Page 2140 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, as we all know, an element in the attractiveness of scratch lotteries is the suspense engendered as players systematically reveal the hidden combinations on their tickets. The suspense is deliberately heightened by combinations which hold out the chance of winning until the last symbol is revealed. Combinations of three pairs of matching symbols or numbers are theoretically extremely common. Hence the staggering potential for liability from the Burgin decision. Clearly, Madam Speaker, that amount will never be claimed, since most people would have disposed of their tickets in the belief that they did not contain winning combinations. However, if the ACT is left as the only jurisdiction in Australia where these claims could be made, such claims will arise, and the consequences for the Territory's revenue could potentially be the elimination of revenue from sales of lottery tickets in the ACT. This year, Madam Speaker, the ACT expects to receive $11.3m from such sales.
Madam Speaker, Mr Kaine stated that the Opposition was not going to support clause 5 of the Bill on the basis of its general retrospectiveness. The Government, as a general rule, also does not support retrospective legislation; but most retrospective legislation seeks to change previous rules. The purpose of this Bill and similar legislation now introduced by all State governments, Labor and Liberal, is to reinforce and confirm existing rules. Mr Kaine stated that this Bill has to do with people who have bought tickets in the past, and that the Government will set aside pre-existing rights of these people. Do you remember your speech now, Mr Kaine?
Mr Kaine: It sounds like a good speech. It must have been mine.
MR LAMONT: Quite frankly, it was forgettable. Madam Speaker, I can understand why he has forgotten. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of players understood and accepted what the rules for winning in instant lotteries were. This Bill will, in fact, prevent an injustice to those persons who understood the intended meaning of wording on tickets and threw away losing tickets. It would hardly be fair and reasonable if the players who played by the rules and discarded "non winning" tickets were disadvantaged, while those who knew that their tickets were losers but kept them were now to derive a windfall gain.
Members will be aware of the circumstances of the ACT Supreme Court case, Steele v. Hornsby. During the course of the debate on the New South Wales legislation, the New South Wales Opposition sought to move an amendment which would have the effect of exempting any court proceedings - and there were three - initiated before 16 June 1993 from the provisions of the Government's retrospective amendments. Madam Speaker, 16 June 1993 is significant as it is the date on which the New South Wales Government announced that it would be introducing legislation to confirm the general understanding of, and the intention behind, instant lottery games. Even the New South Wales Opposition's unsuccessful amendment would not have assisted the plaintiff in the ACT case because it was initiated in the ACT Supreme Court on 3 August 1993, by which time even the New South Wales Opposition, in moving its amendment to the New South Wales Bill, was satisfied that such claims were opportunistic and could not be supported. In the 10 years of operation prior to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .