HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-10-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Budget Measures) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 20 September 2018.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: With regard to clause 1, I have a general question. Can the Deputy Premier advise what economic modelling was undertaken by the government on the measures contained within the bill?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I do not have the particulars of that. I am just waiting for some advisers to take their place and I am sure they will provide some assistance to the committee. The question relates to the modelling done in respect of the budget measures in this bill. Could the member be more specific in relation to the proposed areas? Are we talking the Authorised Betting Operations Act? I am happy to deal with them as we get to each section, but if there are some in and some out?

The CHAIR: Member for Lee, are you able to be more specific with your question in relation to clause 1?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I can, certainly—perhaps, for instance, with the amendments to the Land Tax Act to start with.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: In respect of the amendments to the Land Tax Act, under part 9 of the bill, which is to repeal section 8 and to make the amendment on the scales of land tax, in that regard we cannot provide that detail.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Does that mean that the modelling was done or that it was not done?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Perhaps we will have to take this in order because I have a number of advisers for different sections. The gentleman adjacent to me now is from CBS, so he is full bottle on the gambling. If we are going to take this out of context, it is going to be rather difficult because I am going to have to move people in and out. If we could hold that question until we get to clause 111, I would be grateful.

The CHAIR: As you would be aware, there are 146 clauses. Ordinarily, we would go through them chronologically, but given that you have an adviser—

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He is here for parts 2 and 3.

The CHAIR: I understand that. What I am suggesting is that we might go to those relevant parts and then move back, but we would have to postpone the consideration of the clauses up to that point.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am happy to start at clause 4.

The CHAIR: The question before the Chair is that clauses 1 to 3 stand as printed.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps I could offer an alternative. I am not confident that we are going to get through the committee stage within the next little while, so perhaps I could ask that the Deputy Premier take that question on notice and, if she is able to check with the other advisers for the purposes of continuing with the committee stage tomorrow, that would be absolutely fine and I would be happy to move on.

The CHAIR: Then we can work through in chronological order?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is right.

The CHAIR: Are you to happy to take that question on notice?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am, but I am just pointing out that the land tax is already under clause 111, so when we get to land tax—and we have the land tax person here—the member or any member could ask me any questions about anything to do with it, including the modelling. I am not avoiding the question. I am simply advising that we do not have the adviser here first to deal with that. We have the first set of Authorised Betting Operations Act. Whilst I was happy in a general way for questions to be asked on the short title clause, clearly we have different advisers for different sections. If he wants to jump ahead to land tax, then I will take the question at clause 111.

The CHAIR: Okay. I understood all of that, Attorney.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My question relates to the amendment of section 6A in clause 5, with regard to codes of practice. Obviously, the intention of a vast number of these clauses is to replace references to the commissioner as it is spelt out in the bill. My question regarding clause 5 is: if there is an intention that codes of practice will continue to be developed, who will be responsible for superintending the codes of practice and their development, and what will the process be by which they are developed or amended in the future?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The commissioner. There are codes of practice of course which are in operation. It may well be well known to the member, but when the IGA was established it actually had quite a limited role. It then accumulated a number of different functions over the years, and one of those was to have a supervisory role in relation to codes of practice. Under this reform, that will be under the responsibility of the commissioner.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My next question on clause 5 actually reiterates the second part of my previous question, which asked that the Deputy Premier provide some advice about how the commissioner will go about developing either new codes of practice or amending existing ones.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The current codes of practice continue. Should there be any changes to them, it is proposed that that be in consultation with the Gambling Advisory Council and other stakeholders. It does not stop members of an interest group, for example, presenting submissions to the commissioner to consider an amendment, or there may be some new event or mode of gambling that needs to have either a whole new code of practice or an amendment to the current code. Ultimately he would make a determination on that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My third and last question on clause 5 is prefaced by the comment that I appreciate the advice the Deputy Premier has given about the role of the newly established advisory council, as well as the comment that there will be consultation with industry stakeholders. However, given that in many ways the codes of practice ostensibly govern the activities of different relevant industries in the different parts of the gaming sector, is there to be a set process by which codes of practice, if they need to be developed will be developed, or if they are to be amended will be amended? Can the Deputy Premier provide some comfort to the parliament about whether there is a guaranteed role of public and stakeholder consultation?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am advised that the commissioner will set the parameters in relation to how that will operate. However, to be clear, the establishment of codes of practice has occurred. There is no intention or provision in this bill for the abolition of those codes of practice; in fact, they continue in exactly the same way as they previously operated except that the commissioner will have responsibility for the determination—and that includes any amendment—rather than the IGA.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I understand that section 6B of the act makes reference to arrangements where the Commissioner of Police is able to furnish the IGA with intelligence about operations of relevant industries to inform the authority, either for the purpose of decision-making or as general monitoring of performance activities within the industry. What arrangements does the commissioner have for liaising with police, and does that mirror the arrangements the IGA had with the commissioner?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The answer is, yes, it mirrors the current arrangements that operate with the IGA and the commissioner. This is in relation to the release of sensitive information. Again, all we are doing here is removing the authority from being the recipient of that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Deputy Premier may have gleaned from my questions on the previous clause and now on this clause, as well as from my earlier comments, that I am aware that the bulk of these clauses regarding the Authorised Betting Operations Act is to transfer the responsibilities currently held by the IGA to the commissioner.

What I am interested in in each of these different areas is whether the policies, the procedures and the practices of the commissioner are the same and ready to replicate in these areas exactly how the IGA has functioned. When it comes to intelligence from police beyond the frequency of meeting with the Commissioner of Police, the protocols of dealing with that information which may be highly sensitive amongst other things are of significant concern. So are there policies and procedures which are in existence within the commission which govern the receipt and the use and the storage of this intelligence?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Hopefully, this will clarify the situation. The conveying of criminal intelligence is a matter that is currently a matter largely between the police commissioner and the IGA, and the police commissioner and the commissioner. All we are doing here is removing the IGA. The responsibilities the IGA were undertaking, when it was operating as such, were transferred to the commissioner.

This is not a situation where all criminal intelligence, all information, was only conveyed to the IGA. There was a role already, I am advised, between the police commissioner and the liquor licensing commissioner. He is just taking on this extra role. There are protocols and, I suppose, policies that sit around how that operates—presumably how often they meet, those types of things. There is no indication under this legislation that that will change. If there is, any regulatory reform may be introduced, but of course the parliament will have notice of that if that occurs.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Deputy Premier is correct in one sense but potentially not in another. Section 6B requires the authority, on application by the commissioner, to maintain the confidentiality of that information. If the clause here was to delete the authority and replace it with the commissioner, then we could be more satisfied that the same requirements around the confidentiality of that information was to be replicated within the commission. Unfortunately, the act does not, so my question is: what comfort can the police have, let alone those people whom the police intelligence relates to, that the commission is legally bound in the same way that the authority is to maintain the confidentiality of this information?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would hope that section 6B(2) would make that clear because we are deleting reference to the authority where it says 'if the authority or the commissioner'. So 'the authority' comes out; 'the commissioner' stays. The obligations stay. Later in that clause, the word 'authority' is removed so that we only have 'the commissioner' in relation to undertaking the responsibilities and obligations in that regard. It is not as though this clause is actually replacing the commissioner with the authority. It is currently the authority and the commissioner or the commissioner. We are taking out 'the authority or' wherever it appears and just leaving 'the commissioner' in there. He already has a role in relation to the receiving of criminal intelligence, and the protocols that sit around and obligations as set out in the act in respect of criminal intelligence.

Clause passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT