Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1003 ..
MR KAINE (continuing):
the committee talked to all of the interested parties before we put this legislation before the house - he has the opportunity to vote against it. That is his sanction. I think Ms Tucker is right. I support the suspension of standing orders because it is getting on with the business of this Assembly as has been directed by a resolution of this place.
MR WOOD (12.33 am): I think Mr Kaine has responded appropriately to Mr Moore's practised indignation; and, the longer the night has gone on, the more Mr Moore has rehearsed his indignation. Mr Kaine is right; this arises from a resolution of this Assembly. Following legal advice, this is necessary from the resolution of this Assembly. No consultation? We have spoken to various bodies in the community; they came and spoke to the committee, not to Ms Tucker.
Mr Moore: Did they see the legislation?
MR WOOD: No, Mr Moore; they did not see the legislation. It has been carefully explained to people what the ramifications of that resolution of the Assembly are. The legislation was flagged yesterday when the report of the committee was brought down. These sorts of circumstances have arisen on no small number of occasions in the Assembly. They are not unusual, and it is, after all, not a particularly complex piece of legislation. The legislation simply applies a cap - the cap that we want, the cap that we asked for in this Assembly. It is a page of text. It is not difficult. It has taken a little time to work out and to make sure it is correct. It has gone through the scrutiny of Bills committee. It has been well drafted. It is now capable of implementation tonight.
Question resolved in the affirmative, with the concurrence of an absolute majority.
MS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (12.35 am): Mr Speaker, it is true that this Assembly passed a resolution - certainly, in no way unanimously, I have to say; but, for all of that, passed a resolution - with regard to a cap on the number of poker machines. But I have to say that Mr Moore is right in his comments about having this legislation in front of us for a very short period of time. As we know and as members of the committee know, that legislation was very badly drafted. Why was it very badly drafted? Why have we gone through so many different runs of amendments today, in the very short period of time since we have had it? Simply because the legislation was not run past anybody; it was not run past the Revenue Office; it was not run past anybody that could have helped. The scrutiny of Bills committee flagged problems; the Revenue Office flagged problems. Anyone who has read the legislation will know that there are still fundamental drafting problems in the legislation as it stands. There is no doubt that this legislation will have to be amended again in the future.