Page 411 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 18 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.07): According to the explanatory statement that accompanied this bill, the bill aims to simplify the process around the approval of financial arrangements for the acquisition of gaming machines or the encumbrance of existing machines, as well as the arrangements for undisbursed jackpot amounts. The key features include, in clause 5, removing sections 101 and 102 of the Gaming Machine Act to make it a one-step process for the application, approval and decision with regard to acquiring a gaming machine, and removing the requirement to approve encumbrances of existing machines. Clauses 6 to 8 relate to changes made to section 144 to ensure that the policy objective of returning unallocated jackpot funds to players is achieved, rather than these funds being payable to the territory if the current four-week deadline has not been met.
I have to say that when you look at the minister’s statements when she went on ABC radio on 24 October, you could be forgiven for thinking she was speaking about a different bill. She said: “The ACT government plans to make it easier for ACT clubs to purchase poker machines … The changes will make it faster to buy machines and the clubs no longer need government approval if they want to finance new machines.” When given the opportunity to clarify this legislation later on that day during question time, she was incapable of doing so, and merely responded to questions by referring the opposition to her amendments. The question that arises from this is: did she actually know what she tabled last October? Based on the minister’s record, probably not.
Then there is another curious matter here. We were offered a briefing. I took up that opportunity, but it was cancelled when apparently there was a new policy that unless the opposition member attended the briefing, there was to be no briefing. That is a significant departure from what has happened in the past. No notice was given of this change to the minister’s policy. Members try to get to briefings, but sometimes it is not possible. Suddenly the government, in the new era of openness and accountability that the Chief Minister espouses, was shutting down briefings. If that is true, perhaps the reverse is that the new opposition policy will be that all ministers must be present in government briefings to the opposition. Ludicrous, isn’t it? Yes; I see the smirks on those opposite. Perhaps a little bit more courtesy should come back into the whole process rather than it being the arbitrary nature of the minister’s office. I note the changes in the senior staffing arrangements in Ms Burch’s office and hope that this sets a more collaborative approach to how we get on with our business.
The Canberra Liberals have consulted the key stakeholders on this bill and have received no objections. Many did not even know the bill existed. Yet again, there was a failure of this government to communicate with stakeholders about what they are doing to their industry.
In short, the bill does not change what clubs do. It does not make it easier for clubs to get new machines. It is a technical bill. It is a piece of machinery-of-government legislation. We have no problems supporting it, but I think it is a bit picky to suggest that it is a red tape reduction effort. With the under-delivery of this government in reducing its own red tape, to call this bill a red tape reduction bill is simply misleading. If this is the best effort the government makes in the reduction of red tape, it is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video