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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2674 ..

MS DUNDAS (4.56): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2756].

Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment goes to the way that the government is trying to deal with the situation of the cap. I have a great deal of concern about the government’s proposed clause 17. The government’s proposal means that the commissioner will continue to grant people the right to have a poker machine, even if there are no poker machines left under the cap.

This procedure will mean that some clubs or taverns are told that they have a right to have a gaming machine, but they are not allowed to have one because the cap has been reached. The fact that these people will then have to wait for machines to become available will probably mean that they will approach the Treasurer, and the Assembly, to simply have the cap increased because they feel it is their right to have a machine, and they will lobby quite hard to have that cap increased so that they can get those machines. I think this is putting the cart before the horse. The commission should not award people the right to have a machine when that machine does not exist.

Instead, my amendment puts forward that if the commission receives an application, it will hold on to that application until machines become available. A concern was raised that we did not have a way of dealing properly with the order of applications as they came through, once we reached the cap. This amendment deals with that situation without putting us in the untenable situation of people having a licence to hold a machine when that machine legally does not exist.

The best solution is one put forward here: that the commission hold on to an application until machines become available. Then it would be able to determine whether or not to grant machines. This means that no one will be given a right to poker machines when they are not available.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (4.58): We will not be accepting this amendment. It seems commonsense that, once an application is received, it can be processed. We do not want duplicated effort. People will have made their preparation for the application, and there will have been some interaction. It does not just happen like that—one form coming in. There will have been some exchange and interaction between the commission and the applicant.

I do not see any reason why at least conditional approval cannot be given, if the machines are not available. With the possible demise of some clubs, who knows when the machines will become available? And with the introduction of smoking bans we may see a number of machines become available. Should they become available and a perfectly adequate application is made and approved, why shouldn’t it stand?

I would not mind taking this opportunity to say that the cap itself, which looked like some sort of transitional temporary measure when it was introduced, does not seem to me to be a logical way to manage the situation. What it means is: them that’s got’em, keep’em; them that hasn’t got’em, won’t get’em. As the geography of Canberra changes, that is going to cause inequity. It is not a logical way of managing.

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