Page 1590 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a prize and who has, in order to protect and ensure that right, instituted legal proceedings in the courts of the ACT, for which the Attorney-General is responsible, will have his or her rights set aside if we pass this Bill today. In other words, this is not just a general claim; it is a specific claim.
As far as I am aware, Madam Speaker, there is only one such claim in the courts today. The Attorney-General, Mr Berry, and Ms Follett, are going to set aside the claims of an individual citizen of this Territory who today has a legal right, and that legal right is being tested in our court system. Are we going to override our courts and say that they are not going to judge? That is the intent of this legislation. Ms Follett, Mr Berry, Mr Connolly and Mr Lamont, who sit there and sneer, are saying to this one ACT citizen, "We do not give a hoot whether you have any rights or not. We are not even prepared to let the court make a ruling on this matter. We are going to cut across that court proceeding. We are going to pass legislation that denies the court the right even to continue to hear this case". Mr Berry is smiling. He thinks this is funny. If he were the litigant he would consider this to be intrusive legislation. He would be screaming to high heaven that this legislature is usurping his rights. I submit, Madam Speaker, that that is what we are doing if we pass this Bill tonight.
his retrospectivity clause is iniquitous and no reasonable government would pass it. We have determined in this place in the past that we will not pass legislation that allows this Government, or any other government, to collect taxes retrospectively. We have made this determination that we will not pass legislation that allows the levying of taxation retrospectively. We have determined that retrospectivity is not acceptable when it comes to the collection by this Government of taxation.
This Bill is an indirect form of taxation because it is put forward on the basis that if we pass it we will protect ACT Government revenue to the tune of something in excess of $1m a year. There is also some red herring being drawn across this. They say that if legislation of this kind is not passed right across Australia there is some $300 billion or $400 billion involved. In other words, these two corporations that have got themselves into this dilemma could potentially incur a bill of, I think, $348 billion.
Mr Connolly: Have you got some of these scratchy tickets in your pocket, Mr Kaine? Have you got a triple seven in your pocket?
MR KAINE: The Attorney-General should be ashamed of himself, Madam Speaker. He is making a mockery of this. His responsibility is to uphold the rights of the ACT citizen. Instead, he laughs about it. I am surprised. If the States and Territories do not collectively pass legislation like this, we are told, these two corporations have a potential liability of, I think, $342 billion. I might be a couple of billion out, but it is close to that. I find that quite incredible. Gambling in this form, the instant lottery, the scratch lottery, is so prevalent that these two corporations could have a potential liability of that amount of money. That is 342 times greater than our entire budget, or thereabouts, give or take a bit; yet we are told that that is the price tag that is on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .