Page 5975 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
through a disallowable instrument. Any change to the rate of the levy is by disallowable instrument and this will allow the Assembly the opportunity to debate and, if considered desirable, disallow any proposed change. And there is a consequential amendment, if this amendment is successful.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (4.01): The Greens will agree to the amendment that is being put forward by Mr Barr. We are, of course, very disappointed that the amount going to problem gambling will not be as high as we had proposed, which was 0.75 per cent. But any improvement is better than nothing. Whilst it is not what we would like, we accept that at this stage it is the most that will be agreed to.
In light of the ANU prevalence study which confirmed the seriousness of the issue of problem gambling in our community, it is disappointing that other parties in this place are moving to reduce the funding allocated. We do need the scheme. So the Greens are prepared to accept this as a necessary but unfortunate compromise in order to change and significantly improve the way we allocate money to problem gambling. I am confident that we will see successful outcomes from it and the minister will see the merit in increasing the funding to it in future to tackle this issue. I do accept that this is a compromise position.
I would also make the point, though, that it will more than double the amount of money that will be going into this transparent gambling fund that will be administered by the gambling and racing commissioner, which is a great move. It will add transparency and accountability to the process. It will meet the need situation where people need to tender for the money and I think that will provide a good outcome. It will also provide money that can be spent on support services for problem gamblers, their families, others impacted and for important areas such as research.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (4.03): I will make some general comments about all the amendments, including my own. We in the Liberal Party actually believe that the rate is being set too high, because what it does, as is so typical with Greens bills and then government amendments, is actually let the government off the hook.
The government are the biggest beneficiary of poker machine profits in the territory—they got $33 million in the last year—but they contribute less than the voluntary donations of the clubs to Clubcare. And I think that is unacceptable. I would personally like to see the rate set at 0.5 per cent and, although one should not hypothecate and legislate for such things, would ask that the government then match that.
If the government are serious about addressing problem gaming and problem gambling in the ACT, they should put their money where their mouth is. They get an enormous dividend from the club sector, yet they expect the club sector to carry the burden. And that is simply not fair.
I am surprised that the Greens, who are in coalition with the government, have not been pushing for this much harder. They talk about being the balance of power and the new force. They have wimped it on every significant issue, including every
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video