Gambling Bill

Part 2 is a massive part. It is the sort of thing that, if this were our bill, we would have had in about four different parts, so that we could have all had a proper discussion and debate on it, and it could have been voted for correctly in terms of the various issues it deals with.

I want to look at a measure in Supplementary Order Paper 132, which the Minister has put in. It is about having no more casinos, and no increase in casino gambling opportunities. I find it ridiculous that a law will be put in place that states there will be no more casinos in New Zealand, when we have a situation where, since this Minister has been in charge of this portfolio, the number of pokie machines outside casinos has grown from just over 12,000 to 25,000 now. What is the harm that the registered casinos are producing? The total number of gaming machines in all the casinos in New Zealand is just over the 3,000 mark, so I do not understand what the Minister is getting at when he says that we do not want to have any more casinos, but we can have more pokie machines. Worse than that—because at least with the pokie machines the money goes back into local communities—the Lotteries Commission will now compete with the casinos and with the charitable trusts that run the pokie machines.

We are looking at a situation where the casinos are being told there cannot be any more casinos. The people of Rotorua, who have a serious tourism industry, are being told they cannot have a casino, but they can have lots and lots of pokie machines that are not in a casino, and, better than that, they can get the tourists on to the online gaming that the Lotteries Commission will run. It seems to me that there is clearly no commitment to the responsible gambling that this bill is supposed to be all about. Another issue is that we are to have no increase in the gambling opportunities in casinos. Why is that? Is it because that panders to a politically correct sort of notion that casinos are evil places? Well, they are not; that is another nonsense.

Yet section 8C, inserted by clause 8 on Supplementary Order Paper 132, states that when looking at the increase in gambling opportunities, the Gambling Commission will be able to say to the casino operators that they do not really have to have table games any more in casinos, which is one of the requirements of casinos in this country, because they can have pokie machines instead. Will we be looking to see the casinos in this country simply become great big pokie machine venues? That will take away any concept of a real casino. We will end up with the leagues club situation that they have in Sydney. We are looking at a situation here whereby casinos, which do provide a tourist opportunity and an employment opportunity, particularly in the table games area, will now be given the option of cutting back on the table games, and instead increasing the number of the far more addictive pokie machines. That just seems absolute nonsense to me. There has clearly been some sort of trade-off with the casinos. They are to be stopped from having any more gaming opportunities, but they are just allowed to choose the most cost-effective way for them. That will be the one that will earn them the most money, but it will not increase the employment that we need in that area. That is one concern.

When we look at Rotorua, for instance, we see this Government will not allow any more casinos, yet it will allow all sorts of other gambling opportunities. The Rotorua people put in their application for a casino just after the moratorium started, in 1997. It was a matter of a day or so after that, as I recall. So those people have a tremendous opportunity. In the United States one of the most profitable casinos is owned by the local Native American people of Connecticut. In the Foxwoods Resort they have one of the most successful casinos in the United States. They also happen to be the wealthiest tribe of Native American people in the United States. This Government is depriving the people of New Zealand of a similar opportunity. It will not allow people to get up and make their own income.

Part 2 of the Gambling Bill comprises well over 180 clauses. It is a very long part and is the meat of this bill. It refers to the four classes of gambling that are restricted in terms of the amounts of money involved, and those that require licences and those that do not, those that require operator licences as well as venue licences. It also refers to casino gambling and lotteries. The select committee spent a considerable amount of time over the details of this part of the legislation, the part that will take a good deal of administration, monitoring, and policing.

I point out that one of the parts in the Supplementary Order Paper that was not favoured at the time by the select committee, or that was considered very seriously, was the whole role of the Lotteries Commission and interactive gambling. That was a very difficult question. One of the questions that we have to consider is the amount of money—given that Internet gambling is a fact of life—that is retained within this country, rather than money being spent overseas, and also the fact that we are looking at the continuing viability of lotteries, as such. They were matters that were considered several times by the select committee, and I can say that they were discussed very fully in this case.

There was also the additional matter of the use in machines—which of course will be electronically monitored—of note acceptor devices. That was not a matter that the select committee felt relaxed about, but we realised that people, whether or not they had gambling cards, or notes, could whip outside to a money machine, anyhow, and acquire money, or access money from their credit cards, and so on. Sometimes we have to face realities, and accept them. The select committee, as I can say, debated some of those issues very strongly, backwards and forwards, and looked at them in great detail. In many cases, we had submitters come back to the committee, report, and bring us additional information. So those were the deliberations of the committee, in that respect.

I can also comment on a little bit of history. I remind those members, who do not remember when we voted on the moratorium on casinos, that it was a conscience vote, and I remember that some very notable members of the National Party, including Mrs Shipley, at the time voted in favour of the moratorium. I see people smiling. I remember that vote very distinctly.

My colleague Judith Collins basically set the tone for debate on the issue of casinos—of which there will be no more. I am very disappointed that the Minister did not support amendments to the definition clause, which would have allowed the Rotorua application for a casino venue licence to be at least considered. I wonder what it is that this Minister and this Government have against Māori seeking to participate in the economic development and growth of Rotorua, which, as has been stated already by a member from this side of the Chamber, is one of our premier tourist destinations in New Zealand.

What is in the issue, that the Government seeks to bar participation by legitimate tribal business organisations to bring gambling and casinos into the city in an ordered way, and to make provision at the same time for genuine community consultation, which was one of the big things the member Dianne Yates promoted earlier in the piece? It was not that it would be a foregone conclusion; it would be that Rotorua people would have the opportunity to say whether they wanted this development in their town.

As I said earlier, there are two planks to this matter. The first is the unconstitutional nature of the legislation that unfairly shut the door of development for Rotorua. The real harm that results when moratoriums are used is because of the fact that, if applications are just about in the door, thousands of dollars-worth of money has already been spent in getting applications to that point. That happened in 1997. Money had already been spent in developing the application—hundreds of thousands of dollars—only for it to be shut out.

It was thought that no long-term harm would ensue, because when the moratorium came in, in 1997, it was brought in such a way that the country could take a couple of steps back to review the whole of casino development. But there was an expectation, particularly on the part of the Rotorua developers, that once the issue came back on the table, they would have a fair chance to participate. Given the extraordinary amounts of money they had already expended, that would have seemed an entirely fair expectation. So it was a huge disappointment that the Minister did not support my amendments to the definition section. Of course, he still has time to change his mind, and this Government still has time to change its mind.

There is a big Māori voting population up there in Rotorua—of good people. They are very responsible not just in terms of their commercial development but also in terms of understanding their social responsibility. Both can be taken care of, which is not what can be said of the current situation with the proliferation of pokie machines. I would invite the Minister to go and visit Rotorua, to go into all of those little bars and clubs, and to have a look at the disarray occurring with the pokie machines—

💬 Hon David Carter: Open a police station.

He could open a police station, and add some more police there. The reality is that while the Government supposedly wants to be responsible about this area, it is nothing of the sort. This Government will not allow another casino development in the country, but it is doing nothing to stop the proliferation of pokie machines. They are dangerous to the community—absolutely. It is shameful that the Minister is not moving to do anything about them. He should go to visit those many clubs and bars in Rotorua and see the types of people who are there. There is no control.

I have just listened to the speech from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. I have to say that Rotorua has missed the boat, and it has missed it by a long way. I do not think that I need to remind her of the anguish the people of Hamilton were put through, after the moratorium came in. Hamilton was different because it had its plan before the time of the Casino Control Authority, but Rotorua did not. The moratorium has been in place, and there will be no more casinos in New Zealand when this bill is passed. People talk about trying to restrict them while other machines are going in. It seems to me a bit odd that people want to oppose the amount of gaming going on, but they do not want to oppose casinos. I find that logic a little fuzzy. We want to make sure that there are no more casinos. We have done that, and we are doing it. [Interruption] In the end, people cannot sit on both sides of the fence. This bill aims to limit the number of pokie machines around—

💬 Peter Brown: How does it do that?

It gives local government bodies the power to plan for their own areas. There are restrictions that go back to 17 October 2001. We have wide public support for no more casinos. The support is absolutely wide; people do not like them.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Who says?

The public have been telling us for a long while, and I am surprised that the member over there on the Opposition side has not been listening to what the public are saying. A small group of people in Rotorua want a casino, but the majority does not. I tell the member to have a look at what happened to the Queenstown casinos, when people thought that tourism would be the answer and that it would be tourists who would go and use those casinos. The reality is that most tourists get out there, enjoy themselves, work hard at having fun all day, and become too tired to go to casinos. Casinos in New Zealand depend on local people, and in order to help casinos we are making sure that no one steals their name—“casinos”. That is very, very important—[Interruption] Yes, Judith Collins has said that and I agree with her. There is not a lot we agree on, but I agree with her on that. The bill does say very clearly—and these people have known this since 17 October 2001—that as a Government, we will not allow any more casinos. We cannot be plainer than that.

That was a very confused speech. The Minister made lots of contentious arguments. The public do not like casinos, apparently. [Interruption] It must be why they are not going to them! The public, I would contend to Mr Hawkins, do not particularly like pokie machines either, but they do like the proceeds that come from them. The sporting and cultural groups that are the recipients of the proceeds, like them particularly—despite the fact that they do admit they do not like the machines themselves. I think that Mr Hawkins has been spending too much time in Manurewa and not enough time in places like Rotorua and Queenstown.

I support my colleague in the National Party, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, who is complaining about the situation in Rotorua, and she is quite correct. That is why the ACT party supported her amendment in Part 1. The Minister said that the Rotorua casino missed the boat by miles. He is very badly informed, because it missed the boat by 1 day, because of the 1997 moratorium. One day is not missing the boat by miles. Mr Hawkins is very deliberately ignoring the gains that are made to this country by casinos—whether or not people like them, casinos bring a lot of money to this country. Casinos bring a lot of money, a lot of tourism opportunities, and a lot of employment opportunities. However, if we look at the amendment to clause 8A, “No more casinos”, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132, which I will come to in a minute, we see that subclause (1) provides: “No new casino venue licences may be granted under this Act.”

💬 Sandra Goudie: The Lotteries Commission doesn’t want the competition, does it?

It does not want the competition. New clause 8A(2) provides: “However, an existing casino venue licence may be renewed.” Is this just yet another example of this Government picking winners? That question does have to be asked, does it not? Existing casinos are all right, but new ones are not. If casinos are such terrible things and the public hate them as much as that, why are we not banning all casinos? Why do we not ban everything, as this Government is wont to do?

I want to come now to Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins. This Supplementary Order Paper is a disgrace. It contains 65 pages of amendments to the bill that will have absolutely no scrutiny at all. The most disgraceful part of this Supplementary Order Paper is who it is being supported by—the United Future party. I campaigned in Ohariu-Belmont with Peter Dunne at the last election, in 2002. I went to every meeting and we were both there. It was an interesting experience, because I used to hope that my number was drawn first out of the cup or plate or whatever it was we were drawing numbers out of. Do members know why that is?

💬 Sandra Goudie: Why?

Because we would always be saying the same thing. I wanted to be on my feet first, because—

💬 Judith Collins: He should join ACT.

He should join ACT, because that is what he really believes. The fact that he campaigned on more transparency and more accountability shows the farce of the support that United Future is lending to this Supplementary Order Paper, which will have no scrutiny—

💬 Sandra Goudie: The worm has turned.

That is right, the worm is turning. There will be no scrutiny, and no way for this side of the House to make any amendments or contribution to what is in this Supplementary Order Paper, and there is certainly no provision for the public to make any sort of submission on it. I noticed that Matt Robson is suddenly over the intense disappointment he described in the debate on the title.

💬 Sandra Goudie: It didn’t last long.

It did not last long at all. The holes in this bill that he spoke about—the terrible disappointment he was expressing—have gone! I was expecting him to vote against the bill, given his intense disappointment, but that did not happen. I do not know. It beggars belief, does it not?

The other amendments have been out for quite some time, but this Supplementary Order Paper contains 65 pages full of amendments—I have forgotten how many. Mr Tisch told us previously, but I cannot remember, because there were so many of them. The amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper will receive absolutely no scrutiny. This process makes a farce of the lawmaking process and the democracy that we are so proud of in this country. I say to Mr Hawkins that I think that is truly contemptible.

I want to pick up on the contribution made by the Minister, when he said that this legislation will enable his Government to help casinos. That is what the Minister said.

💬 Judith Collins: He said that?

He said, if we look back through his Hansard: “We are here to help casinos.” So I ask the Minister to open up his Supplementary Order Paper and explain to us, when he takes the next call, what is meant by new clause 8B, which states: “No increase in casino gambling”. The clause provides that: “A person must not increase the opportunities for casino gambling.” I ask the Minister, if he is here to help casinos, what that clause is doing in the legislation Does he really expect the successful casinos that are operating around New Zealand not to attempt to increase the turnover of their business and not to encourage more people to come in through their doors and enjoy a night of fluttering on the machines or the tables? Does the Minister really expect that to happen? If the Minister is suggesting that this legislation will prohibit an existing casino from attempting to increase the profitability of its business, then he is dreaming.

I also want to pick up on some of the comments made by Heather Roy, and take this opportunity to read into the debate my compliments to some of the casinos that do operate in New Zealand. I know that in my own area of Christchurch we have a very professionally run company that has provided employment since it opened to thousands of New Zealanders, particularly young New Zealanders—a lot of them without a lot of skill, but some of them with a huge amount of personality. I say, good on it, to the Christchurch Casino, for the work it has done there. I do not particularly enjoy going to the casino myself; it is not something that appeals to me, but clearly by the number of people who go in and out of the front doors of that establishment, it appeals to a lot of New Zealanders and to a lot of our visitors. But the most important things it is providing are entertainment opportunities and employment opportunities.

I was recently in Auckland and stayed at the hotel associated with Sky City. I spent a little bit of time wandering around there, and I make the same comments. It is a very successfully run organisation; it is one of the most successful companies on the stock exchange. If George Hawkins thinks we will be voting today on a Supplementary Order Paper that suggests there will be no increase in casino gambling, then I say to him that he is dreaming.

I want to also pick up on a very interesting press release that I have come across from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. The headline of this particular press release put out by Major Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army based in Christchurch—a remarkable individual, an absolutely remarkable individual—states: “United Future sold itself to New Zealanders as a party of common-sense family values, and many citizens voted for them for that very reason.” He goes on to say: “However, United Future’s latest policies so directly contradict their stated value base, that the party risks alienating its supporters at the next election.” Major Campbell Roberts went on to say that this Government’s proposed legislation changes call into question United Future’s and Labour’s claim to care about creating a culture that values families and strong communities.

💬 Mark Peck: Wind it up.

Mark Peck suggests we should wind it up. He does not want to debate this legislation. He is not prepared to take a call. He is about as wimpish as he was when we had a farmers’ rally recently in Invercargill—he would not even front up.

💬 Jill Pettis: Why didn’t you listen to Major Campbell Roberts about market rents?

Now we have Jill Pettis having a crack. She wants to talk about market rents. We are talking about the Government’s Gambling Bill. The member should take a call.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I invite the member to table that press release. It is of considerable interest to New Zealand First.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order.

The Green Party has three fairly substantial amendments in this part of the bill, and I hope that if it is possible I might be allowed a second call later on, but I will try to cover all our amendments briefly. The first amendment deals with the role of local government in determining what happens with pokie venue licensing in its districts. At the time that this bill was formed we had hoped it would mean that local government would be able to have a real say, and be able to create real gambling policies for a whole district about where pokie venues would be situated, how many would be situated in the area, and how many machines would be in each venue, but, unfortunately, that is not how the bill has transpired.

We have an amendment on the floor that is supported by Local Government New Zealand, and by many of the mayors and councils all over this country, who believe, as the Green Party does, that councils should have a say over all the pokie venues in their district. At the moment, only those venues that were licensed after October 2001 will be under council control; others will not be. We believe that communities do need the strength to have it in their own hands to combat the hugely increasing problem of gambling addictions in places all over this country, but most particularly in some of the most low-income districts, like Manukau City and many others.

No one territorial authority in this country will have the ability to control more than 30 percent of the pokie machines in its area after this bill is passed. As many councils and community groups that deal with gambling addiction problems would agree, that is totally unacceptable. At the moment, of the nearly 20,000 gambling machines in around 1,800 venues in this country, only 16 percent will be able to be regulated by councils. A total of 15 territorial local authorities will have no control over the pokies in their district. That will affect a huge range of districts, ranging from Carterton, Clutha, and Gore, through to Kaikoura, Kaipara, Kapiti, Kawerau, Matamata, Opotiki, Otorohanga, south Waikato, Waimate, Waitomo, and Whakatane. In those districts, local councils and local people will have no say over the numbers of pokies. The purpose of our first amendment is to try to reverse that so that councils will have control.

The second major amendment we have on the floor today deals with the distribution system for the proceeds of the pokie machines. Again, that is a huge problem that is not dealt with in the bill. We believe that the distribution of around $200 million a year of proceeds from non-casino gaming machines should be distributed through publicly accountable systems. Unlike some of the misconceptions that have been spread around this House about what the Green Party is putting up, we are not promoting some kind of centralised, bureaucratic, totally governmental system; what we are proposing is a carefully planned and thought-out range of ways in which the money will be distributed.

First of all, a portion of it would be distributed through the Lotteries Commission nationally, but only a third. That would go to national bodies, including sports and recreation bodies. One-third of all proceeds would go to the Department of Internal Affairs to go out to the territorial authorities to distribute to arts, culture, and sports and recreation. The final third of all the proceeds of pokies would go to the Community Organisations Grants Scheme to be distributed through local committees. That is not about some kind of centralised system. Two-thirds of the proceeds would be going through local groupings, but they would be publicly accountable bodies; the proceeds would not be in public hands. The fact that we now have around $200 million a year going out through the private pub charities is totally unacceptable to us.

There is a third area in which we are seeking a change in the bill. We would like to see a requirement for a report to be supplied to the Minister each year on all the income that the Government has received from gambling sources in the previous financial year. We believe that the public should be entitled to be informed about the Government’s total income from, and potential dependence on, the gambling industry. We feel that MPs, and, indeed, everyone in this country, should be able to clearly understand, in a transparent way, what exactly the Government’s reliance on the proceeds of gambling is, in the same way that we should be able to see how much the Government depends on the proceeds of things like tobacco and alcohol, so that we can determine the extent to which the Government really is dependent on the gambling industry.

This bill has been a long time in the making, and my party has been involved with it at many levels, particularly at the level of Government. We found that we came to some sensible arrangements through discussions on many aspects of the bill, and that, in the main, the bill helped us to reach an agreement on taking care of both the social concerns, and the needs, of communities, in terms of gambling being part of life and also of fundraising.

However, we came to a part where we found one area with a particular problem, and that is, therefore, the burden of the Supplementary Order Paper in my name, on behalf of the Progressive party. The issue that concerned us in particular, and which we wished to highlight, related to the number of gaming machines that has grown in New Zealand. We believe that if the situation is not regulated properly with a sensible cap being placed on that number, it will help to foster a social problem that exists, and that we cannot close our eyes to. It seems to me that that is the position of a number of speakers who have represented their parties in the Committee today. They are closing their eyes to the social problem we have when gambling takes control of a person, rather than the situation being the other way around—when the person has fun and a sense of relaxation through gambling.

In October 2001 there were 2,095 gaming-machine sites in New Zealand, with 20,597 machines, but by 30 June this year there were 25,221 gaming machines in 2,122 gaming-machine sites. If people do their mathematics, they will see that there has not been a correlation between the rise in population in that time and the number of gaming machines per person. So the Supplementary Order Paper in my name, on behalf of the Progressive party, is aimed particularly at that issue.

The Supplementary Order Paper seeks to put a limit on the number of gaming machines to not exceed the number at 17 October 2001, so that we have a reasonable level of machines and a reasonable gap, and so that there is not just a continual and exponential growth of gaming machines. That will allow people to have access to gaming machines; it will not prevent people from taking part in gaming. But with the limitation, the provision will be an assistance in the area of addiction—the area that is of enormous concern to those social agencies or individual families that have to deal with that problem. It is not the total answer. Of course, there has to be a whole range of other activities—which there are—and interventions, but it is part of those.

Another area as important, which is not in the Supplementary Order Paper, but which I wish to mention now, is the area of note acceptor machines. We will be voting against the clause that enables note acceptors to be part of the gambling scene. We know that it is clunky and inconvenient to be carrying lots of coins around, and people can find that rather difficult, but a ban on note acceptors is one way of limiting those people, those who have an addiction, from feeding machines with large notes, which usually come out of their own family budgets. So we have concerns in those two areas.

Lastly, I note that there was some advice from the ACT party. I always appreciate advice, except when it comes from Richard Prebble’s party. I think I stopped taking advice from Richard Prebble in 1974, and I certainly advised the Labour Party not to take his advice on GST in 1985, and I was right about that. I advised the Labour Party through the 1980s not to take his advice on the sale of public assets to line the pockets of those people who are now the major supporters of the ACT party. I gave that advice then. He did not accept it, so I am not about to accept advice from the ACT party now, and neither are the Progressives.

I have a Supplementary Order Paper, No. 110, which covers a number of clauses in this part that I believe are important and that deserve the consideration of the Committee. They are important clauses. The first one I draw members’ attention to is clause 100, which came up earlier when we were talking about the definitions of “casino”. It came up in the debate about organisations, taverns, or whatever, that use the name “casino”, and I have a Supplementary Order Paper relating to that clause. It is very important to note that, although the bill allows for a reduction in organisations calling themselves casinos, and that the period for reduction is now down from 3 years to 18 months, it does not actually stop somebody going out today and calling his or her business a casino—because there is a time-lag. So although we can pass the bill today, it does not stop me from going out tomorrow and calling my business a casino.

The idea of casino branding is specifically to stop those places that are not casinos and not licensed under the Casino Control Act from calling themselves casinos. Under the Fair Trading Act, this is a very, very important point. In fact, some case law says that a business cannot call itself a casino when it is not a casino licensed under the Casino Control Act. So the point that I make here, which is very important, is that this bill does not go far enough—and this would be one of the clauses that National would support if it went further—because it allows those organisations that want to start up businesses tomorrow to call themselves casinos in this interim period of 18 months. We believe that that is wrong. We believe adequate notice has been given to those places that call themselves casinos to adapt to their own brand—and this is a branding exercise—and to make those changes with their signage, promotion, advertising, and whatever. But to call themselves casinos is misleading. It is against the Fair Trading Act. This is one area of my Supplementary Order Paper that deserves consideration.

The next clause I bring members’ attention to is clause 75D about note acceptors, which are also referred to in clause 154B. There is absolutely no evidence around the world, at all, that if we did away with note acceptors and moved to coins the problem-gambling issue would disappear. There is absolutely no evidence, at all. In fact, places like South Australia, which does not have note acceptors, have approximately the same levels of problem gambling as the states of Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland. But the issue about doing away with note acceptors is that there will be huge compliance costs and a lot more cash will have to be handled. The research I mentioned before does not actually overcome this area of problem gambling.

The other issue is that people can bet with bet cards, such as I hold in my hand. In the second reading debate I talked about these cards, and this one has about $4 in value left on it. Instead of using cash and putting my $20 or $50 note in the machine, I could put in this “e-bet” card, which is a united gaming solution card, and use this means of gambling. So the technology is here. If we want to eliminate or reduce problem gambling, the best way to do it is to slow down the machines. That is what we could do. Telling people that they cannot put $50 notes or $100 notes into machines does not actually solve the problem. So my Supplementary Order Paper omits the whole of clause 75D and also the clause relating to gambling machines in casinos, clause 154B, which says: “Get rid of them. They are a nonsense; they are not necessary; they do not do anything.” The idea behind the clause is one of all for nothing; there is no evidence to support it.

My Supplementary Order Paper also relates to clause 120, “Suspension or cancellation of casino licence”. It is very, very important when we bring forward this sort of legislation that it carries forward a provision currently in the Casino Control Act. At the moment it does not do that, so I have suggested an amendment to clause 120 to insert: “the integrity of casino operations is jeopardised and the public interest adversely affected, because”—of whatever reason. There really needs to be a gateway. There needs to be a yardstick by which we can measure whether a suspension or cancellation of a licence is important. If we were to carry through the provision currently in law, then clause 120 would suffice if added to, and we would be happy to support it. I have moved, then, for clause 120 to be changed by the addition of another sentence that, in our view, clarifies the position we believe is so important.

My Supplementary Order Paper also inserts a new clause, which I refer to as clause 125B, and which is headed: “Appeal to Gambling Commission regarding significant influence”. There is nothing in the bill that takes care of that subject, and it is certainly my view, having studied it very seriously and having sat on the select committee, that there is an opportunity here to include a clause, as I have done in my Supplementary Order Paper. My new clause 125B states: “When the Secretary determines that a person has significant influence in a casino, that person or the licence holder may appeal to the Gambling Commission against that determination.” That is the sort of transparency that we believe is so important. At the moment the bill is lacking in that area.

Moving further through the Supplementary Order Paper, I have a new clause 125C, “Pending applications”, which states: “The Secretary may permit a person who will become an associated person by virtue of his or her position as an employee of a casino licence holder and who has submitted an application for approval as an associated person to commence employment in the casino or undertake services ...”. At the moment, people who want to have employment in a casino can wait for months. It can take months for those people to be able to work in a casino, because they have not been approved. My amendment would allow for some flexibility. I am not saying that we should relax the laws. I am saying that we should go through the process of vetting those people and making sure they fit the criteria, because if there is a pending application—and that is what my new clause 125C states—it is important that those people are allowed that opportunity.

The explanatory note to my Supplementary Order Paper clearly articulates the points I am making. It states: “New clause 125C allows employees who need to be approved as associated persons to commence duties prior to receiving their approval. Approval tends to take three to five months and this new clause is consistent with the provision contained in clause 141 relating to certificate of approval.” So this clause gives flexibility. It allows that person, who may be the best person for the job but who is hamstrung because the bill does not allow that opportunity, to be taken on board. When people are working in this area, especially in the area of casino operations, then the restrictions, the criteria, and the vetting that goes on is very, very important. Casino operators want to make sure that they have the best people for the job and that those people have the integrity to work in those operations, because that reflects on the way operators do business.

So I have a number of amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 110. I ask for support for those amendments, because they add value to the bill as presented by the Government.

I move, That the question be now put.

Given the complexities of this particular bill and the huge, 65-page Supplementary Order Paper 132, it is absolutely vital that we have plenty of opportunity to debate all the aspects of the different parts of the bill.

I want to raise another aspect in Part 2—that is, territorial authorities. In relation to territorial authorities, I want to refer to compliance costs. My learned colleague Lindsay Tisch also mentioned compliance costs. There are compliance costs for business as well as for territorial authorities. I notice that this bill actually lacks a compliance cost report in its commentary, which is another omission that seems to be fairly regular on the part of this Government when it introduces bills to the House. It seems to leave out the compliance cost report. Perhaps it does not fully understand the huge impost on both businesses and local authorities of the enactment of this bill.

Clause 88 states that a territorial authority can provide a consent to an applicant, but before it can do that it has to have a gambling venue policy. For the venue policy, it has to consult the public, and that consultative process has to be extensive. The authority has to go throughout the district, and cover all the different urban enclaves throughout the district. That is incredibly costly, and it includes advertising costs. This bill is also prescriptive about whom the authority is required to consult. It specifies that the territorial local authorities have to consult Māori and whomever else they think fit. I put it to the Committee that they should just consult everybody; the bill should not specify whom they consult. Certainly, they should consult everybody throughout the whole of the district. There is a cost to that. There will be no way to recoup that cost, because only a small proportion of the population will be seeking a consent. The cost to the applicant of that consent will in no way match the cost of the authority consulting on its venue policy. Then it will have to renew it after a 3-year period.

I specifically draw the Committee’s attention to clause 87. Even when a territorial authority has gone through the whole process of establishing a venue policy, an applicant who has gained a consent can then go for ministerial discretion. I would like the Minister of Internal Affairs to take a call to respond to this; I would like him to explain to me what clause 87(4) means. Under clause 87, people who have got a consent from a territorial authority can then decide to ask the Minister to use his discretion to allow more gaming machines, and that is fine, but there is no further direction back to the local authority. It is done between the applicant who has the consent, and the Minister. However, if we look at clause 87(4), we can see that the Minister’s approval must specify the number of gaming machines that may be operated, but they “must not in any case exceed 18” machines, and “must not exceed the number … specified in the territorial authority consent;”. But clause 87(1)(e) has already stated that applicants who have a consent can then ask the Minister to use his discretion to increase the number of machines. Perhaps the Minister would care to take a call to explain what that means, because it is somewhat confusing.

I also draw the Minister’s attention to clause 17, which is about class 1 gambling. I want to enter a fishing competition, and the prize pool is $1,000. I have looked at the definition of “gambling”; given that fishing to some degree is a game of chance, is my ability to aim for a prize pot of $1,000 impeded by this bill? It could well be. Would the Minister care to look at the definition of “gambling”, relate it to clause 17, which is in Part 2, and take a call to explain?

I move, That the question be now put.

The Minister of Internal Affairs said that people do not like casinos. He referred to the huge kerfuffle over the Hamilton casino. At that stage I was not on the Casino Control Authority, but my former colleagues were. There was a tremendous amount of talk, which was being rarked up by the Alliance, the rump of the Labour Party. People were saying that Hamilton would become the Sodom and Gomorrah of the South Pacific. I was born in Hamilton. When I was growing up in the Waikato, Hamilton to me was the big town. I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams that Hamilton could ever be the Sodom and Gomorrah of the South Pacific. It is a great town, and it is going places despite its MPs, but it will never be the Sodom and Gomorrah of the South Pacific, because it is too much country.

I went to three or four meetings in Queenstown of the problem-gambling committee there, which was set up after the Casino Control Authority said it was listening to the concerns of the people of Queenstown, and would make sure there was such a committee. The committee decided that it would stop meeting. The problem-gambling people themselves decided that—the community liaison group. They did it because there was no problem gambling. The reason is that the closest thing to a gambling problem in Queenstown is that there is not enough gambling in its casinos. That is the problem in Queenstown. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that if people do not go along in sufficient numbers, the casinos will not be very successful. What has happened in Queenstown? During the hearings, which were being rarked up by a former member of this House, Phillida Bunkle, people were told that Queenstown would be the Sodom and Gomorrah of the South Island. And was it? No, it was not. I think that now people would look far more kindly on casinos.

The people who do not want more casinos are the current casino operators. They do not want any competition, and I understand that; if I were in their business, I would absolutely agree with them and I would be arguing for that, too. But that is not our role. Our role is to represent the people of New Zealand.

I would like to talk a little bit about the pokie machine operators. The charitable trusts that distribute the money have really cleaned up their act. They have very much taken responsibility for their industry and their sector, and are doing a good job. I congratulate them, and I congratulate the Department of Internal Affairs on pulling finger, for once, and doing something to help the industry get its act in order. I used to be a great complainer about the industry, before things changed and it got rid of the problem people. It is important to say that, because we hear all the time about problem gambling, but for most people gambling is not a problem. Most people who go to casinos do not have a problem.

What will be a real problem for casinos and for some of the community groups operating pokie machines is the smoke-free legislation. That will be a problem for the casinos, and a problem for the little operations that run pokie machines. It is great that we will not be accepting the Greens suggestion to take all the proceeds of the pokie funds and put them into three different accounts, none of which will be about my local community. I think that is great.

I will say for the Green members that they are at least consistent. They told us what they were going to do, and I say good on them for doing that. They did not hide their light under a bushel; they told us back in January what they would do, so we could tell the rest of New Zealand. Good on them for doing that! It did mean that poor old Labour had to go off to United Future and say: “The Greens won’t be in bed with us; will you?”. We are hearing tonight about the great relationship among United Future, the Greens, and Labour. There were three in the bed, and one said “Roll over!”, and one did. Now the poor old Greens have rolled out, and United Future is in bed with Labour. Its members will vote for some of the stuff in this bill that they tell me they do not really believe in, and I believe them. But they are cuddled up to Labour, their feet are warm, and that is what it is all about.

I move, That the question be now put.

Mr Chairman—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The senior Government whip made an unparliamentary comment, and I object to that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It was not unparliamentary at all.

I would just like to touch on clause 8. Mr Hawkins raised the point that the Government, in the way that it has structured Supplementary Order Paper 132, was making things easier for the casinos.

💬 Hon David Carter: He hasn’t taken a call since.

That is right; he has not taken a call on that, because he knows that his statements were out of order, I believe. The Supplementary Order Paper states, in clause 8B: “A person must not increase the opportunities for casino gambling.” The comment the Minister of Internal Affairs made that the Government was making things easier for casinos contravened his Supplementary Order Paper, so I hope he will vote against that particular clause on his Supplementary Order paper. That could be interesting!

Throughout the Supplementary Order Paper—and it is a rather large one—are a number of clauses that enhance the racing industry. That is an area that New Zealand First is very much in support of. We believe that the racing industry has not been on an even footing with gambling for a long time. Any clauses that bring back a level playing field, or even a level gaming board, are preferable to the existing situation. Any clauses that assist the racing industry will be supported by New Zealand First.

I would like to move on to clause 87, which gives ministerial discretion to permit more than nine gaming machines per venue. The Minister has touted that this bill limits the number of gaming machines. It will limit the number of gaming machines at new venues to nine. Yet this clause allows the Minister discretion to increase that number. Pressure from a corporate society that is supportive of the Government could see that society receive preferential treatment under this clause. This clause allows the Minister discretion to increase the number of machines in a venue that is supportive of the Government. That is political interference, and this bill leaves wide open the possibility of that. I suggest that the Minister should go back and review that.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Where’s United’s call for accountability now?

Yes, absolutely. United Future has sat quietly and done nothing about this clause. It is willing to accept it and, obviously, willing to have a quiet word in the Minister’s ear to allow societies that are supportive of it to have increased numbers of machines. The Minister must have a look at that, and question whether it is the best measure for the general community—not just for people who are supportive of the Government. I suggest that this Supplementary Order Paper really needs to be reviewed, and that clause 87 in the bill needs further amendment to correct it, because it leaves wide open the possibility of political interference.

JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast): I move, That the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the Committee, but in relation to an earlier amendment in the name of the Minister that went through on the voices, I seek the leave of the Committee for that vote to be put again because I did not voice our objection to that amendment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member can seek leave to take the vote again.

I seek leave to do that.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We want to know what clause the member is referring to. We cannot give leave unless we know what we are going to vote on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, the member requesting leave will need to refer to the number.

I apologise but I am not sure what number it was.

💬 Jill Pettis: Let’s move on. We can’t vote on something when we don’t know what we are voting on.

It was the only vote that went through on the voices. I am not sure—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be.