In a judgment last month,the court upheld a challenge by two hoteliers to conditions imposed on their licences when they successfully applied to increase their number of poker machines. A third hotelier,who appealed the refusal of their application to add a poker machine,also succeeded.
While poker machines are regulated by the Gaming Machines Act,the ILGA used section 53 of the Liquor Act to impose conditions on two pubs – the Whitebull Hotel in Armidale and Griffith’s Area Hotel – when it agreed to let them increase their poker machines by 50 per cent.
The Whitebull was required to employ a dedicated staff member to monitor the machines and players between midnight and 4am,and maintain an incident register of any potential signs of problem gambling behaviour.
The Area Hotel was required to have a staff member – called a Responsible Gambling Officer or Gambling Contact Officer – monitoring the gaming room whenever the machines were in use.
Loading
In the third case,two other pubs in Griffith – classified as band 3 for socio-economic disadvantage,the highest level in the state – applied to transfer a single poker machine. The authority sought to impose similar conditions to the Whitebull and Area hotels,but the operators objected – therefore the ILGA refused the application.
Justice Sarah McNaughton ruled the ILGA exceeded its power by using the Liquor Act to impose those conditions,which had the effect of “totally undermining” the Gaming Machines Act,and “cannot be what parliament intended”.