Page 3477 - Week 11 - Thursday, 15 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and community infrastructure. It was hoped that this requirement would ensure that at least some of the funds lost through gambling would be channelled back into the community and put to good use. ACTCOSS and Lifeline expressed their hope that some of this money might be used to fund support programs for problem gamblers.
Last Tuesday, Mr Stanhope in his capacity as Treasurer tabled the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission’s 2006-07 report Community contributions made by gaming machine licensees. I would like to draw the Assembly’s attention to some of the report’s findings as they indicate some very worrying trends in how these required contributions are being spent.
The amount approved as community contributions was $12.8 million. While this was slightly better than last year, there has been an ongoing trend since 2002 for community contributions, as a percentage of NGMR, to decrease. In 2002-03, for example, there was $15.8 million in community contributions—$3 million more than this year. Between 2003 and 2005, community contributions were above $13 million. So while revenue is generally going up, community contributions are generally going down.
These figures tell us that something is deeply wrong with the system as it stands as some clubs make use of deficiencies in the legislation. The 2006-07 report shows in particular that, far from using their seven per cent contribution to support worthwhile charities and social welfare groups, the majority of Canberra’s clubs are channelling their funds into sporting and recreational groups, which will just bring profits straight back to them.
Funds directed towards charitable and welfare organisations are steadily decreasing, and on Tuesday the Treasurer noted this as “troubling”. Of the $12.8 million in 2006-07, the ACT’s clubs gave about $9.5 million to sport, which was an increase; $1.9 million to non-profit activities, which was also an increase, though that is a very broad category; $1.2 million to welfare, which was a significant decrease; and $220,000 to community infrastructure, which was a significant increase.
While a few of the social areas have gone up, the decrease in welfare funding is concerning. Examination of the club-by-club breakdown is also worrying. Just to pull out a few figures: one in four clubs gave more than 90 per cent of their required contributions to sporting and recreation, only 10 clubs contributed to community infrastructure at all and only four clubs contributed more than 10 per cent of their contribution to women’s sport, despite a general incentive plan which counts every $3 given in this category as $4.
Of course, it is not all bad, and I take this opportunity to congratulate two clubs that gave the majority of their contributions to charitable and social welfare: the Akuna Club and the National Press Club. However, last year six clubs were in this category. I also want to commend the Southern Cross Club, which announced this year that it was going to give 20 per cent of its gaming revenue to community organisations. It is of particular note that the City Club, run by the Labor Party, failed to make the minimum level of community contributions. In fact, they failed to meet their obligations by just over $10,000. Not a good look.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .