Page 3318 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This has been the touchstone of all the arguments that have been put forward by the Labor Party—and even accepted broadly in the community, in relation to community-based gaming—from the first days of the Poker Machine Control Ordinance 1975, which specified the payment of community contributions. This was the trade-off that the community has made. There are many in our community who have concerns about the negative effects of problem gambling; I think we all share that concern. There are, unfortunately, problem gamblers in our community. Many of them are addicted to poker machines; many of them lose a lot of money—sometimes everything they have—on poker machines.
The argument behind having the model that we have is this. Let us face it: it is certainly better than that of some of the other jurisdictions; some jurisdictions have terrible models on gaming. But it is far from perfect. The idea behind the community’s support is that the profits from the poker machines, with all the potential detriment that comes, are invested back in the community. We see it in our sporting groups; we see it with our charities; we see it with our community organisations. That has been the acceptance of the community. This potential sale undermines that.
Mr Quinlan backed up this. He said:
Our position and our platform position are fairly clear, and that really swings on the fact that the government believes poker machines and the proceeds of poker machine operations should remain within the not-for-profit sector.
Mr Stanhope said:
Those amongst our community that make the decisions—
to run the clubs—
do it because of their commitment to the community.
This motion notes:
… that the intent of the original grants and subsequent legislation was to ensure that profits from poker machines stay in the community …
We see it reflected in the gaming act; we see it reflected in the requirement to make community contributions. They are not designed to be private casinos; they are not designed for the purposes of massive windfall profits which are then not invested back in the club and in the community. We see it in relation to the potential windfall profit. Fundamentally, no matter how you sell it, it is about the sale of the poker machines.
I think the community has an understanding. It is not just that members of clubs have a role, that members actually own these clubs. In reality, it is only some members who own the clubs, but members who pay their $5 and put their money in the poker machines or buy a beer at the bar feel that they have some ownership of these clubs. They do not believe that they should be able to be sold—that the poker machines themselves should effectively be able to be sold to make a massive profit for one organisation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .