Page 2143 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
She is attempting to enforce that right based on the principle found by the New South Wales Supreme Court. Madam Speaker, I think that, on the criterion which was employed by Mr Moore and Ms Follett, they ought to support this amendment; they ought to acknowledge that at least those who have made that claim based on what they understand to be their right ought to be able to proceed to obtain a prize.
The argument that Mr Connolly, Ms Follett and Mr Lamont put forward about people's general understanding and motivation in these matters is very worrying indeed. If we accept that the rules or the laws of the Territory operate not on the basis of what they say but on the basis of what people's general understanding of what they say is, what they are meant to say, or what the mandarins in the tax department who have drafted them think they should say, we are facing a serious problem. It is not easy to interpret what those things mean.
As it happens, lots of people in this community - probably everyone in this chamber at some stage or another - have bought a scratch lottery ticket and have rubbed the little squares off to see whether they had a prize, and we all in those circumstances expected to have to obtain three numbers of the same sort to be able to win a prize. That is the general understanding. It is fairly clear in this case. But it is equally easy to argue that, in many other cases where these things might apply, the common understanding might not be so easily ascertained. Where is the line to be drawn then? How does the Government divine, other than through examining the entrails of birds, what it is that most people think about these things? Does it have an opinion poll? How does it work out what is the common understanding, which is the basis, they say, for the law of the Territory? It is very difficult.
The same argument can be applied, with great respect, to what I said about what Mr Connolly had said previously about random breath test fines. Most people understand that if you blow in the bag and the reading shows over .05 you are liable for a fine in the court. Thousands of people have been caught on that basis and have been forced to pay the fine. If the common understanding is that you do that, why did not Mr Connolly come to this place and legislate retrospectively to prevent people who had been in that position from going back and claiming a refund of the fine that they had paid? He did not do that.
Madam Speaker, again we come down to inconsistency in the Government's approach. The arguments are very weak. They are very wishy-washy. They seem to be floating all over the place. Frankly, I think we all know what the real argument is. It is about dollars. When lots of money is at stake, the principle goes out the window. I have to concede that where a great deal of money is at stake the principle is not worth as much as that. If there were $451 billion worth of prizes potentially at risk, I would have to concede that no principle is worth that much money. I do think that in this case it is appropriate to at least consider the rights of persons who, acting on the law as it stands, have brought an action in the court to enforce their rights. That, Madam Speaker, is the reason for the amendment which I have foreshadowed for the detail stage of this debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .