Page 2624 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Clause 9.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.45): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 2764].
The amendment is simply to omit the clause. Whilst we agree that clubs’ constitutions should be consistent with the law, we are very concerned about this power. I would just like to refer to a letter that ClubsACT sent to the minister, where they reinforce the sentiment:
While we agree that club constitutions should in no way be inconsistent with the Gaming Machine Act 2004, we strongly oppose the right of the Commission to bypass the members of clubs to enact changes to that constitution.
It has not been demonstrated why the Commission should have the power to require such changes without a vote by the members of the club.
Surely a more appropriate course of action would be for the Commission to write to the club and require them to put a constitutional amendment to a vote of members. This would of course be only a formality as such amendments would be passed by the members and the Commission would have no option to apply penalties and seek remedial action should the amendment fail to pass such amendments.
It goes on:
The ACT is the most highly regulated club sector in the nation. The level of intervention that certain provisions in this Bill represent is unjustified and unworkable.
It also goes on to say:
I would be grateful if you could release any legal advice that was provided to you relating to this Bill and could you also indicate whether or not this legislation went through a Regulatory Impact Statement?
I think they are very valid questions, and I look forward to the minister’s response. We need to be quite clear here: we believe constitutions should be consistent with the law, but we believe this takes it a step too far. We have a very highly regulated and, indeed, highly respected club sector. I do not think the case has been made as to why we need to take this extra step. The relevant part of the current act simply says that constitutions must be consistent with the law. That is a reasonable statement. I do not think anybody objects to that. It is quite implicit in that, and that is all the power that we believe is required in this case.
Perhaps the minister could explain exactly why they believe it is important to have this power, why they believe it should be in the form that it is, whether or not a regulatory impact statement was done, if so, what was the consequence of that RIS, and whether he will table their legal advice. That would be most helpful as well.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video