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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2680 ..

I know of a current situation where a large club is applying for new machines even though it has underperforming machines elsewhere because that is its response to the cap. But that is a different question. The problem that Mr Stefaniak referred to of clubs applying for more machines is a function of the cap and I do not believe that club groups should have an advantage conferred over individual clubs, which is what this amendment does. It gives an efficiency advantage and a walk-up start to the larger club groups that already have an advantage.

Proposed new clause 24A negatived.

Clauses 25 to 29, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clauses 30 to 34, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 35.

Ms Dundas: Mr Speaker, I seek clarification. If we debate my amendment and the vote goes either way, would that mean that Ms Tucker would not able to move her amendments?

MR SPEAKER: Ms Dundas, if you proceed with your amendment and succeed, Ms Tucker’s amendments would not be applicable as currently drafted. If Ms Tucker wished to redraft her amendments to amend your amendment, she could move them after you have moved your amendment.

Ms Tucker: What would happen if mine went first and were passed?

MR SPEAKER: If Ms Dundas did not proceed with her amendment, you would be able to proceed with your amendments.

Ms Tucker: If mine were successful, could Ms Dundas still move her amendment?

MR SPEAKER: No.

MS DUNDAS (5.20): I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2763].

Mr Speaker, I thank you for that clarification. Ms Tucker and I have concerns about how the cap is to be regulated under the new Gaming Machine Act and my amendment seeks to make it quite clear that the only way that the cap can be changed is through legislation. The Democrats do not agree with the cap being changed before the Assembly has time to scrutinise that change, which is what the government is proposing by making changes to the cap under a regulation that is a disallowable instrument.

When we are talking about an issue as fundamental to this whole debate as how many gaming machines will be allowed in the ACT, I think that it is important that we have that debate in the Assembly before any changes are made. We could end up with a situation in which a change was made under this legislation to the cap in the ACT and

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