Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill makes it clear that match fixing is a criminal offence in New Zealand. It is important because it protects the integrity of sport, and, in particular, it protects sport from those who seek to exploit it for improper gain. It is an unfortunate fact that the risk of match fixing is growing internationally. That risk is growing at a time when New Zealand is about to host the Cricket World Cup.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Members are leaving the House. There is a lot of background noise. I ask that they show respect to the Minister speaking.

The Cricket World Cup, of course, is going to be a fantastic opportunity for New Zealand. There will be 49 matches in 44 days across New Zealand and Australia. Seven cities in this country have the privilege to host some of those games. It is a great opportunity for New Zealand on a wide variety of fronts. We certainly do not want it marred by the spectre of match fixing. The bill responds to this threat by making it clear that match fixing is a form of deception under section 240 of the Crimes Act, the offence of “obtaining by deception or causing a loss by deception”.

I would also like to highlight the cross-party support that this bill has enjoyed so far as it has moved through the House. I think that illustrates the important place that sport holds in the hearts of all New Zealanders. Corruption is the complete antithesis to the way in which New Zealanders view sport. We love sport because of its honest content, with both teams doing their very best to win. Match fixing denies us this honest contest by pre-determining aspects of the match so that betting returns can be made. If corruption were to take hold in New Zealand sport, then we would risk losing a significant part of our sporting culture—indeed, our national culture—and we just cannot allow that to happen. Match fixing also allows significant sums of money to be obtained by deception. The cross-party support this bill has enjoyed also highlights the measured approach taken in the bill.

The bill is quite clear in what it does. It makes it an offence for any person to obtain a benefit or cause a loss by manipulating a match with intent to influence a betting outcome. The link to betting outcomes is deliberate and has been included to avoid possible over-criminalisation. It is important that this bill does not seek to criminalise the kind of rule-breaking that sometimes occurs in sport, such as ball tampering in cricket or deliberately collapsing scrums in rugby. Whatever you might think of that type of activity, it can be dealt with on the field of play or by governing sports bodies.

The bill is part of a package of initiatives designed to address match-fixing risks. The Government is not progressing this bill in isolation in the hope that a criminal offence alone can safeguard the integrity of sport. The governing sports bodies have an important part to play in the fight against match fixing. Sport New Zealand has been working closely with national sports organisations since early 2013 to address the risk of match fixing and to develop a national match-fixing policy.

I now wish to talk about these non-legislative measures because they are crucial to protecting the integrity of New Zealand sport. The New Zealand policy on sports match-fixing and related corruption was launched by Sport New Zealand in May 2014. It provides a framework for Government agencies, national sports organisations, and the betting industry to collaborate to prevent and address match fixing. Each of these sectors has particular responsibilities within the New Zealand match-fixing policy. For national sports organisations, the match-fixing policy includes a set of fundamental rules that sports organisations must have in place. These rules set out how they will prevent and respond to match fixing, and will be linked to sanctions such as bans from participation in a sport for breaching the rules. National sports organisations will also be required to have education programmes in place so that everyone linked with the organisation understands their part in preventing match fixing. The New Zealand Rugby Union and New Zealand Cricket are examples of sports organisations that already have comprehensive anti-corruption regulations in place, which include match-fixing related rules. A number of other sports organisations such as football are well on their way to developing these regulations.

The rules required by the match-fixing policy restrict players, support staff, and other relevant people, as appropriate, from betting on any match, under the jurisdiction of, or connected to, the national sports organisation; from failing, for any money, benefit, or reward, including activity associated with a betting arrangement, to perform as reasonably expected to their abilities in, or withdrawing completely from, any match; and also from taking action to ensure the occurrence of a particular incident in a match, including activity associated with a betting arrangement, other than for legitimate tactical sporting reasons within the rules of the sport and for which any benefit is expected. The role of the criminal law and the role of national sports organisations overlap in this particular area. The match-fixing policy allows national sports organisations flexibility in precisely how they adopt the match-fixing rules. The rules may be customised according to the particular needs of the sport.

Sport New Zealand is supporting sports organisations to put match-fixing rules in place by providing detailed model rules. These model rules include disciplinary processes, recommended sanctions, and educational requirements. Sanctions such as lifetime bans imposed by sports organisations represent a very significant punishment and deterrent. Sport New Zealand is supporting efforts to educate players and other relevant people by providing a generic match-fixing education programme online for national sports organisations and others to use. From 2016 all national sports organisations will need to comply with the match-fixing policy to be eligible for Sport New Zealand funding. As you can see, this is a very comprehensive approach to safeguarding New Zealand sports. It is why an international Interpol expert has labelled New Zealand’s approach as world leading.

This bill is timely because it sends a clear message to anyone thinking about trying to corrupt New Zealand sport that they will be facing a serious criminal charge—a charge that, under this bill, carries a maximum penalty of 7 years in prison. The bill also ensures that the police have the powers they need to investigate instances of match fixing. Match fixing can be a lucrative endeavour for organised crime. It is an unfortunate fact that there is no shortage of criminals looking for an easy way to make money. Those criminals are now targeting sports matches. The International Centre for Sport Security has estimated that over $140 billion is laundered worldwide every year through sports betting. This illustrates the extent to which organised crime is seeking to exploit the sport sector. With two major sporting events on our shores from early next year, the Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U-20 World Cup, this bill sends a clear message that manipulating a match for betting returns will not be tolerated. Such behaviour will not be tolerated because it denies the public an honest sporting contest. It denies us the very thing we love about sport. Kiwis should be able to watch their sportspeople safe in the knowledge that they are performing to the best of their ability, and that the element of chance has not been removed from the spectacle.

Major sporting events also bring a raft of economic, cultural, and social benefits to the country. The economic, social, health, and personal benefits of sport and recreation to New Zealand have been estimated at $12.2 million per annum. These benefits are put at risk by the activities of match-fixers. Although there are some existing offences that may cover match fixing, this bill will put it beyond doubt that match fixing falls within the scope of deceptive conduct covered by the Crimes Act. It is therefore a very important piece of legislation. Again, I would like to stress that this bill is part of a package of initiatives. The bill is not being passed in isolation in the hope that it alone will safeguard New Zealand sport. The work that Sport New Zealand and our national sports organisations have been doing will help to create a framework that protects sports from match fixing. This framework imposes obligations on players and other relevant people, but it also provides them with education and support. It is this framework, coupled with the bill before us today, that will help to protect New Zealand sport, which is a very vital part of our culture, from match fixing. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a very, very short bill. The Labour Party will be supporting the bill because we are hosting, in February-March next year, the Cricket World Cup, and we are hosting in May-June the FIFA U-20 World Cup.

We know that there is a growing problem with match fixing. Match fixing is utterly unacceptable. It is unacceptable because it breaches the fundamental sporting code that sporting contests should be fair and the result should genuinely reflect which side is the superior side, in terms of its sporting skills. We know that we have to deal with it, because this is much more than just sport. Match fixing is a critical form of fraud and crime that is growing in the world.

We have known, of course, for about 6 years that we are hosting the international Cricket World Cup. What worries me about this bill is, despite its shortness—just four clauses—it appears to have been drafted in some haste, to the extent that the Legislation Advisory Committee took one look at it, and it is only just over a page, and said: “There is a major problem with this bill. This bill creates a defence that would defeat its own purpose.”

Really, the question that we asked at the Committee stage, which was never answered, was: how could a fundamental mistake of that nature be made? The Legislation Advisory Committee also raised concerns that this legislation might not capture the masterminds of match fixing because the actual manipulation of the overall result is an essential element of the offence. So there were some concerns with the apparent rush in drafting, but there were also concerns of this nature, and these were spelt out in the regulatory impact statement. It said that because the Cricket World Cup is being held in February next year, “This objective imposes constraints on the range of legislative options that can be considered. Requiring a Bill to be passed by the end of 2014”—and we are right at the tail-end of it now—“means creating comprehensive, stand-alone and potentially complex match-fixing legislation is impractical.” We cannot have that, the regulatory impact statement says, because of “significant time constraints”.

The other question we asked at the select committee was: when we have known for 9 years that we are hosting this competition, how could there possibly have been significant time constraints? Are we dealing with a bill that is a second-rate bill that does not do the whole job, as the Government’s own regulatory impact statement suggests, because the Government left its run too late? If the Government left it too late, why? This Government has had 6 years to address the problem, and has not done so.

The concerns that we have are that there is clear evidence that global criminal activity concerning corrupt sports betting is increasing. It is increasing particularly because of the growth of online betting. Interpol suggests that fraudulent sports betting actually generates about—and this figure will surprise you—US$140 billion in turnover in a year. Let me repeat that. It is US$140 billion generated by fraudulent sports betting.

Unfortunately, one of the codes where match fixing is quite common is, of course, cricket. We have had our own experience of that with our own cricket players being allegedly involved in it, and we have seen it across the Tasman, in Australia. When you look at the risk assessments, it shows that Australasia, because the cricket matches are being held on both sides of the Tasman, is at risk from international crime syndicates looking at expanding their current operations in Asia, India, and Europe. The Australian Crime Commission’s February 2013 report on organised crime and drugs in sport highlighted the links between Australian sport and organised crime, including match-fixing risks.

Again, I have this problem with the bill and the Government’s comments on it. The Government said that having a really short bill is proportionate to the risk. On the one hand, the Government tells us that this is a crime that generates US$140 billion a year, and then it says it cannot do it comprehensively; it can just do a short bill. And then the Government says this short bill, which is not comprehensive, is proportionate to the risk. Something does not add up in that explanation. It really does not add up.

The other concern I have is that passing legislation to stop match fixing and creating a criminal penalty for it—yes, I agree that needs to be done. But it is not the whole picture. Clearly, what we need is a sporting code of conduct, and we need a sporting code of conduct in each of the major sporting areas that is mutually consistent and that is consistent with this legislation. But, regrettably, at the select committee we never heard from the sporting organisations. We did not get a clear picture of whether these codes of conduct are adequate and will be in place and will do the job.

I remember that one of the comments that was made at the select committee was that more effective than a criminal code would be a lifetime ban by sporting bodies in terms of disincentivising match fixing. I would like to be certain, and I would like assurance that these codes of conduct will be in place, will be consistent with this legislation, and will be sufficiently effective.

Having said that, we do need a piece of legislation that makes a specific offence called match fixing under the Crimes Act. We need everybody in New Zealand to know that it is a crime to rig a match for the purpose of making money. That is why Labour has been cooperative in helping pass this bill. But I reiterate that it is not good enough if you have had years and years to prepare for that and the Government’s own agency said it could not look at doing something comprehensively because of time constraints. That is not a justifiable reason for a bill that probably in a perfect world might have been more comprehensive and gone further.

I have a great deal of respect for the Hon Phil Goff, but he is a great political operator at the same time and in this place we exchange a degree of banter. But I have to say that in a perfect world, Mr Goff, we would not be debating whether things should have happened sooner with an Opposition that filibustered and wasted time on meaningless calls and so on and so forth, year in and year out, so that the Government’s programme—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: We never did that on this bill at all.

No, no, the point is—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: The Labour Party helped—and the member knows—facilitate this bill through the select committee.

That is right. I am not talking about the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. I am talking about why the passage of bills can take so long to get in front of the House. In a perfect world what I say, Mr Goff, in response to what you have said, is that the Opposition would understand that legislation needs to pass in a timely manner and it would not filibuster along the way and then somehow point out that the legislation has taken so long to get to the House at some other stage.

This bill is a very simple bill. It deals with a very simple element of what has crept into sport over some time around manipulating the outcome of a game so that someone can gain a pecuniary advantage through betting. That is what it is. It does not set out to criminalise all manner of cheating that goes on in sport. It deals specifically with the idea that someone is trying to manipulate a game or an outcome so that they can make money from that through a bet. There are many things that have been discussed across the course of what has been a shortened select committee process, but there was certainly a 3½-month period for submissions to come in and there were very few submissions. The reason for that is partly because the bill is quite simple and it does set out to take care of and set some very clear guidelines and parameters around this specific area.

But just as important, it is because Sport New Zealand has been working with governing sports bodies right across New Zealand for almost 12 months now, developing codes of conduct and working with them to ensure that there is a—no pun intended, but it will probably sound like one—level playing field in terms of how sporting codes go about governing their bodies, their sportspeople, to play in a fair and robust manner, which is outside the scope of this bill but sits alongside it, essentially. There are many reasons why people may manipulate the outcome of a game but they may have nothing to do with a betting outcome and a pecuniary advantage, but there is a nexus between those two things.

So, just coming to Mr Goff’s concerns around that, at the one Law and Order Committee meeting that Mr Goff was not at we received some detailed information about the length and breadth of that consultation process and how much is actually going on. A benefit of this bill has actually been the process for these sporting codes to develop a far better practice and the guidelines around which they want their sports to operate. So I think that has been a positive thing.

Interpol has said that this legislation is world leading, possibly because it is quite simple and it is quite clear in what it sets out to achieve. What is clear is that there are so many challenges in this area that it is clear that different jurisdictions are developing different ways to address it and tackle it. It is quite clear that as we see evolutions that may enhance this legislative platform, which is a baseline, I guess, we can certainly entertain the idea of altering or amending legislation to accommodate that. What is clear is that there is a long way to go but New Zealand is playing its part and so I have no trouble in commending the bill, and I appreciate the support of all parties across the House in getting this through. Thank you.

I, like my colleague Phil Goff, will take a reasonably short call on this—

💬 Hon Annette King: Dream on!

Well, according to Phil’s scale it was quite a short call on this bill, not least because there is some urgency around the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill, and my colleague the Hon Phil Goff made a very good point. It is a bill that we obviously have some urgency around because we have the hosting of both the Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U-20 World Cup coming our way, and we have known that for quite some time, and yet we now suddenly have this urgency around this bill. It is a shame that it did not come perhaps somewhat earlier so that we could have put a little more thought into some elements of the bill.

The point was well made, I think, by Mr Goff in respect of these provisions, which are reasonably narrow and confined in terms of targeting significant match-fixing rather than a wider set of match-fixing provisions. To what extent was that done out of convenience because of lack of time rather than because it was the best way to construct the piece of legislation? I note, therefore, that in the bill the Government has suggested that it believes that other forms of match fixing—I guess what you could call lower-level forms, although all forms of match fixing have a detrimental effect on the perception of sports and sporting fixtures in New Zealand, and that is harmful regardless of scale—can be dealt with by codes of conduct and through governance from relevant governing bodies in sport for each of the sporting codes.

I just want to point out, though, that I think it is important that whenever we delegate responsibility in that manner, the oversight is important, and there has been some discussion as to whether that oversight could be carried out by the Department of Internal Affairs, Sport New Zealand, the Ministry of Justice, the Organised and Financial Crime Agency, and the Serious Fraud Office. All of those bodies have some role in this bill in terms of collaborating. I think collaboration is fantastic, but at the end of the day you still need a lead agency, you still need accountability.

I guess my concern is that if we are discharging some responsibility for lower-level monitoring of match fixing, there does need to be some direction as to who is going to keep that oversight. Given that Sport New Zealand—as has been said by members on the opposite side of the House—will have a role in coordinating some of the rules that sporting bodies may adopt, perhaps its having a role reporting to the Minister as to how those codes are being implemented, and whether or not it thinks there might generally be a need for further primary legislation, would be a useful thing. Again, it is a shame that we did not have the ability to explore that in more detail, and, as has been pointed out in this House numerous times, it is disappointing that representatives from various sporting codes were not even able to submit. It was not considered useful. I think that is disappointing, and it may yet lead to us being back in this House debating this once again.

My final point that I want to make is that vigilance in these areas is so important. We pride ourselves on being corruption-free, on being transparent, on being an open democracy. Little elements of legislation like this contribute to upholding the previously glowing perception of New Zealand in this area. But we cannot be complacent about that. We have seen what has happened in recent times, specifically relating to sports, and how that can make a code unravel. We have also seen what damage can be done in political fields, in the judiciary, if people do not have faith in those who hold high office, in the way that they conduct themselves. So even in this area I would say that vigilance is important and we cannot afford to be complacent. I think this is a good step. It may not be the only step, but for now Labour supports this bill and we commend it to the House.

I think, along with all the other parties in Parliament, the Green Party will be continuing to support the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill here at the third reading today. I want to make just a few remarks moving on from the bill. First, I will pick up on some of the remarks made by the Minister for Sport and Recreation in his opening comments around some of what he hoped for in the Cricket World Cup that we are looking forward to early next year. He said that he was looking forward to a fair contest, and looking forward to a contest in which the element of chance was not removed. I think that is a good way of expressing one of the objectives of the bill. And I guess, perhaps more generally, another is to be watching players, in this case in cricket but actually in any sport, who—we are confident and trust—are playing to the extent of their abilities and striving to their utmost to achieve success. I think those are good ambitions for the Cricket World Cup series and for sport going forward.

I have spoken in previous debates about some of the objectives that we have for sport. It is an entertainment for us. It is a means of fostering national or community pride or identity. It also serves the function of inspiration: inspiration to further physical activity—and, goodness only knows, our country needs some of that—but also inspiration for striving in other endeavours. So sport is not just a game; it actually has much greater importance for us.

That is why match fixing is such a blight, because it causes two kinds of harm. First of all, it results in people who have placed bets in sports betting being defrauded of their money, and, more broadly, it defrauds the observers of that sport—the rest of us—from achieving those other objectives that I have described. More broadly, it compromises the very integrity of the sport and cuts to the very heart of why we celebrate sport.

However, it seems to us in the Green Party that the Government’s motivation in proceeding with this bill is not so much any of those particular harms but rather the commercial risk faced by the betting and gambling industry. That appears to be the motivation behind this bill. In my significant experience of interaction in trying to plan services to deal with people with gambling problems, that is an industry that shows an extraordinary lack of ethical standards or, indeed, care for its customers. Indeed, just today research was released from the Department of Internal Affairs using mystery shoppers, saying that in almost none of a range of casinos and providers of pokie machine venues were the statutory obligations, the mandatory statutory measures that are supposed to protect consumers of those gambling services from harm, actually met. What that is talking about is an industry that places very little regard on its statutory obligations and even less regard on the welfare of its customers. I wonder, therefore, whether this is actually an industry that deserves the protection that Government intends to provide with this bill.

In previous debates, I have raised, I guess, my personal view that sports betting has been an utter blight on sport in New Zealand and around the world. I think it is evident that if sports betting is permitted, it will create powerful incentives for matches to be fixed, for the integrity of sport to be compromised, and for sports betters to be defrauded of their money. I think that if we were to take a helicopter view, what actually is the big problem here? What is the problem that as a Parliament we ought to be trying to address? I think it is at least arguable that the problem is not so much match fixing as sports betting. It is interesting to hear the comments of other participants in this debate, who have noted that this is a very brief bill, that the process has been relatively and unnecessarily rushed, and who are wondering whether the bill will achieve all of the aims that it has. It is my view that the bill will not stop match fixing. I think it will make some small contribution towards reducing the extent of match fixing. But the existence of sports betting and the powerful commercial incentives that that creates will drive other forms of corrupting sport that evade the provisions of this bill, or evade detection. Although this bill is a useful step forward, it does not get to the heart of the problem, and the Green Party will certainly be looking for other measures that may be necessary in the future to deal with the root cause of the problem.

I have also referred in previous debates to match fixing being one of the twin scourges in modern sport. The other one is doping. That is another way in which the integrity of the contest in sport is corrupted and compromised, because, effectively, what we are seeing is not a fair contest between the different competitors or participants in the sporting contest. I think it is at least arguable that sports betting actually lies at the heart of the motivation for some of the doping behaviour that we see in modern sport as well.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this, depending on what progress we make this afternoon on other matters, may well be my last contribution in the House this year. If it is, I wish you and your team and all other members of the House the very best for a very well-deserved Christmas and New Year break. I hope that some of you may join me on some grassy embankment around the country, with the voice—[Interruption] Actually, that did not quite come out as I intended—of Bryan Waddle in my ear and some test cricket in front of our eyes. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill in its third reading. For me, being quite new to the Chamber here—it may not be the last time; I certainly hope it is not—to see a bipartisan approach by all parties and to see the common sense at the highest level of supporting this bill gives me a great feeling. Although we probably do not share the same sentiments—I certainly do not with some of the aspects that have been shared by the Greens with regards to sports betting in its entirety—I think that the intent is there, none the less, to try to tidy up the dirty side of sports.

I am pleased to rise. This is an overdue amendment to the legislation. It clarifies that match fixing is a form of deception under section 240 of the Crimes Act, and it ensures that criminal sanctions are available. The bill is not designed to address every kind of match fixing; it focuses on the most serious kind, where the intent is to influence a betting outcome, and that relates specifically to a monetary gain. A strong connection with betting activity is necessary to reduce the risk that any unintended activity that may occur in the course of a sporting match be criminalised. For example, collapsing a scrum in a rugby game or purposely kicking a ball out on the full from kick-off are the sorts of things that need to be addressed, in having an approach with the betting agencies to make sure that those sorts of things do not go on, by taking those betting activities outside of their scope. That may, of course, like every action, have a reaction, and it may introduce some new aspects that we had not thought of with regard to illegal betting. It is not going to be a very easy problem to fix, and it has been around for a very long time.

Those who manipulate a match for any other reason, including tactical or strategic sporting reasons, will not commit an offence under this bill. Where a player is blackmailed, they will not have committed an offence under new section 240A of the Crimes Act. The player will be the victim of the blackmail and should not be liable for this offence, but will, in all likelihood, be liable for punishment by the governing sports body. A person who blackmails a player to match fix is likely to have committed the offence of blackmail and can be held liable for that offence.

Manipulation of sports matches for reasons other than to influence a betting outcome must be dealt with by non-legislative tools such as codes of conduct developed by governing sports bodies. Under this bill, anyone who obtains a benefit or caused a loss by engaging in match fixing would commit an offence and be liable to a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment. I would, however, like to say that it would be a good addition to also give them a ban from their sports code, which is not currently in the legislation but would certainly be a good point to raise in the future.

As for any offences committed overseas, the Crimes Act already covers the issue arising from match fixing by New Zealanders who live overseas. Section 7 of that Act ensures that where the event occurs in New Zealand, or any act or omission that forms part of the event occurs in New Zealand, then a person who is not residing in New Zealand at the time of the act may also be liable.

The select committee recommended amending clause 4 of the bill by removing the words “otherwise than for tactical or strategic sporting reasons” from the definition of “deception”. This phrase could be confusing and might open up an unintended defence.

As introduced, the bill would provide a defence where a match was manipulated, at least in part, for tactical or strategic sporting reasons. This defence might apply even if the manipulator also acted with the intention of influencing a betting outcome. For example, a person who deliberately lost a match to gain an advantage in the next round but also bet on the result would escape liability. This would clearly be contrary to the intent of the bill. Removing these words would make it clear that an offence would be committed whenever a match was manipulated with the intention of influencing a betting outcome.

There are four parts to this bill. Very simply, we have got the title; the commencement, which is, of course, the Monday following this one, 15 December 2014; and the principle of the Act. This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961. There are four new sections. New section 240A is inserted, which I would just like to go through now. Section 240A, “Application of section 240 to match-fixing” states: (1) “For the purposes of section 240, deception includes any act or omission that is done or omitted with intent to influence a betting outcome of an activity of a kind to which subsection (2) applies by manipulating … (a) the overall result of the activity; or (b) any event within the activity. (2) This subsection applies to activities of the following kinds: (a) sporting competitions, games, matches, races, and rallies involving human participants (whether or not they also involve equipment, horses, vehicles, or vessels):”.

The bill aims to protect the integrity of the sports stage, in that match fixers will be found guilty in the eyes of New Zealand law, and states what will happen in regard to New Zealand participating in international sports. On behalf of New Zealand First, I commend this bill to the House and am pleased to be part of the decision that all parties have taken in agreeing on it. Thank you.

I just draw attention to the Green Party. I understand there have been some discussions. I am expecting a member of the Green Party to call for a 5-minute call. No? Anyone else seeking the call? No.

Bill read a third time.