Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2018 Week 10 Hansard (Tuesday, 18 September 2018) . . Page.. 3663 ..
This amendment does not indicate a percentage share to be distributed back to the codes. I would love to see a percentage level that mirrors New South Wales. In preparing this amendment, we concede it is not for us to pluck a number out of the sky; it is ultimately up to the government to declare a percentage of POC tax revenue.
Ultimately this parliament could pass this amendment. The government could, if they chose, regulate for a percentage of zero. This does not railroad the government into doing anything. All it does is provide the mechanism to do so. It would just have the government acknowledging the importance of the racing codes and ultimately the importance of securing the livelihoods of those involved and the economic benefits of the racing codes of the ACT to preserve this part of our city.
It is my belief that, despite the rosy picture that the Chief Minister painted earlier, if we do nothing in the funding space for our remaining racing codes when all of the surrounding jurisdictions are reaching out to the racing codes in the ways that I explained earlier, our remaining codes will wither on the vine. Perhaps that is what they are hoping for. It is very important to me that we retain thoroughbred racing and harness racing in our city long term.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I wish to make a ruling on the amendment just moved by Mr Parton. Standing order 200 states:
An enactment, vote or resolution for the appropriation of the public money of the Territory must not be proposed in the Assembly except by a Minister. Such proposals may be introduced by a Minister without notice.
Mr Parton’s amendment proposes that a prescribed proportion of total betting tax paid to the tax commissioner is to be appropriated to the racing clubs. As such, I believe that it breaches standing order 200 and I accordingly rule it out of order.
MR WALL (Brindabella) (11.35): On your ruling, Madam Assistant Speaker, standing order 201 states:
A Member, other than a Minister, may not move an amendment to a money proposal, as specified in standing order 200, if that amendment would increase the amount of public money of the Territory to be appropriated.
Mr Parton’s amendment does not, in any form, increase the quantum of money to be appropriated. That has been covered in the appropriation bill. All this seeks to do is amend the way in which the funds are expended. The money has been appropriated whether or not Mr Parton’s amendment is adopted and accepted. All Mr Parton’s amendment would do to the bill is actually inform the government on how that money should be allocated.
I would ask you to consider your ruling. Standing order 201 is also a direct excerpt from section 65 of the commonwealth self-government act establishing the ACT. Therefore, Mr Parton’s amendment should be allowed.