Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 1 Hansard (13 December) . . Page.. 243 ..
MR QUINLAN (continuing):
Awards presentation last week and to become aware again of just how many people are involved in coaching and sports administration, for little or no reward, contributing greatly to the fabric of our community.
That the Assembly takes note of the report.
MR HUMPHRIES (Leader of the Opposition) (3.57): It is pleasing to see that there is an increasing level of compliance, and perhaps generosity, on the part of a number of organisations receiving gaming machine revenue in the territory. I note the increase in expenditure of more than $10 million by ACT clubs under the act. That is a very good sign that there is considerable exertion going on across the ACT community for charitable and other organisations.
For my part I am happy to indicate support for Mr Quinlan's preparedness to discuss how the breakdown of expenditure occurs and to make sure that the distribution of moneys in the ACT is such as to reflect need as much as the particular predilection of particular organisations. But that is a debate for another day. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see that only a small number of organisations failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of 5 per cent of their gaming machine revenue going to prescribed activities.
MS TUCKER (3.59): I want to join this discussion briefly. I recognise the comments that have been made as valid, but it is important that we remember, on the agenda here, that we have the potential for having a more coordinated approach to managing this contribution from the gambling industry, which is basically to compensate for the social harm that gambling creates.
There is a proposal, which I think is still with the gambling commission, to look at the possibility of having a direct levy so that we have a more coordinated approach to assessing social need. It is a fairly random process at this point in time. While I know that the clubs have said that they want to make it less random-and politicians here have said that as well-there is a simple way of doing that. If you have a direct levy, as has been recommended in a number of inquiries and reports on this issue, so that distribution can be coordinated with an overall understanding of social need, it might be a more effective way of managing it.
While we are on gambling, from my understanding of the discussion that occurred before on the impact of closing the poker machines down for a few hours, I am pretty sure that I amended that act of Dave Rugendyke's so that I would only support it if there was an evaluation carried out by the gambling commission. I am expecting the gambling commission to be doing that, so we will be able to look at their work and determine whether this will have been useful or not. I am pretty sure that was supported by the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.