Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 6 Hansard (22 June) . . Page.. 1613 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
Mr Speaker, we could not deal with that next week. Obviously, we could not deal with all that in the space of one day of next week. We would have to come back for a further sitting in the week after next. We would also have to deal with the gaming legislation. As I understand it, the appointment of the Casino Surveillance Authority expires on 30 June. We have to produce legislation to extend the appointment of members of that authority beyond 30 June.
Mr Hargreaves: Tsk, tsk.
MR HUMPHRIES: "Tsk, tsk', says Mr Hargreaves; it does not really matter.
Mr Hargreaves: You should have thought about that when you knew about the Bruce Stadium debacle.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, we have not put this matter before the Assembly in this way. We have not upset the applecart as far as the sitting is concerned. (Extension of time granted) Mr Speaker, I hope that members opposite will adopt a little bit of commonsense about this matter. There is important business on the program.
Mr Hargreaves: Like your speed cameras.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is important also, Mr Speaker, as it happens. Mr Hargreaves mentioned speed cameras. We are expecting in the first financial year revenue of $2.5m from speed cameras. It follows that every week of delay on that costs the ACT a considerable amount of money as a proportion of that $2.5m. Savings measures in the budget will be delayed and a proportion of that saving for the financial year will be lost by any delay in the passage of the budget. Revenue measures which are expressed for the full financial year will be lost to the extent to which we delay the budget for that particular proportion of the year. It may only amount to a few days, but it does add up to several hundred thousand dollars, on a conservative estimate.
Mr Speaker, members opposite obviously are not interested in these arguments. They appear to be unimpressed by the question of sound financial management, and that does not surprise me at all. But the fact remains that if we do not deal with these issues we put a number of important considerations at risk. Mr Speaker, I ask members to oppose this motion. It is important that we do this important business. I say to members that we should ensure that it is done this week. It was only yesterday, as I understand it, that members opposite were running round this building saying, "We should be sitting throughout this week".
Mr Berry: Who said that?
MR HUMPHRIES: I understand that your view earlier yesterday was that we should sit throughout this week. Even when I spoke to Mr Berry last night, the view in favour of an adjournment was not particularly strongly expressed. Mr Berry's view to me was: "I think we tend to the view that we probably ought to adjourn". That was the way it was put to me. Now, it is: "We must adjourn under all circumstances. We must adjourn no matter what. We must adjourn".
Mr Stanhope: What did you tend to think?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .