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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2696 ..

system works very well. It works far better than it does in New South Wales, where there is prescription. Whilst I understand where Ms Dundas is coming from, she probably is not aware of the history of the matter and the fact that, after a lot of effort, this system has been worked out and is going very well indeed. Accordingly, we are not able to support the amendments.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8.00 pm.

MS DUNDAS (8.01): I was just going to make the point, in response to the things that Mr Quinlan and Mr Stefaniak were saying, that I do not in any way think that clubs should not exist and I do recognise the good work that they do for the community in a whole range of areas. However, what these specific amendments refer to is money that is being put through poker machines, money that somebody picks up, sticks into a machine, into a slot and plays with.

Mr Quinlan: Bad person.

MS DUNDAS: I am not indicating that either, Mr Treasurer. The point I am trying to make is: why is that money more appropriate for a football or basketball team than for a social welfare organisation? We are not talking about the key constitution of the clubs. Poker machines are not part of the key constitutions of clubs. The key, the reason they are established, is to do all the diverse things that you have spoken about this evening, not to run poker machines.

The fact that they run poker machines means they are able to support their members and the community at large, and all I am asking for is that we specifically recognise that in relation to social and charitable organisations. I do not think this will see clubs going under, as Mr Quinlan put it. I see it as a mere extension of the support that they already give to the community. I do think some further questions have to be answered if clubs are relying solely on poker machines to survive. I commend these amendments to the Assembly.

Amendments negatived.

MS DUNDAS (8.03): I move amendment No 17 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2756].

This amendment goes to the issue of which types of community contributions can be counted. Clause 163 of the bill discusses the types of contributions that are acceptable to be counted as such and those that are not. However, when you read the current section 163 (2), the example to the section states that a capital payment may be claimed proportionally over a number of years. At the same time, section 163B (6) explicitly includes depreciation as a type of notional provision that can be claimed as a community contribution.

I read this to say that, effectively, a licensee can claim both a capital payment and the depreciation on that capital payment as a community contribution. This is clearly double counting, as a licensee can count the capital payment, say, for building a new football field, and then depreciate the asset and count the depreciation again as a community contribution. The Gambling and Racing Commission specifically wanted to prevent

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