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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1803 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

incorporated in this cap of 5,200 which the Treasurer would seek to extend for a further 12 months.

They are out there and they are included in the sum total of all gaming machines, namely, 5,068, as stated correctly by Ms Dundas in her amendment No 3 which you have allowed. My amendment merely reflects the fact that there are 5,008 in clubs, that there are another 60 in existence which happen to be in licensed premises, and that the remaining 132 machines which have yet to be allocated I would be reserving for that type of licence in this act. That is, effectively, doing virtually the same as Ms Dundas' amendment is doing in practical terms.

Mr Speaker, as you quite rightly say, Mr Quinlan deals with two thing. He deals with extending the sunset clause. He also states in his explanatory memorandum that the maximum number is the current cap of 5,200. Those are the relevant parts. In my submission to the Assembly, the relevant part for any amendments is division 4.2A, which relates to restrictions on gaming machines. That is what we are dealing with here. That is what the amendments of Ms Dundas' that you have allowed deal with and that is what my amendment No 2 deals with.

Section 23A, which relates to application, states:

This division has effect notwithstanding any other provision of this part.

This division expires on 30 June 2003.

The act goes on to say that section 23B applies to an application for a licence or a request to vary a licence and deals with a number of issues in relation to licences and states that the commissioner shall not issue a licence that would result in the number of gaming machines on licensed premises exceeding 5,200. The types of licences and the types of licensed premises are defined elsewhere in the act. I refer to my amendment No 1, which deals with another section, because there are various types of licensed premises. That is referred to in this very narrow division 4.2A with which we are actually dealing.

Mr Speaker, this is not a situation, far from it, of your example of an amendment to the speed limit in school zones-something very narrow in an act as big as the Motor Traffic Act-being sought to be used by someone to bring in something in relation to the weights of articulated vehicles, which is completely different. I think that is an excellent example of an amendment that should not be allowed when a narrow act is being debated, as we are dealing with here. That is why I have not sought to dissent from your ruling in relation to my attempt to have class C machines issued to pub and taverns. I think you are right technically in your ruling there if one takes a strict look at it. But, with respect, you are quite wrong, in my opinion, in relation to your ruling on amendment No 2.

It is very restrictive. It specifically deals with the number of machines in a cap. All it does is acknowledge that there are 5,008 already in clubs and that the remainder, 60 of which are in existence, should be reserved for licensed premises as defined in the act, which is also referred to within the very narrow section that we are dealing with. The practical effect of that would be very little different from what you are allowing Ms Dundas to do.

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