Page 2619 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
pressures on all clubs to perform satisfactorily and to generate some return for their members.
Until the uncertainty about the way in which this section is to be applied is resolved, we believe this section should not proceed. That is not to say that we want to give directors blanket coverage to not behave acceptably, but we would certainly—
Mr Barr: He is quick to add that.
MR SMYTH: Well, we said in theory that it is not an unacceptable clause but I think the concern mainly is with how it will apply and how it will be applied and what the process will be. Perhaps the minister can speak to that when he closes the debate. Madam Deputy Speaker, with those two amendments we believe that this bill can be supported.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (11.28): The Greens will be supporting this bill. We do have some amendments to ensure the integrity of both the community contribution scheme and the mandatory problem gambling assistance fund that we created last year. The bill deals primarily with administrative matters and clarifies a number of existing provisions to make them easier to implement, and hopefully it provides a better framework to ensure that licensees are meeting their obligations.
As we all know, there have been some difficulties with the governance arrangements and the Greens agree that it is appropriate that we respond to those concerns and clarify what clubs are obliged to do as well as the mechanisms for the commissioner to ensure compliance. Particular mention should be made of the need to ensure that associated organisations are appropriately regulated, to ensure that what we know are often complex relationships can be regulated in the best interests of both club members and the general community.
I would like to make the point that in the ACT we do have the governing party, indeed the party proposing the reform, being an associated entity of a gaming machine licence holder. This necessarily raises a number of concerns. Whether or not the reality reflects the concern is a separate matter. The fact is that there is a legitimate concern about the probity of the current situation and I would make no observation other than that the Labor Party would fail any reasonable apprehension of bias test. This is a matter for another day and for the time being the Greens are satisfied with the proposed clauses.
On the broad issue of compliance provisions within the bill, it must be remembered that the commissioner already has very broad compliance powers and the process for exercising that power is clearly set out in part 4 of the act. The Greens agree that given that this is, and rightly so, a regulated activity that creates significant harms to many in the community it is very appropriate that the commissioner have the broadest reasonable powers to ensure compliance with the act. I would make the point that rather than being a burden this is in fact in the best interests of licensees as it allows the commissioner to act early and ensure that more significant breaches do not happen.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video