Page 1215 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 2013

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

to whether or not they really are in favour of things they say they are in favour of—supporting schooling, supporting non-government schools to have a fair go and all those types of arguments—when it comes to an exemption that actually benefits such school communities, are going to oppose it. That is very disappointing.

I am pleased, however, that there is a majority on the floor of the Assembly for this exemption to continue. That will be welcomed by school communities. That will be welcomed by Catholic schools, by other faith-based schools, by non-government schools and by public schools because it means that upgrades and improvements to school grounds can proceed in the manner that they have over the past four years, which has been strongly welcomed and supported by schools and their school communities.

Question put:

That Mr Corbell’s motion be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 8

Noes 6

Mr Barr

Ms Gallagher

Mr Doszpot

Mr Smyth

Ms Berry

Mr Gentleman

Mr Hanson

Mr Wall

Ms Burch

Ms Porter

Mrs Jones

Mr Corbell

Mr Rattenbury

Mr Seselja

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 2013

Debate resumed from 14 February 2013, on motion by Mr Rattenbury:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.10): The Canberra Liberals will support Mr Rattenbury’s bill in the form that it will come to the vote as amended by Ms Burch. This bill follows the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 interim ban order in Victoria from 28 November 2011 and the New South Wales gaming machine prohibited features register.

Two elements of the bill include the following: subclause 2A(a) sets a new limitation on the commissioner’s discretion to prevent the commissioner from approving machines that have audio isolation devices—that is, a jack you can plug a set of earphones into; and subclause 2A(b) and (c) involve a regulation-making power to allow other restrictions on the types of machines that can be approved should the need arise, for example, because of changes in technology.

Although we note the merits of subclause 2A(a), in consultations with industry they expressed concerns with the regulation-making power to ban gaming machines as

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