Page 2933 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 15 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
“By the way, that community contribution paid for a Qantas Club membership”? I doubt it.
The May 2017 report on the scheme from Dr Charles Livingstone, who is an expert researcher in gambling harm and the gambling industry, found examples—
Mr Parton interjecting—
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Cody): Members! Mr Parton.
MR RATTENBURY: Mr Parton was heard in silence, despite the many inflammatory remarks that he made. He sets his own standards, and he has just demonstrated that.
Dr Livingstone is an expert researcher in gambling harm and the gambling industry, and he found examples of contributions being approved for activities such as covering the cost of fines incurred for game forfeits and melees. So the community contribution fund paid the fines for melees at sporting events. That does not pass the pub test by anybody’s measure, either. He also referred to reimbursement of player out-of-pocket expenses for items such as physiotherapy and massage services, and providing weekly awards of trophies, meal vouchers and cash awards.
While some of these may have been only relatively small amounts, counting these kinds of expenses as a community contribution does not pass the pub test, as I have said. This is not to suggest that the whole scheme is ineffective, but it does raise some valid questions about how contributions are assessed and which ones should be accepted.
It is also clear that under the current reporting system the lack of information in clubs’ annual returns submitted to the Gambling and Racing Commission makes it difficult to understand the exact nature of the expenditure and the community contribution claimed. The Auditor-General found 1,455 recorded community contributions, or 16.3 per cent, where the benefit being provided could not be identified. Examples of recorded benefits included generic terms such as “community support”, “drinks”, “car” or “van fuel”. This makes it nearly impossible to determine whether these are activities that provide real community benefit and are consistent with the intent and purpose of the scheme.
Much of the responsibility for this enforcement rests with the ACT government, and the Auditor-General has provided a number of constructive recommendations for how the reporting and enforcement of the scheme could be improved. I look forward to seeing the government’s response to this report.
The reality is that at the moment the Gaming Machine Act provides a very broad definition of community contribution and there is no further guidance in the Gaming Machine Regulation regarding what constitutes and should be allowable as a community contribution. This is a matter that needs government consideration, and that is the process that is currently underway.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video