Page 6048 - Week 18 - Thursday, 12 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
With the amendments just introduced in relation to the Gaming Machine Act, it is time to make the foreshadowed change. This Bill, therefore, incorporates the Gaming Machine Act under the provisions of the administration Act so that the two Acts are read as one. The provisions of the administration Act provide stringent requirements in relation to lodgment, assessment, recovery, prosecution and objections in relation to tax laws. The more stringent compliance provisions of the administration Act will allow gaming machine tax to be self-assessed.
The explanatory memorandum for this Bill has been combined with that for the Gaming Machine (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1991.
Debate (on motion by Mr Collaery) adjourned.
OZONE PROTECTION BILL 1991
Debate resumed from 28 November 1991, on motion by Mr Wood:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.13): Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, this is quite significant legislation and it comes before the Assembly in the dying days of this term. I have to say at the outset that I regret that we have so little time to consider the Bill, but I acknowledge at once that it is a very important piece of legislation and that it constitutes a continuation of the attack - not just by the ACT Government but by governments across the country - on the problem of depletion of the ozone layer.
It is important, of course, for even a small community such as ours, with a relatively small contribution to the total problem of ozone depleting substance production, to make its move towards reducing the level of contribution that we make towards this problem. I think it is symbolically important that we be among the first to put in place legislation to deal with this matter. Some doubt has been expressed about the role of chlorofluorocarbons - CFCs - and their effect on the ozone layer. I have read, in reputable magazines, articles disputing the scientific evidence about this as recently as the last few months. I think, though, that there is enough evidence for us to take action on this important area.
In particular, I think that the element of doubt is such that, if we do not take action in this area and it is proved that indeed we do have a problem with the destruction of the ozone layer and the consequences of that through the production of CFCs in our community, we are that much further behind in taking steps to correct the problem. Of course, this Government, in bringing forward legislation of this kind, is acting in accordance with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .