Page 409 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 18 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The key objective of the regulation of totalisators is the protection of the community from any issue that may arise if the integrity of the totalisator is compromised, such as by the entry of criminal elements. An equally important aim is minimising harm from problem gambling. The bill has been developed with appropriate and proportionate powers to achieve these objectives.
I note here that there are parallels between the totalisator licensee and the casino licensee. The Totalisator Bill 2013 ensures that there are similar regulatory safeguards to those that apply under the Casino Control Act 2006. These licensees are entities, not individuals, and they generally have considerable financial means available. As such, human rights considerations need to be understood in that context.
The powers established by the bill have been drafted with due regard for administrative law, and any power conferred on me as the minister or the commission are limited to matters reasonably relating to the operation of a totalisator business. The totalisator industry is diverse and is becoming more globalised.
Over recent years the gambling industry has seen a number of significant changes, in particular with evolving technologies and the increased use of the internet. This has resulted in a broadening of gambling activities to a wider range of events, including both national and international sporting activities and an expansion of international gambling operations in the Australian market.
The bill must provide the capacity to be responsive to these emerging market developments and provide sufficient flexibility to ensure that the regulatory framework remains robust. The committee has commented that the bill’s powers should include the limitation that it may only be exercised where there are reasonable grounds for doing so.
I note that there are already limitations on certain powers listed by the committee, particularly those in relation to disciplinary action. The grounds for disciplinary action are set out in clause 45 of the bill. In other instances, there is a need to ensure that the regulatory function of the commission is not unduly hampered, and that the alignment with the existing gaming and racing suite of legislation is preserved.
However, noting the committee’s concerns, where appropriate, I have, in tabling the amendments today, clarified that decisions must be made on reasonable grounds. Government amendments 1 and 2 revise clause 24(1)(d) and clause 25(1) to address this issue, along with some changes also to the sequencing of the latter clause.
A decision to grant a totalisator licence must be based on a thorough assessment of the licensee’s eligibility. For this assessment to occur, we need to check the identity of the people involved with the operation of the totalisator, and this means obtaining personal information from certain people, including their fingerprints. Should a person decide not to provide such information, it is a necessary consequence that they cannot be involved in totalisator activities. However, in line with the human rights considerations, this power is limited to an assessment of those at the upper levels of the organisation; that is, those who might influence the conduct of the totalisator.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video