Page 3478 - Week 11 - Thursday, 15 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I acknowledge that funding directed towards sport and recreation is good for the community in that it encourages healthy bodies and communities and minimises government expenditure in this field. But we cannot forget that this money comes from pokies, a sometimes destructive force in our community. So while a dollar is being spent on sport by a club as part of a community contribution, it is likely that there is a problem gambler out there putting in much more than a dollar impacting not only on their life but also on the lives of people close to them.
According to Lifeline, one in eight gamblers in the ACT is a problem gambler and problem gamblers account for 30 per cent of the revenue from pokies. So of the $12.8 million in 2006-07 that was provided to community contributions, about $3.84 million came from problem gambling. Meanwhile, the money that goes to Lifeline through Clubs ACT for problem gambling is as low as $200,000 or $300,000 a year. Compare that: $3.84 million profit comes from problem gambling and $200,000 to $300,000 goes back to help those gamblers.
I know that the Treasurer is trying to address funding for problem gambling in the Gaming Machine Amendment Bill No 2, which I do not plan to reflect on today because it will be debated next week. I am pleased that the minister has recognised that there is a problem in that not enough money is going towards problem gambling, and I note that he is using a carrot rather than a stick in his approach to the clubs.
While I appreciate the intention to encourage greater contributions to welfare bodies, I wonder if it will cause significant change, as without a mandated requirement for a percentage donation towards problem gambling services it may well be that clubs get greater benefit for directing their funds towards sport rather than problem gambling. The absence of a mandated community contribution towards problem gambling caused some fear amongst not-for-profit and social welfare groups when the generalised seven per cent community contribution requirement was first introduced. So concerned were they that several groups, including Lifeline, Care Inc, the Salvation Army and the Australian Family Association made submissions to the ACT Gaming and Racing Commission calling for more specific rules on how the seven per cent would be allocated.
The commission conducted its own review of the Gaming Machine Act 1987 in 2001-02. This involved the publication of two draft policy papers, which were submitted to clubs and community groups for comment. Among a host of other recommendations, the first draft paper recommended that “the act should require all licensees to direct a minimum percentage of their community contributions towards charitable and social welfare purposes”. It recommended that this figure be set at five per cent of the total community contributions.
Predictably, clubs and various sporting groups objected to this requirement. So strong was the reaction that in its second draft the commission revised the figure to two per cent of the compulsory contributions. That figure was submitted to the government along with dozens of other recommendations in October 2002. Unfortunately, cabinet ignored this recommendation.
The Gaming Machine Act was again before this house in 2004 and rightly amended to remove ATMs from the vicinity of poker machines, but the Assembly did not take this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .