Page 2483 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 18 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So far, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been supportive, but the Bill has aspects which the Liberals want the Government to do something about. In fact it is flawed legislation, and it is flawed because the Government really has not subjected it to sufficient scrutiny. The Treasurer, who is responsible for the Bill, could have, and should have, read it more carefully herself, or had her staff analyse it more critically. I begin at clause 9. I could willingly forgive you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for accusing me of being unable to express myself clearly in English if I said to you, "In clause 9 'defined number' means the product of the number of stopping positions on each reel in the machine". I am glad to say that those are the words of the Bill; they are not mine. I submit that neither the Treasurer, nor you nor even I could calculate the number by strict reference to the language of clause 9 alone. In other words, what does it mean? The intention appears to be to raise the number of stopping positions on any reel of the machine to the power of the number of reels. The Treasurer should take the Bill back to amend clause 9 so that it says that, if that is what she means.
In clause 20, proposed new subsection 36(2) requires the commissioner to approve a licensee's application to buy machines, but when the licensee is a club it requires the commissioner to be satisfied that the purchase is in the best interests of club members. There is an analogous provision in proposed new subsection 37(3). I do not have any problem with the concept, and the Interpretation Act may provide that the word "unless" has a meaning analogous to "if not", but expressing a decision to be obligatory unless something does not satisfy the decision maker leaves no room for the client and the decision maker to negotiate about solving the problem without leaving the client totally out in the cold. Why should this Assembly create difficulties of interpretation when a clear statement of what the Bill intends is so easy to write? I ask the Treasurer to review the way those provisions are expressed and to see whether there is not a better way for them to say what the Government intends them to say.
Still on clause 20, proposed new subsection 39C(5) says that a person is not authorised to repossess a machine by reason only of having approval to do so. If you cannot repossess a machine when you have approval to do so, when can you repossess it? The Treasurer, in fact, has explained the Government's intentions for this provision in the presentation speech, but it is not explained in the Bill. How much better, Mr Deputy Speaker, would the reputation of this Assembly stand if we drafted our legislation to say the exact meaning of provisions that on their face seem ridiculous, and if we gave the publican, the clubs and the courts a fair go by not saying to them, "If you want to know what this really means, read the presentation speech - if you can find it"? The same provision crops up in proposed new subsection 39F(3).
Mr Deputy Speaker, you might forgive my mirth when I talk about proposed new section 42B which clearly says, "Thou shalt not", but is absolutely silent about what happens to somebody who does what he "shalt not". This is an offence without a penalty - a drafting error, I am sure, which needs to be corrected. If the Treasurer is not blushing, she should be. This Bill contains too many examples of her lack of interest in her job, or maybe of her incompetence. This is wasting the time of this Assembly. We should not be having to tell her what is wrong with her Bill; it should come to us without these flaws in it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .