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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 170 ..

At present, if it wanted 15 more machines, Barbarians north would go to the commission and, within the cap, apply to have an extra 15 machines. If it were successful, it would actually increase from 50 its total number of machines to 65. My amendment is enables clubs with more than one premises to move machines around within their total number. That has a number of benefits. This would be simple for a club and it recognises current conditions in determining where the club needs machines most. But it would also enable the club to operate within its total number of poker machines without having to go to the commission, as it does at present, and say, “We need more poker machines inside X,” which leads to further poker machines in the territory.

I think all of us are mindful of issues around problem gambling and issues around the total number of poker machines. This provision enables the integrity of the cap to continue and helps keep the cap in place. We are probably going to have to address this some day, but at this stage the cap is 5,200. My bill gives a club flexibility within its current operations without increasing the total number of machines. I think that is a good suggestion from the licensed clubs, it is a practical suggestion all round, and this legislation is aimed at giving effect to that.

Mr Speaker, my bill contains two very important clauses. The first one seeks to remedy and overcome an injustice and a real problem that has been with us for some 18 years. It will do this by inserting a sensible compromise, which certainly has the support of virtually everyone in the industry and, it would seem, both major parties in the Assembly. Of course, the bill also deals with the second matter that I have mentioned, which the Licensed Clubs Association is keen to progress. I commend the bill to members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Quinlan) adjourned to the next sitting.

Crimes Amendment Bill 2004

Mr Cornwell, pursuant to notice, presented the bill and its explanatory statement.

Title read by clerk.

MR CORNWELL (10.45): I move:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

Mr Speaker, this piece of legislation, which deals with banning the sale of spray cans to graffiti vandals under the age of 18, was presented to the Assembly last year. As you would be aware, sir, under standing order 136 I am able to present this bill again as we are not now within the calendar year in which I brought forward the original legislation.

I have been encouraged to reintroduce the bill because of the massive increase in graffiti vandalism throughout this city. In fact, I would say that I have been made more aware of community concern and criticism about the condition of Canberra than on any other matter. It is rather interesting that not only have these vandals attacked the suburbs—Ngunnawal comes to mind, where they did a very good job—but they have now got into the city. The vandals have entered Rome. Indeed, in case anybody has not noticed, I seek

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