Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1801 ..
MR SPEAKER (continuing):
The government is proposing in its bill that it remain at the current level, that is, 5,200. At first blush, I think that one could form the view, and I have taken the view that it might be a narrow view, that the only thing that could be dealt with by way of amendment is matters which go to the timeframes in relation to the cap.
Ms Dundas is proposing three amendments. Her amendment No 2 is to omit "2005"and substitute "2004"and is, in my view, clearly in order. Her amendment No 3 proposes to amend section 23B of the principal act to omit "5,200"and substitute "5,068", which relates to the number of gaming machines to be capped. This appears to be in order, and I rule accordingly.
Ms Dundas' amendment No 1 proposes two new clauses which attempt to insert a new section 22A in the principal act. Section 22 of the principal act is headed "Variation of licences"and is contained in division 4.2, relating to the variation and transfer of licences. Her amendment appears to relate to the conditions for the transfer of licences. The subject is not mentioned in the bill as introduced by the Treasurer and therefore, in my opinion, is out of order, and I rule accordingly.
Mr Stefaniak has circulated two amendments. Amendment No 1 amends subsections 18 (2) and (3) of the principal act, which is not referred to in the amending bill. The amendment sets conditions for the issuing of licences to premises that contain residential accommodation for lodgers. This subject is not mentioned in the bill as introduced by the Treasurer and is therefore, in my opinion, out of order, and I rule accordingly.
Amendment No 2 amends subsection 23B (2) of the principal act and deals with the restriction on gaming machines. It sets a cap of 5,200 gaming machines, of which 5,008 are to be in clubs. The amendment raises a fundamental shift in the ratio and allocation of gaming machines in the territory. This, in my opinion, is out of order, and I rule accordingly.
Mr Stefaniak: I take a point of order on that, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I will raise a logistical point. I note that the matter is not going to go on to finality today but, on a point of order, I would certainly take issue with you in relation to your ruling regarding my second point, Mr Speaker. I understand that I can move dissent and I will if I need to. I am mindful of the time of the Assembly, but I would like to give notice at this stage that I would certainly be-
MR SPEAKER: Mr Stefaniak, that is not a point of order. If you want to give notice, you can do so. If you have a point of order, fine. These things are always in the hands of the Assembly. If the Assembly wishes to have a different regime in relation to dealing with pieces of legislation, it is open to it to decide to do so.
An appropriate course might be for a member to raise the matter for consideration by the Administration and Procedure Committee with a view to changing the standing orders. It is also open to members, as it is open to you, to dissent from my ruling, whereupon one would have to take a different view about how we approach these sorts of things. The view that I have taken this evening-late this evening; I apologise for that-is consistent with parliamentary practice here and elsewhere.