Page 406 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 18 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Scrutiny report 14 handed down by the justice and community safety committee on 14 February raised multiple concerns regarding clauses within the bill. The report points out that clauses in the bill:
… confer a wide range of administrative powers on the Minister and on the commission, and in almost every instance there is no stated limit concerning the matters that would be relevant or irrelevant to the exercise of the power. On their face, these powers are not sufficiently defined.
The report goes on to say:
It is important that so far as feasible administrative power should be subject to stated limits. Such statements afford guidance to those responsible for the administration of the legislative scheme and in this way promote good administration.
The report also says:
From the public’s viewpoint, they afford guidance to those who have been or may be affected by the exercise of power. Should there be an appeal to ACAT or judicial challenge, to an exercise of power, the statements enhance the capacity of these bodies to correct an error.
Minister Burch has responded to the comments of the scrutiny committee in a letter to the chair of the committee, Mr Doszpot. She has also indicated amendments to the bill and has provided a revised explanatory statement. Minister Burch seeks to respond to the scrutiny concerns in a number of ways that I consider satisfactory. Minister Burch points out that participation in a regulated industry is voluntary and that people can choose not to participate should they feel the regulatory requirements become too onerous.
Ms Burch also refers to a statement made by the High Court Chief Justice Robert French, who states that there is no such thing as unfettered discretion. Official discretions conferred by statute must be exercised consistently with the scope, object and subject matter of the statute. I believe the existing structures of the ACT government, the ACT public service and our legal and civil society are currently sufficiently robust to prevent undue application of the powers conferred on the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission with regard to the administration of wagering regulation.
The scrutiny report also raised concerns over the right to privacy in so far as participating in this regulatory regime requires extensive documentation detailing the applicant’s personal and business life in some detail. While it would be unsettling to see such powers conferred on another government agency, the fact is that the individuals and companies who will be required to provide this information to the commission will have done so many times before to many other gambling regulators.
The global corporate gaming and wagering world is dominated by a short list of companies who operate in many jurisdictions. The only individuals and companies who are realistically viable to apply to run ACTTAB are those who already run
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video