13.
scope of the description in s 17(1)(c), to be enforced by the Treasurer against the licensee as a statutory debt. That mechanism of enforcement is not qualified by s 17(4) of the Casino Act.
42 By providing that the CDA operates as a deed, s 17(4) permits an agreement to pay casino duty and interest and penalties for late payment or non-payment of casino duty, and any other agreement in the CDA that deals with a matter within s 17(1)(a), (b) or (c), also to be enforced at common law or in equity. By so providing, s 17(4) does not imply that such an agreement must be independently capable of enforcement at common law or in equity if the agreement is to be enforceable at all. Quite the opposite: it takes an agreement that would not be enforceable at common law or in equity and makes it enforceable. Section 17(4) does not imply that a covenant on the part of the licensee to pay casino duty and interest and penalties for late payment or non-payment of casino duty is to be treated as unenforceable if properly characterised as a penalty at common law or in equity, any more than it implies that a covenant on the part of the Treasurer to act or refrain from acting in relation to the calculation or payment of casino duty or interest or penalties for late payment or non-payment of casino duty is to be treated as unenforceable if properly characterised as the fettering of a duty or discretion to be performed or exercised in the public interest.[1]
43 Sections 17 and 51 of the Casino Act are both concerned with substantive rights and obligations. Neither section affects the authority of the Supreme Court to determine any justiciable controversy as to those rights and obligations. That is to say, neither is concerned with jurisdiction. The interpretative principle invoked by the Court of Appeal against interpreting a statute to withdraw or limit a conferral of jurisdiction has no application to their interpretation.
44 The description of the CDA in s 17(1)(c) "dealing with interest and penalties to be paid for late payment or non-payment of casino duty" distinguishes between interest and penalties in a way that allows for the CDA to impose an obligation to pay interest for late payment or non-payment of casino duty without also imposing an obligation to pay penalties for late payment or non-payment of casino duty. That is what has been done in cl 11 of the CDA, which is expressed to deal with "interest" alone.
45 The distinction between "interest" and "penalties" in s 17(1)(c) of the Casino Act nevertheless provides no basis for limiting the rate of interest able to
- ↑ See Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1977) 139 CLR 54 at 77.
