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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 5179 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The majority of funding for the ACT branch of the Australian Democrats came from the Australian Democrats' national office, a total of just over $80,000. It is interesting to note that, of the funding that went to the national office of the Australian Democrats, there was the equivalent of $72,900 from organisations directly or indirectly associated with gambling and licensed club activity. The Australian Casino Association donated $25,000, and Ms Dundas tried to pass this off as just 10 people attending a function. Yes, 10 people attending a function at $2,500 a head, Mr Speaker. It must have been a good meal or there must have been wonderful company.

Mr Speaker, donors included the Federal Group, $7,500; Fosters, $25,000; the Australian Hotels Association, $11,000; TabCorp, just over $2,000; and Publishing and Broadcasting, that well-known company of social benefit run by Kerry Packer, just over $2,000. The total of those figures comes to $72,000, just $8,000 short of the $80,000 the ACT Democrats received from their national office. I raise this figure simply to reiterate the point. The point is, as Mr Quinlan said, the argument here is how pregnant are you compared to us? It is an absurd argument. It is an argument which is without foundation when it comes to arguing for the worth of this piece of proposed legislation.

Ms Dundas also made the point that, if these donors had made all these donations, then clearly it was not working, clearly they were not buying any influence, because the Democrats locally were pushing hard against poker machines and the evils of poker machines. If that is Ms Dundas's argument, you could say the same thing about this government, which is prepared to put in place and support a total ban on smoking in licensed pubs and clubs.

I went down to the local annual conference of the Licensed Clubs Association a couple of weeks ago and I had to answer a range of questions on why the government was implementing, and had supported, this ban. I had to face quite a bit of flack from licensed club operators about those measures. If Ms Dundas's argument says that the donations are all right as long as they are not buying influence, I ask her to look at the smoking decision. I ask her to look at whether she thinks licensed clubs are buying influence because the Labor Party has chosen to support a complete ban on smoking in licensed clubs and pubs. Again, Ms Dundas's argument simply does not hold any water.

It is worth noting some facts about poker machines and gambling in the ACT that have become part of the broader debate. First of all, it is worth noting that the ACT government is not reliant on gaming machine revenue. Our gambling taxes as a percentage of total taxation revenue are the second lowest in the country at 7.1 per cent. Only Western Australia's figure is lower. This is not a government or a jurisdiction hooked on gaming machine revenue and those figures, from the Productivity Commission I think, Mr Quinlan, highlight that fact.

Second, the code of practice which the ACT government worked hard with licensed clubs and pubs to introduce has been lauded by the Brotherhood of St Laurence-not a well-known pro-gambling organisation-as the best code of practice in the world when it comes to trying to control problem gambling in licensed pubs and clubs. The government has what we believe is a reasonable and balanced record when it comes to dealing with gambling issues.

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