Page 3864 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This was never envisaged by the act. It may be that, down the track, on recommendation from the commission and potentially from an Assembly committee or as a result of a bill in this place, the sale of poker machine licences will be allowed in this manner. But I do not believe, in the spirit of the act, that a provision for sale exists at the moment. There is a provision for surrender. There is not a provision for sale. There is a provision for surrender and a provision for reissue. And that is the important thing.
There are a number of other important issues at stake at the moment. One would be the cap. I think the discussion paper went out in 2007 and we are yet to get a position from the government. Another is the ability to transfer licences within a club group between venues, which has been out since early this year and which the club industry is waiting on. These are matters that all need to be looked at in conjunction with the sale that is going on.
This is why I say “potential changes required to the Gaming Machine Act”. That is why it is appropriate that PAC have a look at this so that when the government makes its decision on the cap, tables it and we discuss it and any arrangements they might like to put in place about transferring licences between venues, if there are other issues, they can all be conducted and discussed in the same debate. That would be appropriate.
Part (b) talks about “given the circumstances”. These circumstances are that, in effect, the commission has now been asked to investigate the Labor Party. That is what it is; this is it; that is what this is. The president of the board of the Labor Club Group is raising issues that affect the administrative committee and the national office. In effect, the Gambling and Racing Commission is now investigating the government. That is what is happening here. A minister in the government has responsibility for administering the act.
After my 11 years in this place, after numerous occasions, it is something that is still unresolved. We need to look at the conflict of interest provisions. Standing order 156 still needs to be looked at as to how those provisions are applied. Is it appropriate for a public servant to investigate the government of the day? That is, in effect, what will happen. It is not a slur on the public servant; it is about actually protecting that public servant.
Ms Gallagher: It is the commission; there are five of them.
MR SMYTH: Yes, there are five of them. That is correct. But the CEO is a public servant and the question is—and this is something that PAC should consider—is the CEO—
Ms Gallagher: This is your logic: you sack the CEO and then you have got four commissioners.
MR SMYTH: Then sack the board. Mr Barr sacks boards. He does not like the board; sack them; easy. “I do not get my way in the Assembly; sack the board.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .