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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2681 ..

we had a queue of people waiting to get machines, because they had all had their licence applications agreed to under the licensing regime, the machines automatically went out, because the cap had been changed by a disallowable instrument, and at the next available sitting day, be that a week, three months or possibly six months between assemblies, the disallowable instrument hit the floor of the Assembly and the Assembly voted down an increase in the cap.

We would be voting down an increase in the cap when those machines were already out in the community being used. That would not be a very good situation for anybody. It would put this Assembly in the position of being forced to make a decision that would impact on a club’s business in terms of removing machines from it. It is not right to force the Assembly into that situation. If we are going to increase the cap, let’s have the debate in the Assembly before the change can be enforced in any way.

I have moved this amendment to make quite clear that the only way the number of machines in the ACT can be changed is by having a debate in this Assembly before that change occurs. I am disappointed that the government is trying to make it happen through a disallowable instrument, because that just restricts accountability. For an issue that has been through so much debate in this Assembly, it is disappointing to see that move being taken.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (5.27): Mr Speaker, we will not be supporting this amendment. I have already stated my reservations about the cap as a simplistic blunt instrument and not necessarily an effective instrument. It will just give rise to inequity in the longer term. I fully concede that there may be better ways to change the way we govern the total number of machines, but I just cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MS TUCKER (5.28): I seek leave to move together amendments Nos 2 to 4 circulated in my name.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I move amendments 2 to 4 circulated in my name [see schedule 8 at page 2764].

Amendment No 2 of the Greens would limit the direction of changes that could be made to the cap. It would specify that the minister could only reduce the cap by instrument, rather than the current wording which allows the minister to increase the cap. The primary reason for this amendment is that it is clear that the ACT has enough poker machines. We have, as we are regularly reminded, the highest number of poker machines per capita. If there were a firm upper limit on the number of machines, either new areas of Canberra would not get clubs with poker machines or, if there were truly a demand for them, an existing club could transfer some of its machines.

Clubs have been established in Canberra as places where there are electronic gaming machines, but clubs for community purposes could be run without them. In Western

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