Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia—Manager of Australian Greens Business in the Senate) (12:02): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026. While there are many schedules in this bill, and I won't speak to all of them—I have colleagues like Senator Allman-Payne who have moved some amendments in relation to other schedules—I'm particularly interested in the impact this bill will have on the gambling industry, specifically under schedule 4.
I will move amendments to this bill, because, as it is currently written, tax incentives will still be allowed for activities relating to harm minimisation for gambling and tobacco. Let me be plain about what that means; it means that taxpayers' money, public funds, will be able to be accessed by the gambling industry under the R&D system, if they can dress it up as part of harm minimisation—really?
I'll tell you what would be the best thing to reduce harm in the gambling industry—to stop them being able to advertise and push this dangerous product down the throats of young people and those with gambling addiction. That's what you do to minimise harm; you get rid of the advertising. You do what the experts have said.
You don't turn around and say, 'Oh, here, gambling industry, here's some taxpayer funded money so you can look like you're reducing harm.' People will be shocked that this is in here. That's why I will move these amendments, to ensure that the gambling industry and the tobacco industry cannot access these R&D provisions under the bill. Let's be clear, both the gambling industry and the tobacco industry profit from harm.
That's the whole point of them. Their products are harmful and they make money off that. Why on earth would we be allowing them to continue to dress up their activities under harm minimisation and get incentives from the taxpayer?
Harm minimisation research should be funded by the bloody industries, not by the taxpayer. That's why I argue, strongly, that the government here should accept this amendment. Otherwise, it exposes your total response to the gambling industry and the tobacco industry if you continue to allow it to be in there.
Are you serious about tackling the harms of gambling or not? While I was preparing for the debate on this bill today, I thought I'd have a look at some of the other amendments to this piece of legislation that have been circulated in the chamber today. What did I find?
I found an amendment that has been circulated by the One Nation party that goes in the opposite direction. They want this parliament and this chamber to open the floodgates to the gambling and tobacco industries. They want them to access public money and support incentives for R&D projects for gambling and tobacco.
That's One Nation. One Nation are in here today—quietly, sneakily—doing the bidding, the dirty work, of the gambling and the tobacco industries. I tell you what, Paul Hogan was right.
Pauline Hanson is a pelican! Except that might be a bit offensive to Mr Percival. One Nation come in here and purport to care about everyday people in this country, to care about what's going on in Australian households and in families.
Well, we have heard over and over and over again of the harm and suffering that happens within Australian families and households because of the gambling industry. We know our health system continues to be placed under pressure due to the harm that the tobacco industry has on regular Australians, young and old. One Nation don't care about the wellbeing, the safety, of Australians.
They are in here today doing the bidding of the gambling industry and the tobacco industry, and they think taxpayers should fund it. On the one hand, One Nation carry on about how they want government out of people's lives but, on the other hand, they want you, as the taxpayer, to fund research and development for the gambling and tobacco industries. Who really calls the shots?
It's not Australian families; it's the dodgy gambling and tobacco companies, it's Gina Rinehart, it's the billionaires. Is there anyone who can't buy their way into One Nation? If they've got enough money, if they've got enough dodginess to go about it, it seems Pauline Hanson and One Nation are prepared to do the dirty bidding of anyone if they're willing to pay.
Anyway, that amendment should go down in a screaming heap. This chamber should vote it down unequivocally and send One Nation packing. One Nation should also be forced to explain to the Australian people why they come in here and use their time in the chamber doing the bidding of the gambling industry and big tobacco.
Why do they genuinely believe that the Australian taxpayer should be funding the research and development of these industries that harm Australian families, that cause chaos in our health system, that strip money out of the pockets of households struggling under the cost-of-living pressures? It says everything that One Nation is more interested in spending taxpayer money on helping the gambling industry and big tobacco than it is in helping families.
Let's remember Senator Pauline Hanson stood at the Press Club two weeks ago and said that Australians shouldn't be getting publicly funded child care. Child care is not good, according to Pauline Hanson—and Australians don't deserve paid parental leave either, but the tobacco industry and the gambling industry should be able to have a free for all on our taxpayer funds.
Talk about absolute hypocrisy! We know who calls the shots for Pauline Hanson's One Nation party—or Pauline Hanson's 'Hate Nation' party as it tends to be. It's the tobacco industry.
It's the gambling industry. It's the billionaires. Oh, and she also wants to hand over parts of the Australian countryside to Elon Musk.
She wants to flog Australia off to Elon Musk. The list goes on and on. But, on this particular amendment, we should throw it out, throw it in the bin, and force this party to be honest about who's really running its agenda.
They're not doing it for Australian families. They certainly are not. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) Australians lost $31.5 billion to gambling in 2022-23, the highest per capita losses globally, (ii) smoking kills more than 24,000 Australians every year, or more than 66 Australians every day, and (iii) the gambling and tobacco industries have never worked in the interest of Australians' wellbeing and have no genuine interest in harm minimisation given their business models are profiting off putting vulnerable Australians in harm's way; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) completely exclude the gambling and tobacco industries entirely from the research and development tax incentive, and (ii) listen to community calls and protect vulnerable Australians from gambling harms by implementing all recommendations from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report 'You win some, you lose more'(known as the Murphy report), which was tabled three years ago".
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, I will just point out that, whilst I do not believe you are in breach of 193(3), I think comparing other senators to animals is likely to get us all into trouble. Senator Hanson-Young: To clarify that point, it was Paul Hogan who compared Pauline Hanson to a pelican. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It doesn't matter who did it, Senator Hanson-Young.
The fact is you said it in the chamber. I'm not asking you to withdraw it. However, in the future I think senators should avoid comparing other senators to animals.
I do not think that is parliamentary.