Page 2540 - Week 08 - Thursday, 19 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
give the commissioner sufficient flexibility in respect of the financial arrangement for the acquisition of machines. Again, Madam Speaker, the contrary is the true position. The manner in which the requirements are phrased does allow the commissioner, where the commissioner is worried about whether the acquisition or financial arrangement is in the best interests of a club's members, to approach the club and request them to provide the commissioner with more information to allay any concerns that the commissioner may have. So this provides ample room - and I will use Mr Kaine's words - to negotiate about solving the problem without leaving the client totally out in the cold. That flexibility is there.
Madam Speaker, the next point that was raised by Mr Kaine also deals with clause 20 and proposed subsections 39C(5) and 39F(3). The intent of these provisions could not be much clearer. For the benefit of members, I will quote from the explanatory memorandum:
... the Commissioner's approval does not authorise repossession if to do so interferes with other contractual rights and obligations between a licensee and a third party or is otherwise not in accordance with the law.
This also applies to the disposal of machines under proposed subsection 39F(3). Madam Speaker, there is nothing ridiculous about these provisions. Legislation must be precise about the language in which it is presented. These provisions are expressed both precisely and succinctly, and there is nothing absurd about properly defining the boundary of their meaning. Madam Speaker, proposed section 42B is capable only of applying to licensees and, as such, any breach will leave licensees open to suspension or cancellation of their licences. Surely this is a sufficient sanction to ensure compliance. I would like to invite Mr Kaine's attention to paragraph 24(1)(b) as amended by clause 15 of the Bill in regard to those sanctions.
Madam Speaker, the next clause I mention is clause 25, dealing with proposed section 45. Mr Kaine said that no corporate penalty is provided for in this section. Section 3A of the Gaming Machine Act 1987 provides that the Act should be read as one with the Taxation (Administration) Act 1987. Section 61 of the Taxation (Administration) Act provides for an appropriate corporate penalty, that penalty being five times the monetary penalty imposed.
Mr Kaine observed also that under proposed section 45G, which provides that a permit holder can request a variation to an existing permit, the commissioner may fix a commencement date for the variation that is not convenient to the applicant. Mr Kaine contrasted this with the 28-day waiting period provided under section 45F for variations initiated by the commissioner. Madam Speaker, the two situations are clearly quite different. It is quite proper that in a commissioner initiated variation there should be a delayed operative date - for example, to allow for appeals. An enforced delayed operative date, however, could well be inappropriate in the case of a variation that has been initiated by a permit holder. The Government's Bill gives the commissioner the flexibility to accommodate a permit holder's requirements, while retaining the discretion to impose a date of effect which the commissioner considers appropriate in the interests of the club members, which date might very well differ from the date of effect desired by the permit holder.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .