❓ Opposition questions the government's socially responsible gaming stance, given Lotterywest's potential move to online sales. The Minister defends the move as a defensive measure against interstate competition, protecting community funding.
AnsweredQoN 43Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
GAMING POLICY
I refer to the Minister for Racing and Gaming’s media release on 19 February 2006 in which he stated that the state government’s approach of restricting gaming machines and banning pokies is socially responsible. (1) Why is the government, through Lotterywest, proposing to allow this agency to sell lotto and other products interactively over mobile phones and the Internet? (2) Has the government thoroughly investigated the social consequences of extending gambling access in this manner? (3) If not, why not? Mr E.S. RIPPER
I refer to the Minister for Racing and Gaming’s media release on 19 February 2006 in which he stated that the state government’s approach of restricting gaming machines and banning pokies is socially responsible. (1) Why is the government, through Lotterywest, proposing to allow this agency to sell lotto and other products interactively over mobile phones and the Internet? (2) Has the government thoroughly investigated the social consequences of extending gambling access in this manner? (3) If not, why not? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) This comes about because of poor opposition research. If members opposite believe everything they read in The West Australian , they can be misled about what is actually happening. Lotterywest is going out for tender for a new gaming system that will cost tens of millions of dollars. It is expected that the gaming system will have to last for another decade. There is a risk to Lotterywest’s business and, consequently, a risk to the flow of funds going to many hundreds of community groups. Each year Lotterywest distributes about 1 200 grants to community organisations. It spends about $65 million a year on that activity. Also, it provides important funds for hospitals and arts and sports groups. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
(1) Why is the government, through Lotterywest, proposing to allow this agency to sell lotto and other products interactively over mobile phones and the Internet? (2) Has the government thoroughly investigated the social consequences of extending gambling access in this manner? (3) If not, why not? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) This comes about because of poor opposition research. If members opposite believe everything they read in The West Australian , they can be misled about what is actually happening. Lotterywest is going out for tender for a new gaming system that will cost tens of millions of dollars. It is expected that the gaming system will have to last for another decade. There is a risk to Lotterywest’s business and, consequently, a risk to the flow of funds going to many hundreds of community groups. Each year Lotterywest distributes about 1 200 grants to community organisations. It spends about $65 million a year on that activity. Also, it provides important funds for hospitals and arts and sports groups. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
(2) Has the government thoroughly investigated the social consequences of extending gambling access in this manner? (3) If not, why not? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) This comes about because of poor opposition research. If members opposite believe everything they read in The West Australian , they can be misled about what is actually happening. Lotterywest is going out for tender for a new gaming system that will cost tens of millions of dollars. It is expected that the gaming system will have to last for another decade. There is a risk to Lotterywest’s business and, consequently, a risk to the flow of funds going to many hundreds of community groups. Each year Lotterywest distributes about 1 200 grants to community organisations. It spends about $65 million a year on that activity. Also, it provides important funds for hospitals and arts and sports groups. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
(3) If not, why not? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) This comes about because of poor opposition research. If members opposite believe everything they read in The West Australian , they can be misled about what is actually happening. Lotterywest is going out for tender for a new gaming system that will cost tens of millions of dollars. It is expected that the gaming system will have to last for another decade. There is a risk to Lotterywest’s business and, consequently, a risk to the flow of funds going to many hundreds of community groups. Each year Lotterywest distributes about 1 200 grants to community organisations. It spends about $65 million a year on that activity. Also, it provides important funds for hospitals and arts and sports groups. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) This comes about because of poor opposition research. If members opposite believe everything they read in The West Australian , they can be misled about what is actually happening. Lotterywest is going out for tender for a new gaming system that will cost tens of millions of dollars. It is expected that the gaming system will have to last for another decade. There is a risk to Lotterywest’s business and, consequently, a risk to the flow of funds going to many hundreds of community groups. Each year Lotterywest distributes about 1 200 grants to community organisations. It spends about $65 million a year on that activity. Also, it provides important funds for hospitals and arts and sports groups. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
(1)-(3) This comes about because of poor opposition research. If members opposite believe everything they read in The West Australian , they can be misled about what is actually happening. Lotterywest is going out for tender for a new gaming system that will cost tens of millions of dollars. It is expected that the gaming system will have to last for another decade. There is a risk to Lotterywest’s business and, consequently, a risk to the flow of funds going to many hundreds of community groups. Each year Lotterywest distributes about 1 200 grants to community organisations. It spends about $65 million a year on that activity. Also, it provides important funds for hospitals and arts and sports groups. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
(1) Why is the government, through Lotterywest, proposing to allow this agency to sell lotto and other products interactively over mobile phones and the Internet? (2) Has the government thoroughly investigated the social consequences of extending gambling access in this manner? (3) If not, why not? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) This comes about because of poor opposition research. If members opposite believe everything they read in The West Australian , they can be misled about what is actually happening. Lotterywest is going out for tender for a new gaming system that will cost tens of millions of dollars. It is expected that the gaming system will have to last for another decade. There is a risk to Lotterywest’s business and, consequently, a risk to the flow of funds going to many hundreds of community groups. Each year Lotterywest distributes about 1 200 grants to community organisations. It spends about $65 million a year on that activity. Also, it provides important funds for hospitals and arts and sports groups. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
(2) Has the government thoroughly investigated the social consequences of extending gambling access in this manner? (3) If not, why not? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) This comes about because of poor opposition research. If members opposite believe everything they read in The West Australian , they can be misled about what is actually happening. Lotterywest is going out for tender for a new gaming system that will cost tens of millions of dollars. It is expected that the gaming system will have to last for another decade. There is a risk to Lotterywest’s business and, consequently, a risk to the flow of funds going to many hundreds of community groups. Each year Lotterywest distributes about 1 200 grants to community organisations. It spends about $65 million a year on that activity. Also, it provides important funds for hospitals and arts and sports groups. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
(3) If not, why not? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) This comes about because of poor opposition research. If members opposite believe everything they read in The West Australian , they can be misled about what is actually happening. Lotterywest is going out for tender for a new gaming system that will cost tens of millions of dollars. It is expected that the gaming system will have to last for another decade. There is a risk to Lotterywest’s business and, consequently, a risk to the flow of funds going to many hundreds of community groups. Each year Lotterywest distributes about 1 200 grants to community organisations. It spends about $65 million a year on that activity. Also, it provides important funds for hospitals and arts and sports groups. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) This comes about because of poor opposition research. If members opposite believe everything they read in The West Australian , they can be misled about what is actually happening. Lotterywest is going out for tender for a new gaming system that will cost tens of millions of dollars. It is expected that the gaming system will have to last for another decade. There is a risk to Lotterywest’s business and, consequently, a risk to the flow of funds going to many hundreds of community groups. Each year Lotterywest distributes about 1 200 grants to community organisations. It spends about $65 million a year on that activity. Also, it provides important funds for hospitals and arts and sports groups. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
(1)-(3) This comes about because of poor opposition research. If members opposite believe everything they read in The West Australian , they can be misled about what is actually happening. Lotterywest is going out for tender for a new gaming system that will cost tens of millions of dollars. It is expected that the gaming system will have to last for another decade. There is a risk to Lotterywest’s business and, consequently, a risk to the flow of funds going to many hundreds of community groups. Each year Lotterywest distributes about 1 200 grants to community organisations. It spends about $65 million a year on that activity. Also, it provides important funds for hospitals and arts and sports groups. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : If members of the opposition are patient, they will hear the explanation. The explanation is that there is a risk to those funds because organisations like Tattersall’s in Victoria and Golden Casket Lottery Corporation Ltd in Queensland have Internet sales of the very same products that Lotterywest sells. I hope that Lotterywest does not have to go down the path of using the Internet. Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
Mr C.J. Barnett : You are the government. Make a decision! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Cottesloe was much nicer when he sat on the back benches. This seems to be a return to his old bad habits, and I do not like it. The member for Cottesloe showed great improvement over the past year, but he is now showing signs of recidivism. There is the possibility that those organisations might start to take Lotterywest revenue away to other states by selling the same product through mobile phones and Internet channels. Lotterywest must be equipped in that unfortunate circumstance to respond. Therefore, Lotterywest is assessing its defensive capability. It has made no decision to go down this path. The opposition would be criticising the government if in five years the government had spent tens of millions of dollars on a new gaming system and Lotterywest was not equipped to respond to the leakage of revenue from our community groups via Golden Casket and Tattersall’s to other people in other parts of the country. This state has a unique gambling policy. The policy states that there will be no poker machines anywhere in the state and electronic gaming machines only at Burswood. The proceeds from this state’s lotteries go to our community groups. That is unique among the states, and we want to protect it because it is building civil society structures and non-government organisations.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.