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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3831 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

indicated $500 is the level. Such amount could be achieved by setting it at equivalent to five penalty units, which we are quite familiar with in legislation, and using that process so that we know what the amount is. That would save this business of then having to gazette it again, having recognised that it was a problem, and going through a disallowable instrument sort of proposal.

I had considered putting an amendment, but I felt that it was probably not appropriate to do so with just this one piece of legislation. It would be much more appropriate for the Government to look at this as an overall policy and say that it is a worthwhile policy for dealing with the problem. What I will do here is support this legislation but ask you to look at that as a possibility for a policy to apply across this sort of Act. I think that would save such pieces of legislation coming back before the Assembly or even being brought to the Assembly's notice, as the amount would be determined by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. This may well reduce the amount of administration that is required to deal with this sort of issue. Other than that, I think it is quite sensible to move from the $40 amount to ensure that there is no inappropriate burden on people who are genuinely running small raffles.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (11.21), in reply: Mr Speaker, I thank members for their support for this piece of legislation. It is sensible legislation. I agree with Mr Whitecross that there are lots of little charities that did not realise they had to seek approval for a $40 raffle. It is hard to think of what you could possibly raffle that would fall underneath that value in total.

Mr Moore: A chook, Chief Minister.

MRS CARNELL: A single chook raffle.

MR SPEAKER: A copy of Hansard, perhaps, Chief Minister?

MRS CARNELL: That is true. That would be worth very little, especially today. You are right, Mr Speaker. I take on board Mr Moore's comments about the penalty unit approach. I wonder whether he could think of something else to call it; but it is something that we will look at, because it does seem, at least at first look, to have some real benefits for a streamlined process. I thank everybody for their support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

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