Gambling Bill

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that Part 2 contains 185 clauses and has 37 subheadings, but the Chairperson took only 13 substantive calls. I say that is not good enough, and I hope the Chairperson and the Committee will be a little bit more tolerant on the remaining parts. This is a major bill, it is quite complicated, and it should be subjected to strong debate. The Minister has a Supplementary Order Paper of some 65 pages, representing about 20 percent of the bill itself. I believe it is Parliament’s duty to do this bill justice—at least by having some thorough debate. I say again that having 13 substantive speeches—that is, 5-minute speeches—on a part with 185 clauses and 37 subheadings is not good enough.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I was listening to the debate. I say to the member that under Standing Order 139 and Speaker’s ruling 54/2 the Chairperson is the sole judge of relevancy and when to accept the closure. It is entirely in the Chairperson’s hands, and is not a debatable matter. Whoever is in the Chair endeavours to be as fair as he or she possibly can, recognising, of course, the proportionality of the House. I am aware that there are several subparts to Part 3, and I assure the member that there will be reasonable speaking opportunities on this part.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand your ruling. I do not want to cast any aspersions on a personal basis—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Under Speaker’s ruling 64/3(1), the member cannot do that.

I listened intently to the speeches up to that time, and there was very little repetition from anybody. It was an extremely good debate. My colleague took the last call and raised a very pertinent point, which we were hoping the Minister would respond to. I am just asking you to take note of my concern.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Chair has given an assurance of that.

Part 3 abolishes the Casino Control Authority and establishes the Gambling Commission. Two subparts of Part 3 are major—one deals with the Gambling Commission and the other with the Lotteries Commission. Part 3 has a large number of clauses, but they are fairly much contained within those two issues.

The issue around the Gambling Commission, which was discussed at the Government Administration Committee, was the level of its independence from the ministry. There were a number of submissions on that matter, which was discussed fully. In a majority report, the select committee reported back that it felt the commission did have sufficient independence and would be able to do the job adequately.

With regard to the Lotteries Commission, the main item of interest at this stage is the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. It allows for interactive gambling, and, as I mentioned previously, that is inevitable in this modern age. It was something that the select committee discussed in considerable detail. We called the Lotteries Commission back two or three times to present to the committee. I think the Committee of the whole House will be quite pleased with the Supplementary Order Paper, in that although it allows interactive gambling, it also realises that it is inevitable. Also, with the Internet there is far greater opportunity for people to participate internationally, and therefore we need to keep what gambling money there is within this country.

As we have seen, Part 3 deals with the set-up of the Gambling Commission. It deals with the membership, structures, and administration of that commission. It also deals with the Lotteries Commission, the Lottery Grants Board, and, as I said initially, with the abolition of the Casino Control Authority. Those bodies are all dealt with in Part 3 of this bill.

I will just continue on from the previous speaker—the chairperson of the Government Administration Committee. The Casino Control Authority is being abolished under this bill, and the authority accepted that—in fact, its submissions to the committee were quite supportive of the concept. However, the authority was extremely concerned to make sure that the Gambling Commission be something more than a puppet of the Department of Internal Affairs and/or the Minister.

One of the issues we have is that the Gambling Commission is specifically prevented, under this bill, from having staff. Under the Supplementary Order Paper—obviously as a result of the work done by the United Future party—there is a bit of a saving grace whereby staff of the Department of Internal Affairs, who will now work for the Gambling Commission, will be housed in a different place. I do not think that housing them in a different place will make very much difference. They will still be Department of Internal Affairs staff, and they will still be working under the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. They will, in fact, be captured. One of the roles of the Gambling Commission is to look at appeals and concerns about licences—in other words, to review the work of the Department of Internal Affairs and its gaming inspectors in relation to casinos and pokie machines. So we have a regulator captured by its department, and very much, we believe, subject to political interference. That is a serious concern, because gambling in this country needs to be kept under the control of an independent body.

One of the other concerns I am aware of is that the chief gaming inspector in New Zealand has now left his job. He had been told he had to move from Auckland to Wellington. In other words, the people involved in the regulation of casinos will move away from where the casinos are located to Wellington, where there are no casinos. That makes no sense at all. What we have here is more bureaucracy and less independence, resulting in less faith by the gambling industry in the gambling authority.

Another issue I want to raise is the Lotteries Commission. Under this bill, the commission is getting a tremendous amount of whatever it wants. One of the things I would say to the Minister is that the Lotteries Commission is only about making money out of gambling and collecting taxes, so why is it in a Government commission? It is doing something that would be far better given over to the private sector. The Lotteries Commission is being given interactive gambling, so that it can compete with the pokie machines and the casino operators, who have put a tremendous amount of effort into buildings, staff, and all that sort of infrastructure. They are being told that a Government body, which is politically appointed, will be going around competing with them.

That is not good enough. The role of Government in this industry should be regulation and the collection of taxes. It has no right being in the business of competing with the private sector. That is absolutely wrong. The people of this country have accepted lotteries only on the basis that they are a once-a-week sort of thing, and that people can have a flutter for $5, or whatever. They will not be very impressed with having the Government supporting and promoting gambling for its own ends. That is as wrong as if this Government turned round and said: “Let’s now have the Lotteries Commission supporting and promoting tobacco sales or alcohol.” It is exactly the same thing, and it is wrong.

I am very disappointed that United Future was not able to do a better deal with the Government on this issue. It should have stuck it out, because the Government had nowhere to go—it had already kicked the Greens out of bed. It would have been much better for United Future and for the country if that party had shown a bit more mettle and stuck with it.

💬 Peter Brown: Did it show any mettle?

There are some improvements, so it did show a little bit. I have made it very plain tonight that we do not say that everything in this bill is bad. In fact, some very good changes have been brought about, and we are quite happy to support those. But the problem is the limited amount of speaking time we get on a bill that comprises only four parts, whereas it should have been 14.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to clause 268 of the Gambling Bill. That relates to the abolition of the Casino Control Authority. That is an organisation that was set up many, many years ago. When I look at the Hansard of 24 July 1990, I note that, of the debates that took place at that time, there are six Labour members of Parliament still in the House, who voted for the Casino Control Bill, which set up the Casino Control Authority.

It is interesting to note that the reason the Casino Control Authority was set up back in 1989 was that it was deemed important that the authority be at arm’s length from the Government, and that by doing so, it was accountable and transparent. The Commerce and Marketing Committee stated of the Casino Control Bill in December 1989: “The New Zealand casino industry should not be Government-owned.” The report went on to state: “Decisions on licences should be made by an independent agency, not the Government.” Yet this bill takes those requirements away from the Casino Control Authority—those will go to the Gambling Commission—and we are concerned about the politicisation that will occur through the Department of Internal Affairs. Further, the Commerce and Marketing Committee stated in its report of December 1989 that, mindful of the principles that no single body or individual should be both policeman and judge, it had decided that there was a very clear demarcation in the roles.

That is National’s position. We have said all along, in the select committee and right through the process, that there needs to be a clear demarcation between an independent body to monitor performance and licensing, and anything associated with casinos. However, the Gambling Commission that will come into effect does not actually cover the whole realm of gaming. The TAB is excluded. That is an industry that deals with a gaming product. One would have thought that the Gambling Commission would be a one-stop shop where one would go to consider anything related to licensing and the policing of a gaming product, but the TAB, which has now merged with the Racing Industry Board to form the New Zealand Racing Board, is not included. Yet the racing industry, through its products, including sports and race betting, on which it has a monopoly, is not included and does not come under the jurisdiction of the Gambling Commission.

The Lotteries Commission, which Judith Collins has just mentioned, is another stand-alone body, and one would have thought that it would have also been subject to the Gambling Commission. The position that I, and National, hold is that there needs to be a one-stop shop that handles the whole area of gaming.

If we look at clause 267, “Casino Control Authority abolished”, we note that it is not included as a provision that comes into effect on the day after the date on which the legislation receives the royal assent. The amendment to clause 2 on Supplementary Order Paper 132 includes all the sections that will come into effect then, and we note that the abolition of the Casino Control Authority is not included. We do not actually know what the date will be. We know that there will be some lead time. The clause states that the authority will be dissolved 3 months after the section comes into force. It does not come into force on the day after the date on which the legislation receives the royal assent, which is something that one might have considered to be important.

The other area that I think is important and that we should consider is what happens when the Casino Control Authority is dissolved. In clause 268, “Consequences of dissolution”, we find that it is an organisation that, over time, has built up some non-monetary assets. There was also some Government money that went to set up the authority at the time it was established. That was repaid, but any money that is now held by the authority has come from those who have made applications for casino licences, because it has been a self-funding regime. There has been no Government money go into it. It has been self-funding. Yet clause 268 provides, in subclause (1)(d) that: “all proceedings by or against the Authority may be continued, completed, or enforced by or against the Crown.”

There is some money in the kitty—about $800,000, I understand—and that money will go to the Crown. The Crown has not had any involvement other than at the start, and that money was paid back. It is our view that—and I would like the Minister in the chair, George Hawkins, to take a call on this—that money that is sitting there at the moment, paid for by casino applications, should go back to the people who put the applications in. Why does it not go back to the casinos? There have been some surpluses from casino applications in some cases, but in a lot of cases the application fees did not cover the costs. There has been a rollover and a levelling out, but there are some monetary assets in existence. I would like the Minister to take a call to explain why this bill provides for the Crown taking those assets and putting them into the consolidated account. They will not go into the problem gambling levy, although they could—most people would not have any objection to that—but instead, the Crown will take the money and put it into the consolidated account.

The point I am making is that that money was never put up by the Government in the first place. One of the shortcomings of the bill is that it is taking money put into the authority by the private sector for private applications—and even those people whose applications were not successful had to pay the money. Clause 268(1)(a) states: “all property belonging to the Authority vests in the Crown;”. I would like the Minister to take a call to justify why there is so much money—about $800,000—sitting there that will go into the Crown account when it should go back to the industry and the participants who put the money into that particular area.

The Casino Control Authority has proved its point and has been a very good watchdog. Judith Collins was the chair of that authority, so she knows specifically how it works. She knows where it could have been improved and what it could contribute. When that disappears, the expertise of the people who were involved in it disappears. We are moving to a Gambling Commission that, as I said earlier, has a lot of shortcomings because it does not encompass the whole realm of gaming. I say again that any gaming authority should be a one-stop shop, and this bill falls short of that.

There could have been opportunities to have the TAB included in the legislation. The TAB is a huge provider of gaming services. As I said, it is an industry that has a monopoly in sports and race betting, with online accounts, so it is a significant player in the whole gaming industry, yet the Gambling Commission will have no jurisdiction or input into how the TAB will operate in the future. That would have been a very good area to be included.

I will carry on from where Lindsay Tisch was asking about the $800,000 that he understands is in the Crown account. This Minister loves gathering revenue and putting it in the Crown account. Up and down this whole country, he has his speed cameras raking in a huge amount of revenue to put in the Crown account. Yes, Mr Chairman, I will come back to the debate in hand.

This part deals with institutions—and that is a gamble. We could call it—[Interruption] No, in the spirit of cooperation I will not go there. But this part deals with institutions and setting up commissioners. That is the other thing this Government loves doing—it loves setting up little commissions, big commissions, and bureaucracies, and appointing a whole lot of commissioners. We have that happening again with this legislation. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to us the obvious conflict of interest, or the dichotomy in wording, of the legislation, because when it describes institutions, the establishment of a Gambling Commission, and the appointment criteria, it states that gambling commissioners must be entirely independent and should not be selected on the basis that they represent, or may be seen to represent, sectional interests. So far, so good—that is fine.

Then we get to the point that, however—and there is always a “however”, is there not? In every piece of legislation this Government passes it now has to comply with either sustainable development, or with Te Puni Kōkiri. Of course—would we not just guess it?—the gambling commissioners have to be appointed and there is a requirement that Te Puni Kōkiri be consulted. So there must be a consideration of the mix of representation on the commission, including the representation of Māori. Can the Minister please explain how, on the one hand, these commissioners can be entirely independent and not selected on the basis that they represent sectional interest, and, on the other hand, be selected in consultation with Te Puni Kōkiri. The two things absolutely do not go together. How they can, on the one hand, be independent, and, on the other, have to represent the aims and aspirations of Māori, is something that I think will require quite a bit of explaining.

In reference to clause 199(3)(b), the Gambling Commission has no power to employ people. That is another thing the Minister should explain to us, because, as I understand it, the commission is semi-independent but will have a sort of Clayton’s independence by coming under the auspices of the Department of Internal Affairs. So how will it be that the Gambling Commission will not employ people if it is under the same auspices as the Department of Internal Affairs? There is another contradiction in that. Further on, clause 199A is titled: “Gambling Commission may engage experts and receive wide evidence”. Why have five commissioners who are appointed, presumably, on the basis that they know what they are doing; and that they have knowledge and expertise in this area—we pay them to be there—and then allow them to go on further and appoint experts? They are supposedly not allowed to employ people, but they are allowed to appoint experts, who may be separately reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred, and also paid fees.

This legislation is just open-ended legislation for this Government, or for any Government if one likes, to appoint mates to sinecures. It could be for failed Labour Party politicians after the next election. We could see George Hawkins here as a gambling commissioner. It will be a guaranteed job for Parekura Horomia. He will be there as an expert appointed to consult Te Puni Kōkiri. That ministry will say: “Yes, yes. Parekura is a good one.” If we are to have gambling commissioners appointed on the basis of their expertise, why should we have experts, as well?

We know when the Opposition is running out of things to say, because its members start their speeches by talking about speed cameras rather than about the bill itself. That is the first thing I want to say. The second thing is that I want to tell the previous speaker that the Government appoints the members of the Casino Control Authority at the moment, so it is no big deal that it appoints the members of the Gambling Commission. There is no big secret about that. Most members know that, because they have read the bill before coming down to the Chamber, but some have not.

A number of clauses make it clear that the Gambling Commission is independent. Clause 198(2) requires the commission to make decisions independently of the Minister of Internal Affairs and of the Department of Internal Affairs. Clause 199 provides that the commission must be treated as a commission of inquiry. That is very, very important indeed. That is in addition to the powers under the bill. The Government Administration Committee inserted clause 199A, which allows the commission to appoint experts to assist it, and that is very important. If the previous speaker had read that, she would have understood that. The select committee also inserted clause 201A, which requires the commission to report annually to the Minister of Internal Affairs on its activities, and for the report itself to be tabled in Parliament. That is very, very important. We do not have those sorts of controls across all forms of gambling that go on, so this provision encompasses all of that. The commissioners will be able to report to this Parliament, through the Minister of Internal Affairs, and, I dare say, they will raise any concerns they have. That is really important, also.

The bill provides that there must be a clear separation between staff in the regulation of gambling, and those who provide administrative support to the Gambling Commission. So the Department of Internal Affairs will not have its hands playing marionettes; it will make sure that the Gambling Commission is independent and that there will not be political pressure. All those Opposition members should think about the way in which they would operate things. They would start putting pressure on people, but that is not the way it is done. As a country, we have moved on from those days, and I think that that is very important.

I also want to say that the Lotteries Commission and the Lottery Grants Board will carry on. The Lotteries Commission is doing a very, very good job, and it is getting even better. I think that people realise that the commission is overcoming difficulties that most other lottery bodies around the world are experiencing. They are losing funding, with perhaps the exception of India, where funding in lotteries is going up. In most places, it is going down. I think that our Lotteries Commission has stopped the rot, and is now making some progress. [Interruption] Well, the member is talking about buildings. When the commission was run by the Tories, it used to have a flat on top of the building. That has gone. It used to have a big wine rack. That has gone. I say again, the Lotteries Commission is doing a tremendous job.

I will pick up on what the Minister was just talking about regarding the Lotteries Commission. While I have not agreed very much with the Minister at all today on this bill, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Lotteries Commission on some of the changes that are being made. I think the reforms they are making to the Lotteries Commission are great, and, as Mr Hawkins says, they are aimed at stopping the rot. That is why, however, I think it is such a pity that in this part of the bill we see a provision on Supplementary Order Paper 132 from the same Minister that will start the rot, inside the Lotteries Commission, of introducing, and allowing the commission to allow, remote interactive gambling and gambling machines.

That will allow the Lotteries Commission to enter the Internet world of gambling, and to conduct lotteries via gaming machines. I do not know whether the Government has really seriously considered or looked at the overseas literature, particularly from comparable countries to New Zealand like Australia or the United States, to see the impact of that and what those countries are doing about it. I am really sorry that the Government has chosen to go with its erstwhile friends from United Future on this issue.

Internet gambling has become such a problem in the United States that both the Congress and the Senate have moved on bills that would ban United States banks and financial institutions from transferring money to Internet gaming sites. The number of websites there has gone from 25 in 1997 to around 1,800 now. It is the most addictive kind of gambling—it can be done any time of the day or night; there are no limits, no bars, and no stopping—and there is a concern in that country that athletes are even betting on their own sporting games. The possibilities for corruption are becoming even greater. It is the No. 1 cause of problem gambling for young people in the United States, and it is very easy for young people to get hold of their parents’ credit cards or to acquire credit cards by other means.

💬 Marc Alexander: So what’s the solution?

The solution, I say to Mr Alexander, is not to allow it. [Interruption] Well, there is no reason that the Government, through the Lotteries Commission, has to legislate for it to happen.

Youth gambling, which Internet gambling promotes, is strongly associated in this country and elsewhere with substance abuse, depression, thinking about suicide, anxiety, criminal behaviour—obviously, that includes stealing money to support the habit—poor performance at school, and disruptions to relationships. We have enough problems with youth crime, mental illness, and addiction at the moment, without making the situation worse. Preliminary research in this country indicates that we already have a huge problem with adolescent gambling, despite the fact that theoretically at least, adolescents are not supposed to be gambling. A study of 425 high school students indicated that the rates of gambling problems among them are between 12 and 23 percent, and young people from lower socio-economic groups are more likely to be involved. It is a real pity that the Government is going ahead and allowing that kind of pernicious gambling to proceed.

A number of credit card companies overseas are starting to block payments to online gaming companies that are losing too much money from losing bets that are not paid. One way to control it is to pass a law that makes Internet gambling debts non-enforceable. That is a way of undercutting the industry. So, not only can we stop it by opposing this critical amendment that the Minister is putting up, but we could also amend the bill to make debts non-enforceable, which would undermine the very industry that thrives on this stuff. In Australia it has been made an offence for a person to provide Internet gambling to anyone in Australia, regardless of where it is provided from. That country is taking absolutely the opposite direction to the one this Government is taking.

Finally, I note there have been a lot of media releases and communications, to all MPs, I am sure, about this bill over the last couple of days—much of it from church organisations and community organisations. The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services is appalled at this amendment, which allows the Lotteries Commission to promote interactive gambling. Major Campbell Roberts, who, I am sure, is well-respected by everyone in this House, said: “This measure is potentially highly destructive. Communities and families will be put at much greater risk of problem gambling.” The church and community groups in this country who work at the hard end of the problem-gambling situation are very clear that we do not need yet more legislation and another Government that promotes the most pernicious types of gambling. Organisations like that see the negative effects of problem gambling constantly, and we should listen to what they say.

I rise to talk about the problem gambling levy and the Gambling Commission, but before I do, I will make just a couple of quick points. They are these. The extraordinary contribution by the Greens has me flabbergasted. They want to somehow put a stop to Internet gambling, without offering anything constructive whatsoever. One of the things that they say is that they are in favour—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I remind the members on the cross benches that Speakers’ ruling 53/4, a longstanding convention in this House, indicates that it is not courteous to interject from the cross benches, because that muffles the microphone of the person who is speaking.

💬 Sue Bradford: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am aware of the ruling and I will respect it, but I just say that you could have applied it to Mr Alexander when I was speaking a minute ago.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I accept that.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to interrupt the member’s speech, but as it has already been interrupted I ask Mr Alexander whether he could address formally through the microphone some of the questions that Sue Bradford has raised.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is a debating point, Mr Brown.

I find it extraordinary that a party that advocates the decriminalisation of marijuana and advocates prostitution can now turn round and have a problem with gambling.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That has nothing to do with the bill. I ask the member to please speak to this part of the bill.

Let us look at the problem gambling levy and the Gambling Commission. Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins adds a role in the problem gambling levy-setting process to the functions of the Gambling Commission. I think that is important. It is a critical element of the bill, because for once it will not be left up to the Ministry of Health to pluck a figure out of thin air and attempt to impose that plucked figure on the industry. Instead, the ministry will have to justify itself. The commission will invite interested parties and the industry itself to take part in negotiating and scrutinising the—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think the member is talking about Part 4 when he is talking about the problem gambling levy. That comes up in Part 4, not Part 3.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is all right. Will the member please continue.

I am addressing some of the activities that the Gambling Commission will be able to be involved in, and one of the reasons that its independence is so critical to this bill. There will be an opportunity for greater scrutiny of what the gambling levy will be through the process of the commission, and that is vitally important.

There are a number of aspects of the commission that reinforce its independence—seven of them, in fact. Members are statutory appointees with statutory functions, and there are no ex officio members. The commission must make decisions independently of the Minister and the Department of Internal Affairs. I think that is extremely important. It must be treated as if it were a commission of inquiry, and in addition to its other powers under the bill, it has the powers of such a commission. That is provided for in clause 199. The commission may engage experts to assist it—something that the Minister has already indicated. That is also vitally important, and is something that was missing previously. The commission must report annually on its operations directly to the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is required to table the report. Again, that provides accountability and transparency—something that is presently missing, but is included in the provisions on Supplementary Order Paper 132. There is no appeal when the commission decides appeals against Department of Internal Affairs decisions. I think that is fundamentally important, because that distinguishes the department from the commission. It shows that there is an independence to it, which must be upheld—and it will be. If complainants are unhappy about the way that the Department of Internal Affairs has handled a complaint about gaming-machine operations, they may take their issues to the Gambling Commission. If it considers that the Department of Internal Affairs did not handle a complaint appropriately, it must report directly to the Minister.

Again, I say the seven points that I have outlined here, and which have been emphasised by the Minister previously, enhance the independence of the Gambling Commission. That is the jewel in the crown of the whole Supplementary Order Paper, because it takes direct control of things like the gambling levy away from a particular Minister’s province and puts it into a place where scrutiny can take place. That is vitally important.

When we look at the Internet gambling aspect, which has been credited to us—unfairly, I might add, because it is not something that we sought—once the rationale for it is looked at, we see there is actually a sound basis for supporting it. One of the points is simply this. We will not be able to stop Internet gambling. The Supplementary Order Paper will allow one particular aspect of Internet gambling, to at least allow the funds to return to the country from which they originate. Some of the funds will go to the gambling levy, to help to address the problems of the 1 to 3 percent of gamblers who have gambling problems. So what that measure does is to close off one particular avenue of unaccountable funds that go into the gambling industry. I think that is important, because we do not want to allow all the money that is gambled in this country through the Internet to fill the pockets of foreigners, when we need not do that.

Part 3 bill sets up the Gambling Commission—[Interruption] Did Jill Pettis have something that she wanted to contribute?

💬 Jill Pettis: I’m not talking to you, Mr Catchpole.

Part 3 sets up the Gambling Commission and dissolves the Casino Control Authority. It has quite an extensive number of clauses that set out what the Gambling Commission is supposed to do, and one of those things is to grant casino licences. I certainly hope that the wording is such that the commission will be limited to only the renewal of licences, because otherwise that contradicts clause 8 in Supplementary Order Paper 132, which states strictly that there will be no more casinos.

Another area I would like to look at is Internet gambling. That is an area that the world has access to, and if New Zealand wants to be part of that, then we should look at ways of limiting the accounts that are set up with Internet gambling. It is quite easy to set up an account, and we would have to make sure that there is an age restriction, as there is with other forms of gambling within this bill. The age restriction would be very hard to police, because Internet gambling involves ticking a series of boxes, so that is an area that would really need to have close scrutiny. The next issue is to limit the account in terms of the amount that may be gambled in any one period, because if the account is allowed to run free, then gambling problems start to generate and there is no way to control that. Caps on accounts were operated successfully in Australia before the Federal Government clamped down on Internet gambling, so it would be worth looking at the issue of account caps and time limits. We could go and look at the Australian examples to see how they were working, because they were working well before the Government closed them down.

Internet gambling is an area that does need a lot of close scrutiny and work. It can work, and it can certainly generate taxation income for the Government in this country. I am sure that this Government would love to have those further taxes coming in, rather than have people here operating Internet accounts off shore, and have all the profits and the capital go off shore. I suggest that the Government should take a closer look at the caps on the accounts and at the way they operate.

I thank the Minister for taking a call earlier with regard to the appointment process for the Gambling Commission. My concern is with the questions he did not answer, and I have one very simple and direct question: will Derek Fox be appointed to the Gambling Commission? When I look at the criteria and summarise clause 196, I see that it effectively means that a commissioner must have skills, knowledge, experience, etc. in gambling. I cannot think of a person who has more experience in gambling than Mr Fox, who has been gambling with about $70 million of taxpayers’ money for some time—I note that Mr Horomia has now woken up, and let us hope that he will take a call—and if he now decides to go back to his original intention of leading a political party, he will become a danger. [Interruption] No, I am talking about clause 196 and the criteria for the selection of people as gambling commissioners. I want to be guaranteed that there is no intention—

💬 Jill Pettis: We’re going to stick Jim Bolger on it.

We have Jill Pettis giving the first bit of honest advice. Jill Pettis has announced in Parliament tonight that Jim Bolger has been selected. It has been determined that he will be one of the first gambling commissioners. He will probably be quite good at it, but that is not the question I asked. I want an assurance from the Minister that Mr Derek Fox will not be appointed. There is no answer from the Minister in the chair, the Hon George Hawkins. The Minister said there is nothing new in the way that political appointments are made. He said that the Government has been making them for some time, as have previous Governments. But as I recall, no Government in recent years has had the sort of history for political appointments that this Government has. I could mention names like Susan Bathgate and Ella Henry—

💬 Jill Pettis: What about Jim McLay? He would have a whale of a time on it.

Jill Pettis is coming out with another nomination. Jim McLay is now going to be appointed as a gambling commissioner. Well, here are two; there are three more to go.

I also note that the Minister said that the members of the Casino Control Authority had been appointed by political parties—and I accept that—and that the authority has done a tremendous job. But it struck me that it has not had a lot to do since that Minister and his Government have been appointing people. There has been a moratorium, so it has not had a huge challenge before it.

💬 Brent Catchpole: Is it being paid?

I am sure that the authority is being paid. It has been doing quite a lot of valuable monitoring. But the real challenge in that role is around those new applications for casinos, and I think that even the Minister has to agree that his Government’s appointments to the Casino Control Authority have not been hugely challenged, given that that Minister and his Government imposed a moratorium, which meant the authority did not have a lot of work to do.

So I am certainly not satisfied by the Minister’s suggestion that there will not be undue political influence in terms of who gets appointed to the Gambling Commission, and I am certainly not satisfied that Derek Fox will not be somebody appointed to it. I do not know whether the Minister will be confirming the announcement, made tonight by the junior Government whip, Jill Pettis, that Jim Bolger has been appointed, but I tell that member that I think it is a fairly wise choice. I congratulate the Minister on making the Rt Hon Jim Bolger his first appointment to the Gambling Commission. I think he will do quite a sound job. But if the Government is prepared to announce its first appointment in Parliament tonight, then let us hear the others.

💬 Jill Pettis: What about Jim McLay?

I am not sure whether that is a confirmation or just a suggestion from Jill Pettis. It is interesting to note that she certainly does not have many people in her electorate whom she is nominating.

💬 Jill Pettis: What electorate do you hold?

The member just keeps on chipping away with inane comments.

💬 Jill Pettis: What electorate do you hold?

I represent all those farmers who were out on the steps of Parliament a week ago, and who were doing a far better job than the member is.

Part 3 deals with institutions. It deals with the establishment of the Gambling Commission, and sets out appointment criteria. As an aside to that, it abolishes the Casino Control Authority, which is a great pity, because I think that the record of that authority was a very fine one, particularly under the previous Government. More than that, it was a body that could be seen to be at arm’s length from the Government, which is more than one can say for the new organisation that will take its place—the Gambling Commission. I say that—notwithstanding the Minister’s earlier speech in which he tried to reassure the Committee that the Gambling Commission would be independent—because of the record of this Government in its appointments to quangos. The Government has had failures with the likes of Susan Bathgate—

💬 Hon David Carter: Ella Henry.

Yes, Ella Henry, and Greg Fortuin.

💬 Hon David Carter: He wasn’t exactly a huge success.

No, he was not. Funnily enough, the only success the Government has had has been with people of a National background—reliable sorts of people. But its own political appointments have been abysmal failures.

💬 Hon David Carter: They haven’t got a huge bulk of talent to select from.

That is probably it, and that is probably why Jill Pettis can shout out the names of only National supporters to appoint. The reality is, I suppose, that the Government’s people get so mixed up in the politics of things that they are unable to discharge statutory responsibilities properly. That is the record of this Government.

The other reason I am not convinced by the Minister’s earlier speech on the so-called independence of the Gambling Commission is that it is tied to the department. It has no administrative independence of its own. It is totally dependent on the administration of the Department of Internal Affairs, which, itself, is beholden to the Minister, or is it the other way around? The Minister might be beholden to the department. He is probably captured by his officials, anyway, and that is why, when he stands up to make a speech and reassure us about the commission’s independence, his explanation does not make sense and will not wash.

This bill establishes a new organisation, which has no particular value as far as I can see. After the review that the Government has had of this whole area, the new Gambling Commission will not even cover all the forms of gambling in this country. So on that point the Government has not succeeded either, and Part 3 is symptomatic of the myriad of contradictions that are present in this bill.

The other point I want to raise follows on a little from my colleague David Carter—though I will not, in particular and from my point of view, pick on Derek Fox, as he has been used and abused by the current Government. My point relates to the appointment criteria of knowledge, experience, and expertise. I am not quite sure what they relate to. Is it gambling? Is it business?

💬 Hon David Carter: No, just gambling with $70 million of taxpayers’ money.

Well, that is in relation to the contribution my colleague just made. The section of the commentary on the bill, under the heading “Part 3—Institutions” states: “… we do not agree with submitters that a proportion of Gambling Commissioners should have expertise in particular disciplines such as public health,’’—right; National certainly agrees with that—“or enjoy the support of particular sections of the community (such as Māori) ...”. That is fine, but at the end of that paragraph it states: “Notwithstanding this, we note, the State Services Commission’s Board Appointment and Induction Guidelines requires consultation with TPK on appointments and consideration of the mix of representation on the body including the representation of Māori.” Why would that be relevant now, when this is the Government that is preventing the Rotorua development company, Pukeroa-Oruawhata, from developing a casino? Why on earth would that note be relevant in that commentary when this Government—the one that takes the votes of Māori people—will happily deny the Pukeroa-Oruawhata development company the opportunity to take the issue back to the residents of Rotorua?

I move, That the question be now put.

I know why the member for Rotorua wants to shut down this debate. It is because what is in this bill is exactly the opposite of what Labour campaigned on in 1999. This bill was meant to be the Responsible Gambling Bill, but now it may as well be the “State Sponsored Gambling Bill”, because the provisions we see in this part and other parts are an absolute U-turn for Labour members. They are red with embarrassment and so they should be. I also want to challenge the Minister in the chair, George Hawkins, because I heard so many speeches in the 1990s from this member about the harms of gambling and about how Labour was going to fix it. Then we see that this bill is going to expand gambling in New Zealand, and, not only that, we are going to have the State running it.

I have to ask what the limits are of this Government’s view of the State’s involvement. If it is good enough for the State to now be involved in running pokie- machines, and given that we are now to have Internet gambling, I ask the Minister of Internal Affairs where it is all going to stop. Are we next going to have the Government running brothels? I know the Government has made it legal; is that the next vice the Government is going to sponsor? [Interruption] I see that Jill Pettis has caught on to the idea. Perhaps I should not mention it, because the next minute it will be happening!

What are the limits? How far will this Government go? Why is the Government determined not only to do a U-turn in its policy approach to gambling but now to have the State enticing New Zealanders to spend more and more of their money on gambling? I say that it is wrong. I say to the Minister that he has presided over the biggest expansion of gambling of any Minister who has ever held the portfolio. Yet he came from a party that was going to take a tighter approach. It is no wonder that the word “responsible” has been deleted from the title of the bill. There is nothing responsible about it.

Then we come to good old socialism—the State has to run everything. So we have the abolition of an independent authority, because this Minister wants to get his sticky little fingers on this big-money industry. So we are going to have the Department of Internal Affairs with its sticky little fingers all over the casinos. I say to the Minister: “If it ain’t broke, why try to fix it?”. I have not heard in this debate a single view from any Government member that will tell me what the Casino Control Authority has done wrong. What is it about its functions that requires this takeover bid and for it to be run by a Government department? I tell members that it has nothing at all to do with running effective controls on casinos. It has everything to do with this Labour Minister wanting to get his sticky little fingers closer to the hundreds of millions of dollars that are turned over.

Then we have another dose of sickly political correctness in this part. We on this side of the House believe in one standard of citizenship. We believe that all New Zealanders, regardless of their ethnicity, have an equal contribution to make. Yet what we see in this provision with the authority is somehow that when a Māori person plays a pokie- machine, goes to a casino, or participates in some other way, he or she is somehow now different. I say to the Minister that I think that requires some justification. I think it is just another dose of the Government’s sickly political correctness, which ordinary New Zealanders have had a gutsful of. We would like the Minister to justify that.

The last point I make in respect of this part concerns the Department of Internal Affairs. I have to say that of all the Government departments I have watched in my 13 years in this Parliament, the greatest doozy is the Department of Internal Affairs. It has a capacity to make a mess of more than anything else.

💬 Jill Pettis: Leave public servants out of this.

According to Jill Pettis, we are not allowed to hold the public service to account.

💬 Hon David Carter: What about Christine Rankin?

Do members remember Christine Rankin? Do members remember Jill Pettis sticking up for the feminist Christine Rankin when her colleague Steve Maharey was getting stuck in? She was cheering with that wenching noise across the Chamber, and she now changes her tune.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have sat here listening to this debate with interest. It is a complex bill, and the Supplementary Order Paper tends to make it a good deal more complicated. Before I get into my speech I want to acknowledge that the Minister offered my colleague and myself a briefing the other evening. We were very appreciative of that.

💬 Judith Collins: He never gave me one.

I can understand that, with due respect. We thought it was very worthwhile. The officials in particular highlighted some areas and put our minds to rest. I tell the Minister in all sincerity that New Zealand First has debated this bill again as a result of that briefing. However, we are still opposed to it; nevertheless, it was an enlightening briefing.

Clause 217A,“Gaming machines and remote interactive gambling excluded” bans Internet gambling. The select committee sent it back. It is quite clear, and categorically bans Internet gambling. I listened to Sue Bradford with interest, and I have spoken to her since. I understand from the Greens that the Australians banned Internet gambling, and the Americans are trying to do the same.

💬 Judith Collins: Ask me; I’m the expert.

The member says that she is an expert. How many other countries ban Internet gambling?

💬 Judith Collins: I will take a call.

The member will take a call. I ask United Future people why they think they are greater than average New Zealanders. This bill came back from the select committee process banning Internet gambling. United Future members have put their hands up and said: “That’s not necessary; we will support this, and we will amend it in the Supplementary Order Paper; but to hell with the public: we won’t even have to go out to the select committee. We will support this, willy-nilly.” United Future members will put their hands up and support it without any criteria or input whatsoever from the public. I ask United Future members whether that is what they mean by common sense. Is that what they mean by family values?

Gambling in this country has the ability to turn moderately wealthy people into poor people, and it frequently does. It has the ability to tear families apart and to split them up. Here we have United Future members coming into this Parliament, greater than anybody else in this country, saying: “Throw clause 217A out. We’re not in favour of banning Internet gambling. The Australians and Americans are, but we’re not, and we will reverse what the select committee said.” They will do that willy-nilly with no consultation, and will support the Government on its Supplementary Order Paper. I ask the Minister how the dickens he convinced United Future members. I think they must have been on cannabis. I think they have been smoking pot in the secret chamber somewhere around here.

💬 Jill Pettis: That’s not appropriate.

Well maybe Jill Pettis will stand up and explain how she justifies a select committee coming back banning Internet gambling and she wants to reverse it. Will she explain that—because I am at a loss to explain it? I am also at a loss as to how a party that supposedly stands for the principles and ideals that United Future do, can come and just sit in this Chamber with only one person taking a call, and saying that this is good enough for New Zealand and it will be imposed upon New Zealanders.

Internet gambling will do a huge amount of damage to some of the families in this country—mainly the not so well off—Māori families, and Pacific Island families, but there will be a few non-Māori families amongst them. It will split families. It will turn the moderately wealthy into the poor, and we come to this Chamber and see people who I thought had higher expectations and ideals for New Zealanders just passing the legislation through without any consultation with the public.

That is not good enough. If the Government wants to make drastic changes like this, the bill should go back to the select committee. I do not know whether United Future people have read this press release put out today by the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, but they should read it and take it on board. It is put out by people who I thought supported them.

I move, That the question be now put.