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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2689 ..

scrutiny of the new forms of equipment I have mentioned, in that they are not necessarily neutral forms of technology. Some will not be of concern and some will, so I am saying that this approval is simply a technical administrative question, but that in some cases there will be important policy considerations to be dealt with.

The commission’s work in fulfilment of clause 69 (2) should be available to inform consideration of the technology. A case for an allowable form of a disallowable instrument is, again, that where the instrument authorises the use of new equipment it would create great difficulties if the equipment were purchased and then the authorisation was withdrawn by the Assembly. It is better to wait until the authorisation is solidified by the scrutiny of the Assembly.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (5.59): The government will not be accepting this amendment, Mr Speaker. I do not intend to do the job of the commission. That is why we have a commission and that is why we have the experts in the field. I am happy to leave it to the commission to do the job that it is legislated to do.

MR STEFANIAK (6.00): Whilst I saw a lot of merit in Ms Tucker’s amendment earlier about allowable instruments in relation to the cap, I tend to agree with Mr Quinlan on this one and will not be supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 70 to 152, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 153.

MS DUNDAS (6.01): I move amendment No 9 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2756].

This amendment basically brings life to a bill which I already have on the table but which would need to be substantially reworded as the amendments to the Gaming Machine Act go through. The aim of the amendment is to remove ATMs from licensed premises that hold poker machines. As I put forward when I tabled my bill for the removal of ATMs from licensed venues, I am seeking to do so solely as a harm minimisation measure.

The ACT Gambling and Racing Commission, in its review of the Gaming Machine Act 1987, recommended that ATMs be prohibited from gaming licensees’ premises. The recommendation was based on research conducted by the Productivity Commission on Australia’s gambling industries and from the survey of the Australian Institute of Gambling Research on the nature and extent of gambling and problem gambling in the ACT.

Research has already been done that shows that we should remove ATMs from gaming venues. It prohibits only ATMs, not EFTPOS facilities, so that patrons may still have

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