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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1980 ..

MR STEFANIAK

no longer operating the Boardroom and has gone out of business, and that a club is taking over that establishment. Certainly more than two poker machines will be brought in there.

We hear a lot in this house about problem gamblers, and in the debate yesterday I briefly alluded to that issue. Mr Quinlan I think quite rightly and sensibly commented that problem gamblers really are probably a bigger problem in the bigger clubs. They tend to gravitate to the bigger clubs which have a greater range of poker machines. The trouble is that problem gamblers are a lot more anonymous in bigger clubs. Unless problem gamblers are well known to perhaps staff at large clubs with large banks of poker machines, they could, quite sadly, gamble and no-one would be the wiser.

In a small club or, indeed, in something small like a hotel or a tavern where staff or the owners know the patrons, there is a much greater ability for anyone with a problem to be stopped and assisted. I indicated yesterday during debate on the cap that that is something I have done personally as a club director. I certainly am aware that other people try to assist those who they know are probably blowing far too much money on poker machines.

So I think when you are talking about responsible gambling, far from there being a proliferation of poker machines, some of the problems may well be addressed by legislation like this. You have to remember, too, that many of the people who drink in hotels and taverns also go to clubs. They go there to play the poker machines. They go there because there are certain deals they want to participate in, and then they might come back and drink at the hotel or the tavern. A lot of the patrons do both, and I would suggest that problem gamblers will be more of a problem in a big club than in a small tavern, a small hotel or, indeed, even a small club.

Mr Speaker, clause 4 of the bill amends sections 18 (2) and 18 (3) of the act. It substitutes new subsections (2), (3) and (4). Subsection (2) deals with premises to which a general licence applies, and that is residences that have at least 12 rooms that are used for lodgers-in other words, hotels with accommodation. If this legislation succeeds, they will be entitled to any combination of no more than 10 class B or class C machines. So they could have 10 class B if they like-and, indeed, six of them currently do-five class B and five class C, or 10 class C.

If the premises do not contain 12 rooms, they would quite simply be entitled to two, either B or C or any combination thereof, and that does not change substantively what has been in the legislation for 19 years. I note that the AHA has some issues with that, and they make some very good points. But members need to be aware that all this does is give them access to proper class C machines. Where there is an on licence, they can have up to two class B and/or class C machines, or any combination thereof.

Subsection (4) states:

A licence must not be issued for premises to which an on licence applies unless the on licence is stated to be for the primary purpose of running a 'tavern/bar'.

That is to ensure that only taverns and bars-and bars being hotels-have access to these poker machines.

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