Racing Industry Amendment Bill

We are up to No. 5 and it is a National Party call.

Madam Speaker, thank you. Look, there were three key issues that came out of the select committee. Firstly, one was from the National Sporting Organisations. In short, they think they generate about 30 percent of the income but get 20 percent of the profits. They’d like a different proportion set in law. We think probably regulation is the place for that. It’s a fair point, but regulation may be better than capturing it in law.

The second was around new products—virtual, fantasy, and even things like in-race betting. Again, there are some valid questions there, particularly I think in the fantasy space. However, this bill is probably too narrow for them to be incorporated into that one.

The third issue was really around the monopoly issues, and, in particular—and we heard some discussion last night—around the fact that some bettors feel like they were banned because they were too good but they don’t get given a reason. At the moment, that’s in clause 8 of this bill. I think it’s a fair point to raise, but I do think there’s an open question about whether that should be captured in this primary legislation or in regulation. That would be worthy of a bit more discussion, perhaps at the committee stage. Other than that, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Costley.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill for its second reading. This bill is to safeguard the long-term financial sustainability of New Zealand’s racing industry by extending TAB New Zealand’s existing monopoly on sports and race wagering to include online betting.

As my colleague Tim Costley just outlined, this bill was considered by the Governance and Administration Committee. They’ve poured a lot of time into considering the legislation, listening to the submissions received on it, engaging with the racing Minister as well, in particular. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): So this is the split call at call six, is that correct?

STEVE ABEL: That’s correct, yeah.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): So you realise that that call was missed, so I’m just alerting the members that when it is the call, for the party to take the call at the right time.

STEVE ABEL: Yes, I apologise for that, Madam Speaker. I wasn’t in the Chamber so I’m sorry for my lateness. [Interruption] Pardon me? I missed that. The Green Party is supporting this Racing Industry Amendment Bill. I just wanted to say that we are not dewy-eyed about the insidious character of gambling in our society. I have a now deceased member of my family that was of modest means but who spent a large amount of money on the horses and other forms of gambling. This is not an unfamiliar story in our country. Gambling can be a very destructive practice.

It is all important that if there is gambling that a substantial amount of resources are funnelled towards those who work in the prevention of problem gambling and help people who have gambling issues. Gambling is like an addictive substance. It is something that people get into a habit of and find it very hard to stop. It has similar effects on the brain as addictive substances. It is like a stimulant; the thrill of losing and the thrill of winning have a similar chemical effect. So the Green Party in supporting this bill is not endorsing the scale of a gambling sector that gives a relatively tiny amount of what it makes to dealing with those people who suffer the negative impacts of gambling in their lives that impact their families and impact their children.

Our party policy requires that we prevent new forms of gambling that are associated with harm and regulate all existing forms of gambling to prevent or minimise harm. So we take a harm minimisation approach similar to the approach we take on drugs. This bill does not prohibit online betting services by offshore operators—I mean it does, rather, that’s exactly what it does. It does prohibit online betting services. Online gambling is one of the riskier forms of gambling due to its easy access and easiness to conceal. Offshore operators are also not covered by New Zealand law and the protections provided by regulation and any income that offshore operators garner from New Zealand domestic gamblers do not contribute to those racing code distributions.

We previously have supported legislation in 2019 to introduce offshore betting charges with revenue distributed amongst the racing codes, which we determined was sensible, given the current racing industry provides a service to offshore vendors for no compensation. The same justification applies to prohibiting offshore betting.

The primary point of the bill is to protect the financial sustainability of the racing industry, and my colleague Celia Wade-Brown last night articulated very clearly just how dependent the racing industry is on income from gambling. But not just the racing industry; other sports are dependent. From memory, as much as 40 percent of the income of tennis in New Zealand comes from gambling, which is notable. Given our issue with the impact of racing on animals, for example—and I’m noting the clear and commendable position of this Government to bring greyhound racing to an end with the support of every party in this House—we are concerned at the impact of gambling, and we would like to see more efforts made to minimise it.

One of the obvious things that could be done—as a point of note before I finish—is the prohibition on the advertising by gambling outlets. Advertising has a very marked impact on those who are dependent on things from alcohol to tobacco to gambling, and it would be an easy step to prohibit the advertising of gambling in this country. That is something that I’m sure the Green Party would support. We will be supporting this bill, however. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to stand in support of the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. I note a number of the comments from the submitters about, too often, the slow passage of legislation in the House, whereby, by the time this comes into effect, the sector will have moved on again. Such is the nature of online gambling and the way that people interact with the sporting sector. Noting a significant increase, in particular an interest at the moment, for example—I was checking on some statistics earlier—that betting out of New Zealand on matters such as the NBA finals, which are taking place right now, causes a significant spike in the betting. I don’t have a horse in that race. Sadly, my Los Angeles Lakers got knocked out early in the playoffs.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, what?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yeah, I know, right? Everyone thought LeBron would take us to the glory land, but, sadly, that didn’t happen.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: But hey, “Up the Wahs!”

Hon PEENI HENARE: It’s always “Up the Wahs!”, but never say that it’s our year. I didn’t say that.

But you notice there is, as the season of sports continues to play out—and in particular in the US, where there’s a significant growth in interest from New Zealand and Australia in betting on sports generally through the US predominantly. I think one of the main reasons for that is simply because of the sports analytics related to the likes of NBA and NFL which far outweigh any kind of sports analytics that we might see here in New Zealand. But I suspect that that’s coming. I don’t think listening to Jeff Wilson, as much as I admired him as a rugby player—I don’t think listening to him as a sports analytic is going to help your betting odds. But certainly, as technology continues to show its impact on, in particular, the racing industry but more broadly speaking the betting industry, it’s important to make sure that legislation like the one we’re supporting here and the regulations that follow this, continue to keep up with the market.

We note that there was a significant number of submitters on this particular bill, predominantly in support. One of the common themes that came through from the submitters was the fact that—and my Green colleague mentioned it and I thought explained it quite well with respect to problem gambling and gambling harm. We know that in the legislation as it currently stands, there’s a view to making sure that those that are working in minimising harm from gambling continue to receive funds to be able to do that important work as we see the growth of this industry. We want to see that continue. We’re encouraged and heartened by the point that it’s in this particular bill to make sure that we continue to have a view towards minimising harm from gambling.

We note too that the provision in the amendment and the bill itself also speaks to giving the TAB the ability to identify problem gamblers, those who they can deny the opportunity to place a bet, which I think is important. However, I’d make the point, though, that the policing of that, I think, I’m not too sure how that might work. If it’s strictly up to the TAB to be able to do that, that’s fine, I get that, because that’s the one portal we’re trying to make here with respect to online gambling and sports betting, in particular on the races. But making sure that we can enforce that, continue to monitor to make sure that TAB are, indeed, fulfilling that particular part of the bill that we are debating here today.

The next part, which I think is quite important and it’s been raised by a number of speakers in the House, is the formula by which they distribute money to the codes here in New Zealand. There were a number of comments about making sure that those codes were well represented on the board. We know that the Minister can already appoint members from certain codes to that particular board. While this bill doesn’t exactly make sure that the Minister does that, because the Minister still has the right to appoint to the board anyway, we would encourage, through the ongoing dialogue with this bill moving forward, that we would be able to make sure that those sports are represented fairly.

On Sunday, I had the good fortune, thanks to the Minister for Sport and Recreation, the Hon Mark Mitchell, who helped me get along to the Tall Blacks and the Tall Ferns game in Hamilton on Sunday. Simply looking at the odds and talking to a number of people around me, people were extremely interested in how they might be able to be part of the betting syndicate or the betting fund, if you will, from Sunday. That’s why, with the significant growth and sponsorship that goes into basketball, I think, and we think on this side of the House, that it’s important that those particular emerging and growth sports such as basketball in this country can have a voice at the table when the dividends or the money is divvied out amongst the sports.

I already mentioned how it depends on the season and where people are betting and what sports are going on at the time. So you see those surges and you see it in New Zealand, and making sure that in the community that that support continues to flow.

Just one final point from me, because, as I say, we support this bill. The other point we want to make is around making sure that there’s an amendment in this bill that talks about allowing the Minister to receive information or data from the TAB. I think that’s a great thing. My question for the House and for the Minister, moving forward, is: will that data be transparently afforded to the New Zealand public? Is it data that could be reviewed and analysed by this House? Is it data that can continue to inform this House’s deliberation on the regulations moving forward? Whatever those might look like with respect to this bill. I think we’re already in great agreement across this House that data and information is king. I acknowledge that the Minister can receive and can demand that data from these sources, but we want to make sure that as we deliberate, that that data becomes available to this House and also the public, if that’s able to happen.

But none the less, we’re supportive of this particular bill. For those who, as I said, get into sports betting—I for one keep an eye on sports overseas. I’ve spoken about the NBA. Just finally from me, in the first week of September is the start of the NFL season. My Philadelphia Eagles won the Super Bowl recently and I expect them to repeat next year. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I won’t be taking a very long call, because I believe that my colleagues from right across the Chamber have actually iterated very succinctly what this bill is all about.

Having said that, I just want to go to the genesis of where this bill actually comes through. The background is the Racing Industry Act 2020 that, effectively, created TAB New Zealand as a statutory entity to manage sports and race wagering, actually empowering them to partner with offshore operators and introduce things like betting information news and point-of-consumption charges to generate extra revenue for TAB in order for them to support sporting entities. However, what actually happened is that the offshore operators, effectively, have captured the market, and TAB was not able to continue to fund the racing industry, which relies very heavily on the TAB revenue to operate. I think it’s really important to note that.

The Racing Industry Amendment Bill actually safeguards the long-term financial stability of New Zealand’s racing industry, extending TAB’s ability to give funding to sporting codes, and I think it’s a good thing. I thank the Governance and Administration Committee, who worked really hard, and the clerks and the advisers, who have actually given us expert advice. I commend the bill to the House.

This call is a split call—the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

I’m not well known for my support of the racing industry. Having said that, I do enjoy going to the races on occasion, sometimes with my friend Kieran McAnulty; his tips are pretty good. Certainly, I’m pretty sure that he supports the racing industry via the TAB, as do many other New Zealanders.

I actually want to have a bit of a focus in my speech on gambling harm, because I do think whenever we’re talking about gambling and, being a responsible Government around gambling, we do need to think about gambling harm. In fact, one of the most harmful forms of gambling is online gambling, and whilst this bill won’t solve all of those problems, it will at least in respect of the racing industry. By making it illegal for operators—other than the TAB—to offer gambling around racing to New Zealanders, it means that there’s a tighter regulation around that.

It’s not often that we, kind of, support monopolies, but, in the case of sports gambling and gambling on racing, I think it’s appropriate for two reasons: one, so that we can have better oversight over harm minimisation, but also because of the fact that the TAB, in part, funds both sports and racing. So this is a good thing for both those reasons. I was quite gratified to see the good work that the select committee did, both around regulation-making powers, to just flesh out somewhat the expectations, or the ability to make regulations around different kinds of gambling harm and the responses to them.

We know that, in fact—perhaps bizarrely—when you’re gambling online, through an account, the ability to track gambling behaviour is greatly enhanced, so the TAB and anyone else in that space is able to see problem-gambling behaviour, see repeated gambling, and see the time at which people are gambling, and all those kinds of things. The ability to make regulations to do things like place time restrictions on when a person can bet or place restrictions around the amount they can bet, but also—and this is really important—put regulations around how to respond to people who self-identify as problem gamblers. In fact, that’s one of the main things people do—they kind of wake up the next morning and think, “What have I done?” They self-identify and say, “I’ve got a problem, and I need the operator”—here, the TAB—“to help.” It’s absolutely a duty on that operator to respond in a proportionate and appropriate manner, and there have been instances, in respect of some gambling operators, where that hasn’t occurred.

I just did also want to touch on some other aspects of the bill, and in particular the refusal of bets. In one sense, we can see why the TAB should be able to refuse any bet from anyone at any time, but I see now the select committee, in considering it, if you’ve got a monopoly operator—and people do gamble; they like to have a flutter on the horses or whatever—then we have to be a bit more responsible about turning people away. I think the committee actually landed at a pretty good place, which wasn’t actually to constrain the TAB’s ability to refuse bets; I think that it’s actually really important for them to have that ability. But they could make mistakes—it might be a mistake as to identity, might be some other mistake about the amounts they’re betting, or whatever it might be. Now, they have to give reasons for a refusal of a bet, and I think that’s a sensible thing to do. So if they’re like, “Oh, no, I’m not that John Smith” or “No, that wasn’t my bet; I was betting on behalf of someone else”, or whatever it might be, I think that’s a good thing.

Look, great news for the racing industry—good work. Pity about the pokie machines that aren’t going to be banned; that’s a real missed opportunity. I know that we would have done that, and I think that would have reduced gambling harm and been good for the community. But, overall, it’s a worthwhile piece of legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment will extend TAB New Zealand’s exclusive right for sports and racing betting to include online platforms, but it will be a boost for Kiwi sports and racing. It’s expected that that revenue will mean more will be fed back into sporting bodies. I just had a bit of a nosy—in 2023, for example, in the Wairarapa electorate, some of the beneficiaries of the $17.8 million contributed to communities that year were Central and Southern Hawkes Bay Eventing, for cost of medical for an event; Wairarapa Cricket Association; Wairarapa football club; Wairarapa Bush Rugby Referees Association, that was for replacing gear; and Wairarapa Netball Inc. So there is a lot of good that comes from the contributions that they distribute throughout our communities.

I also had a good talk to a mate of mine from one of New Zealand’s premier thoroughbred studs, Sam and Catriona Williams of Little Avondale, and I think they’re still actually celebrating their success at the Australian yearling sale, where they sold a Zoustar colt for a record $1.7 million. The Wairarapa is still incredibly proud of their success, and Sam tells me that they’re absolutely in favour of this bill. So am I. I commend it to the House.

I’m very pleased to be the final speaker on this side of the House to do with the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. It’s important that I make a contribution for the bill as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee.

Last night, we heard Minister Jones, in terms of the legislative statement to the second reading, and we know that the second reading is about the process on this bill. We understand that protection and long-term sustainability is very important to New Zealand’s racing industry. This amendment bill to the Racing Industry Act 2020 is to extend the TAB’s existing land monopoly for sports and racing betting to include online-provided wagering. Labour, under the last Government, had progressed some of the work in this space, and we are quite disappointed that the Minister has not taken on board those class 4 licences, which cause a lot of harm in our community, and has not factored it in at this time. So we look forward to the committee stage, where we can scrutinise and ask specific questions around online harm minimisation.

My colleague Tangi Utikere acknowledged and highlighted the workforce—the over 13,500 workers in the racing industry. Actually, if you include the volunteers and those who work at racing meets, that figure goes up to 40,000 jobs in the racing industry. That’s a significant amount of workers that contribute in terms of the revenue that is gathered for the racing industry, to the extent of $1.9 billion that is circulated into the industry. We heard also the comments and contributions on the relationship of TAB New Zealand and Entain, which is about 25 years old and counting, and we know that there’s a payment of $100 million secured as a result of that relationship—revenue that is continuing to be generated in Aotearoa.

I wanted to highlight, in my contribution, the online harm minimisation that is prevalent in our community. We’ve heard Dr Webb make some comments, and others in their contributions. It is really important—and for the record—the class 4 licences that are prevalent in our community cause a lot of online harm. Whilst, for the punters, it is their decision how they spend their money and where they go to in terms of the community, I wanted to raise the issues and the focus as to why harm prevention, consumer protection, and harm minimisation are really important issues. Under Labour, we did lobby that, for class 4 licences, there needs to be the understanding, of those in the racing industry, that whilst it brings revenue and the sustainability of the industry is important, there is another factor that the Problem Gambling Foundation and community groups have raised with specific MPs.

As an MP in South Auckland, I understand the importance of online gambling harm. There is a side that punters in our community have that choice; that’s not a problem. But where those that cannot control—they would like to gamble and continue to do that. It is affecting our Māori, our Pasifika, our ethnic community, and what is alarming is our younger population.

So the South Auckland communities—one of the things with the class 4 licences that I understand that was raised with TAB New Zealand, who then chose not to—[Mic static]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it was just interference, but if I’m told different, we’ll do something different. Carry on.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE: TAB New Zealand were then told not to—oh, I’ve lost my train of thought, but anyway. As we understand throughout Aotearoa, the online world for our younger generation is really prevalent. Some of the decision making that happens around online gambling—I personally believe that there’s not enough emphasis of not enough education. When you have a community who can make choices but they don’t have as much money as other wealthier communities, sometimes those choices for our young people can diminish.

Through the Governance and Administration Committee process, it was interesting to read some of the information and submissions by the national sporting organisations that wanted to say, “Yes, it’s good to have this revenue. Yes, it’s good to have the amendment of the Racing Industry Act.” But there is a big part of that to do with harm minimisation. So one of the things that I will continue to question in the committee process is: have we got the instruments right? Do the Minister and the officials—yes, there’s a big component around the revenue and what that brings into Aotearoa, but there has to be the commitment and there’s got to be the right legislative tools to be able to counteract.

One of the things that I want to raise and put on the record is the balance around online gambling harm, and specifically for Māori, for Pasifika, for ethnic people, and for our young people, particularly around the language of the tools that will provide the policies.

I did a bit of research in terms of the online gambling in New Zealand, and there were public submissions and I have a report here from June 2020 that I wanted to quote from. One of the things with the approach to harm minimisation that was raised by submitters was those experiencing problem gambling behaviours—there needs to be a specific ability to make sure that the tools that this legislation brings are achieving that balance. My concern is around, specifically, young people who don’t fully understand that when they have X amount of dollars only so far, what the harmful effects are for them when they make the choice to gamble online.

The research, in terms of what is provided here in one of the reports, is really important for people of Aotearoa to consider. When we in this House, in this Whare, are going through and making the legislation, it is important that submitters have the opportunity to express their views and provide different perspectives, and it is important that there’s a strong support and focus, in the right temperament, for harm minimisation, specifically for those with problem gambling behaviours. So what the evidence tells us—and what I’ve been talking to just in terms of the South Auckland area, which is one of the highest areas of concentration of the class 4 gambling machines and the proliferation to specific groups in our society, is important.

I have been to race meetings. I have appreciated that whole community. There have been people in my family who have gone to those meetings but actually end up with harm minimisation.

For the record, I wanted to raise those points whilst I have the time, because the thing with online gambling harm is it’s hidden; it’s 24-hour access. So there is a good side to it and then there’s the dark side of it. We who are making the laws in this country have to be cognisant of those features and that we achieve the right balance. We cannot ignore that—not in communities like ours in Māngere and South Auckland.

Just as I finish off, I look forward—whilst we on this side of the House disagree with some of the features that were presented, we will be supporting it through to the next phase. But I really want to stress that whilst we are getting it right for the revenue, the things around online harm minimisation and consumer protection are very important issues to our community. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be standing to speak on the Racing Industry Amendment Bill in its second reading. Look, I think it’s important to note that the profits from the TAB are directed back into sports and racing here in New Zealand, rather than having profits from betting going offshore; it is good to see that that money would be directed back into New Zealand.

One of the TAB’s goals is to increase participation in the racing industry, and this is an area where I have some experience. I’ve had the opportunity to contribute as part of a syndicate. I think we owned an ear of a racehorse, perhaps. There were 24 of us, I think, in the syndicate. We had three horses—thoroughbreds. The first horse was called Alvera, and, well, it won a few races and got a lot of seconds and a few thirds and provided us with a lot of joy. The second horse we had was Run Forrest Run, which, when it went up a grade, turned into Walk Forrest Walk, but it still gave us a lot of pleasure. The last horse we had was a horse called Lord Snow, who was no good at all, and we haven’t had a horse since.

But I do recommend it, actually. It was a great experience and it was a great way to follow the horses, be involved in the industry, know that you were supporting a trainer, and a lot of fun. So, with that little diversion, I commend this bill to the House.

Glen Bennett. This is a split call—it will be half of a split call.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It will be half of a split call.

GLEN BENNETT: Half a minute—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, five minutes—half of a split call.

GLEN BENNETT: I’m a whole person but half a call. That’s OK. I rise as a complete novice when it comes to the racing industry. In fact, I have a confession to make that I’ve only—and the Hon Keiran McAnulty is behind me—ever been to one actual race meet, and that wasn’t even a real one; it was a demonstration one. But I’m sure I have some comeback, because it was at the Kentucky Derby. Surely that’s a comeback. So I’ve never actually been to a real, live, racing industry meet, but I’ve been to a demonstration at the Kentucky Derby, so, surely, that gives me some credibility to speak for at least—well, only five minutes, but I will try to keep my comments short and to the point. In fact, I’ve got no idea.

But I live in New Plymouth, and as you drive into the beautiful city of Ngāmotu, we have our wonderful race course that sits on the left-hand side, hovering above our beautiful Tasman Sea. It is a place of life and energy, it is a place that has race meets regularly, but also it is a place that’s under strain and under challenge. I guess, with modern society and as the world moves rapidly, and as previous speakers have said on all sides of the House, the challenge of our online world, the challenge we have of people being able to bet online 24/7. Although I’ve never participated myself, I do see the merit in a good afternoon out when you get to go to the races, you get to put on that beautiful hat and those really impractical heels and boots and whatever you wear, and go to the races on a muddy, soggy Taranaki afternoon.

But we need to consider the fact that with this legislation, we need to look at the harm that can be done, and so I feel confident—I never thought I would stand in this House and speak to a piece of legislation that was around gambling. Being brought up in the Salvation Army, it was something that was forbidden. But I’m glad, as I read through and look at our notes, look at the legislation in front of me, of the fact that something the previous Government began, and then something this Government has continued, is something that we on this side of the House, us in the Labour Party, can support.

But, as my colleague the Hon Duncan Webb did state earlier, there have been a few things removed, and we don’t feel that’s OK in terms of some give and take when it comes to downsizing of pokies around the place. But, unfortunately, that has been ignored when it comes to the legislation in front of us this afternoon.

But as someone who’s been at the Kentucky Derby and seen two demonstration races, I really want to acknowledge the proud history—and to you, Madam Speaker, I’m sorry if I get this wrong. But my honoured and learned colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty does assure me that we should always back a Sharrock in New Plymouth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I couldn’t possibly comment. I’m neutral while I’m sitting up here, Mr Bennett.

GLEN BENNETT: I hope that’s OK. I hope I haven’t been set up. But we should always back a Sharrock in New Plymouth. For the whānau out there, the Sharrock whānau, who have been deeply involved in the racing industry for years, we acknowledge them and what they do, because it is around our economy. But we also need to work on how we prevent hurt and harm, and this legislation is something that goes some way to do that.

I just want to finally comment on some of the restrictions that some of the submitters talked about during the select committee stage. There were definitely submitters that raised concerns about the prior powers held by the TAB in New Zealand to restrict bettors from placing bets for any reason and without requirement to identify why bets were refused. They also went on to comment about this bill. They were concerned that it amends to provide the specific circumstances where TAB New Zealand can refuse a bet, such as having been identified as a problem gambler, convicted of relevant offences, or engaged in threatening behaviour to TAB staff.

It also specifies that the TAB must now inform the person seeking to make a bet as to the reason for any refusal. I think that is good because often in the past, it was something that was unknown to the better. It is good that the TAB must now inform the person seeking to make the bet and give them a reason for any refusal.

We support this legislation. We look forward to it going to the committee stage and to ironing it out. I know there are a couple of amendments already on the Table in the committee stage that we will be looking into. Labour supports the legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.