Page 4641 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 27 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The CDF was established as a mechanism to retain revenues derived from gambling activities for local community purposes. I was interested to note, when the Leader of the Opposition was referring to the fact that this was set up as a mechanism to retain gambling revenues, that there was the odium of gambling. She said that there were some members of the community who felt that gambling was something which should not be tolerated. Therefore, as an appeasement for the introduction of poker machines, Tattslotto and various other forms of gambling into the community generally, there was, presumably, a wowserish group in this city who decided that they needed to be appeased or to be bought off on the introduction of gambling.
Mr Wood: And you are selling the casino on the same lines, are you not? You can talk over it if you like, but you have accepted that.
MR DUBY: Here is the next interesting point that I am going to raise. Mr Wood has taken the very words right out of my mouth. Where are the proposals from the Labor Opposition which has clamoured for the casino since day one? Where are the proposals for the enormous benefits to the community which they know will accrue to revenue from the casino when it is established? Where are the proposals that they should be somehow channelled or funnelled into a particular fund to, once again, promote community development? Of course, there are not any.
The simple reason is that they know perfectly well that that is a thing of the past and something that does not work.
Mr Wood: You are not even going to return it to the traditional forms, are you?
MR DUBY: You are living in the past, Mr Wood, as, of course, is most of your party. Anyway, in fact the continuing existence of the CDF results in sizeable revenues being tied to a limited range of community purposes. This prevents the Government from directing those funds to areas of community priority. What has happened over the years, of course, is that those people who were lucky enough to get onto the CDF band wagon back in 1981 and 1982 have stayed on it. Good and worthwhile organisations which now exist and require funding in this day and age, but which did not even exist in 1981-82 and had no need whatsoever for funding of any kind, cannot get their slice of the pie.
That is the difficulty that we are facing. That is what we are facing. Approval of the CDF (Repeal) Bill 1990, the Pool Betting (Amendment) Bill 1990 and the Gaming Machine (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1990 - which, of course, I should remind people we are debating cognately tonight - will provide the Government with the legislative framework to implement its decision, announced earlier this year - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .