Page 4507 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr De Domenico: It is useless. Your own letter says that disallowance is not retrospective.
MR LAMONT: What you are saying is that it is not retrospective if the race has commenced already and the distribution has occurred already. Once again, it goes back to the essential position that I put when introducing the legislation: What we are talking about, even though you cannot understand it, is ensuring that we remain linked on particular events that Tabcorp wishes to adjust their distribution on. This process will set in train an open process, as I have outlined, to allow ACTTAB to do so. None of your amendments go to any of the questions about the retention of linking or anything else.
Mr De Domenico: Yes, they do, because - - -
MR LAMONT: No, they do not.
Mr De Domenico: You just said that we can remain linked - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Order!
MR LAMONT: This is where your naivety and ignorance are to the fore. Quite clearly, Ms Szuty, none of the amendments proposed by the Opposition go to the question that is fundamental to their position. They do not believe that there should be any alteration to the distribution to the clubs; that the only way that they can be advantaged in this process is upwards; that, if there is any downward adjustment, it should be borne only out of the distribution to the ACT Government and by the profitability of ACTTAB.
It has been suggested to me, and I think quite properly, that if we are unable, in a business sense, to maintain, if you like, the relativities that we are talking about, ACTTAB would have to make a commercial decision as to whether or not it remained linked. If it said, "No; in a commercial sense, we just cannot do that, because our own operating costs are not met", then what happens? They are out of the pool. They say, "We cannot commercially accept retention in the pool". There has also been a suggestion, which I think is implied, "Maybe you can still pay, in an ACT pool, the same dividend as is paid in Victoria". That is nonsense; that is absolute nonsense.
Mr De Domenico: What about the extra money that you are getting through the betting auditorium?
MR LAMONT: Here we go! What about the extra money from the betting auditorium? That is a completely separate issue.
Mr De Domenico: But it still comes through to the TAB, Mr Lamont.
MR LAMONT: What?
Mr De Domenico: The money is still coming into the government coffers, is it not?
MR LAMONT: What?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .