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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1979 ..

MR STEFANIAK

From going around my electorate, and having talked over the years to a number of tavern owners, many of whom have since gone out of business, I was struck by the struggling nature of this industry, particularly when you are talking small establishments. For example, the person who runs the tavern at Giralang went without a holiday for some seven years because he just simply was unable to afford to put on a casual. Many of the people I spoke to worked two jobs. If they were married, obviously the other partner worked but in many cases they themselves worked two jobs just to keep what effectively was a struggling business afloat.

Until recently the gentleman who ran the Boardroom worked two jobs-he worked in the New South Wales Department of Health and also came to Canberra to run his tavern. He somehow worked out this arrangement with his family, but basically he could not have continued to run the tavern if he had not worked in another business. Of course, taverns and hotels suffer from not being able to provide the cheap meals and some of the obvious benefits that clubs can offer. Also, as I have indicated, some of them have significant difficulty in employing casuals.

There have been some arguments about why we should change the situation. After all, clubs are not-for-profit organisations, and we don't quibble about that at all. But what we are saying is that there is a fairness argument here. First, let me deal with the proliferation argument-that if you allow machines into hotels, if you allow machines into taverns, there would be a proliferation of poker machines. I don't accept that particular argument, and I will come to that a little bit later.

The other argument is the thin edge of the wedge. If you look at the legislation, hotels with more than 12 rooms have only ever been able to have up to 10 class A and B machines. Other hotels and licensed premises-that is, taverns-have only ever been able to have two class A machines. This legislation is not seeking to change that at all. It may well be that perhaps that is something that should be changed, especially in view of the artificiality in relation to hotels with more than 12 rooms.

But we are not even trying to do that. We are faithfully giving precedence to what has been in the legislation for some 19 years now, but are merely seeking to upgrade what those establishments are entitled to. We are seeking to enable hotels with 12 beds or more to have up to 10 class B and/or C machines, and to enable other hotels on general licensed premises and taverns on licensed premises to have up to two class B or C machines. That is all the legislation that is now before us seeks to do.

I find somewhat incongruous the argument that this will expand gambling, especially when one looks at the number of taverns that have closed in recent times. The Charnwood Tavern operated up until I think about the end of 1995-96. It was taken over by the Labor Club and now has I think some 73 poker machines. If this legislation were in effect and it had remained a tavern, it would have only two poker machines. So much for proliferation!

The Coolabah Club at Kaleen, which I think is now owned by my old club Royals, which used to be owned by somebody else and before that was a tavern, now has a number of poker machines. I am not too sure but the last time I was in there it had about 30 or so poker machines. Again, were this legislation to succeed, as a tavern it would be allowed only two. I understand that the gentleman who works with health in New South Wales is

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