Page 2146 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: So hospitals and schools are provided by businesses?
MR STEVENSON: Give me an interjection that I can understand and I will be happy to reply. The point is that Mr Connolly should be right when he says that the law is what the courts say it is, and it should not be misinterpreted. In this instance that is not going to be the case. The New South Wales Supreme Court has stated what the law is, and the ACT Supreme Court probably will do the same here. That is the law. Business is a gamble, of course. It appears that the only place in all of the country where there is no gambling is the parliament. Why is there no gambling? Because when we lose we change the rules.
MS SZUTY (8.46): Madam Speaker, I have spent some time considering the issues in relation to the Lotteries (Amendment) Bill. My interest was specifically aroused in the first instance, again, through my membership of the Assembly's Scrutiny of Bills Committee, which commented on the retrospectivity elements proposed in clause 5 of the Bill. I will remind members of what clause 5 says under the heading "Application":
The Principal Act as amended by this Act applies in relation to tickets in instant lotteries whether purchased before or after the commencement of this Act, including any ticket in relation to which proceedings have been instituted but not determined.
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee commented on this matter as follows:
The main reason for the amendments is to outlaw possible applications of the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal delivered on 19 May 1993 in New South Wales State Lotteries v Burgin, which decided that three different pairs of numbers would qualify for a prize.
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee also mentions clause 5 of the Bill and goes on to say:
The presentation speech acknowledges that there is "a further matter in the ACT Supreme Court involving a dispute on the wording" of a scratch lottery ticket.
The amendments reverse the New South Wales Court of Appeal's decision in relation to scratch lottery tickets sold in the future. However, in addition, clause 5 also retrospectively negates the possible rights of claimants under such tickets bought in the past and also retrospectively negates the possible rights of a claimant already before the ACT Supreme Court.
I wanted to look into the issue more thoroughly, Madam Speaker, and I would like to thank the officers of Treasury who made themselves available to brief me and to collect and provide further information for me. The information I acquired included copies of similar legislation proposed and/or passed in other jurisdictions in Australia, and a copy of proceedings of the New South Wales Parliament where the issue was discussed at length,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .