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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1482 ..

MR WHITECROSS: All I am saying is that this is an issue with national implications, because across Australia there are different treatments of different kinds of licensees under gaming machine Acts and there are public interest reasons that have been advanced for that. Mr Speaker, at the end of the day, I suppose that it is up to this house to test the validity of those reasons. In the end, we will have to make laws in relation to those matters. That is something we should consider.

Mr Speaker, in relation to the issue of conflict of interest, I believe that the Labor Party's support for the widening of a test of the bona fides of people with interests in and in influential positions in relation to licensed clubs is a good thing. I do not see how that discloses any prejudice for or against any particular people with gaming machine licences, Mr Speaker. In fact, if we were to believe Mr Moore, we should be opposing this Bill because this increases the scrutiny which the Revenue Commissioner can have of a particular group of licensees in relation to - - -

Mr Moore: No; because you are comfortable, but it would exclude others. It might exclude others. That is why you like it.

MR WHITECROSS: No, Mr Moore.

MR SPEAKER: Order! If you want to have a talk about this, both of you go outside and do it.

Mr Moore: It was a healthy interjection, Mr Speaker.

Mrs Carnell: Could we hurry, please?

MR WHITECROSS: No; because I have a point I want to make. The point I want to make, Mr Speaker, is that the Government has proposed what we think are good amendments to the Gaming Machine Act which, for all licensees, sharpen up the definition - and I have raised a couple of concerns with that - and in relation to licensed clubs, which are the main operators of existing licences under the Gaming Machine Act, actually extend the opportunities for the Revenue Commissioner to reject an applicant for a gaming machine licence. Mr Speaker, I think that they are appropriate changes. I support the legislation. I think it is an appropriate way to go. I do not believe that it, in any sense, discloses a conflict of interest. To reiterate my first point, I do not believe that Mr Moore is entitled to presume to know what would be our attitude to a proposal to review the Gaming Machine Act in the light of national competition policy principles.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (12.39), in reply: Mr Speaker, to quickly answer Mr Moore's question with regard to competition policy, my advice is that competition policy does not necessarily come in, in this circumstance, because the amendment involved does not affect the competitiveness of the Bill. So, you do not necessarily get a full review of a piece of legislation. On a minor amendment, it does not actually affect the substance of the legislation, as I am advised, Mr Speaker. Of course, any more major Bill that did affect the running of the Bill or the competitiveness inside the Bill would trigger a competition - - -

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