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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 2857 ..

Amendments agreed to.

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

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MR QUINLAN (10.53): The opposition does not intend to oppose this bill. We are a little disappointed that the subsidy does not extend to some of the drink mixes that young people tend to use. If it did, which we see as impracticable, it might encourage the consumption of drinks with a lower alcohol content.

This morning the scrutiny of bills committee brought down a report which includes four pages or so of comment on this bill. Quite obviously, there has not been time to digest that in detail. On the face of it, it seems to relate to information requirements, possible penalties and burdens of proof in relation to supply and information under this bill.

We recognise that this legislation relates to payment of considerable sums of money to suppliers. We must also recognise that such a system would involve a temptation to poor people to abuse the system for immediate monetary gain. Therefore, it must of its nature be fairly tight, and we are prepared to recognise that within the spirit of the legislation. We also recognise that the bill probably needs to be passed fairly promptly so that the system can be implemented. For practical reasons, it should not be held up at this stage.

It is our intention now to absorb the report of the scrutiny of the bills committee and, in communication with government, decide which side of the house, if either, needs to bring forward amendments to satisfy reservations contained in the report. We do not intend to hold up the bill. We intend that it be passed today and the debate not adjourned, so that the system can be implemented. We would like some clarification from the government about what it might intend to do when it has time to absorb the report of the scrutiny of bills committee. As I said, one or both of us might then bring forward some amendments that might allay any problems with the bill.

As I said at the outset, we recognise that this is legislation that relates to the payment of money, effectively public money, and we recognise that it should be fairly tight. We are dealing with business people, not the person on the street, so we expect that they would be reasonably sophisticated in their ability to provide correct information to allow this system to be administered without any great difficulties or without causing too much action to be taken in relation to misinformation and/or incorrect assertions made. We are quite happy to support the bill as is, with those qualifications.

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