Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3652 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
So, Mr Speaker, rather than the government substituting its view about the expenditure of money, it is about the government not affecting in any way the expenditure of 95 per cent of profit, which is more like probably 98 per cent of the turnover of those clubs. We are dealing with a very small percentage, reflecting the view not just of the government, I might say, but of the whole Assembly now about the appropriateness of sharing with the rest of the community the fruits of that privilege the clubs enjoy.
Mr Speaker, it is not, I repeat, an attack on clubs. It is not an attack on working people, as was suggested. It is not an attack on members of trade unions. Also, I have to say, it is not an attack on political donations. I think the argument about the use of money by clubs for political donations and the intention of the government to somehow deprive the clubs with associations with the Labor Party from making donations to the Labor Party or affiliated organisations is just not borne out by the figures which the Gambling and Racing Commission tabled last week.
I want to draw attention to those figures. If members look at attachment 1A to the report which has been tabled by the commission one sees the amounts which have been paid under various classifications to community organisations by ACT clubs. It also provides in the last few columns on that pull - out page the percentage of their total net gaming machine revenue which is being expended on community contributions as defined by the commission.
I might at this stage step back one instant, Mr Speaker, and make it very clear that in the course of this debate we have been accused of attacking clubs and attacking working people and so on. One organisation which was clearly attacked in this debate is the Gambling and Racing Commission, and in particular its chairman, Mr Broome. I quote from a release from Mr Quinlan, dated yesterday, in which he said this:
Importantly, the Government's Report has arbitrarily excluded the bulk of the Operating Costs of the clubs so as to give a grossly overstated measure of poker machine profits (and therefore understating, proportionally, their contributions).
Of course, it is not the government's report: it is the report of the Gambling and Racing Commission. He went on to say:
The Chairman of the Racing and Gaming Commission has been talking publicly, in a very hairy - chested manner, about enforcement of proposed legislation when he should be saying absolutely nothing.
His role does not include anything more than even - handed application and administration of legislation and regulation. He has grossly overstepped his role by entering the political debate.
So let us be clear that the commission and its chairman have been attacked in this process. There is no doubt at all that that is an object of the ire of some in this debate. There is no mistaking or debating that.
I might just remind the Assembly, Mr Speaker, that Mr Broome was chosen by the government. His appointment was consulted about with the relevant Assembly committee, which I think is Mr Quinlan's committee. Mr Broome has eminent qualifications to hold down this post. Mr Broome does have political affiliations, in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .