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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3830 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

They simply amend a small drafting error in the course of the preparation of this Bill. It was intended to repeal only paragraph (3)(c) of section 27A, not the whole of subsection (3).

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.


Debate resumed from 5 September 1996, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

Debate (on motion by Ms McRae) adjourned.


Debate resumed from 29 August 1996, on motion by Mrs Carnell:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (11.18): The Opposition will be supporting this Bill. It contains some quite sensible provisions, including an update from the current $40 as the total prize pool amount before you have to go through the hoops of the Lotteries Act. I am sure there are plenty of small charities around the place that are operating inadvertently in breach of the Act and unaware that the prize pool threshold is as low as $40. This Bill also contains the quite sensible provision that in future these amounts be set by regulation. I note the Minister's indication, in her presentation speech, that, if this Bill is passed, she intends to set the level at $500, which sounds like a very sensible level. I note also in passing, with some satisfaction, that someone has gone to the trouble of fixing up some spelling along the way by deleting the "z" in "authorized" and "organization" and replacing it with "s"; and by deleting the "x" in "connexion" and replacing it with "ct". It looks much better to me. We will be happy to support the legislation.

MR MOORE (11.19): In rising to support this legislation, let me say that once it was tabled I raised with a number of Government members, including specifically Mr Humphries, the issue of this method of dealing with this amount. There is no doubt that there is a problem in that the amount was set at $40 in 1964 and now needs to be changed. It seems to me that we actually have a tool available to us by which we could set the level and have it changed, effectively, automatically. The Chief Minister has

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