Gambling Bill

Ordinarily, one might expect that the schedules would not be so bad, and quite a few of the parts of the schedules here are not so bad—until we turn to schedule 1 and have a little look at the conditions that may attach to casino licences. The first 11 conditions are all right, and seem to me to be reasonable. But there are a couple of new provisions that will now be able to be attached to casino licences by the—no doubt—politically correct appointees to the Gambling Commission. These provisions are the salary arrangements and personnel practices of the casinos, and I ask what they have to do with the Gambling Commission. What sort of condition will they be attached to? Attached to the casino licence are arrangements relating to procedures, forms, and, if appropriate, formulas for, and in respect of all sorts of things. Then the schedule lists salary arrangements and personnel practices. What is this Government commission doing in telling casinos: who they can hire, how they can hire, and what the salary arrangements will be?

I would love to hear from United Future how that party could bring itself to agree to this sort of nonsense, or did those members simply not read the schedule? I do not think that they did. I can see from the looks on their faces right now that they are going: “Oh dear, what have we done?”, and so they should be. United Future is a party that does not declare itself to be anti-business, but it simply should not be agreeing to this provision.

Then we go on to schedule 1A, “Minimum operating standards”, which again are in relation to casinos. One of the minimum operating standards will be about job descriptions, the system of organising personnel, and the chain of command authority. What business is that of a Government agency?

R Doug Woolerton: None!

None at all, and I thank Mr Woolerton. These casino operators know what they are doing. They do not need some boffin in the department, in the Minister’s office, or in the Gambling Commission to tell them how to run their businesses. It is absolutely right that the commission should be involved in the integrity of the game and operation, and absolutely right that the commission should be concerned that operations are run in such a way they are not subject to fraud, theft, or criminal activities, but it is absolutely not right that the commission, this Government, or anyone connected to this Government, should tell any business what they should be paying as salary, or what the personnel practices should be.

We go on with these schedules and have a little look at provisions about the Lotteries Commission. This commission will now be charged with responsibility for Internet gambling and the operation of pokie- machines. Under clause 37 we see that the Lotteries Commission will now be told that it has to be a good employer. I had a look at that clause, and I wondered where the provision was that we would employ the best people for the job. Well, guess what! It is not there. There is nothing about the best person for the job. Yes, employees have to have good and safe working conditions—and there is nothing wrong with that—and, yes, they have to have, under subclause (2)(c), “the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons for appointment; and (d) recognition of—(i) the aims and aspirations of Māori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Māori; and (iii) the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the Lotteries Commission;”. Just in case there is anybody not recognised, we have to recognise, under paragraph (f) “… the aims and aspirations, and the cultural differences, of ethnic or minority groups: and (g) recognition of the employment requirements of women;”. What! Women do not need this Government to tell them how they should be employed, for goodness’ sake! They know what their requirements are; they do not need some namby-pamby, Nancy-boy State to go around and tell them how they should be employed.

It is absolutely not all right that this provision should be put in this bill, and it is absolutely not all right that the United Future party, for whom I often have nice things to say, should be supporting it. It is absolutely not all right, and I can think only that its members have not read it.

I want to take a brief call on schedule 4, which relates to infringement offences. Schedule 4A states that an infringement under section 11, “Advertising overseas gambling prohibited”, attracts a fee of $5,000. If I go back to clause 11 of the bill, I see that subclause (3) states: “A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000.” Schedule 4A sets a fee of $5,000 for an infringement offence, but the body of the bill states $10,000.

I will not go through them all, but another section of the schedule provides that certain information must be displayed to customers at a casino venue, which relates to clause 151. The fine there is $2,500, but clause 151(3) states: “The holder of a casino licence who fails to comply with this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.” I do not know why there is a difference between schedule 4A and what is in the body of the bill, but there may well be an explanation for it. If the Minister does not know, he might be able to ask his officials why there is a difference in the fee structure, as I have outlined it. I believe that members need to have that explained when we go through the voting procedure.

Technical amendments come through this bill in the schedules, and, in particular, I draw the Committee’s attention to schedule 5, which relates to amendments to the Racing Act. It is exciting that the racing industry and the TAB will now have the opportunity to have gaming machines, and to be able to keep the proceeds from those gaming machines. I have a particular interest in racing—I come from Matamata in the Waikato, the heart of racing. That is what the town and the area is known for, and I know that people in that area will welcome the opportunity to be part of this, and to be able to have their own machines. I am sure, though, that small racing clubs will not put machines in, because they meet only two or three times a year, but they will have the opportunity to have machines—as with the TRAC group, which includes Matamata, Rotorua, and Bay of Plenty racing clubs.

R Doug Woolerton: Don’t know about Paeroa.

No, Paeroa is not in it, but those three racing clubs, in particular, have had access to gaming money for stakes. I was talking to the treasurer of the Matamata Racing Club on Monday, and he said it is worth about $90,000 a year to them to be able to have access to gaming-machine money for their operations and stakes. This year they are budgeting for a $30,000 loss. If they are not able to access funds, then a provincial racing club is looking at a huge $120,000 loss. The Matamata Racing Club is probably one of the more affluent racing clubs in the country. It is well run, it has a very good racecourse, it has a very good reputation, and it is the home of New Zealand’s top jockeys. We support schedule 5, “Amendments to Racing Act 1971”, which allows that provision to take place.

We are not comfortable—as my colleague Judith Collins mentioned—with some of the other schedules. I will not go into those in detail, as we canvassed them during the Committee stage of this debate. Suffice to say that we will be voting against the schedules, as we will be voting against the bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am looking at schedule 1, “Conditions that may attach to casino licence”, and, as Judith Collins asked, what on earth do salary arrangements and personal practices have to do with the casino licence? It is nothing more than putting in the demands of the unions and others who have obviously influenced this Labour Government so heavily. Those things have no place in the licence. Similarly, when one goes on to look at schedule 1A, one sees that the job description once again has no place in that particular schedule. The job description should be handled purely by the authorities that are running the casinos; it should not be put into the bill.

If we then turn to schedule 3, clause 4, we see that the Minister has a huge influence. He is able to remove the presiding member from the board just by supplying a written notice to that person and then sending a copy to the board. In other words, he can just snap his finger and that board member is gone.

R Doug Woolerton: What does that letter say?

I think the letter would probably start with the words “Dear John”. The schedule does not state that the Minister has to give any clear reasons for removing the member. If he does not agree with the board member’s political thoughts, then he can get rid of him or her—just like that.

Lindsay Tisch touched on schedule 5 with regard to the Racing Act, and mentioned the support in that schedule for the racing clubs. It assists racing clubs by giving them a bit more of a level playing field, and New Zealand First supports that part of the schedule for that reason. That is one area that New Zealand First is strongly supportive of, because it is a huge industry for New Zealand.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You have to be a punter to be a New Zealand First member.

One does not have to be a punter to enjoy racing, and to enjoy watching the racing industry. One can enjoy that just by watching the races on television, or by going to the track and having a wonderful time there—as many people do. New Zealand First is very supportive of the racing industry, we support any measures that will help the racing industry, and we particularly support any measures in this bill that will help the racing industry. We will support that section of the bill.

I will wind up by thanking the Minister for his assistance earlier on, when he allowed us to come and chat with him about this bill. We thank him very much, but we found that there were issues in the bill that meant that we just could not give our overall support to it.

The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 109 in the name of the Hon Georgina Te Heuheu to schedule 1B is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with an earlier amendment that was defeated in Part 2.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of Hon George Hawkins to the schedules be agreed to.