Page 3960 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 25 November 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Rightly, the government is only interested in the detail that relates to the turnover, and therefore the taxation requirements and the problem gambling assistance fund requirements. But clubs will have to keep some sort of security control and some sort of security check. In this endeavour, now that the government has realised that red tape is a problem for just about every business in the ACT, simply naming a bill the Gaming Machine (Red Tape Reduction) Amendment Bill does not make it so.
What else does the bill do? The bill gets rid of a requirement whereby, if you wanted to shift the position of the machinery, you had to apply to do so, and as long as the machines stay inside the designated area, no requirement for approval is required. That is sensible but perhaps long overdue.
There is clarification that an amendment of the club constitution at the direction of the commissioner—this comes about when the Gaming Machine Act is itself changed, necessitating changes to the constitution—to have the constitution consistently in line with the act is a requirement of the constitution. Therefore, this says that it may occur without the decision of voting members, a vote of the voting members. One would assume that that is done at the direction of the board once they have received notification from the commissioner. That will save the club some money and some time, but I suspect that the number of times it will be used will be small.
They have increased the licensing period for technicians from two to three years—again a sensible requirement. And they have removed the requirement for the licensing of gaming machine attendants: you need the licensing when you maintain a machine register; with that gone, therefore, that requirement is gone.
There is an amendment that the minister has foreshadowed in regard to the problem gambling assistance fund. What they are going to do is in the case of small clubs, and this is probably half the clubs. Rather than doing a monthly return, they will be able to do an annual return in arrears. What they are going to do is change the monthly amount from $100 to $300, which again is sensible. The payments will still be required, but they will only be done on an annual basis, which is sensible for the smaller clubs.
What this bill does not do is remove the conflict of interest that Labor members have every time we deal with the Gaming Machine Act: as the beneficiaries of the profits from gaming machines, there is clearly a conflict of interest. They have got around some of it by moving funds out of their club group into another fund, which is now affiliated. Such is the sensitivity of those in the ALP. But it really does bring to mind the words of the Reverend Tim Costello, who said, “You will never get meaningful regulation about this while the conflict of interest exists.”
With those few words, let me say that we will be supporting the bill.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.52): I am happy to support the Gaming Machine (Red Tape Reduction) Amendment Bill here today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video