Page 3479 - Week 11 - Thursday, 15 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
opportunity to implement any of the commission’s recommendations regarding community contributions. This is not surprising since many of the clubs in question are also generous contributors to our two major political parties, and that is an issue that I will get to in a minute. But it is disappointing that such self-interest, both on the part of the clubs and on the part of Labor and the Liberals, has been allowed to triumph over the legitimate concerns of social welfare and community groups.
The previous Assembly’s failure to implement more stringent rules, as recommended by the Gambling and Racing Commission, has directly created the current situation where spending on charitable and not-for-profit organisations makes up less than a quarter of all contributions, and the clubs and sporting organisations scratch each other’s backs to great mutual financial advantage. While all this is going on, community organisations like Lifeline who do a sterling job of dealing job of dealing with the darker—
Mr Barr: What else would you expect the Ainslie football club to do?
DR FOSKEY: Read the report, Mr Barr. Those organisations that do a sterling job in dealing with the darker face of gambling are struggling to find funding for their increasingly demanded services. I met with Lifeline ACT’s director, Marie Bennett, to discuss the challenges facing her organisation and was shocked at what she had to say. For example, she told me that the only increases in government funding for problem gambling programs since 1992 reflect CPI rises. In other words, successive governments have neglected these programs for over 15 years. Not surprisingly, Lifeline and organisations like it rely heavily on the support they receive from the community, particularly from clubs.
The clubcare program was set up by Clubs ACT, ACTTAB and Lifeline to provide them with a reasonably secure source of funding for their gambling programs. But Mrs Bennett indicated that the amount of money given is decreasing year by year and is now nearly half of what it was when the program was first set up. Because of these funding shortages Lifeline has had to shed staff and resources, including making redundant clubcare’s program coordinator and closing its Pearce office. Such cuts significantly impact upon Lifeline’s ability to help the people who come to them, which means that more ACT families are struggling alone to deal with the gambling problems of their loved ones. I should say that Lifeline does not turn anyone away, but they do not have the resources to give them the attention they deserve.
I am putting all of this on the record because I believe that something has to change in our management of gambling, the profits it produces and how the money is spent. I understand that the government is reluctant to address this issue, relying as it does on the significant revenue produced by gaming. I also believe that the opposition is just as unwilling to act given the value of the club donations which find their way into party coffers. On this note, I would just like to point out—
Mr Stefaniak: No. I will explain our position shortly.
DR FOSKEY: Listen, Mr Stefaniak. Although clubs are required to list all contributions made to political parties as part of their reporting to the ACT Gaming and Racing Commission, the figures in the 2005-06 report were not initially accurate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .