Page 2147 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
with particular reference to the Burgin case referred to in the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's report. As members will be aware, the New South Wales Parliament decided to exempt the Burgin case from the retrospectivity provisions provided for in the New South Wales Bill.
As the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report says, Madam Speaker, a potential claimant is already before the ACT Supreme Court. I wanted to establish the relevant dates which were pertinent to the Burgin case in order to determine whether I believed that the ACT case, the Steele case, should be exempt from the provisions of the ACT's Lotteries (Amendment) Bill. The relevant dates are as follows: The date of the original Burgin case decision was 12 March 1993. On 19 May 1993 the Burgin case decision went to appeal. The appeal by New South Wales Lotteries was unsuccessful. On 3 August 1993 the Steele case was filed in the ACT. On 9 August 1993 a subsequent application to take the Burgin case matter to the High Court was denied. On 8 September 1993 and 14 September 1993 the New South Wales Lotteries (Amendment) Bill was debated and passed in the New South Wales Parliament.
It can be seen from these dates and the sequence of events, Madam Speaker, that it makes sense for the Steele case to be exempt from the retrospective provisions which this Assembly is asked to apply. As this matter has yet to be determined by the ACT Supreme Court, a decision still will need to be made on the basis of the merits of the case, or, alternatively, Tattersalls may agree to settle the claim of $110,005 at this time. Madam Speaker, most members are loath to pass retrospective legislation. By doing so today, we effectively prevent a number of people from pursuing potential claims. I have presented argument today as to why the Steele case, in particular, should be exempt, and I urge members to consider very carefully the amendment foreshadowed by Mr Humphries and which will be moved by Mr Kaine.
MR MOORE (8.50): There are a couple of points, I think, that need to be added to what has been said so far. Ms Szuty mentioned some dates. I believe that she left out the June announcement by the New South Wales Government that they would act on this issue. We accept as general parliamentary practice that, when a government makes an announcement, that is the date on which a piece of financial legislation will take effect. It has been a quite common practice for governments to make announcements about such things. Let me give you an example, Madam Speaker. When the Federal Government brings down its budget it says that it will collect tax or an excise on wine or cigarettes, or something like that, as of that date. It begins as of the date of the announcement, even though the legislation will not be passed until some time later. We accept that.
With that issue taken into account, there is another issue which was raised by Mr Humphries in his speech. I think he referred to Ms Follett before; but he also said that, if I were to be consistent in my approach when talking about harm to an individual and how I had made my decision on the previous Bill, I would support the amendment that is to be moved by Mr Kaine. That is the consistency that I aim for and that is why I am going to support the amendment to be put by Mr Kaine. An individual has her case
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .