Page 2141 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Burgin case New South Wales and Victoria have never faced a court case in relation to instant lotteries. In that time more than 1.5 billion tickets were sold in New South Wales alone. This must surely reinforce the point that the wording on the tickets was properly understood and accepted by the vast majority of players.
Madam Speaker, this Bill is not aimed at people who genuinely understood that their tickets were winning tickets at the time of the game. Rather, it is aimed at preventing injustices from opportunistic claims resulting from publicity surrounding the Burgin case. Contrary to Mr Kaine's comment that this Bill will set aside the rights of individuals that exist today, this is not a case where people played a game to gamble on an outcome and are now having the rules changed. The reverse is the case. The general understanding of the rule is being confirmed.
Mr Kaine also commented that the Bill sets aside the rights of individuals in favour of two non-ACT corporations. This piece of parochial hyperbole should be put in perspective. These non-ACT corporations will contribute over $11m to the Territory's Consolidated Revenue this financial year. There are 66 small businesses and hundreds of employees who rely on the existence of these organisations in the ACT. This Government is not prepared to surrender any part of this revenue or to put at risk the viability of those 66 small businesses. Nor is it prepared to ask the people of the ACT to subsidise instant lottery claims which are opportunistic, or claimants who lack genuine belief in the moral righteousness of those claims.
The implications of any delay cannot be overstressed. Following the outcome of the Burgin case, over 3,000 claims totalling $75m were submitted to New South Wales Lotteries. Without this legislation in place in the ACT, before the outcome of the ACT case, there could be no assurance that similar numbers would not arise here in the Territory. Madam Speaker, as a minimum, it could reasonably be expected that the current revenues from the sale of lottery products would be wiped out.
Madam Speaker, the ACT is not alone in having to introduce legislation to prevent significant losses to revenue as a result of the Burgin matter. The Victorian, New South Wales, Tasmanian, South Australian and Western Australian Liberal governments and the Queensland Labor Government have all passed legislation to clarify retrospectively the intention of scratch lottery games which used wording similar to that in dispute in the Burgin case. Mr Kaine must understand the importance of safeguarding this source of revenue for the Territory. If we are unable to guarantee to the New South Wales and Victorian governments that the ACT is not a haven for opportunistic actions against lottery agencies, there is no guarantee that New South Wales Lotteries or Tattersalls will continue to sell these products in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, the agreements between the ACT and the New South Wales and Victorian governments are due for renewal in July next year. The Liberals' opposition to clause 5 is putting the ACT in an extremely difficult negotiating position, which, in every likelihood, will result in the Territory relinquishing significant revenue over many years. As I have already said, Madam Speaker, no government feels comfortable about introducing retrospective legislation. However, this legislation does not change pre-existing rules. It simply confirms existing rules by clarifying what has always been the intention of instant lotteries.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .