Racing Industry Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 15 to 17, “Consequential amendment and revocation”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, we came to Part 2 much sooner than many of us were anticipating, but having said that—

Tim Costley: You’ve got to be sharp.

TANGI UTIKERE: What was that? Crickets. In terms of Part 2, I know that the Minister for Racing has talked about inheriting the Entain agreement. I mean, one of the comments we made previously is that the sooner this legislation could make its way through, the sooner money could flow through to the industry. This is, obviously, a bill that will provide—the advice we received is that about $180 million annually is going offshore, in the form of offshore online betting.

Now, when it relates to clause 16A, there is a proposed insertion there that relates to an individual. It is very clear from that that the onus is on the offshore provider, not the individual who is seeking, perhaps, to place a bet. My question to the Minister is a very discrete one, and that is whether he is satisfied that is the case, and that there is not a need for any deterrent for an individual who may be seeking to rort the system and try and place a bet through an online provider offshore.

Certainly, the advice that the Governance and Administration Committee received was that that could be difficult, but, none the less, there are still, I guess, opportunities that might exist out there. This relates to the onus and where it lies. Currently, it sits not with the individual who might be seeking to place a bet—where the Minister thinks the responsibility of an individual in that circumstance should lie.

I think it was in 1994 that a Canterbury university academic produced a paper saying that one out of five dollars in New Zealand was avoided in terms of taxation. Then, not so long after that—at the same time, of course—you’ll recall the other thing called the wine box. I mean, people never stop trying to avoid the system, and the truth of the matter is that the products could be—because of improper or negligently established betting systems—the whole thing could be unprofitable, just like that. Or the anti - money-laundering and countering of the financing of terrorism requirements for this country with international engagements could be immediately impacted with a lack of scrutiny, from us, for the TAB in that sense. Then you have—this is always on people’s minds—match-fixing alongside money-laundering. And there’s enormous temptation for that to happen. And you’ve seen, sadly, a recent allegation—dare I say it—in India, of it happening. Of course, the stakes are huge.

During the time of COVID, of course, there was one sport that went through the roof when other events could not happen. Nevertheless, this very strange sport was going dam busters, or gang busters, so to speak. And the reality is a lot of us are talking here—well, we’re trying to demonstrate a level of expertise. But on this and many of these matters, I’d take some serious international advice, because, like rust, some schemesters and scamsters never stop working at it and they like nothing more than a bunch of innocent politicians who think they’ve lost control of the arena that they’re playing in. So I’ve got no instant answers for you, other than to say that we will be pleased, and so will the TAB, to hear from many of you if you’ve got any concerns going forward. But let’s see how we go over the next year. How about that? Remember, I inherited this system. If I had a chance, I’d have something different.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, and while it is tempting to follow up the issues you raised about tax avoidance, I will stick to Part 2.

Does the Minister for Racing believe that in clause 16A(4), where it says: “An individual may not be convicted of an offence under [the] subsection[s]… for placing a bet with an offshore betting operator … in contravention”—and these sections are getting longer and longer—“of … 74AAA of the Racing Industry Act 2020.”—does he believe that that fails to distinguish between the scamsters and the people who are avoiding using the TAB versus the individual problem gambler who should rightly be protected from conviction so that their gambling addiction isn’t made worse by criminal convictions, given the issues that problem gambling does create for themselves, their whānau, and sadly, potentially, for their employers when money is stolen from their employer?

Just a little extra question that the Minister might like to address, but may not. Given he mentioned India, with which we have some interesting relationships and developing relationships, is he aware that gambling on cricket in India is illegal?

If I could go carefully through the explanation. Now, this thing is an absolute vowel sandwich, all right. If you read the first paragraph of it—I don’t want to read it out to you because it’s unbelievable—but it says: “As introduced, the amendment to the definition of remote interactive gambling could unintentionally capture individuals under the offence provisions of the Gambling Act. The intent of the bill is not to criminalise individual behaviour or make it illegal for people in New Zealand to make racing or sports bets with offshore operators. Rather, the intent of the bill is to prohibit all other operators but TAB NZ—”

Rachel Boyack: Who wrote that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Who wrote that? Well, I’d love to say it was me, but no—it was written by the department. “—from offering online racing—”. Actually, you’ve ruined the whole flow of it! I’ll start again.

Hon Members: Start again.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You know, there was a famous person who used to write for The Times in London, before the Second World War, under the pen name “Cassandra”, which means in Greek “bad tidings” or “ill forebodings”. The day the war broke out, it stopped, and the day the war was over, it began the next day with: “As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted.”

“The intent of the bill is not to criminalise individual behaviour or make it illegal for people in New Zealand to make racing or sports bets with offshore operators. Rather, the intent of the bill is to prohibit all other operators but TAB NZ from offering online racing betting and sports betting to people in New Zealand. We consider that clause 16 should better reflect this intent.” It’s all there.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3