Page 410 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 18 March 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Notwithstanding the above comments, amendment 3 that I have tabled today inserts a new clause 26A that explicitly provides clarification of the limits of the commission’s powers when determining a person’s eligibility to be involved in totalisator activity. The provisions of clause 41 have been reviewed and government amendment 4 deletes clause 41(3), as this provision is not required.
I now turn to clauses 42 and 43 of the bill, which are important measures that allow for an appropriately strong response in the rare and unlikely circumstance that the integrity of the totalisator is seriously compromised. I thank the committee for their consideration of the operation of these provisions. Amendment 5 modifies clause 42 so that it is clear that a direction to a licensee may only be given where the minister is satisfied that the integrity of the totalisator may be seriously compromised.
Further, amendment 6 introduces new clauses 42(3), (4) and (5), and provides a procedural fairness mechanism for licensees so that they must be informed of the grounds for the direction and provided with an opportunity to respond. After considering the response, the minister may revoke the decision if they are satisfied that it is not required. The government amendments are supported by a supplementary explanatory statement which I have also tabled today.
Finally, in response to the comments raised by the committee, I am pleased to advise that today I have also tabled a revised explanatory statement. The statement now explains further that, due to the nature and the diversity of the industry, the range of powers provided for in the bill are appropriate and proportionate to the risks involved, and that they are the only available means to provide the necessary safeguards. The revised statement also includes reference to specific defences available under the Criminal Code, as requested by the committee.
I believe I have taken a fair and balanced view of the committee’s remarks, and have brought forward considered government amendments. I make no apologies, however, for the strong regulatory approach that has been taken as the integrity of the industry must be upheld. A robust regulatory framework for totalisator activities in the ACT will provide consumer protections, minimise harm from problem gambling and limit the opportunity for criminal aspects of society to infiltrate the industry—aims that I am sure we all support.
In closing, I want to thank all of the officials who worked very hard on the original bill and on these amendments, and for the commentary from the JACS committee, as they have provided some further work on enhancing this bill.
Amendments agreed to.
Bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Gaming Machine (Red Tape Reduction) Amendment Bill 2013
Debate resumed from 24 October 2013, on motion by Ms Burch:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video