Page 5112 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 28 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS BERRY: I will have to take that question on notice as well.
Gaming—complaints investigation
MS LE COUTEUR: My question is to the Minister for Regulatory Services and relates to the Gambling and Racing Commission’s recent investigation into the case of Laurie Brown. What requirements are there for the Gambling and Racing Commission to consult with the complainant and provide a copy of their findings as part of the complaints investigation process?
MR RAMSAY: I thank Ms Le Couteur for the question. Noting that there is an active investigation, I will keep my comments general, in the knowledge that there are particular requirements all the way through. It is an involved process. Certainly one of the things that are important as part of it is making sure that there is procedural fairness. One of the things that the act requires as part of that procedural fairness for the GARC to follow is quite a clear staged process before arriving at a decision to take disciplinary action.
As part of that, what happens is that Access Canberra, acting on behalf of the GARC, investigates the allegations and prepares an investigation report. The GARC will consider the investigation report. If it is satisfied that grounds for disciplinary action exist, it issues a proposed notice of a disciplinary action to the licensee. The act requires that the GARC give the licensee three weeks to respond to that notice. If it is satisfied that disciplinary action is warranted, the GARC then serves a notice of decision to take disciplinary action that sets out the basis for the decision and the proposed disciplinary action.
At each stage the GARC considers and, if appropriate, addresses any representations from the licensee in response to a notice or a letter and always gives it adequate time for response. Then, after considering any further representations from the licensee, and if it is considered appropriate, the GARC will issue the licensee with a reviewable decision notice saying that it is taking disciplinary action. That means that there are limits on the information that is available to be provided to a complainant, to ensure that the investigation is conducted in a manner that does not compromise the evidence or the avenues of inquiry to ensure that there is appropriate procedural fairness.
MS LE COUTEUR: Will Professor Brown, as the complainant, have standing as an effected person should Raiders Belconnen choose to appeal the GARC’s decision to ACAT?
MR RAMSAY: It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the particular case that has been referred to given that it is a matter in relation to ACAT.
Ms Le Couteur: It’s not a particular—
MADAM SPEAKER: Was there a point of order, Ms Le Couteur?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video