Page 4491 - Week 14 - Thursday, 1 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In two days we have removed both of those injustices. We have provided for video evidence for the victim, and we have basically said that those accused now have the same choice as other witnesses: They can get into the box and make a statement, but they are subject to cross-examination. So, both of these measures amount to a significant piece of law reform.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail Stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (5.45): The amendment that has been circulated in my name, as adverted to, picks up the recommendations of the committee. I formally move:
Page 2, lines 18 and 19, clause 5, paragraph (c), proposed subsection 70(3), omit "paragraph (2)(c)", substitute "subsection (2)".
I table the explanatory memorandum.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill as a whole, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
BETTING (TOTALIZATOR) ADMINISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
Debate resumed from 29 November 1994, on motion by Mr Lamont:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR DE DOMENICO (5.46): This Bill tries to put flexibility back into ACTTAB so that it can operate on a commercially level playing field with its competitors. So said Mr Lamont when he introduced the Bill into the house. If that is the aim, why did the ACT Government decorporatise ACTTAB last year? If ACTTAB were a corporate body, this Bill would not be necessary. This Bill attempts to give a bureaucratic organisation, as ACTTAB now is, the entrepreneurial ability to compete in the open market. So, even if the Opposition and the Assembly thought the Bill was okay, we suggest that the aim is flawed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .