Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill

I want to reiterate to the Government whip in particular that if we get these questions answered, then the debate is finished. If the questions the Opposition is asking are properly answered by Minister Smith—not in the way that I heard the Minister answer before but straight answers to straight questions—then as far as the Labour Opposition is concerned, this debate will be completed. I cannot, though, speak for the other parties.

There has been a series of questions asked. They are serious questions. They concern the commencement date, when it starts. You know, we are under a lot of pressure to get this through. The legislation comes into effect, it says, on 15 December. It could probably come into effect earlier than that if the Government wanted it to and gave straight answers. I want the Minister to give the straight answers. I am not the slightest bit interested in Mr Sabin after his reprehensible behaviour when he was giving answers to the questions that have been asked.

I do want to ask the activity question. I am asking whether it will capture individuals who are involved in match fixing if they are currently offshore and if the activity is in New Zealand. What is the territorial basis for this—for the activity, for the procurement, and for the betting? Does a Centrebet bet count if it is made from New Zealand? Does a bet in the local pub count if it is made from New Zealand? If it is an activity in New Zealand and it is procured from Australia and the bet is in India, is it captured? Who is captured? Is it only the people in New Zealand, or is it the people who are involved offshore? Are they captured as well?

I also want to ask a question about the International Cricket Council. Was it consulted, and what was its response? One of the advantages of being a former Minister is that you do get a little bit of feedback from organisations, and I know that New Zealand Cricket was certainly consulted. But was the International Cricket Council consulted, and is it satisfied that this legislation does enough? Even more important is do the people who are really pulling the strings in international cricket care? Do the people from the subcontinent involved in this area—obviously not the New Zealanders involved—actually care, or are there so many people on the take in this particular area that they actually encourage some of this approach?

What consultation has there been with the sports broadcasting organisations, including the international broadcasters, especially around the timing issues? I think all of us know that on occasions, the way that modern television occurs, there is sometimes a slight delay, and it is to fit in advertisements at the end of an over or during the ends of overs, but it means that the timing is not exactly right. The question then is have there been consultations in that area, and, if so, what are the results of those consultations? Of course, a very slight delay gives a massive opportunity for spot fixing. It can be just 30 seconds, and millions of rupees can be won or lost as a result of a spot-fixing approach where the result is certain to everyone—well, not everyone; everyone other than the people who are taking the bets. They do not know about the exact result in this area.

I go back to the Minister and I go back to the Government whips and ask whether they are prepared to answer the questions—or would the members opposite like to continue this debate at a clause an hour when, in fact, we would be prepared to wrap it up in 2 minutes?

It is hardly good faith for the member to demand that his questions be answered. For instance, he has asked me how this works in respect of international jurisdictions when part of the offence is committed in New Zealand and part overseas. He then leaves the Chamber while I answer the questions, and then on the next clause—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I left the Chamber before the Minister got to his feet. He is not allowed to draw attention to the absence of any member, and I just want to assure the Chamber that I was listening to the political diatribe from the Minister in the chair.

I answered that specific question. I am more than happy to answer any legitimate questions on the clause, and the clause that we are debating is clause 2, which states: “The Act comes into force on 15 December 2014.” That is the best practical date for this law to take effect.

The point was made about references in respect of members not being in the Chamber, and the Minister know the rules around that. Is someone else seeking the call?

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 New section 240A inserted (Application of section 240 to match-fixing)