Andrew McLachlan (SA, Liberal Party) | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Scarr. The legislation, in my view, does very little, virtually nothing, to respond to the substantial findings of the Murphy review. I just really question what the point of a bipartisan review is when you can't respond to very significant and heartfelt recommendations from that committee.

I don't see anything in the bill that really diminishes the rivers of gold that the corporates are earning, or sufficient restraints on their abilities to prey on the most vulnerable, particularly our children. I've listened to the charities who have to respond to the carnage caused by addiction. It's their voices we should be acting on, not those that are making the money.

I've listened to arguments at the second reading made by some coalition members that there could be unintended consequences that are similar to tobacco regulation. I don't find them persuasive. We're not banning gambling; we are debating how it can be promoted. We are debating the nature of the promotion of gambling and that the behaviours of many of the companies can be rightly described as predatory and underpinning addiction.

This bill will pass today. The numbers are clear. I think when we come to the review in three years we'll find that organisations like Anglicare will tell us nothing has changed, if not become worse. I hold Anglicare in the highest regard and have volunteered for them. I think that they will be saying to us, as they do now, that the regime that underpins gambling advocacy and promotion is founded on quicksand, moral quicksand, and I can't bring myself to vote for these bills in good conscience.