David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you to Senator Hanson-Young for ceding the floor to the Liberal Democrats in this debate on gambling. I don't really gamble. The money I'd waste on gambling is no more than the cost of an occasional Lotto ticket. Gambling is not something I find entertaining or worthwhile, but that doesn't mean that I look down on those who consider gambling to be entertaining and worthwhile. Each to their own.

Unfortunately, some people think that whatever they do others should do, and whatever they reject others should reject. Such people seem not to have learned what most babies learn in their first months: that they are different from other people. These people want to ban gambling or severely restrict it, not because they feel empathy for others. They want to do this because they cannot come to terms with other people having a view different from their own.

People with this mindset—and it really is a mind set in clay—don't just apply it to gambling. They apply it to their views on soft drinks, alcohol, smoking and drug taking. They apply it to their views about the shooting community, about supporters of the traditional definition of marriage and about men who flirt with women. They don't like it, and they think that no-one else should be allowed to like it either. This is an infantile mindset, and it is the mindset of an authoritarian.

My party, the Liberal Democrats, is based on libertarian values. We share the view of John Stuart Mill:

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

It is not the purpose of the government to restrict everyone from going about their business in a hopeful attempt to protect a small number of people from harming themselves and their families. We regularly hear of the small numbers of people who gamble unwisely, and figures are tossed around claiming to show how much this problem gambling costs, but we never hear of how the majority of gamblers are not problem gamblers. And no-one ever bothers to estimate the benefits generated from gambling, including the value of the pleasure to those who enjoy it.

Focusing restrictions on problem gamblers while letting the majority of gamblers do what they want is the caring position. It is the grown-up position, and it is the position of those who believe in freedom rather than authoritarianism. But, for the alternative view, let's resume normal programming in the Senate as I cede the floor back to my esteemed colleagues in the Greens.