Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2015 Week 12 Hansard (Tuesday, 27 October 2015) . . Page.. 3663 ..
less restrictive means available. Today I have tabled the revised explanatory statement in response to those comments.
The explanatory statement acknowledges the identified human rights aspects of new paragraph 6A(1)(e) of the bill and provides an analysis in accordance with subsection 28(2) of the Human Rights Act. Firstly, the limitation imposed is only relevant to the specific lottery; it does not stop a person doing such things as commenting on or questioning the lottery industry generally. Secondly, this limitation reflects the diverse nature of the lottery industry. We are deregulating but keeping the community safeguards in place. At the heart of this new section is the fact that not all lotteries and lottery prizes will be appropriate to all areas of the community. The government does not, for example, support lotteries for cosmetic surgery procedures being targeted at teenagers. These are reasonable limitations similar to the provisions used in New South Wales and Victoria.
Finally, new paragraph 6A(1)(e) ensures that the regulatory framework works in tandem with deregulation and allows for emerging market developments. The provision aligns with the existing gambling and racing suite of the legislation. Through this bill, the government has responded to community concerns about the impost of legislative approval requirements for low-risk lotteries.
I commend the bill and the revised explanatory statement to the Assembly. I want to thank the officials who worked on this amendment and acknowledge the contributions of members in this place.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Building (Loose-fill Asbestos Eradication) Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Debate resumed from 24 September 2015, on motion by Mr Barr:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.08): There are a number of elements to what is occurring today with the debate. There is the bill in principle, which, in essence, we support. It contains a range of mostly technical, consequential requirements, changes to law, to enable the buyback scheme and demolition process to occur. There are amendments being moved that make a number of changes, which were circulated yesterday, and which relate to duplexes—where it is not actually a Mr Fluffy home but it adjoins a Mr Fluffy home. There is also a disallowable instrument which, as I understand it, was tabled at the end of question time.