Page 2139 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
Debate resumed from 17 May 1994, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Mr Kaine: Madam Speaker, Mr Connolly made - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Kaine; Mr Lamont was a bit slow in getting to his feet. He had the call.
Mr Humphries: For what?
MADAM SPEAKER: It is the Lotteries (Amendment) Bill and Mr Lamont adjourned it.
Mr Lamont: That is right. You have spoken already.
MADAM SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Kaine.
Mr Humphries: No, he has not. You adjourned it because he was not here at the time.
Mr Lamont: No; Mr Kaine has already spoken on the matter.
MADAM SPEAKER: That is right.
Ms Follett: He has. He opposed it vehemently.
MADAM SPEAKER: Yes, on 17 May, Mr Kaine.
Mr Kaine: I did not think I had spoken on it.
MR LAMONT (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Housing and Community Services, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (8.20): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak in support of the Lotteries (Amendment) Bill and to take this opportunity to comment on various points raised by Mr Kaine during the last debate on the Bill. I can remind Mr Kaine of what he said; it appears that he has forgotten.
As outlined in the Chief Minister's presentation speech, this Bill clarifies the common understanding of the rules of instant lottery games - that is, it confirms the circumstance under which prizes have always been paid for a winning instant scratch lottery ticket. Since the publicity over the Burgin case many holders of instant lottery tickets have approached New South Wales Lotteries and Tattersalls with claims for prizes - over 3,000 in New South Wales alone. This includes a large number of people with tickets with wording that is different from that on Mr Burgin's ticket. These tickets were bought after the wording was changed in 1990. Madam Speaker, Mr Kaine's comment on the potential liability of Tattersalls being $342 billion calls for some clarification. That figure was advised by Tattersalls as the theoretical liability of all Burgin-style tickets on the market at the time the Burgin claim was made.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .