Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2018 ..
MR KAINE (continuing):
brought to our attention by some operating bookmakers in connection with clauses 25 and 82.
The first point they make is that clause 25 makes no provision for a period for which the licence will be issued. The Chief Minister explained that by saying that they want to retain flexibility. I think that the people who wrote this letter do have a point, however, and I see no reason why flexibility should be so flexible that there is no period stated. Since 15 years appears to be okay for other forms of betting licences, I would propose that there be a maximum of 15 years in this case. That gives them some level of certainty.
In my amendment, that would only change if the applicant specifies a lesser period or, in the case already provided for by the bill, if the commission considers that there ought to be an even lesser period than that for which the applicant has applied. But I think it would be reasonable to state that the maximum period will be 15 years. That gives the applicant some guide as to what a reasonable period is. Then decisions can be made to make it a lesser period in certain circumstances. I do not think it is at all unreasonable that people applying for a licence should have some idea of what a reasonable period is. They won't apply for 20 or 25 years if they know that 15 years on the face of it is reasonable.
The second point they make is equally valid. They say that there is no obligation upon the commissioner to act within 28 days of receiving an application for review. I think that the bill is quite remiss in this connection. It says at clause 82 (3) that, if the application is not made in accordance with subclause (2), the commission must do certain things. And one of the things it must do is confirm, amend or revoke the primary decision. It does not say that it may do those things; it says that it must do them.
But then subclause (5) is a let-out, which says, "If the primary decision is not amended or revoked within 28 days ..." Subclause (3) does not permit the commission not to make that decision within 28 days; it obliges them to. Saying that, if the primary decision is not amended or revoked, the initial decision is confirmed simply by their doing nothing is in my view unacceptable. So I will be moving that subclause (5) be deleted.
That places the onus on the commission to do what subclause (3) requires them to do-that is, confirm, amend or revoke. I think that the points made by the signatories to this letter, which the Chief Minister was referring to and which I also received, are quite valid. I will be moving to amend the bill to take account of their views when the time comes.
Amendments agreed to.
MR KAINE (11.52): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 1 and 2, which have been circulated in my name, together.
Leave granted.
MR KAINE
: I move the two amendments [see schedule 3 at page 2130]. In my initial remarks I referred to clauses 25 and 82. In fact, I am moving amendments to clauses 30 and 82. In order to apply a period to the licence, the amendment has to be made to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .