Page 3584 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 27 October 2015

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

indeed potentially change what they do on their sites. In appendix C there is a list of the various clubs and the different sorts of leases. There are some on river corridors, there are some on commercial, there are some on club land, there are some on community; but it is interesting to see how they are woven into the city. In recommendations 2 and 3, the suggestion is that the government do an audit of all the leases and permitted uses and have a consultation with the clubs on what proposed uses could be made of those sites. And what we must always take into account is the community benefit. Recommendation 3 says that, once that is done, we should come up with an overlay that would cover all of these permitted uses on the various club sites so that there is simplicity and so that we do not have 40, 50, 60 or 70 variations to the territory plan.

Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 look at the task force that the government has established. We say that their remit should be expanded, that there should be representatives of the community sector and the sports and the arts sectors to work very closely with the clubs on that task force, to make sure that we get a whole-of-community view, and that one of the jobs of the task force should be to develop an action plan for addressing problem gambling. It is about time that we as a community took ownership of the whole problem instead of saying, “Clubs, you’ve got the machines; it’s up to you to fix it.” We do not say to Ford, Toyota or Holden, “Cars are involved in accidents and people die; therefore you must run road safety campaigns.” We do that through the taxes we collect when we register those cars. We should not have the same view of clubs—that it is their problem only and they must fix it. This is about the government showing leadership, the community showing ownership, and us fixing the problem together. It is the only way it will change.

Recommendations 7 and 8 look at some of the charges faced by clubs should they seek to change what they do. In rec 7 we say that a lease variation charge should not apply if clubs seek to vary their leases to diversify their revenue base. Rec 8 says development application fees should not be charged, so that we get these changes and we keep our clubs serving our community.

Rec 9 asks the government to continue to advocate to the federal government about online gaming and the problem that it is. As a nation and as a community, we are going to have to address online gaming at some stage, and it should be sooner rather than later.

Recommendation 10 will be linked with recommendations 30 and 31. Recommendation 10 is that the government remove the $250 per day limit on withdrawals from ATMs in club venues. Most of these recommendations are unanimous, but the majority of the committee were of the view that it really did not serve the purpose that it was intended to. If we jump to recs 30 and 31, in recommendation 31 the committee recommends that the government establish a cash input limit for electronic gaming machines of $250. If that is established then in recommendation 31 we say:

The Committee recommends that if the cash input limit is agreed and implemented that the Government remove note denomination limits on Electronic Gaming Machines.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video