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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2663 ..

This amendment simply puts a sunset clause in the legislation. Mr Speaker, I think it is important that we consider that there are risks in this process and it needs to be assessed carefully. We must force ourselves to consider the evidence available from the use of these machines in drinking establishments and so on in the ACT by inserting into the legislation a sunset clause that will require us to come back and revisit the issue prior to the expiry of the sunset clause. The sunset clause, in a sense, is a prompt or a reminder to the legislature to reconsider an issue after a period of time.

I think in this case it behoves us to do that because the machines presumably will play an important role in clubs and drinking establishments. People want to have some idea of how they are being used by other people. There no doubt will be claims and accusations about the way in which the machines are operated. We want to be able to test that fairly empirically if we can.

I hope at the end of the two-year period proposed to be able to come back and say, "This is what has happened during the life of these machines. This is what the experience has been. This is how the community has reacted to them. This is how the courts and the police have interacted with them." On that basis the Assembly can decide whether to renew the protections offered to the machines in the legislation.

I commend the amendment to the house. I hope members will see it as a chance to get more information on the subject and to leave the issue of the use of these machines open for the duration of that trial period so that we can return to the issue in two years time.

MR QUINLAN (4.01): Mr Speaker, I do not accept this amendment. I think it is an exercise in pedantry. The government is saying, "You can have some legislation, but we are going to change something in it." It is a bit of one-upmanship, I believe. Mr Humphries, if you want to have the legislation reviewed, I would prefer that you get out your diary and write down, "In two years time I must bring forward the idea of having a review." Some of the problems that you have talked about and that may arise are the very reasons why I would not want to accept a sunset clause in this bill. I would like these provisions to remain in place until they are removed.

There is nothing to stop any sort of review at a later date, but, Mr Humphries, your office is not noted for getting much done on time. If you are still in power there is the risk that the legislation will lapse while people are thinking about it, or maybe because they have simply forgotten that there should be a review. So it would seem to me, for much the same reasoning that you have put this amendment forward, that it should be voted down.

Certainly, we should review this legislation. We should review other legislation if necessary. We should review other provisions that we have put through this place in terms of any area, law and order or whatever, to see whether they have had a positive impact. That would be the positive way of doing it. If you put a sunset clause in this you provide for the possibility that the legislation will lapse. No-one will notice that it has

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