Page 2643 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 25 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is at the nub of this. Yes, it is about reliance on problem gamblers and, in particular, the ACT Labor Party’s reliance on the $33 million that problem gamblers put in the machines every year. As Dr Foskey pointed out, of more than $100 million, $33 million is reported to come from those with gambling problems. But as a result of Jon Stanhope’s “squeeze them till they bleed” tax grab that saw a 17 per cent increase in the rate of taxation on gaming this year, we actually saw the body charged by the community to look after problem gamblers—Lifeline—actually lose money in their club care contributions. The year before last it was $414,000; last financial year Mr Speaker, it was only $303,000, less than a per cent of the $33 million that is reputed to have come from problem gambling.
This is what Mr Costello and others are saying that Jon Stanhope does not get. He is absolutely pleased, I suspect, Mr Speaker, and is absolutely delighted to accept the dollars to fund his political campaigns. Make no mistake: that is what they do. They go from the Labor Club to the ACT ALP. The ALP spend that money on their campaigns. One sees the crocodile tears, because that is all they are, from the Chief Minister when he says on the ABC, “I have real concerns about problem gambling; these things cause me genuine heartache,” but he is then asked by Alex Sloan, “Will you stop taking the money?” “Oh no, we’ll take the money. We’re taking the money.”
Now, Mr Stanhope threw the challenge down and said, “Well, what will the Liberal party do?” I have said all along that we think it is appropriate to tax gambling. But you need to get the balance and the mix right, and the Chief Minister is right in one thing today when he says that we underperform in the way that we collect gambling revenue. I think perhaps something the Commonwealth Grants Commission should consider is that instead of maximising and overextending yourself on a reliance on gambling, perhaps those jurisdictions, like WA and the ACT, that are less reliant on gambling legislation should get a bonus in the payments from the Grants Commission. Perhaps that is what they should get.
But perhaps Mr Stanhope should take the same example and say, “Well, I’ll make the ACT ALP less reliant on gambling and, in particular, less reliant on problem gambling by saying we will not take the money. We’ll put the $385,000 that the ALP received in the 2005-06 year into combating problem gambling.”
If it does cause you genuine concern and genuine heartache, Chief Minister, do something about it. Instead of bleating, instead of heart wrenching and crocodile tears, why do you not actually say to the ALP, “Give the money to Lifeline”? If you mean it and if you are sincere then you would do it. If you actually support your federal leader, the Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd—who thinks all the states should be weaned off gambling taxation, in particular pokies—then you would stop making noise, you would stop your reliance on problem gamblers and the money they put in the poker machines, and you would actually do something constructive about it. But I guess that is why Tim Costello said that the ACT Labor Party’s dependence on poker machine revenue meant that it could not make the right decisions about gaming. Perhaps he is right. I think the validation of that statement is quite correct.
It is interesting to look at what the clubs say about it, Mr Speaker. I want members to remember that when the bill came before the house to raise the percentage of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .