Gambling Bill

I draw the attention of the Committee to the formula that is used to calculate the problem gambling levy. I know that the Minister has a formula in his Supplementary Order Paper, and that is probably a consequence of the Supplementary Order Paper that I originally lodged back in March. I was not happy with the formula in clause 287 of the bill, and way back in March I lodged a Supplementary Order Paper. Subsequently, we find that there is a Supplementary Order Paper in the Minister’s name, but in my view it falls short. I am happy with the formula, except that it actually stops and does not allow for what is known as 1-P1. I want to explain what that means. As the formula stands, it is fine, but it does not explain specifically what I would like to see happen, and, more important, what the industry wants to see happen.

It is important that the stakeholders, the people who are paying the levies, are the people who should have a say, because the bill legislates against flexibility. This formula as presented in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper legislates against flexibility. If we leave it the way it is, then we will find that within a couple of years there will be far more demands on the health system than there are now, because we know that the Ministry of Health will take over the jurisdiction of collecting the problem-gambling levy.

I first want to draw the Committee’s attention to what “C” in the formula stands for. If members want to follow this, they will find it on page 34 of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. The costs that are associated with “C” include things like education. They are the total costs of the integrated strategy, health promotion, and advertising. They could be included in school curricula, could be promotions by district health boards, and could be treatment. It is very, very wide. What we are saying, and what the industry is saying, is that that needs to be constrained. The Government at the moment currently collects about $422 million in taxes, GST, and levies. Part of that money could be used at the Minister’s discretion to do those things. That is what 1-P1 means. It gives the Minister discretion. As I said, we are not opposed to the formula per se, but we are concerned that a lot of the costs not associated directly with the five industry leaders—racing clubs, the gambling operators, the TAB, the Lotteries Commission, and the casinos—will be incurred on them, when, in fact, a lot of the promotion, those points I mentioned in “C”, could be covered at the discretion of the Minister in the formula that I am promoting.

So when it comes to voting on this I would hope that members would consider this. As I said, I am happy with the Minister’s formula here, but it needs to be expanded out. I tell the Minister that that is what the industry is asking for. Maybe the Minister could take a call on this to explain why he has not included 1-P1, because that gives the Minister flexibility at any time to strike a rate to do those things that are obviously important in this whole question of harm minimisation.

I want to follow that through and say that now that the Ministry of Health will take control of the process, there are huge costs that are associated and seem to have got out of hand. In fact, Roger Parton, who has been a member of the Problem Gambling Foundation, has been levying the groups and has been able to provide the treatment. What we are seeing is that the costs have now gone out from about $6 million—and that is what is believed is enough money for problem gambling—and are escalating to $12 million and $15 million. In fact, within a couple of years it will be $25 million. What is that for? No one knows what that is for.

We are now discussing Part 4, which is to do with harm prevention and minimisation. I just point out that there are a number of issues in this part. Some are to do with age restrictions. Mr Tisch jumped straight into the levies, but he also skipped over parts that deal with them, particularly clause 278 about the policy for identifying problem gambling, and the responsibility on those who are running gambling establishments to assist in the identification of problem gamblers. That is a very important part of this legislation. Mr Tisch also talked about the levy, the application of the levy, and the involvement of the Ministry of Health in this. That will give us greater certainty on who is doing what in terms of problem gambling, which has had some controversy up to this point.

I also point out that there was some discussion at the Government Administration Committee on warrants and the powers to search and inspect gambling establishments. We had to work those issues through the select committee stage.

This part of the bill is about harm prevention. It is also about penalties and infringements, the types of notices that are given, and more about the enforcement of the law in relation to not only problem gambling, but also the fees, the infringements, the evidence, and so on, that must be brought forward. We are getting now to the nitty-gritty of enforcement and how we deal with those who wish to break the law. That includes matters such as cheating, and counterfeit chips. The major emphasis in relation to the submissions was the area around problem gambling. Many people who made submissions were relieved that this would be going through the Ministry of Health.

There are a couple of points I would like to speak about in Part 4. The previous speaker said that Part 4 is primarily about harm prevention and minimisation enforcement. If only! In looking at Subpart 1, “Age restriction on certain gambling”, I cannot, for the life of me, see any age restriction on Internet gambling. I had a look through the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper and I could not see any mention, but I am happy to be proven wrong by the Minister. I do hope it is there.

The National Party does not believe that Part 4 is all about harm minimisation. If it were, an age restriction on Internet gambling would be included. Internet gambling, as we have heard this afternoon, and this evening, is the most addictive form of gambling. There is nothing to stop people from gambling on the Internet. There are no social barriers. People do not have to say they are aged 20, and they do not have to worry about being seen by a neighbour, a friend, or a family member. They can be at it; just keep on gambling 24 hours a day. This part is supposed to be about harm minimisation, but it is not.

I have put forward Supplementary Order Paper 108 that would omit clause 277 and substitute a new clause. It deals with the right that casinos have to exclude people, under the Casino Control Act. The Act should give casinos the ability to exclude problem gamblers, or people causing a disruption, and things like that. That is fair enough, but it is not being used for that purpose, and that is my concern. Some casino operators are using the Act to exclude people whom they feel are too good at playing blackjack. Blackjack is the only game that the punters have much of a chance at. For everything else, they may as well take their money and flush it down the toilet, because that is what it amounts to. Casino operators do not build casinos because they want to give money away. They build them as a business in order to make money. That is fair enough, and we understand and applaud that. But what we do not applaud is this Government’s confirming and giving existing casino operators an open-door policy that enables them to decide who comes in and who goes out.

At the moment that right is being used to exclude people who are good blackjack players, and that is wrong. If an operator turned round and said to one of the Government’s Labour Party mates—some shaven-head lesbian type—“We don’t want you in here.”, then all hell would break loose. There is nothing wrong with operators deciding they do not necessarily want that sort of person in their casino because it might put the punters off, but they should not have the right to do so. If they are operating in a monopoly situation, as they are, they should not be able to do that. If it is not all right to exclude someone, just because that person might be a politically correct friend of someone in the Labour Party, then it should not be all right to exclude people who know how to play blackjack and know how to win. Those people are currently being persecuted in some of our casinos, and that is not right.

I am asking the Committee to support my Supplementary Order Paper to show that Parliament is not here to pass laws that protect only casino operators. We certainly support good operators and good practices, but if we pass laws that create a monopoly situation and then say to people: “You can exclude anyone you like for any reason, except if they’re a mate of the Prime Minister.”, then that is not good enough. This Parliament should stamp down on that sort of behaviour. If an oil company or anyone else did that we would be in there, boots and all. A member of the Labour Party seems to be agreeing with me. I would like the Hon Dover Samuels to take a call on this part. If somebody said to that member that he could not go into a certain casino because he might know how to play a certain game very well, he would object, and so he should.

The Government Supplementary Order Paper includes amendments to allow the health levy for problem gamblers to be set at 3-yearly intervals. Not only will that reduce the costs of setting it each year, but, more important, it will provide certainty about funding. It will be very good for the providers of those services, which, unfortunately, are needed in our communities. Problem gamblers might account for as much as 1 to 3 percent of the people involved in gambling, so that funding is important.

Clauses 271 to 284 include provisions that allow casino and gaming-machine operators to exclude people who appear to be having problems. They also allow those people to exclude themselves. It is not a matter of whether they happen to be fancy blackjack players. At the moment, casinos have the power to do those sorts of things. They can trespass people, so it is no big deal. There is no major change in respect of people—

💬 Judith Collins: It is a big deal.

I think that member knows that casinos can trespass people at the moment, and that is very important.

Part 4 sets age limits for people playing various games. The age of 18 is the limit we are using, except for casinos, where it will be 20. We used to have different ages for different sorts of games. That rule has now been simplified, and that is fairly important. Part 4 also includes regulation-making powers that focus on harm prevention. Clauses 281 to 284 provide regulations relating to problem gambling, awareness training for venue staff, and the provision of consumer information on the odds. That is very important. Some people think they can go into casinos and clean up. I have yet to meet people who can go into casinos and clean up. I suppose there is always the hope that one will do well, and some people do, day after day. But we need to give operators these powers to make sure that certain people are protected from themselves.

Clauses 294 to 309 deal with the powers and functions of gambling inspectors. Their principal role is to inspect, audit, and investigate the conduct of gambling, and that is a very important job. They may also prosecute those who have breached the bill’s requirements. There are various measures to support their roles, such as the power to obtain information and to apply for search warrants. The Government Supplementary Order Paper tidies up a number of those powers and includes appropriate safeguards. People generally support the harm minimisation we are now talking about. In terms of this debate, it is a matter of degree. We have tried to make sure that people are protected from themselves, and that operators cannot take advantage of them.

This thing about harm minimisation is just a load of old cobblers. If members look at clause 272, “Age restriction on class 4 gambling”, they will see we do not know what Internet gambling is. Is it class 4? This is the problem with having a 65-page Supplementary Order Paper that has not been to a select committee. United Future did a deal with the Government and is supporting it. Now we have a situation whereby we do not know what Internet gambling is. We know that it is allowed, because the Government will be promoting it by allowing the Government body to have a monopoly on it. Then we have the problem whereby under clause 272 an Internet provider could breach this legislation and commit an offence by allowing, or failing to stop, a person under 18 years from participating in class 4 gambling at its venue, but the legislation does not actually state whether Internet gambling is class 4. We do not know.

Further down, the clause states that a defence to the charge is if the offence was committed without the knowledge of the defendant. With Internet legislation at the moment, that is a very flimsy defence. It does not stack up when it comes to things like defamation. In my opinion clause 272 exposes all Internet providers to huge risk, and that is something the Minister of Internal Affairs should immediately address and tidy up. He accused me of coming down here without having read the bill; no doubt he has read it a million times, but that matter still has not been picked up. The reason it has not been picked up is that a huge Supplementary Order Paper has been introduced. It has not been to a select committee, and this matter has not been sorted out.

Part 4 also deals with the levies. It is a typical example. We have had letters from clubs and Returned Services Association clubs all over the country. They are responsible operators and they will be levied to deal with the bad boys. It is exactly the same situation we had with the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. What we will get is a knee-jerk reaction from the Minister every time, as has happened with the language provider that today went belly up. What happens? All the private language providers are to be levied. The polytechnics, which were never levied to provide the $50 million bail-out that was pumped into the Wanganui polytechnic, will not be levied; the Government institutions will not be levied—only the private providers.

I move on to Supplementary Order Paper 108 introduced by Judith Collins. We support that Supplementary Order Paper. It is very important because this Government has established a State-legislated virtual monopoly in terms of Sky City. The Minister knows what Sky City is doing; he is being very clever with his words. Yes, at the moment Sky City Casino is able to put trespass orders on anyone it does not like the look of—basically, people who are very good at playing blackjack and are making a lot of money from it. Clause 277 is the anti - Kerry Packer clause. It goes further in stating that a casino can exclude anyone without any good reason. It is like pubs being allowed to ban people who drink only water or lemonade and do not spend a lot of money on alcohol. That sort of principle is in practice here. This Government is saying to the virtual State-legislated private monopoly, Sky City, that if someone who is good at what he or she does goes into Sky City and makes a lot of money out of blackjack, Sky City will be able to get rid of them.

As Judith Collins said, if legislation were passed that allowed private people to ban someone because he or she was Māori, lesbian, or any of all the other politically correct things that an earlier part of this bill goes into, where it states whom distribution agents must distribute grants to, if we were to legislate to allow people to be banned for those reasons, we would be hauled before the Human Rights Commissioner before we could say “responsible gambling”.

I call on the Minister to take a call to explain to us—going back to clause 272—exactly the age restriction on class 4 gambling. The phrase “harm minimisation” is just empty, weasel words, because who will police the Internet?

I have lodged Supplementary Order Paper 136, and I want to finish up on what I mentioned earlier, in terms of the formula in clause 287. I made the point that we were quite happy with the Minister of Internal Affairs’ formula on Supplementary Order Paper 132 but it did not go far enough. I want to reiterate the main points and say what, in my Supplementary Order Paper, the value of “P1” is. I talked about “C” being the integrated approach, which covered a number of issues, and now will explain what “P1”—it is referred to in the explanatory note—relates to.

We have new technology coming in, with new games and new machines, and it is increasingly difficult to restrict access to gambling. As we have heard tonight, interactive gambling is going to be available, and it is going to be very, very difficult to control because we can do it from home. Because New Zealanders have access to so many different forms of gambling, “P1” will cover those costs not associated directly with gambling. At the moment we have “P1” on the costs not associated with the five industry classes—that is, gambling operators, casinos, the TAB, racing clubs, and the Lotteries Commission. I say to the Government that we are happy with what the Minister has done, but let us take it a bit further, bring this formula in, and allow for this flexibility, because the bill as drafted does not give flexibility to the Minister and does not give that discretion.

We see in clause 287(2)(c), on Supplementary Order Paper 132, a reference to the full cost, but we do not actually know what the cost is going to be. We have heard from the Minister that there needs to be a fair assessment in terms of the formula. We have no difficulty with a fair assessment of what the levy should be, but, as I said earlier, no one has been able to substantiate why there is going to be such a huge increase in the levies. I will repeat the point I made earlier, which is that Roger Parton, a Gaming Machine Association of New Zealand member on the Problem Gambling Committee, said that this year there were 4,866 new calls to the Gambling Problem Helpline, with 3,100 people being treated face to face. The average cost was $1,200 per person, with an overall cost of $6 million. So why does the Ministry of Health state that problem-gambling levies will go out to $25 million within 5 years? There is no justification for it. At the select committee no one was able to say—and I specifically asked the question—why there are going to be such huge increases in the problem-gambling levy. No one was able to tell me. In fact, still no one has been able to tell me. The Minister also has not been able to inform me why this cost is going on the industry. As soon as that cost goes on the industry, there will be less money going back to the community. It is as simple as that.

When the Ministry of Health gets its hands on the money it will go into a big hole, because it does not have a strategy at the moment for problem gambling. I am told that once it gets its hands on the money about 10 percent of it will go on administration costs. That is a huge hole, with 10 percent going into just administration. What we are looking for is accountability. We can solve this by allowing the formula “1-P1”, as proposed in my Supplementary Order Paper; that would be a win-win situation for both parties. I ask the Committee to support that proposal when the time comes.

I shall refer to the clauses that deal with the age-limits in various gambling organisations. The bill itself has a clear age restriction of 18 years and 20 years for casinos, but Supplementary Order Paper 132 gives the means for an out. When I say it gives the means for an out, I mean it allows ignorance as an excuse for a casino or gambling outlet to get off any prosecution. That means those gambling organisations do not have to require any real checks; they can allow people in until such time as somebody spots that a person is under age, and then they have the excuse that they thought everybody was of age. That is not good enough because it allows for too much flexibility on the part of the operators and gives them a clear out.

I will now touch on harm prevention. This legislation goes into great detail on the harm prevention side of things. It looks at a means of preventing problem gambling. One of the most difficult areas, in terms of preventing problem gambling, is Internet gambling. As I said earlier, that will be a very difficult area to police. Without the proper precautions and so on in place, harm prevention will be bypassed because people will be gambling in their own homes without the checks and balances that are required in a properly run venue. If it is done correctly, it still will be very difficult to police.

In relation to Lindsay Tisch’s formula, I think—

💬 Simon Power: The “Tisch formula”.

I think the “Tisch formula” is very sound. It clearly sets out a progressive increase so that, as required, the money can be available. Instead, this Government is going from a $6 million levy for problem gamblers to a levy of up to $25 million to $30 million over a 5-year period. I cannot see that there will be an increase as huge as that in the problem-gambling requirements. A formula like Lindsay Tisch’s will allow a slight progression, and there will not be a huge pool of money that goes into a slush fund or even into the consolidated account, and never goes anywhere near the problem-gambling requirements. Without the formula, the situation will be the same as with the petrol tax—it goes into the slush fund and is not used where it should be. The particular levies being set here, which go from $6 million up to $25 million to $30 million, are absolutely ridiculous. It is being done without any consultation and without any clear direction from the public or interested parties. There has been no explanation as to where this extra money is going to be used. If there is no explanation, then there is no check on the Government as to whether it is using that money for the purpose for which it was collected.

Sadly, this Government is one that is happy to put on taxes and levies and not use them where they are supposed to go. I have mentioned the petrol tax; the 4.7c a litre tax is not going to Auckland, which, it was stated, was why it was put on. None of that tax has gone to Auckland. This measure is another example of this Government putting on a tax and a levy that will be used elsewhere to prop up its other failings. It may well go to the health system, but not to help problem gambling.

I move, That the question be now put.

In talking to Part 4, I want to challenge the Minister—

💬 Sue Bradford: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I believe that this is the fourth call the National Party has had in this debate. The Green Party has still not had one call, and we have made a significant contribution to this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, it is National’s fourth call. I have called the Hon Dr Nick Smith. The member’s time will come.

When I read Part 4, I am truly astounded, because I see all these provisions about age restrictions. I have a simple question for members of United Future and the Labour Party. How does one enforce an age restriction on Internet gambling? Through a slick move at the last moment—this bill has been sitting around for 4 years—the Minister in the chair has slipped in a Supplementary Order Paper, so that New Zealand can have the most liberal gambling laws anywhere in the world. There is no Internet gambling in Australia, no Internet gambling in the United States, and no Internet gambling in the United Kingdom. But we are going to have it in New Zealand. We are going to have the most liberal regime—brought in by United Future, the family-friendly, anti-gambling party!

But we are also going to have, in Part 4, harm prevention and minimisation enforcement. I want to know from Mr Marc Alexander and his friends in United Future how one enforces an age restriction on Internet gambling. I can understand how it could be done for Lotto sales. I can understand how it could be done for casinos. I might understand how it could be done for the TAB. But how does one apply an age restriction on Internet gambling? We know that 815,000 homes—[Interruption] Could “Mr Benson-Dope” tell the Committee how we are going to enforce an age restriction—

💬 David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is not the first occasion on which that member has insulted me. I do not take it personally; I think it is a reflection on his puerility. But I do think an apology is in order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I ask the member to withdraw.

I withdraw. I wish he would not interject but just answer the question as to how one would put an age restriction on Internet gambling.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Go and find the truth somewhere. Go and look.

The member says “Go and look.” I have looked through all the 60-plus clauses, and if the member would only take a call—that lazy member—and explain to the Committee how one would enforce an age restriction—[Interruption] The member is getting all excited. The provisions in this part are all nonsense. Members opposite cannot explain the reason for this radical liberalisation that the Minister of Internal Affairs is introducing at the last moment, in providing for Internet gambling. The Minister believes that one can enforce an age restriction. Who in the Committee believes that? Who would possibly believe that, given the 815,000 home computers out there, somehow the 30-odd staff in the Department of Internal Affairs will be able to make sure that nobody under the age of 18 is taking part in Internet gambling? What a laugh! The provision for age enforcement is a joke.

Then we come to the issue of problem gamblers. Can the Minister explain how the department will be able to prohibit problem gamblers from gambling on the Internet? We can understand how they might be banned from a casino. We can understand how they might be banned from the TAB. But what about the Internet? I do not think the Minister has the foggiest idea. I do not think he has thought about it. We do not expect it of him, because we all know he is a fool. But the real issue is United Future. It claims to be the great family-friendly party. Its gambling policy talks all about restrictions. How can it be condoning the introduction of Internet gambling?

R Doug Woolerton: Is it voting for this bill?

It is, but its members will not take a call to explain how we can possibly provide a restriction on people who are problem gamblers using Internet gambling. I say to the Minister, to every Labour member, and to United Future that their problem-gambling provisions are an absolute joke, given that this bill introduces Internet gambling. There is absolutely no way that those provisions will provide any restrictions on, or capacity to restrict, gambling through that form.

I move, That the question be now put.

It is in Part 4 that we see another of the really terrible effects of the deal that this Labour Government has done with United Future. The new clause in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper introduces a new process for developing the problem gambling strategy, which gives a greater voice, and hence a greater influence, to the gambling industry, the Gambling Commission, and the Minister of Internal Affairs, over what happens with the problem gambling strategy and the associated levy. For those who may not be aware, the process is that the Ministry of Health develops a draft of the problem gambling strategy, and, in the process of developing the strategy, the ministry must consult all branches of the gambling industry, including problem gambling providers. Then they go on to convene a meeting of a whole lot of bodies, including the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Health, treatment providers, and also the gambling industry itself. As a colleague from the problem gambling sector has said: “It’s like putting a fox among the chickens.” So the industry makes recommendations to the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Health about what happens to the level of funding and the problem gambling strategy.

The gambling industry should not have a central role in developing the problem gambling strategy and the associated levy. Not only are the gambling industry representatives the agents responsible for problem gambling but also they have a major vested interest in reducing the size of the levy, because, of course, they are the ones who pay it. We know from bitter experience that the gambling industry does not, on the whole, have a great sense of social responsibility, when it comes to wanting to see those levies being equal to what is actually needed in the area of problem gambling. The industry’s estimates of the cost of problem gambling in this country, which it submitted during the Government Administration Committee hearing, were far lower than those presented by groups that work on the ground—those who know the real cost of treatment and the real cost of providing services at every level.

The Green Party feels that the involvement of the gambling industry will not assist in the public health aspects of dealing with problem gambling. We were pleased that public health was a primary focus of the bill, as initially drafted. We were pleased with the direction the Government was taking on this, and it has been really distressing not only for the Green Party but for the many groups in this country that work on the ground—trying to deal with all the consequences of problem gambling—to feel that we are taking a giant step backwards with the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper tonight. It is also unclear why the Department of Internal Affairs and its Minister should have such a central role, given that neither the Minister nor the department has any particular expertise or responsibility in either direct dealing with health issues or with public health strategies.

We want to know whose voice Labour is listening to in this debate. Whose voice will it want to hear in the months and years ahead, when it comes to dealing with problem gambling in this country? It is of huge concern. Will it even listen to the voice of its own party, which came out today? The New Zealand Council of the Labour Party—the leading body of the Labour Party itself—which met in the weekend, reached a unanimous decision on this issue, which it put in a memo to the Labour Party caucus this morning stating: “In particular Labour New Zealand Council urges that this bill be: Not enabling the gambling industry to be involved in determining how much money should be levied for funding gambling treatment services and where it should be spent.” That directive came from a unanimous decision of the Council of the Labour Party. But is the Labour caucus listening to that voice? No, obviously it is not.

Labour members seem to be quite relaxed about the booming culture in gambling in this country and about allowing the Lotteries Commission to engage in one of the most dangerous and pernicious forms of gambling—interactive and remote gambling. Have they listened to the problem gambling groups or looked at the statistics that are released week after week and month after month? No, they are not listening at all. Do they take notice of the fact that women and young people are among those worst affected by the proliferation of pokie machines and all the other forms of gambling? The number of women problem gamblers is going up all the time. As with the statistics I quoted earlier, I was shocked, on visiting a problem gambling group in Hawke's Bay a couple of weeks ago, to hear, from that mainly tangata whenua group working with people on the ground there, that in the pokie parlours in Hastings there are still children sitting with their mothers at the machines.

What does that say? We thought the Department of Internal Affairs was supposed to be doing a much better job these days of regulating the machines and the pokie industry. I know it is trying hard, but it is really distressing to hear that there is very little, if any, inspection or regulation happening to the industry in the provinces.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to finish the debate on Part 4 of the Gambling Bill by speaking to a couple of amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110, which I put forward. I draw the Minister’s attention to the self-exclusion procedures in clause 278A. Subclause (3) provides for that to be for a period of up to 2 years, in the case of a class 4 venue or casino venue. I want to know from the Minister in the chair, George Hawkins—and he has an opportunity to explain to me—what happens for those who have exclusion orders for longer than 2 years. Section 67 of the Casino Control Act allows for casinos to be able to keep people out, including those who are self-barred. Christchurch Casino, which has 650 self-barred people, is a case in point. Those people have not been barred by the casino. They have decided that they do not want to be in the casino, so they are self-barred, and half of them are for more than 2 years. My question to the Minister is whether a period of up to 2 years, as specified in clause 278A(3), means that the maximum period of time that one can self-bar is 2 years.

If that is the case, we have a major issue. I have here the findings of a court case with a judgment delivered in the court by Justice Keith upholding a decision that the Sky City Casino was able to have somebody barred for longer than a 2-year period. If this bill supersedes the provision that casinos now operate, especially when people are self-barred, we will have a huge problem on our hands. I give the Minister the opportunity to answer that query. The officials may be able to help, as they are sitting there, and it may well be that they can help us clarify that position.

My amendment to clause 278A on Supplementary Order Paper 110 adds a number of subclauses to it. This relates to excluded persons in the light of what happens overseas. In most Australasian jurisdictions, excluded people have the right to have the decision to exclude them reviewed by the regulator, but under this bill, there is no opportunity for that to happen. It is my view that my amendment would be a very valuable addition to the New Zealand system. It would provide for an independent review of what are difficult decisions. Those can often be very emotionally charged. By allowing the amendment on my Supplementary Order Paper, we would have natural justice. At the end of the day, that is what it is about. If people get kicked out of a place, they should have the opportunity to appeal that decision to somebody else. That is the point that Judith Collins made with her own Supplementary Order Paper, which was along similar lines.

I want to look at clause 298, which provides for gambling inspectors to seize equipment, and for it not to be retrieved for 48 hours. I do not know of any organisation in which one cannot get back an item that has been seized until 48 hours have passed.

💬 Simon Power: It seems like a long time.

It is a long time. I say that the court should decide. The court should make the decision of whether people are able to redeem seized equipment.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of Judith Collins to clause 277 be agreed to.

There is an amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 287(1AA) and (1), but I rule that amendment out of order given the decision on the previous vote.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 288(2) be agreed to.