge the work that the minister has done and the government has done, but, frankly, as a crossbencher, it's not my problem or the issue of the crossbench that the previous government didn't take enough action. We have been in this parliament for 18 months, and it's only up to a three-year term. It's quite a narrow term, so it is important to understand what the minister's plans are to address some of these issues and which of those issues are going to be covered in those reviews that you will be taking forward.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can assure the honourable member that we are working through this expeditiously. There is a vast range of stakeholders who are involved here. There is also a vast range of opinion from various experts about how best to tackle this. We are working through this expeditiously. We continue to be engaged right across the sector, including with harm minimisation experts and including examining the ways in which this can be implemented. We are doing this expeditiously. I will continue to keep the member updated on our work in this area, but, as I have said publicly, the status quo is unsustainable. We are determined to get this done right, and we will get this done right as soon as possible.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I put the question. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the first opportunity the next sitting day.

Debate adjourned.