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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2679 ..

MR STEFANIAK (5.14): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name, which seeks to insert a new clause 24A [see schedule 4 at page 2762].

This amendment needs to be read in conjunction with the application proceedings and the social impact assessments. A licence is needed for each site. The first couple of subclauses enable clubs that hold two or more licences for existing sites, such as the Tuggeranong rugby club, the Southern Cross Club and the Labor group of clubs, to transfer machines within the cap between those sites when the need arises.

They will now have to do so after the necessary social impact assessments have been made, which gives a certain amount of rigour to it and provides any concerned individuals with the ability to have their say in relation to that. This is something that the Licensed Clubs Association has been keen to see because, quite clearly, in some instances there is a much greater demand at certain premises and not so much at other premises. It is also a way of ensuring that a club does not have, as at present, to go to the commission and apply for more poker machines. It is a way of controlling the number of poker machines and keeping within the cap in the territory.

One of the big problems with this type of provision is the situation where a club is sold to another club or there is a merger. Subclause (3) provides that the commissioner must not amend one licence in accordance with the application unless the other licence is also amended and that an amendment cannot proceed in relation to a merger situation or a takeover situation until three years have elapsed. I think that that is an important provision. It is an accountability provision. Social impact assessments have to be done as well.

One of the criticisms in recent times of takeovers or mergers has been that the club taking over simply wants access to the poker machines of the club that has gone defunct. That is a very real problem with takeovers. This exercise adds a bit of rigour there. It ensures that that cannot happen for a three-year period. It would mean that, if there were a takeover or a merger, the lesser of the two sites, the club taken over, would have to retain the machines for three years and that only after a social impact assessment had been done could they be moved.

This amendment at least gives the clubs the flexibility to move the machines around commensurate with sensible commercial practice. Also, apart from the steps taken to put some rigour into the process, it assists with keeping within the cap by ensuring that clubs do not go off and make application for more poker machines. I see it as a way of ensuring that we have some chance of retaining the cap.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (5.17): Mr Speaker, the government will not be accepting this amendment. I think that it would confer an advantage on already large clubs. Let me give a specific example. It is not happening yet, but let’s take Gungahlin as an example. It is a growth area. The Ainslie Football Club now has a large club called the Lakes out in the middle of Gungahlin. They would be, by this provision, in an advantaged position versus another sporting organisation that might want to set up a club in the northern part of Gungahlin in as much as they have the machines ready to go as opposed to another club that must start from the ground up.

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