Page 2111 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 June 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
applicants and delays, depending on the timing of the Assembly’s sittings. It would be difficult for business decisions to be made and progressed. The provisions therefore are considered reasonable and proportionate in balancing the integrity of the industry and administrative fairness to an applicant.
However, noting the committee’s recommendation, I am tabling a revised explanatory statement to clarify justification of these clauses. I note the committee’s comments in their report about widely expressed administrative powers in the bill, but I disagree that these powers would be more narrowly stated.
This bill is part of a suite of racing and gaming regulation. It provides appropriate and proportionate powers aimed at achieving the objectives of industry integrity, consumer protection and harm minimisation and is to be applied alongside the control act.
In respect of proposed subsection 38D(4), I consider this power is limited by the specific requirement that the commission must consider the social impact assessment and any submission made on the SIA. The provision revises existing provisions in the act for in-principle approvals in line with the broader changes made within the bill.
Proposed subsection 38F(b) was drafted giving careful consideration to the intent of the provisions in the existing act and mirrors existing subparagraph 38K(2)(b). The intent of the in-principle provisions in part 2C of the bill is similar to part 2A of the existing act. These provisions allow for the in-principle approval of an authorisation certificate at an address of unleased land before the acquisition of an interest in that land or premises at the address is finalised.
As such, proposed subsection 38F(b) provides the commission with a level of flexibility and scope in relation to the types of conditions to be imposed when issuing or extending an in-principle authorisation certificate. The bill provides flexibility to ensure that appropriate conditions can be placed on the in-principle authorisation certificate to respond to unforeseen issues which may be necessary to avoid risks to consumer protections or to uphold the integrity of the industry. The reach of the commission’s administrative powers here is limited to the applicant for an in-principle authorisation certificate, and only where there is suitable unleased land permitting a club.
I now turn to the committee’s comments in relation to whether an opportunity to respond to an administrative decision made by the commission should be included in proposed sections 32, 35, 36, 37, 38D, 38I, 38K, 38N and 127W in the bill. All of these provisions require the commission to tell the person in writing of their decision and in every circumstance must give reasons for their decision.
I note the comments in relation to apportioning a level of natural justice to the commission’s administrative decision-making powers and would like to draw the Assembly’s attention to schedule 1—reviewable decisions of the bill. A person who considers that they have been adversely affected by a decision may seek a review, as decisions under each of these sections are reviewable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video