Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1659 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

But then it goes on to make this very telling comment:

ACTTAB's small size and concentrated distribution network has enabled it to be a more flexible and reactive organisation than the larger interstate TABs.

This is seen as a plus. So we have a robust market that is running against the general trend in Australia, and yet people tell us that this is a failing organisation that we ought to flog off quickly.

The report does recommend that some changes should be made to the way the thing is structured. It says, for example, that "changing the gambling taxation structure faced by ACTTAB to that comparable with private sector models" would be beneficial. It says that equitable commercial arrangements with all of its product suppliers, that is, ACT racing and so on, would be beneficial. But we do not have to flog it off to put those changes into effect. We can keep it and still put them into effect. So, as you go through the report there is more and more that suggests that this proposal that it should be sold, and sold quickly, simply does not hold up.

The other interesting thing in the report that suggests that the recommendation is wrong and that maybe the organisation has considerable value is on page 8, where we are told:

Potential buyers do exist for ACTTAB. The seven submissions alone contained an expression of interest to purchase. Also informal confidential expressions of interest have been received from several parties.

Why are all these people expressing interest in buying the organisation if it is a bummer, if it is not making any money and it is not going anywhere? Does the Chief Minister suggest that we cannot turn it into a profit-making organisation while the private sector can? I do not buy that. It depends on the restructuring that is recommended in here that will turn it into a profitable organisation. That places the onus on the Government.

When the Government collects the full operating profit of ACTTAB instead of having to disburse it to others so that there is virtually little left to disburse, the onus is then on the Government to maintain the level of funding for the racing industry that is currently provided by ACTTAB. It becomes a budget item and the onus is on the Government to find the money rather than simply say to ACTTAB, "You will find the money no matter what, and then we will criticise you at the end of the year because you have not made an operating profit after you have distributed all this money that we have ordered you to disburse".

In fact, the Chief Minister, not so very long ago, arbitrarily and unilaterally increased the amount of money that ACTTAB had to pay the racing industry. My recollection is that it was arbitrarily and unilaterally increased by half a million dollars. If the thing is not making any profit, how come the Chief Minister decided that they could fork out an extra half a million dollars overnight and give it to the racing industry? I am not arguing that the racing industry does not make good use of it, but that is a decision of the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .