Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026, National Self-exclusion Register (Cost Recovery Levy) Amendment Bill 2026
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (17:42): At the outset, I want to refer to a book entitled The History of Gambling in England. It's from my library at home. It's from not last century, but the one before—in fact, 1898—and it's written by John Ashton.
The introductory remarks at the start of this publication probably don't sit well with my contribution to this debate, but it's interesting, nonetheless. The book says: Gaming is derived from the Saxon word Gamen, meaning joy, pleasure, sports, or gaming—and is so interpreted by Bailey, in his Dictionary of 1736; whilst Johnson gives Gamble—to play extravagantly for money, and this distinction is to be borne in mind in the perusal of this book; although the older term was in use until the invention of the later—as we see in Cotton's Compleat Gamester (1674), in which he gives the following excellent definition of the word:—"Gaming is an enchanting witchery, gotten between Idleness and Avarice: an itching disease, that makes some scratch the head, whilst others, as if they were bitten by a Tarantula, are laughing themselves to death; or, lastly, it is a paralytical distemper, which, seizing the arm, the man cannot chuse but shake his elbow.
It hath this ill property above all other Vices, that it renders a man incapable of prosecuting any serious action, and makes him always unsatisfied with his own condition; he is either lifted up to the top of mad joy with success, or plung'd to the bottom of despair by misfortune, always in extreams, always in a storm; this minute the Gamester's countenance is so serene and calm, that one would think nothing could disturb it, and the next minute, so stormy and tempestuous that it threatens destruction to itself and others; and, as he is transported with joy when he wins, so, losing, is he tost upon the billows of a high swelling passion, till he hath lost sight, both of sense and reason." Now it's not a convincing argument to have a bet.
The thing is, the more you bet probably the more you lose. We know that, but what I would hate to see in this debate would be for us, as the parliament—as those responsible lawmakers of the Commonwealth—to put in place regulations and laws that prohibit people from taking personal responsibility. That is what, perhaps, is before us.
We live in a liberal—small 'l'—democracy, and people have choices. Some make good choices and some do not. If you gamble, chances are you are going to lose.
You should never gamble more than you are prepared to lose, and you should always gamble responsibly. I noted—with caution, as I stand here now, some hours after the event—when the question was asked from the crossbench of the Prime Minister in question time today. The member for Grayndler said, to paraphrase him, 'There's nothing wrong with having a bet'—he mentioned 'at the club or the pub'—and the looks of disdain from those crossbenchers when he uttered those words, or similar words, had to be seen to be believed.
I do intend to come back in the next life as someone as perfect and pontificating and pious as the teals and the other crossbenchers, because everything they say is just dripping with sanctimony, dripping with virtue signalling. There's nothing wrong with having a bet. I appreciate that, for some, they go too far, and that causes significant hardship in their lives and the lives of those who rely on them—their families, partners, children.
It has health consequences; it does financial harm—and all the rest. I've spoken to many, many people who've been in that boat, but we cannot penalise all for the sake of a few. I'm glad that horseracing has been exempted—we haven't heard all the amendments; we don't know all about the deals that might be struck elsewhere in this place that will come before this chamber and in this debate—but we need to just be cautious, particularly with whatever regulations we bring, because they'll never be enough for the crossbench.
They will never be. The member for Kooyong talks about people who are affected by certain race meetings they might be given tickets to or lobbying or advocacy that they might have done to them to change their view or their vote on this particular legislation. I would think that members are above all that.
They really should be, and they really are. I also note that the horseracing industry, or the racing industry per se—thoroughbreds, harness racing and greyhounds—provide many, many thousands of jobs, mostly in regional Australia. Thoroughbred racing, indeed, in itself is more than 70,000 jobs, and, as I say, most of those are in regional communities.
The regional race clubs provide so much charity and so much good and so much sport and so many social aspects for our country areas that I would hate to see what would happen should they close should some of the gambling aspects around horseracing be taken away. It's important that they're not, as part of this legislation, because any reduction in horseracing revenue means a reduction in horseracing clubs and the prize money that they can offer to hardworking trainers and jockeys and others in the racing industry.
Horseracing should be, as it is, exempt in the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026. That's the first point. The other point that hasn't really been raised—I had a chat with Senator Bridget McKenzie in relation to this, and it probably is covered by this bill—is the Stawell Gift, run each Easter in Victoria.
The Stawell Gift has been run for many, many decades. It's not just about a footrace between very good athletes; it's also an avenue for gambling—and it has been ever since it started. And there's nothing wrong with that.
If we're going to clamp down on gambling, I would hate to think what would become of a nostalgic event such as the Stawell Gift if we all get too caught up in the regulation. The late Peta Murphy, who was educated at Wagga Wagga—Kooringal High School, in fact—was a very good member of parliament. I, like most others, cried the day we heard she died.
She was a wonderful Australian. She headed up a committee alongside the member for Cowper, who I also have the greatest respect for. I know that the member for Cowper, before coming to this place, was a serving officer with the New South Wales police, worked in the court system and is a strident advocate for his community.
He has seen the worst of what gambling does to families and to communities—and Peta Murphy was no different. They brought out a report with more than 30 recommendations. The government has stalled on that report.
The government has sat on its hands in relation to the recommendations and what that report presented to the parliament—and that is on Labor. Given the fact it was their late, great former member who headed up that inquiry, we would have expected better from Labor. I would say as well that we have seen, particularly in the cigarette and vaping industry—and it is an industry, let's face it—what overregulation can do.
Illegal smokes and illegal vapes is an industry in itself. Four out of five cigarettes smoked in this country are said to be illegal. They're coming in from overseas—chop-chop and the like—and that is the method of choice by those people who are conducting illegal activities.
That is bikie gangs' and other nefarious groups' method of choice as to how they do business. There have been more than 100 firebombings in Victoria alone, in just one state, dealing with the illegal smoke and vaping trade. Much of that has been caused by overregulation, because people simply can't afford to buy a packet of cigarettes and pay the legal price for it—so they go underground.
They go to these shops where the cigarettes are sold under the counter. Businesses that are next door to these premises which are either selling smokes illegally or, indeed, legally now cannot get insurance because of the risk of firebombing. In Australia in 2026, that is of great concern.
I note that this bill, the main bill, has elements in it which would see proposed bans on foreign matched lotteries and online Keno. I've spoken on a number of occasions to Ben Kearney from the Lottery and Newsagents Association. I appreciate what he has told me in relation to small businesses like those newsagents, many of which are now facing the prospect of fewer print editions of newspapers—that is, the lotteries that are on sale, the scratchies et cetera that are of Australian derivation, are in many instances their biggest form of turnover.
We don't want to see anything that's going to jeopardise newsagents' future, noting, also, that with Western Australia—and you've got to give it to Roger Cook, the Labor premier there—they have very much tried to shut down the competition over the border from the Northern Territory. We read that it's all about the foreign matched lotteries, which do account for a tiny percentage of the lottery market in Australia but they're very much promoted and sold through the Northern Territory, where there are different rules and regulations.
Premier Cooke would very much like to see that out because it then would lead to more activity and more money to be made for his state of Western Australia—short of actually stealing the National Rugby League grand final next year, which he has also attempted to do when the Pope visits. Good luck to him, but I digress. With this particular legislation, we don't know everything that is being talked about behind the scenes and the amendments that might well come forward at the 11th hour.
I know we're having a late sitting for this and I appreciate that everybody comes to this debate, apart from perhaps some of the ideas put forward by the crossbench, in a good spirit. I get that there are different views amongst the government as well as different views amongst the coalition on this. But I am very much somebody who does believe in people's, certainly adult's, right to choose.
At the same time, I very much applauded when then opposition leader, the former member for Dickson, stood during his budget-in-reply speech and said that there should be and there would be a ban on advertising on television during the football under a future coalition government, and that was to be applauded. I know there are ads at different times beforehand.
Certainly, with horse racing, once upon a time, once they jumped, you couldn't bet. I don't think that would be such a bad thing for football either during the game. I get all these exotics, I get all these different forms of gambling, but what we need to make sure is that we reach a sensible balance, and surely that is what we need in this debate.
We can't be naysayers. We can't be nanny state all the time about everything. It's proven to be something that has caused so much hardship and heartache with those who smoke.
Certainly, those who like to have a bet should be allowed to do that in a liberal democracy.