WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 1984
31
MOST IMPORTANTLY, HE SAID,
HE SAID, IT WOULD NOT BE VIABLE FOR THE MAJORITY OF OUR INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURERS, OVER 90 PER CENT OF WHOM EMPLOY LESS THAN 50 EMPLOYEES, TO UNDERTAKE THE TASK WITHOUT ASSISTANCE OR DIRECTION.
+1 ADVOCATE, THEREFORE, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INSTITUTE TO MEET SUCH OBJECTIVES. THE SETTING UP OF SUCH AN INSTITUTE WOULD, OF COURSE, INVOLVE SIZABLE INVESTMENT WHICH, I AM SURE, COULD BE FINANCED BY AN EXPORT LEVY,+ HE SAID.
MOTION TO INCREASE BETTING DUTY DEFERRED
***
THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY APPROVED THE DEFERMENT UNTIL TOMORROW OF A MOTION BY THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, THE HON SIR JOHN BREMRIDGE TO INCREASE THE BETTING DUTY BY AMENDING THE BETTING DUTY ORDINANCE.
EXPLAINING HIS REQUEST FOR THE DEFERMENT, SIR JOHN SAID, +IN MY BUDGET SPEECH I SAID THAT I WOULD BE SEEKING YOUR EXCELLENCY'S AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE REVENUE PROTECTION ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO MY PROPOSAL FOR INCREASED BETTING DUTY.
+ I HAVE SINCE LEARNED THAT SUCH AN ORDER COULD BE TAKEN TO BE IN BREACH OF AN UNDERTAKING GIVEN TO UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS IN 1974 IN THE CONTEXT OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC REVENUE PROTECTION ORDINANCE,+.
SIR JOHN SAID WHILE THE SCOPE OF THE UNDERTAKING WAS FAR FROM CLEAR, HE DID NOT WISH TO SEEM TO BE BREACHING IT.
HE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD THUS DECIDED TO PROCEED BY WAY OF A RESOLUTION UNDER THE BETTING DUTY ORDINANCE.
+AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE NEITHER COURTEOUS NOR RIGHT TO MOVE SUCH A RESOLUTION UNTIL UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS HAVE SPOKEN ON THE SECOND READING OF THE APPROPRIATION BILL, HE SAID.
STANDING ORDERS 11 AND 12 AND THE PRACTICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL REQUIRE MOTIONS TO BE LISTED AND TO BE TAKEN BEFORE BILLS.
SIR JOHN SAID FOR THIS REASON, HE MOVED THAT STANDING ORDER 11(1) BE SUSPENDED SO THAT THE MOTION MIGHT BE DEALT WITH TOMORROW, AFTER UNOFFICIALS HAVE FINISHED SPEAKING ON THE SECOND READING OF THE APPROPRIATION BILL.
132