Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (24 March) . . Page.. 724 ..
MS CARNELL (continuing):
and you could add to that now the debate on this Bill -
and had inserted an operative date of March 10, because you had been advised that the Chief Minister had before her documentation for her signature which would de-gazette part of the Casino for use as a licensed club.
I wish to advise you that such documentation would be prepared only on an application by Casino Canberra. The Casino has made no application - either formally or informally - to the ACT Government for degazettal of any part of the Casino for purposes of a Club.
You have advised that the source of your information was a staff person within the Assembly building.
We now have on the table legislation that was rushed in and that is retrospective inasmuch as we have a date of operation of 10 March in the Bill. It has been raced on for debate. It was tabled only in the last sitting week. It is based upon what some staff member said to Mr Kaine in the Assembly building. This has to be ridiculous. It is a ridiculous way to run government. It is absolutely mind-boggling in its inefficiency and incompetence.
There is no application in front of me, on my desk or anywhere else in the system. Why would this Assembly pass a piece of legislation with an operation date of 10 March, a retrospective operation date, when there is no application on the table? In the past Mr Kaine has argued strongly against retrospectivity - as, by the way, have most members of this Assembly - and putting pieces of legislation on the table for no purpose.
I come back to the issue. The Government has no problems with allowing decisions to be disallowable and has supported that in the past. Although not always, the Government has regularly supported disallowable instruments. I ask the Assembly to think seriously about a piece of legislation based upon no fact whatsoever and with a retrospective starting date, for no reason. As the casino says, there is no application. They have not made an application for a degazettal of part of their premises. Therefore, there can be nothing on my table - and there is not - for me to approve.
Mr Kaine: The 10 March date is irrelevant then, is it not?
MS CARNELL: Mr Kaine says his Bill is irrelevant. It is irrelevant. There is no application on the table, so why would we pass something with a date in it, a date that is retrospective?
Mr Kaine: Move to have it deleted. I do not care.
MS CARNELL
: Mr Kaine says to move to get rid of that date. That is a fair approach. Then we come to the next part, the disallowance - five to six months on top of all of the things that both the club and the casino have had to do to get to this stage. Assuming that there was ever an agreement that the club in question could have poker machines - and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .