By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE Gaming Bill 2014 “makes a mockery” of international regulatory standards because it allows the minister responsible to override a key test for industry ownership, the DNA’s leader believes.

Branville McCartney told Tribune Business that the Bill makes the Bahamian gaming industry “a laughing stock”, because it provides for ministerial discretion to grant web shop operator licences to persons convicted of gambling-related and other offences.

The Democratic National Alliance (DNA) leader said no other gaming jurisdiction allowed for such ‘ministerial discretion’ in its legislation, or permitted convicted persons to own part of the industry.

He suggested that this meant the Bahamas, and its new Gaming Bill, which is intended to legalise and regulate the web shop industry for the first time, were out of step with “stringent” international standards and best practices.

Setting out his case, Mr McCartney pointed to the seemingly-tough safeguards detailed in the Gaming Bill’s Sections 24 and 25, which laid out the criteria persons and companies must meet to qualify for gaming licences.

In particular, Section 24 says applicants must “be a fit and proper person, whose character, integrity, honesty, prior conduct, regard for the law, reputation, habits and associations do not pose a threat to the health, safety, morals, good order and general welfare of the inhabitants of the Bahamas, and to the provisions and policy of this Act”.

Section 25 states that among those persons who cannot hold gaming-related licences are bankrupts, the mentally ill, and Cabinet ministers and Gaming Board members, plus their close relatives and family.

And, more significantly, Section 25 (h) disqualifies persons from applying for, or holding, gaming-related licences if they have “been convicted during the previous 10 years, in the Bahamas or elsewhere, of any contravention of this Act or any similar law, or any offence of which corruption or dishonesty is an element, unless the person has been pardoned in respect of such offence”.

These safeguards, Mr McCartney told Tribune Business, appeared to be overridden by the Bill’s Section 85, subsection 23, which allows the minister responsible for gaming to effectively grant a licence to persons previously convicted of gaming-related offences.

“In evaluating an application for gaming house operator licences, the Minister may forego any disqualification for licensing which may arise under the provisions of section 25(1)(h) of this Act, provided that the person in respect of whom such disqualification arises complies in all other respects for the award of such a licence under this Act,” the Bill reads.

Mr McCartney, in response, told Tribune Business: “This provision makes a mockery of the international standard, the gaming industry standard, for fit and proper persons. The country and the gaming industry has been made a mockery of, and a laughing stock.

“You never see any gaming territory where, if someone is convicted, the Minister is able to say: ‘I can forego that, that’s OK. You can be a criminal and still own part of the gaming industry’.

“Do you know how tough, how stringent these rules are internationally? My God.”

The DNA leader also pointed to Section 27 (2) in the Act, which requires the Gaming Board secretary to publish a public notice of any gaming licence application within seven days of its receipt.

However, the “format” and contents of such a notice are not specified, and Mr McCartney openly questioned whether the Bahamian people would be informed of who was applying for gaming licences.

And he challenged the minister responsible for gaming to explain publicly to the Bahamian people his reasons for using his/her powers under Section 85 (24) if he/she ever chose to do so.

Mr McCartney is not alone, similar concerns having been expressed by ‘rebel’ MP, and ex-Gaming Board chairman, Dr Andre Rollins, who argued that the Bill was designed to sanitise, and legitimise, all that had gone before when web shop gaming was illegal and unregulated.

Tribune Business was unable to reach Obie Wilchcombe, the minister of tourism, who is responsible for gaming, despite several attempts to reach him over the weekend.

Mr McCartney, though, alleged that Section 85 showed that the Bill, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament, was “payback” for the financial support given to the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) during the last general election by the web shop industry.

He added that, contrary to government assertions, it was clear that it did have ‘a horse in then race’ during the January 2013 ‘opinion poll’, and suggested the episode again highlighted the need for full disclosure and transparency on campaign financing.

Mr McCartney was careful not to call names over Section 85, which effectively appears to ‘wash clean’ previous gaming-related and other convictions held by potential licence applicants.

However, there appears little doubt that he was thinking about FML chief Craig Flowers, who was convicted in 2011 of permitting his premises to be used for a lottery and promoting, organising and conducting a lottery.

He was subsequently fined $10,000, and almost $1 million, which was taken by police during a raid of his establishment several years ago, was confiscated. That conviction was, though, being appeal.

Another who might fall afoul of Section 25 (h) is Island Luck co-owner, Adrian Fox, who is still facing an indictment in the southern New York district courts over his alleged involvement in people smuggling.

Mr Fox, though, did not appear to be present last week when Island Luck’s chief executive Sebas Bastian, unveiled the company’s new, upgraded and formalised corporate image.

Central to this is the appointment of a new Board, chaired by former Grand Bahama Chamber of Commerce president, Barry Malcolm. Other directors include ex-Central Bank governor Julian Francis; accountant Ed Rahming; and financial services executive, Dirk Simmons.

Not finished yet, Mr McCartney said of the Gaming Bill: “It’s payback time. Section 85 is called the payback time section. It gives even more credence to the argument for campaign finance reform.

“This is a prime example of why it is needed. We have a group of people who have drafted legislation for their benefit, changed policy for their benefit, all because they contributed financially to the PLP campaign.”

Such allegations have previously been vigorously denied by the Government, but Mr McCartney remains unconvinced.

Referring to previous government protests that it had ‘no horse in the race’, Mr McCartney said: “The horse is now crossing the line. The horse is finishing up the race.”

With the Act now passed into law, some might say Mr McCartney’s concerns are too little, too late and akin to ‘shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted’.