Gambling commission had to consider settlement despite 'arguable' case
A problem gambler was not called to give evidence during an appeal against a fine given to a club where she lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because the club and the regulator opted to settle.
The regulator has also revealed it was obliged to consider the club's "reasonable offer" to settle because of model litigant rules.
ACT Gambling Minister Gordon Ramsay and ACT Gambling and Racing Commission chief executive David Snowden appeared before budget estimates on Tuesday, one week after the decision to settle with the Raiders Club in the case of Professor Laurie Brown.
The commission dropped the $120,000 fine against the club for failing to record Professor Brown's behaviour in its gambling incidents register on eight separate occasions in exchange for the club accepting a reprimand and agreeing to donate $60,000 to charity.
Greens crossbencher Caroline Le Couteur asked why Professor Brown, who was on standby to give evidence during the appeal, was not called to appear before the tribunal.
“The litigation is complex and carries risk and this matter carried a lot of complexity and risk. Professor Brown was in the ACAT and the matter reached a position whereby the parties agreed to finalise it in terms that are now very public and given that position none of the witnesses were required to give evidence," Mr Snowden said.
"By virtue of the consent orders and the issuing of a reprimand the Raiders made an admission they contravened the code of practice by failing to fill out the gambling incident registers as required."
That admission was what the gaming commission was really after, Mr Snowden said.
"We had an arguable case but as a model litigant we are required to consider any reasonable offer in relation to settlement of the matter," he told Fairfax Media.
"Through counsel discussing the matter and the best available advice we received, we set out what we really achieved to get, which was an admission in relation to the contravention of the gambling code of practice. That occurred."
Model litigant rules set out how a government body should behave before, during and after litigation with another government body, a private company or an individual.
The guidelines state governments should deal with claims quickly, look at alternative dispute options and assess their prospects of winning early.
However the guidelines also recognise governments pursuing or defending claims are doing so on behalf of the public, and should not have to fight with one hand tied behind their back, particularly in the case of litigants with deep pockets.
The Raiders Group board was expected to make a decision on Tuesday about which charity would receive the funding. The club failed to respond to requests for comment.
Mr Snowden said the charity would need to have a "demonstrable connection" with gambling harm minimisation to be considered acceptable.
He said one of the key parts of the settlement was the requirement that an independent auditor look at the Raiders Club's compliance with the gambling code of practice and their staff training requirements.
He also noted the number of incidents recorded in registers in clubs across Canberra had risen in the aftermath of Professor Brown's case.
The gambling code of practice is expected to be reformed because of the case.
Mr Ramsay also said it was considering the findings of a review by Neville Stevens about how to cut the number of poker machines in Canberra.
Canberra Liberals gambling spokesman Mark Parton asked whether clubs would be forced to surrender poker machines without compensation if the numbers were not reduced fast enough.
"We will be making an announcement on that in the very near future," Mr Ramsay said.