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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (24 March) . . Page.. 728 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I think that to suggest that this legislation clears up an anomaly goes too far. The suggestion behind that would be that processes are exposed to public scrutiny or to the capacity of the Assembly to disallow decisions that governments make, except in respect of the casino. I would argue that, as far as the casino's operations are concerned, the reverse is the case. If anything, it could be said that this Bill creates the anomaly.

Mr Speaker, I want to draw to members' attention the fact that there are a number of sections of the Casino Control Act under which Ministers make decisions that, although gazetted, are not subject to disallowance at the present time. Section 15 of the Act provides for the determination of casino licence fees, a determination made by the Minister and gazetted by the Minister but not subject to disallowance.

Section 16 provides for determination of the casino tax rate - a quite significant decision, I would have thought. It is made by the Minister and gazetted, but again it is not subject to disallowance on the floor of the Assembly. I would have thought that in the scheme of things setting the tax rate for the casino was a rather more significant decision on which the Assembly might have a view to take than is the question of what particular area the casino should occupy.

Under section 16A, the Minister may determine the commission-based casino tax rate by gazettal. Such a determination is not subject to disallowance. Under section 71 approval of authorised games is another significant decision made by the Minister in relation to the casino. Again, it is not subject to disallowance. Under section 72, approval of the rules of authorised games is a decision by the Minister. Again, it is not subject to disallowance.

Mr Speaker, it is not true to say that this Bill corrects an anomaly. It does not. In fact, it could be argued that it creates an anomaly by taking only one of a few areas and making it subject to a process of second-guessing a decision made by a Minister by having that decision put on the floor of the Assembly and subject to disallowance. I am not sure whether there are any provisions in the Casino Control Act under which a decision made by the Minister is subject to disallowance.

Having said that, I indicate that the Government is not opposed to greater scrutiny here, but it should be acknowledged that in a sense the Bill creates an anomaly in the legislation. People will come back in 10, 15 or 20 years from now and say, "Why is that one provision subject to disallowance? Why are the other provisions in the Act not also subject to disallowance? This is very strange". Indeed, they will be right, because what we are seeing here is specific case legislation, legislation to pre-empt some kind of decision, which obviously Mr Kaine believes has been made but which clearly has not been made or even contemplated, that there should be some kind of extension of the casino. We will see this in future years as an anomaly.

Mr Speaker, I simply make those points in respect of this legislation and hope that members will give them some thought as they consider what to do about the legislation.

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