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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I've referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission my concern that individuals in the federal government, when formulating gambling policy, have been improperly influenced by individuals in the private sector. Clearly, donations, gifts, hospitality and personal relations have resulted in a gambling policy diametrically opposed to research, public opinion and the public interest. Do you agree this constitutes corruption? Do you understand how the donations et cetera have compromised your government and its judgement?

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

I will hear from the Leader of the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) | Link to this | Hansard source

Ordinarily, the reflections contained in a question like that can only be done by direct motion, not through a question.

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

I'm going to rule out the reflection at the end of the question, as previous Speakers have done before on that kind of topic. The Prime Minister can deal with parts of that question—just not the reflection at the end.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) | Link to this | Hansard source

():  I note that the member for Clark stated in his own letter that there's been no allegation of wrongdoing against any individual. I also note that the member for Clark is very genuine in his commitment and his longstanding position on these issues, so he deserves to be taken seriously. What we need to do in a debate like this, that can be emotional, is make sure that we get the policy right—and our government is determined to get the policy right.

We have exchanged views across the parliament, including with crossbenchers, including with the opposition, and we will get it right. We will get it right to make sure that we actually address an issue, which is problem gambling. I've said before—and some have been critical of it, but I stand by my view—that there is nothing wrong with someone having a punt on a Saturday in the pub. What there is something wrong with is if people are addicted to any form of activity. You could put drinking—the difference between having a beer and being addicted to alcohol has consequences. That is the issue of a range of other areas.

The member refers to the NACC. I note at this point that the National Anti-Corruption Commission was promised for a long period of time. It took the election of my government to deliver one. We established it. When it comes to political donations, of course, they're a matter for the party and the organisation in accordance with the relevant laws. And, of course, anyone is entitled to make a referral, but I would say to the member, with respect: have a consideration of the debate based upon substance rather than motives. I know, from the exchanges I've had with members of the opposition and with members of the crossbench, people come to these issues with a genuine perspective, and we have genuine differences, as well, on some of these issues. But to question people's motives is, I think, undermining the civil debate that is required on these issues.

We'll continue to promote the legislation that is before the parliament today. It hasn't been influenced. Certainly, my position has not been influenced in the way that is suggested, I'm sure, of all of the members on this side. I don't suggest members on any side of this debate have been influenced other than by how we deal with an issue that is complex. It isn't simple. Overwhelmingly, as the member full well knows and as was experienced in the last parliament, the major issue of addiction and problem gambling is poker machines, which are not dealt with by this jurisdiction but are dealt with by state and territory governments. So we will have a debate on our legislation. Constructive discussions are continuing. I expect there will be amendments to the legislation that I hope receive the support of the entire parliament.