Page 77 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 14 February 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This bill is mainly about the casino and it is about, effectively, bringing legislation that governs the casino into line with that which governs the clubs so that we have a simpler regime of regulation. I think that the commission is to be congratulated on the work that it has done. Material that it has put forward has been through this house before. We have had plenty of time to look at what has been put forward. This is, in fact, just the implementation of matters that have been before the place before, and I thank members of the Assembly for their support.
To save time while I am on my feet, we will not be supporting the amendment in relation to a 10-year exclusion. At this stage, I do not know what is the opposition’s advice, but I am advised that the Spent Convictions Act does not apply to the casino. This bill sets a five-year limitation but it is within the province of the casino to apply a further or longer period, depending on the judgment that they make, because they are not governed by the Spent Convictions Act; they are not embraced by it. In terms of limitations, my further advice is that no particular limit has been set in the major states of Victoria and New South Wales, unless that has changed in very recent times. I thank members for their support.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (5.16): I seek leave to move amendments 1 to 5 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR STEFANIAK: I move amendments 1 to 5 circulated in my name together [see schedule 2 at page 89]. As I indicated earlier, this would amend proposed section 7 which deals with the period that is relevant for a disqualification ground. As the Treasurer said, it is five years in the act. I also indicated earlier that I would be seeking to increase that period to 10 years. That would apply also to bankrupts and corporations subject to winding-up orders. I have already indicated the importance of ensuring that the right individuals are involved in these organisations.
I appreciate that this five-year provision is basically the same provision as applies to clubs. Whilst there seems to be some relevance and a need for some commonality in relation to the clubs and poker machines and, to some extent, the casinos, obviously there is a big difference between casinos and clubs. For one thing, there are no poker machines in the casino in the ACT. Other jurisdictions have them, but the ACT has a different form of gambling in casinos compared to what goes on in clubs. That is one reason why we should not necessarily apply similar rules, especially when you are looking at employing eligible people. Around Australia there have been problems as the wrong
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .