Page 1518 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Australian tradition. We are, in effect, enshrining the notion in an historic concept, that is, that it means the game known as two-up. It is very unusual to see legislation in that form these days, and I think it is most appropriate.
Legalisation does reflect community standards for two-up on Anzac Day, and I do not think anyone has argued against that. Because there has been some misunderstanding, I stress that the Bill allows two-up to be played in a public place - for example, a street corner, a sports ground or a park - and in licensed clubs and hotels. It does not allow the playing of two-up in an illegal gaming house. But - and this is where the misunderstanding may have arisen - only in a licensed club can there be a payment, benefit, commission, percentage or fee sought from the right to play two-up. Any such payments must be made to charity or a non-profit community organisation.
Once again, the Bill puts a good deal of faith and trust in those who hold the events in licensed clubs to make those payments; clearly, we are not going to assign inspectors to go out and supervise the games. There again, there is a call upon the Australian tradition and the generosity of that day, and that day only. So I stress that the game can be played in all those other places, but only where a licensed club is involved - our concept being that that is usually a properly supervised and conducted premises - can a fee or reward be sought for the game. That is the manner in which we have done it in this Territory, and I expect that charities should be a major beneficiary of any such funds - RSL-type charities, in fact.
The concept of pennies from heaven and the light-hearted aspect of the debate I thought was most appropriately put by my colleague Mr Duby. If ever there was a characteristic, idiosyncratic Australian speech, it was the speech by Mr Duby. It was a delight to hear. We do not often hear that type of speech in an Assembly, complete with the vernacular and the knowledge of the tradition. I was saddened rather than angered - I know that Mr Connolly lost his temper at one stage - that Mr Berry took the debate away from that and made a bitter attack on Mr Duby when reasoned debate was going on. I thought it was a low moment in the Assembly, and I congratulate Mr Duby for having the presence of mind and the dignity not to respond in the way some people did over there.
On the subject of triviality, I thought I would respond to Mr Connolly's unfortunate and regrettable comments, coming as they do from the right wing of his party, and unsupported as they will be by the mass of Labor voting ex-servicemen. I am sure they will get to hear about this, and I think Mr Connolly did himself a disservice in his speech.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .