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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3656 ..

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

MR QUINLAN (4.25): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move amendment No 1 circulated in my name.

Leave granted.

MR QUINLAN: I move:

Mr Speaker, I move this particular amendment in order to bring the figures that Mr Humphries so eloquently described earlier into a more accurate frame. The club industry has produced its own summary. They previously had consultants, ACIL Consulting, come forward and measure the overhead costs of operating poker machines. The figure, according to the ACIL report, which I have not heard disputed in any logical or analytical fashion, puts the taxation as a portion of gross gaming machine revenue at about 23 per cent and the overheads at around about 25 per cent. So it would seem that if we want to measure what clubs do contribute, and what proportion they contribute, it is only fair and reasonable that at least the overheads associated with operating the poker machines, including the direct costs of emptying, of change giving and of depreciation on machines, are taken into account in a logical manner. It would seem that 25 per cent is a much more reasonable figure.

I might add that, overall, clubs virtually make whatever profits they do make out of poker machines anyway, and in fact run quite a number of other activities, all of which contribute to their overheads as well. So even if we move this figure to 25 per cent, which is a closer measure of poker machines, we are still not taking into account some of the loss - making activities of clubs which go in the package. Clubs do not get people in to play poker machines and make this sort of level of revenue, and pay the level of tax that they pay, simply by just installing poker machines in a big room. They do have reasonably appointed premises, which I mentioned earlier today, which people on moderate incomes enjoy, and some of those people will play poker machines and contribute to the revenue of the club.

I think if the government is interested in the facts, as Mr Humphries has stated, then a fair measure of the overhead to be charged against gross revenue to calculate net revenue and to calculate the level of contribution the clubs make ought to be set at a figure that at least has been measured in some structured and analytical fashion as opposed to just arbitrarily set. I do stand by what I said: that the 15 per cent, which I think was used in previous years and used before the Gambling and Racing Commission was formed, and therefore has just been a carryover, does skew the report. That is not meant in any way, as Mr Humphries tried to imply, for the sake of attracting some support for this bill, that that was some sort of personal assault on John Broome.

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