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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (24 March) . . Page.. 725 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

that decision would have to be made by the Commissioner for ACT Revenue, not by me, and certainly, as I understand it, it has not been made - do we want to say to a commercial operation in this city that this Assembly requires another five to six months' delay after the commercial operation has met all of the requirements that have been put in place?

Again, I come back to the view that this Government does not oppose disallowable instruments. But in this case we have to look very seriously at why this Bill is on the table and what it really does. For the club in question to get the okay for poker machines it has to comply with current legislation. The Commissioner for ACT Revenue determines whether they have complied with all of the requirements, as they would for any other club. They still have not got that requirement. We know that the casino successfully applied for a change of lease purpose clause for the casino lease, which has been subject to a number of appeals. The casino has won those appeals. A huge amount of work has been done on this. Whether we do or do not oppose a club in the casino, a huge amount of regulation has to be met. Do we as an Assembly want to create another hurdle, one that is just arbitrary?

Does this Assembly want a disallowable instrument for all new clubs? If the Labor Club or the Tradies wanted to buy another club or a tavern and turn it into a club, do we want that to be disallowable? You cannot have it for one and not for others. If next week one of the current clubs buys a tavern or a hotel and wants to turn it into a club, do we say to them, "Sorry, it is disallowable, so you will have to wait six months."? I have to tell you that they will go bananas. Why is this one different? We have clubs in strange places in this city now. Recently the Labor Club bought the Kaleen Tavern and turned it into a club.

Mr Quinlan: Charnwood.

MS CARNELL: Sorry, Charnwood Tavern. Should that have had a disallowance period on it? The Labor Club would have been pretty unhappy if they had had to wait six months. Of course they would have. Are you happy to wear a scenario in which all new club licences are disallowable?

Mr Kaine: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. My Bill says nothing about club licences. Virtually nothing that the Chief Minister has said has anything to do with the Bill before the Assembly.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, that is not a point of order.

MR SPEAKER: No, it is not. There will be an opportunity to respond.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, what I am after here is consistency of outcome, and that is what the whole Assembly should be interested in. It is true that Mr Kaine's Bill is not about club licences but, in terms of outcome, that is what Mr Kaine is attempting to achieve.

Mr Kaine: Rubbish! Not so.

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