Mount Alexander Shire Council’s barrister John Rantino focused on legal precedents that had been in set in other cases during his final submission at the VCAT hearing to decide the Castlemaine pokies issue.
Mr Rantino addressed the tribunal on Thursday, December 13, and spoke at length about the Romsey decision and the scope of either the tribunal or the commission in being able to legally impose a condition on MHS to pay the $50,000 cash contribution.
He likened it to imposing a tax.
“There is no power to impose a condition to require payment of the community contribution,” he said. “Imposing a requirement on a person (or organisation) to pay money to someone else is a form of tax.”
Mr Rantino’s foresight in selecting this line of legal argument was sound because that is exactly what MHS barrister tried to do in his right of reply at the end of the hearing, when he asked the tribunal to impose a condition or some alternative requirement on the MHS to ensure the $50,000 cash contribution was paid.
Mr Rantino also spoke at length about the `no net detriment test', which could ultimately decide this case.
He said the tribunal needed to be satisfied that the impact and flow-on effects from the proposal before it would have a positive or at least neutral impact on the community, but not a negative impact on the community.
“The ultimate decision on whether the test has been met falls on your shoulders Sir.”Mr Rantino then asked the tribunal to consider the weight it would give to the Commission’s decision to approve the proposal in the first place.
He said the case before the tribunal was completely different to the one presented to the Commission and that considerably less weight should be given to the Commission’s decision.
He said the glaring differences included the applicant withdrawing the evidence of social impact expert Dr Miller at the tribunal and that other expert witnesses Gill and Whitehouse did not give evidence before the Commission.
Mr Rantino said council did not rely on evidence from Carolyn Wallace after it was raised at the Commission hearing that her evidence could be perceived to be biased because she was a former member of EPIC.
“We say that perception was wrong but we did call another qualified and experienced social planner, Bonnie Rosen, and we say her evidence is significant in this case because it’s the only evidence of a qualified social planner put before you and in her opinion the impact will be negative.”
Mr Rantino said the most obvious difference between the two hearings was the new structure that had been put in place to run the proposed venue.
He said there was a lack of clarity and certainty over whom would run the club because MHS had “failed to be transparent throughout this case”.Mr Rantino then questioned The Club's credentials to run the proposed venue.
“The Club has no track record of managing a gaming venue, no understanding of its statutory obligations, no history, no budget – not even a draft budget – and no idea of how the community contributions will work.”
In summing up, Mr Rantino said the proposal would increase problem gambling in the community; the location was inappropriate given its proximity to the railway station; it would have negative social and economic impacts on the Castlemaine community; and there was significant opposition to it in the community.
