Page 805 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
machines. In the particular case I mentioned, negotiations for the sale had been continuing since late last year and the parties to the sale had originally agreed on a settlement date of 20 December. However, that could not take place because of the difficulties encountered with the legislative requirements.
The owner, naturally enough, wanted to buy the tavern with all its fittings and fixtures, including the two class B machines. The sale was prevented because the two class B machines, under current law, would have to be taken away. The new owner could only get a liquor licence and then in 12 months time would be able to apply for a gaming machine licence. The criteria, effectively, are identical in terms of fit and proper persons and it seems to have been a glitch.
I appreciate the efforts taken by the various bureaucrats to try to sort this out. The purchaser and the vendor also tried to look for other remedies that might have been available to law, but all to no avail. Accordingly, the settlement has not taken place because of the difficulties encountered with the legislative requirements. The effect of this has been that the seller and his family have suffered considerably. The delay in the settlement has cost them over $20,000. I am advised that at one stage it was about $2,000 a week. They have purchased a business elsewhere and they are paying two mortgages. There is significant pressure on the family and the owners are at the point of having to sell the family home in order to be able to sustain the business.
I wrote to the Treasurer about this in February this year to draw to his attention this story and the quirk of the act. He replied on 21 March and in relation to the 12-month prequalification requirement indicated:
I have ... agreed to an amendment to the Act to remove this requirement to ensure that there are no adverse consequences for ACT businesses.
I was very happy to get that reply. I was pleased to get it and I appreciated his support in finding a solution. Subsequently, discussions have taken place between my office and the Treasurer’s office, the result of which is this bill here today. I was hoping the government might declare it urgent so it could be finalised tomorrow, but I am advised that after the debate on this bill it will be adjourned and the parties to the sale will have to wait another month, until we come back, before being able to take advantage of the amended law.
At the risk of appearing to pre-empt the outcome of the debate, I do look forward to the government’s support. I am grateful for the support offered and the assistance given by the Treasurer and his office to date. The seller is very much appreciative of the assistance given and also the assistance given by the various government officials who tried to find another outcome for this, but apparently there is none. This will affect in a very positive way a reasonably small number of businesses, but important businesses, in the ACT who provide a lot of benefit to our community in the form of entertainment as it relates to pubs, taverns and clubs. I commend the bill to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Stanhope) adjourned to the next sitting.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .