Page 1588 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I thank members for their support. I accept that the issue of access to a defendant is an issue that we may again want to look at. We will get the opportunity to review and revisit this. The Assembly committee may well be an appropriate mechanism if we do not have some outside consultancy. I would not be surprised, Ms Szuty, to see the Australian Law Reform Commission want to have another look at this, and I would not be surprised to see some independent academic work when it has been in operation for some time, perhaps through the Institute of Criminology or one of the other research bodies. I am sure that this Assembly will have another opportunity to look at it. I thank members for their support. This is a landmark piece of legislation and members should be proud that they have been able to support it tonight.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
Debate resumed from 14 April 1994, on motion by Ms Follett:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR KAINE (8.33): Madam Speaker, the Opposition supports five-sixths of this Bill. We support clause 1, which says:
This Act may be cited as the Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1994.
We support clause 2, which has to do with the date on which this Bill will commence. We support clause 3, which defines the principal Act. We support clause 4, which defines when a ticket in a scratch lottery or an instant lottery is a winning ticket. We support clause 6, because clause 6 amends some minor matters in the original Act. We do not support clause 5.
We do not support clause 5 for two reasons. We reject it on the basis of the generality of retrospectivity of Bills. We believe that it is unreasonable for a government to enact a Bill which acts retrospectively to the detriment of possibly a large number of people. In this case the retrospectivity has to do with people who have bought tickets in instant lotteries in the past which, under the definition determined by the case of New South Wales Lotteries v. Burgin, would allow them to win a prize. If we accept this Government Bill we are saying that those pre-existing rights will be set aside.
Mr Connolly: John Fahey and Jeff Kennett will not be happy with you.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .