🧪 EXPERIMENTAL / ALPHA — this is an independent prototype, not an official record. Data may be incomplete or wrong - always check the linked Hansard source before relying on it.
Hot Air

Thursday, 17 October 2024

Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill

Clause 3 Principal Act
HansardID: 3d47140b-cc78-4d42-9aa2-cda47e8108ae
Back to debates
šŸ—£ļø Speech Barbara Kuriger (New Zealand National Party — Member for Taranaki-King Country)
Time unknown

We now come to clause 3. This is the debate on clause 3, ā€œPrincipal Actā€. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

šŸ—£ļø Speech Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan (Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand — List Member)
Time unknown

Thank you, Madam Chair. When we are looking at the Gambling Act—again, this is something that was highlighted in my second reading speech, and I’ll be interested to hear from the Minister—it is around the fact that although the bill itself is reasonably small, in terms of its broader implications within the Gambling Act, particularly when we’re looking at some of the definitions of other areas.

In my speech, I pointed out definitions, particularly around our corporate society and also in terms of society, and that it also impacts and affects a number of other pieces of primary legislation, such as the Incorporated Societies Act 1908, the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, and the Companies Act 1993, as well as the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982. One of the things around this, again, coming back to the granting in corporate societies the permanence when it comes to remote interactive gambling, is that when we are looking at the primary legislation, I wondered if the Minister has considered the broader implications it has to other sections, particularly when it comes to clause 4 of the Gambling Act in terms of definition. I think there are other definitions that it’ll be good to highlight later on as part of clause 4, but I think that in this case, I really want to draw the Minister’s attention and seek the Minister’s advice on how that broader element—and particularly those other primary Acts within the definition of ā€œcorporate societyā€ in clauseĀ 4 of the Gambling Act 2003—would be affected and would, potentially, need to be reviewed.

Again, because of the fact that we had a shortened select committee process and a lack of regulatory impact statement, I simply don’t know how some of these would be affected. I think that as lawmakers, it’s a dangerous territory to get into when we haven’t teased out the extent of the affected and related Acts in the primary Act.

šŸ—£ļø Speech Barbara Kuriger (New Zealand National Party — Member for Taranaki-King Country)
Time unknown

The Minister is just taking some advice here.

šŸ—£ļø Speech Brooke Van Velden (ACT New Zealand — Member for Tāmaki)
Time unknown

Thank you for your very specific question, I say to the member. Look, societies are defined in the Gambling Act, as you have rightfully identified, but, of course, incorporated societies, charitable trusts, companies, friendly societies, etc.—those are definitions that are set out in the Gambling Act for gambling-related purposes. They don’t automatically give any of those groups a licence. Class 3 lotteries will still require a licence, and that licence is acquired when the Secretary of Internal Affairs is satisfied that they meet those conditions.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4

Section 4 amended (Interpretation)

šŸ—£ļø Spoke in this debate (3)