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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 588 ..

The initial cap of 5,200 has been extended for another year. That is also important in terms of issues around problem gambling and stopping the proliferation of gaming in the territory. So the opposition will be supporting the government’s bill, with the proviso that my clause 4 will replace the government’s clause 12 in the bill.

MRS CROSS (12.09 am): The Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2004, introduced by the government in February this year, contains three substantive elements. Firstly, the bill seeks to extend for another year the cap on gaming machines here in the ACT, as mentioned by Mr Stefaniak. Currently, the total number of gaming machines in the ACT is capped at 5,200. In the past this cap has been reviewed annually. This appears to be the annual review of the gaming machine cap and it looks as though again the current cap will remain unchanged. I am supportive of the cap remaining at 5,200 because, firstly, there has been no evidence to demonstrate that this cap should be lifted and, secondly, the number of gaming machines currently in circulation in the ACT has not reached the 5,200 ceiling yet.

Secondly, the bill seeks to extend the incentive scheme for contributions to women’s sport. This is done by allowing every $3 donated to women’s sport to be recorded as $4 for community contributions. This scheme resulted in an increase of 39 per cent in donations to women’s sport. This is a wonderful result. Women’s sport, not just in the ACT but worldwide, needs to be encouraged and supported. Historically, most sports funding has gone to males and male sports. This is particularly true for clubs, which historically have been based around football teams. It is wonderful to see netball, hockey, soccer and women’s football teams receiving greater funding because of this scheme. I applaud this and shall be supporting this element of the bill.

The third substantive element of the bill is to allow licensed tavern owners in the ACT access to class B gaming machines and not just the class A machines that are legislated for at present. This will provide greater equity to tavern owners who are licensed but who currently do not have access to any machines because class A machines no longer exist. To allow tavern owners to have access to gaming machines, something they are licensed to have access to, will ensure that they receive more of a fair go than they have in the past. Therefore I will be supporting this element of the bill and Mr Quinlan’s Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2004.

It is also my understanding that we are debating Mr Stefaniak’s Gaming Machine Amendment Bill (No 2) 2004 cognately with this bill. The first element of Mr Stefaniak’s bill seeks, similar to Mr Quinlan’s bill, to ensure taverns become eligible for class B gaming machines. As I stated earlier, this is only fair as taverns are only eligible for and licensed to own class A gaming machines, a class of gaming machine that no longer exists. I do believe Mr Stefaniak’s wording is better but I will be supportive of whichever draft is agreed upon and whatever agreement can be reached to ensure tavern owners have access to class B machines and are thus given a fair go. I would like to note, however, that it is important that taverns with gaming machines, no matter which class, contribute to the community in the same manner as do clubs with gaming machines.

Whilst I understand class B machines are low turnover machines, I will be monitoring taverns to ensure that they contribute at appropriate levels to the community. It is my understanding that taverns with gaming machines at the moment do contribute to the

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