Page 2149 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and the Burgin case was not it. It had nothing to do with it. I assure members that my interpretation is that of the overwhelming majority of Australians who gamble in this way. The Supreme Court case in New South Wales came as an enormous surprise, as it must have done to New South Wales Lotteries. Madam Speaker, you are allowed to disagree with the courts. I am told that the High Court would not take an appeal on this matter, so they were stuck with that decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court. Madam Speaker, I believe that the issues are clear to members. It is retrospective legislation, but this has been done by every other State. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail Stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole
MR HUMPHRIES (8.57): Madam Speaker, I move the amendment to clause 5 which has been circulated in Mr Kaine's name. It reads:
Clause 5, page 2, lines 11 and 12, omit ", including any ticket in relation to which proceedings have been instituted but not determined", substitute "other than any ticket in relation to which proceedings in a court have been instituted before 4 August 1993".
It was suggested by Mr Lamont in the course of his remarks that this amendment threatened the ACT's continuing role in a contract with New South Wales Lotteries and Tattersalls. That, I think, is complete hyperbole. First of all, the action would have to succeed for it to cost anybody a penny, at least in terms of any claim for a prize. Secondly, it is only one claim, and only one claim is being exempted by this amendment. I can say with considerable certainty that this one exemption would not make any difference to the Victorian lotteries people. I might indicate to the Assembly that I have had the privilege of discussing this matter directly with the Treasurer of Victoria. He spoke to me by telephone about this matter. Mr Stockdale lobbied the Liberal Party in the Assembly to support this legislation of the ACT Government's. When I spoke to him I put to him that we felt that it was appropriate to exempt at least that person who had already commenced an action in the Supreme Court. I asked how he felt about that, and I can indicate that he felt that it would make no difference one way or the other. With great respect, I would prefer to believe what the Treasurer of Victoria has told me in respect of the attitude of the Victorian Tattersalls concern rather than what Mr Lamont has told the Assembly this evening.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .