Tuesday, 9 September 2003

Tuesday, 9 September 2003

Tuesday, 9 September 2003

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Obituaries

Hon Sir Richard Harrison

Mr SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 5 September 2003 of the Hon Sir (John) Richard Harrison ED, who represented the electorate of Hawke’s Bay from 1963 to 1984. He was junior National whip from 1970 to 1971 and senior whip from 1974 to 1975. Sir Richard was Chairman of Committees in 1972 and again from 1976 to 1977. He became Acting Speaker in 1977 during the illness of Sir Roy Jack, and served as Speaker of the House in the period 1978 to 1984. I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member, and of all of those who are listening in to this at the funeral service. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

Hon Merv Wellington

Mr SPEAKER: I also regret to inform the House of the death on 7 September 2003 of the Hon Mervyn Langlois Wellington QSO, who represented the electorate of Manurewa from 1975 to 1978 and that of Papakura from 1978 to 1990. He was Minister of Education from 1978 to 1984. I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

Speaker’s Statements

Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, on Thursday a demonstration was held in Parliament grounds. During the course of that demonstration Shane Ardern drove a tractor some way up the steps of Parliament. He eventually stopped and retreated when challenged by a senior member of the security staff.

Later that day I met with Mr Ardern and expressed my strong displeasure at his actions. I indicated that I expected an apology from him and that the Parliamentary Service would be sending him the bill for the cost of cleaning up the debris left by the tractor. Subsequently, Mr Ardern sent me the following letter: “As discussed with you earlier today, I write to apologise for my actions, during the farmer protest march to Parliament, in driving a tractor onto the lower section of the Parliamentary steps. No offence was intended and I regret any inconvenience that was caused.”

I indicated to Mr Ardern that the question of a possible prosecution for any offences committed by his driving of the tractor in the way that he did was a matter that was solely in the hands of the police. I have not influenced, and do not intend to influence, their decision on this in any way.

New Zealand’s Parliament is the most accessible and open in the developed world. I am sure we all hope that it can remain that way.

Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise this matter with you as I know that you review the way in which issues such as this are handled, not just by those directly involved but also by yourself.

I attended the meeting with Mr Ardern in your office on Thursday, during which you stated you would require an apology from Mr Ardern and that you would read it to the House—as you have done today. I note also, however, that you commented in the media, preceding the reading of the apology to the House. That action of yours is in sharp contrast with the way you handled the breach of the law by Mr Duynhoven, when you stayed silent for several days. Indeed, you stayed silent long enough for the Government to ensure the law was changed, thereby denying any report to the House from yourself on Mr Duynhoven’s breach. I say that fairness in the role of Speaker is something you have to be the sole judge of, but others also look to you to be seen to be fair.

With regard to the way these two cases have been handled, I hope you will take some time to reflect on your role in both of them, so we can be assured that those looking on from the outside will see that you are functioning in a fair way to both members.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ): I too am a little concerned about the statements you have been making to the media, especially in light of today’s Dominion Post, in which we see a Labour Minister in a previous Labour Government driving a tractor up the steps of Parliament. That action did not result in the Speaker at the time saying that Mr Tizard was going to be prosecuted, or in sending him a bill for the rubbish caused by a tractor being driven up the steps. [Interruption

Mr SPEAKER: The member interjecting has had the only warning I am giving today. There will be no comment during a point of order—none at all.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: I do not claim to have a great deal of knowledge on tractors, but I have driven them. I watched the member driving the tractor, and he clearly showed he knew what he was doing. The suggestion that he was causing a risk to anyone, is not so, and the assessment that he “retreated down the steps”, as you put it, would not be correct, either. He stopped and then reversed the tractor. I realise there are implications in a protest of this sort, but I think it is a matter that a Speaker should be very careful about getting involved in, because we have to take note that this protest was the first we have had under this Government—we may have many more—and it was coming from rural New Zealand, which feels that this Government is out of touch. That was the point being made. The member is one of two members of Parliament who are working farmers. By his action, he was sending the House a very strong sign of what will happen if we have laws on flatulence taxes, and the like, passed through this House.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just say that I have had approaches from, and have observed, about 30 or 40 demonstrations, and I have allowed all of them. They have all been required to keep within the rules. I want to make it perfectly clear that when I was approached by Federated Farmers, I negotiated with them, and I respect them for keeping strictly to the rules. Of course I will take note of the members’ comments, and I will review the matter when I am reviewing the whole of this incident that has taken place over the past few days.

BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I stood on the steps of Parliament last week when that tractor was driven up them. I did not see any debris left behind by that tractor, at all. I am wondering whether you might be confused between cows and tractors.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not.

Points of Order

Question Time—Presence of Prime Minister

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question is really addressed to the Leader of the House. I have had a look at the questions for today, and I have to ask him whether the Prime Minister intends to visit the House this week.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the member that I know, because of a phone call I had from the Prime Minister, that her plane was late. She is due down here in about 5 minutes.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Sentencing Act—Effectiveness

1. MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) to the Minister of Justice: Does he remain satisfied that the Sentencing Act 2002 is working in the best interests of the victims of crime and protects the safety of the community; if not, why not?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Acting Minister of Justice): I am satisfied that the Sentencing Act, the Parole Act, and the Victims’ Rights Act together provide a regime that better serves the interests of victims of crime and protects the safety of the community than the previous regime. However, amendments can and will be made to the law over time, taking into account how the courts are applying them.

Marc Alexander: What kind of a signal, other than to popularise and normalise the use of a class A drug, does the Minister consider the imposition of a mere 8-month jail sentence—to quite possibly be served at home—for convicted P and Ecstasy dealer Darren McDonald sends to the community, other dealers, and potential users of the drug, when the maximum sentence for such offences is 14 years?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The advice I have on that matter was that the individual concerned was determined to have played a small part in the offending. Based on the facts of the case, it was determined that 8 months was an appropriate sentence within a possible range of 6 months to 2 years. I am also advised that the main offenders in this case were sentenced to 6½ and 6 years, respectively.

Tim Barnett: Has there been any commentary on the Sentencing Act that compares it with the previous legislation?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes. I note that Justice Priestley said in July last year that it was “... a huge improvement on the mishmash of laws which applied to sentencing prior to July 2002. It greatly assists courts.”

Ron Mark: At the time United Future was doggedly negotiating its in-depth confidence and supply agreement with him, what concessions, if any, did the Minister agree to with regard to addressing the flaws that United Future is objecting to in the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I was not involved in negotiating the confidence and supply agreement with the party concerned.

Marc Alexander: Does the Minister agree that sentences for drugs offences must reflect the fact that, even if a drug is used socially amongst those with money and does not appear to have an impact on others, its effects on those who are addicted but of lesser means leads to serious criminal activity and other violent consequences in order for them to sustain their habits—as we have all seen in the case of methamphetamines?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I do believe that, and I believe that that is the reason the two main offenders in this case were sentenced to 6½ and 6 years respectively.

Hon Tony Ryall: Given that the man at question in the principal question was convicted of conspiring to sell methamphetamine, and in light of the fact that the Minister of Justice has confirmed that not one dollar has been confiscated from convicted drug dealers this year, when will the Government amend the Proceeds of Crime Act so that we can get the money from the gangs that are dealing this dangerous drug—the Minister has promised it for 4 years and there has been nothing?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I do not have the detail in the House, but I assume that the member is referring to legislation that he could have amended when he was in Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has the Minister not seen the lengthy, detailed, and specific agreement between United Future and the Labour Party and the Jim Anderton - led party, given that it is surely her job to uphold its very detailed provisions; or is it the case that there is no reference whatsoever in that document to the matters before this Parliament or, in particular, to the ambit of the Sentencing Act—and what sort of lapdog agreement is that?

Mr SPEAKER: There are three questions there. The first two can be answered.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to ask you to think about how that can refer to the principal question. The question was to the Minister of Justice, and a great assumption is made that the Minister of Justice was somehow involved in supply and confidence agreements. That is the first point I make. Secondly, I make the comment that a lot of people in this country find poodles a lot nicer breed of dog than rottweilers.

Mr SPEAKER: The second comment is irrelevant. I am allowing the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that that member is a new member, but he has no right to refer to Lianne Dalziel like that.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Despite the interruption, I recall the precise wording of the question. I did not say that I had not seen it; I said that I had not negotiated it.

Marc Alexander: Does the Minister think that the fact that convicted criminals may have some sort of celebrity status should make them eligible for home detention simply because they may receive more attention in jail, or can she confirm that prisons already have systems in place that protect at-risk inmates?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I have advice from the Minister of Corrections to say that that is a matter being addressed within the prison service. But I also say that there was an attempt by the Minister of Justice to have parties agree to make some amendments to the deferral provisions where home-detention applications were being made, but the opportunity was declined by the ACT party, the New Zealand First Party, and the National Party.

Foreshore and Seabed—Māori Land Court

2. Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Will the Māori Land Court have a role in determining the influence of iwi and hapū in the Government’s new “co-management perspective” over the seabed and foreshore; if so, how?

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice): The nature and role of the Māori Land Court is one of the matters under consideration and, as is stated in the Government’s proposals for consultation: “The Government seeks comment on whether the Māori Land Court jurisdiction extension would be a useful addition to the current range of mechanisms already in place with customary interests, how the new jurisdiction might operate, and the nature and rights that might be recognised.”

Hon Roger Sowry: Does the Minister agree with the reported statement by the Hon Trevor Mallard that the four principles shaping proposed legislation were open to negotiation; if so, does this mean that the Government has backtracked and will now not necessarily guarantee the public access to the beaches and foreshore?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: No, the Government has not backtracked. My understanding is that the comment from my colleague referred to the nature and the way in which those principles could be implemented, not to changing the principles.

Darren Hughes: Is the concept of co-management between Māori and the Government a new concept?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: No, the Ngāi Tahu deed of settlement passed by the then National Government in 1998 included co-management provisions that protected Ngāi Tahu’s historical, cultural, and spiritual links to specific sites. Also, the 1992 arrangement between the Crown and the Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board concerning Lake Taupo had similar provisions. I also note that former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jim Bolger in 1995 offered to talk to Māori about greater self-management and co-management arrangements.

Hon Richard Prebble: Is the Government’s new suggestion that iwi and hapū have co-management of the foreshore and seabed what she and the Prime Minister meant when they said on 30 June that the Government was seeking a “win-win” on the foreshore; if so, how is it a win-win for the public to have iwi and hapū co-managing our favourite beaches?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: As I have just pointed out, the whole notion of co-management is not a new notion at all. What was being sought were ideas from the process of consultation and discussion that if, in fact, a customary right was established by the Māori Land Court, how that customary right could be implemented.

Nandor Tanczos: What does the Government intend to do to build capacity in local government so that it is better able to recognise and respect customary rights, so that co-management becomes a workable and viable option?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: The proposals do highlight the importance of implementation of the proposals, as much as the legal regulation. That is one of the matters we are engaging in with local government, as to what they would see would be their requirements in this respect.

Gordon Copeland: For the benefit of all New Zealanders, will the Government define what is meant by “customary rights” in order to help clarify the influence iwi and hapū will have over ongoing management of the seabed and foreshore, where such customary rights are found to exist; if not, why not?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: Strictly speaking, it is for the Māori Land Court to define what is the “customary right”. However, the process of consultation and discussion that is going on at the moment is to aid and assist what statutory guidance could be given to the court when it decides in a specific fact situation.

Hon Roger Sowry: How does the Government’s latest proposal that Māori will have some role in “co-management over the seabed and foreshore” differ from co-ownership?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I repeat that it is not a new notion. It is one of many tools that we are seeking a discussion on to ensure that the proposals can be fully implemented. I could go on at some length about the difference between ownership and management, but I think the honourable member knows that as well as I do.

Peter Brown: Noting the answer the Minister gave to Gordon Copeland, that, strictly speaking, customary rights should be determined by the Māori Land Court, can I take it that it is the Minister’s view that only Māori can have customary rights?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: In the context that the common law was talking about, yes.

Hon Roger Sowry: Can the Minister inform the House as to whether the Government’s view of co-management means that iwi and hapū will have some say over the use to which the seabed and foreshore are put?

Hon MARGARET WILSON: It may assist the member if I refer him to page 101 of Healing the Past, Building the Future, where there is a definition of co-management. It describes the activities where Government and communities are involved to greater or lesser degrees in providing information, consultation, cooperation with the community, communication about initiatives, advisory boards, management boards, and the like. It is not a concept that is confined only to Māori; it involves the whole community.

Hon Roger Sowry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was very interesting, but it in no way answered my question, which was quite clear. I asked whether, under the Government’s view of co-management, iwi and hapū will have a say as to the use to which the seabed and foreshore are put. I see the Minister acknowledging that that was the question, and I ask her whether we can get an answer to that.

Hon MARGARET WILSON: I am happy to answer it. That is precisely one of the many proposals that are under discussion at the moment.

International Students—Modern Age English Language Schools

3. HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is the Government taking to ensure the provision of accommodation for students affected by the recent difficulties at the Modern Age group of English language schools?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I am aware that there are students at risk of losing their accommodation because accommodation payments have not been made to the people providing the accommodation. The Government has undertaken to meet the future accommodation costs for that group of students, including the payments to home-stays for August, should Modern Age not be in a position to meet those costs. The money will be recovered by way of an adjustment to the export education levy for that group of providers.

Helen Duncan: Why has the Government taken these steps?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The affected students had prepaid their accommodation costs, and the Government wishes to ensure they do not lose the accommodation they are entitled to. We also want to ensure that this incident does not unnecessarily tarnish New Zealand’s reputation, which, by and large, is one of being welcoming to international students.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What does it say about the Minister’s haphazard management of overseas fee-paying students that, firstly, he has regularly been overseas, particularly to Asia, promoting that young children come to New Zealand to do their schooling, and that he is now going to shut that down, and, secondly, he put in place a New Zealand Qualifications Authority monitoring system of English language schools, which, in the case of the Modern Age language school, has quite clearly failed?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think there are three questions in there. On the first, I have never promoted school-aged children coming to New Zealand, because it is my view that that is a decision for individual parents, and, frankly, it is something I am not comfortable with. That is why we have moved to a position whereby primary school - aged children will be required to have a guardian—[Interruption] I make it absolutely clear to the member that, in Korea and China, I have promoted tertiary relationships, but I have never promoted primary school - aged children coming to New Zealand, because I think it is wrong. On the question of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority monitoring system, the money was in the appropriate accounts in February but was not there when a check was made a month or two later. That is probably the result of a separate business failure of the proprietor, which is something that is very hard for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to take account of.

Hon Brian Donnelly: In order to clarify his answer to the principal question, could the Minister tell the House whether he is saying that to cover the additional costs of about half a million dollars, the export education levy is going to be increased on all providers?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes and no. It will be increased, but not on all providers. It will be increased on the particular subgroup of English language providers from which this group came—not across the board, but for this private English language group from which this provider came.

Home Detention—Homicide

4. Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Justice: As Bailey Junior Kurariki, convicted of killing Auckland pizza delivery man Michael Choy on 12 September 2001, is now eligible to apply for home detention, does the Government believe that 2 years in a residential centre is an adequate penalty for homicide?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Acting Minister of Justice): The maximum penalty for manslaughter is life imprisonment. Sentences in individual cases are a matter for the courts. In this particular case the individual was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment, and it is not appropriate for me to comment on the nature of that sentence.

Dr Muriel Newman: In light of the Ministry of Justice report on the death of Michael Choy, which found: “All of the young offenders shared common negative influences in their lives. Their families were unable to control their behaviour.”, how can Bailey Kurariki possibly be considered for home detention?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I made a mistake when I said 8 years; it was 7 years’ imprisonment that he was sentenced to. Any offender who is subject to a long-term determinate sentence may apply to the board for home detention at any time after the date that is 5 months before the offender’s parole eligibility date. That is why he can apply.

Dr Muriel Newman: What is the Minister’s response to Michael Choy’s mother, Rita Croskery, who claimed on Breakfast television this morning that she was not informed that her son’s killer was eligible to apply for home detention and that under the present laws “offenders have all the rights and victims have no rights”?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I was not aware that that was the case, and I will certainly follow it up.

Hon Tony Ryall: If Kurariki is allowed out on home detention, can the Minister assure the House and the people of New Zealand that his care and supervision will be superior to the ineffective care that her own inquiry concluded had been shown previously by the authorities of Justice, Education, and Child, Youth, and Family?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Section 35 of the Parole Act explains what the board has to take into account in determining whether to grant home detention. It will include the nature of the residence and the circumstances of both his offending and the sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, the Parole Board will take all those factors into account under the legislation, as it is required to do.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister not recall the Hon Rick Barker’s statement in this House that nobody convicted of a serious crime would get home detention, and if Mr Kurariki ends up with home detention, what sort of message is that sending to every junior “would be if he could be” who looks upon this young boy as a hero, as opposed to the criminal that he is?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am not aware of anyone who looks upon Bailey Junior Kurariki as a hero. He is not a hero. He was involved in a very serious crime. The Parole Board has a list of matters it has to take into account before it makes a decision about whether to grant home detention.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a copy of the report of the senior public servant expressing the concerns that young people were seeing Kurariki as a hero figure—front page of national newspapers.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is it a newspaper report?

Mr SPEAKER: Is the member seeking to table the report?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is it a newspaper report?

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry; the member was asked whether it is a newspaper report.

Hon Tony Ryall: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance, because in one mouthful I am told by the Minister that she is not aware of any such report where this man is being seen to be a hero, and now the Minister has just admitted she has read the very newspaper report that states precisely that. One of her statements is untrue, and I ask you to rule on that.

Mr SPEAKER: I wish that the member had listened to what the Minister said. The member is wrong in his assertion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact is that the Minister said she was not aware of any such reports.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, I didn’t.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, she did. She is then offered the opportunity by another member of Parliament to have such reports put before her—reports that Mr Ryall said were in all the national newspapers—and she opposed the leave. That is just treating Parliament with contempt.

Mr SPEAKER: Any member of this House has the right to deny leave.

International Students—Age Restrictions

5. LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Immigration: What steps is she taking to respond to the announcement of the new rules for enrolling young international students in primary and intermediate schools?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration): I have announced a new guardian visa, which will match the visa of young international students. This has been introduced as the visitor visa has not been adequate for this purpose.

Lynne Pillay: Why is the guardian visa necessary?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: In response to the announcement of the Minister of Education in respect of very young international students coming to this country requiring the support of parents or guardians, current visitors policy restricts them to a 9-month stay in any 18-month period. This does not cover the full year. The evidence shows that these young children need the supervision and support of their parents.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Other than children who are in New Zealand with their parents here on legitimate business, why should any foreign fee-paying students be allowed to attend taxpayer-funded primary schools?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Because they pay student fees.

Ministerial Confidence—Justice and Corrections Portfolios

6. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Corrections; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, because they are both hard-working and conscientious Ministers.

Ron Mark: How can the Prime Minister possibly expect the victims of crime to have confidence in a Minister of Justice who does nothing to prevent class A drug dealers and killers to avoid serving their prison sentences by allowing them to gain home detention, or her Minister of Corrections who allows those same people on home detention to live the life of Riley—going to the gym, family outings, shopping, rugby, participating in community activities, gambling, smoking, and taking recreational drugs—all whilst they sit on the dole on home detention?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I understand home detention goes back many, many years. No doubt the whole issue was looked at again when the sentencing and parole legislation was before a select committee, which it was for rather a long time. I am not satisfied that there needs to be changes at this point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister have faith in a Minister of Corrections and a Minister of Justice who have said: “Home detention is designed to accommodate low-level offences warranting a sentence of less than 2 years, and seen to be a low-risk to the community”, when just in the last 2 days we have seen a convicted killer and class A drug supplier join the for ever growing list of violent and dangerous home-detention criminals; why is she satisfied that no changes need to be made now?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I understand that both have made application for home detention. That is quite a different matter from getting it agreed to.

Ron Mark: Can the Prime Minister explain why the Government has bothered to put out a 19-point methamphetamine action plan, aimed at controlling supply, reducing demand, limiting harm, and improving treatment services—all in response to the devastating and dangerous effects of the class A drug—whilst a New Zealand celebrity gets a slap on the hand and is able to avoid a prison sentence by swanning off on home detention?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I understand that is what he is applying for; it has not been granted. The Government views P in very, very serious terms, indeed. It is an extremely dangerous drug, and that is why the police have been given more resources through the Budget process to combat it.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why does the Prime Minister view P as a dangerous drug, but is happy to support the decriminalisation of cannabis?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Clearly, cannabis and P are quite different kinds of drugs. For the record, from the time I was Minister of Health I have received advice that partial decriminalisation of cannabis should be considered by the Government. I did not action that as Minister of Health, but there are plenty of credible people in public health who would make that recommendation today.

Tractors—Accidents

7. MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) to the Minister of Transport: How many tractor accidents have there been over the last year?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): I am advised that in the last 4 years 14 people have been killed in tractor accidents in New Zealand. The latest data show that in the first 9 months of 2002-03 there were a total of 48 tractor accidents. To improve farm safety the Government has been working with Federated Farmers on a farm safety campaign. This encourages leadership amongst farmers to support injury prevention and the appointment of key persons to champion injury prevention.

Mark Peck: What support has the Government received for its campaign?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Federated Farmers are fully behind the campaign. In fact, they recently sent material on farm vehicle safety to a National Party MP as a result of his operating a tractor on Parliament’s steps without a safety frame and in blatant disregard for public safety. Federated Farmers have rightly expressed their extreme disappointment at the MP’s foolishness. I hope he feels some remorse for making a complete and utter idiot of himself on the steps of this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister went too far in his last comment. He will withdraw and apologise.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon David Carter: How many tractor accidents occurred in 1987, the last time a tractor was driven on to the steps of Parliament—on that occasion by a senior Labour Party Minister?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I do not have exact figures, but I can say that two wrongs do not make a right. It is interesting to note that at the time the National Party called for tough action against the member who did that, as opposed to the weasel words of the current Leader of the Opposition on the current incident.

Gerrard Eckhoff: If the Government had not put in place such a dumb proposal like the livestock emissions tax, there would not have been a single tractor anywhere near the steps of Parliament, so why does the Government not try the novel approach of reducing the costs of doing business in New Zealand for the wealth creators of this country, for a change?

Mr SPEAKER: That has no relevance to the original question, but the Minister can comment very briefly, if he wishes.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: A Government policy is no excuse for that member making a complete idiot of himself.

Home Detention—Victims' Role

8. Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Corrections : What role is there for victims, or for families of victims, in the application for home detention?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections): Victims’ families who are part of the victim notification process are entitled to receive information about the hearing for the offender if he or she is being considered for home detention. Victims may make a submission in writing to the board in advance of the hearing, and orally to the panel considering the case. The Parole Board takes into account victims’ submissions when making decisions on offenders’ applications for home detention.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why was Mrs Rita Croskery not advised that Kurariki had applied for home detention and that that would be considered by the Parole Board; why was the victim’s family not told, when the law requires that they should have been told?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I am advised by the department that the Parole Board wrote to that person on 18 August informing her that the person in question was coming up for a hearing. The woman wrote back to the Parole Board seeking further information, and a couple of days later the board wrote back and has since spoken to her by phone.

Georgina Beyer: Apart from submissions made by victims, what other information does the Parole Board consider when hearing applications for home detention?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Public safety is the paramount concern of the Parole Board. In addition to the victim’s submission, other matters are taken into account, including submissions from the police, details about the offender’s current and previous convictions, information about how the offender’s home detention would be managed, a report from a psychologist, and the views of the Community Probation Service on the offender’s suitability for home detention.

Hon Tony Ryall: Given that the Minister has confirmed that his department failed to advise Mrs Croskery appropriately, failed to advise a Kawerau family that the killer of their brother was being paroled to live next door to them, and recommended that a wife basher get home detention back with the very woman he bashed—and then he bashed her again within weeks of being home—why should Parliament have any confidence that his department will protect the community from Bailey Junior Kurariki?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: In relation to the first part of the question, I can say that there has been correspondence and phone calls between the person concerned and the Parole Board. Secondly, the final decision on whether a person is granted home detention lies with the Parole Board.

Ron Mark: Is the Minister now telling the House that, of all the people who were convicted of assaulting a child—including the individual who assaulted a child with a firearm, the individuals who raped girls under the age of 16, and the 10 who were responsible for killing with a motor vehicle—in every instance where they were granted home detention, the victims of their crimes were informed and they were given the opportunity to appear; or is it not the real truth, according to Mr Glen Goodman, that the home detention system is totally out of control and that this Government is “deceiving the public”?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No, I do not agree that home detention is out of control. I acknowledge that mistakes have been made on the notification system, and I am turning my attention to that. Mistakes should not be made on the notification system.

Dr Muriel Newman: Does the Minister not think that the whole concept of home detention—given the case we have been talking about, where a convicted killer has served only 1 year of a 7-year prison sentence, and the case of the former television newsreader Darren McDonald, sentenced to 8 months in jail for supplying drugs—is bringing the whole justice system into disrepute in that one can now kill people, sell drugs, and stay at home?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I note firstly that, of course, the home detention system was introduced by the previous National - New Zealand First Government, and perhaps we should not forget that. What I can say is that home detention, by and large, has been a very effective custodial arrangement and leads to a much, much lower reoffending rate than normal prison sentences.

Hon Tony Ryall: I think this may assist the Minister. I would like to table a transcript of a television interview this morning, where Mrs Rita Croskery goes through the process and says that she was not advised as she was legally entitled to be advised.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Gambling Bill—Labour Party Council Motion

9. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Will he be proposing amendments to the Gambling Bill, following reports that the weekend meeting of the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party passed a motion expressing “its very grave concern at aspects of the Gambling Bill that are being imposed on the Government by United Future through a series of anti-family amendments”; if not, why not?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs): No, because the Government Supplementary Order Paper has already been tabled.

Sue Bradford: Will the Minister be supporting the call by the New Zealand Labour Party Council to stop the anti-family aspects of the proposed amendments to the Gambling Bill, such as the Lotteries Commission providing Internet-based gaming and allowing banknote acceptors on pokie- machines; if not, why not?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: No. The move to Internet gambling with the Lotteries Commission was done after very careful consideration by the Government.

Dianne Yates: How does the Gambling Bill address problem gambling?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The Government recognises that problem gambling is a public health issue. The bill makes the Ministry of Health responsible for problem-gambling services. The bill also provides measures to minimise the harm caused by gambling, including restrictions on the number of gaming machines at certain sites.

Judith Collins: When did the Minister consider it would be a good idea to get the Government’s Lotteries Commission to promote and sell the two most addictive forms of gambling—Internet gambling and pokie machines—and why did he not think he should tell the people of New Zealand about it until the end of last week?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The Government has considered a wide range of public views in a number of submissions, and, in fact, I have written 900 letters to correct the misleading information that the Opposition put out.

Brent Catchpole: What did United Future say in its highly detailed, very specific, and oh-so-flimsy confidential confidence and supply agreement that supports its anti-family position on the Gambling Bill; and, if there is nothing in that agreement, why has the Government agreed to the anti-family amendments?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I must say that the idea of Internet gaming for lotteries is a very well reasoned piece of information that the Government itself proposed.

Marc Alexander: Can the Minister confirm that the amendment to include Internet gambling was never brought by United Future but was instead initiated by the Government at the request of the Lotteries Commission, meaning that claims by the Greens to the contrary are totally and utterly false?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes, yes, and yes once more.

Sue Bradford: Is the Minister aware that the Gambling Bill was discussed last week at the Association of Child and Family Support and Community Services conference, at which a resolution was passed, supported by over 100 social service agencies working for families and whānau, calling for a ban on Internet gambling, given the harmful effects that gambling has on families; if not, will he be consulting the Hon Ruth Dyson, who was at the conference?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I always speak to my colleagues. Ruth Dyson is a very good Minister; and, of course, when one speaks to Ministers one gets all sorts of useful information.

Marc Alexander: Does the Minister agree that amendments negotiated by United Future—to make the process of setting the problem gambling levy more accountable—are a positive change that will ensure that tax dollars are spent not only cost-effectively but in a way that ensures that those most in need will get help?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes. The United Future Party has been very positive all the way through, and it has come up with some very good ideas, which the Government has been prepared to adopt.

Sue Bradford: Will the Minister be changing the Gambling Bill to respond to calls made by the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party to allow local authorities to apply local gambling venue policy to all gambling venues in the area—not just the 16 percent of venues that, according to Department of Internal Affairs figures, were licensed after October 2001; if not, why not?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I will not be responding to those calls, because matters that are decided by the council are its own business and in-house.

Marc Alexander: Can the Minister confirm that, thanks to United Future’s support, local communities, including emergency rescue services, sports and recreational clubs, and church-based social service providers, will all be able to continue to be funded—an outcome less certain had the Greens succeeded in centralising and bureaucratising the distribution of profits from gaming?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes, I am very much in agreement with that. I have to say that the Greens could have played a bigger part, but they decided to take their ball and go.

Sue Bradford: Does the Minister not consider that members of the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party, and the people it represents, are worth listening to?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: All Labour people are worth listening to, and I say to everyone in the House: “Listen on!”

Sue Bradford: What answer does the Minister give to the 15 district and city councils that, under the bill, will not be allowed to exercise control over a single gambling venue in their area because all those venues were licensed before October 2001?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I say that those councils are very lucky they have not had new machines installed since 17 October 2001.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Sue Bradford.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not quite know what is happening here—it is like ping-pong. You are calling Sue Bradford, before she has even stood to seek a call.

Mr SPEAKER: The Green Party always—and I congratulate it—indicates to me how many supplementary questions it has on a particular question. Sue Bradford told me the number, and that is why I am calling her. But she does not have to take the call if she does not want to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You might approve that process, but to add your endorsement of it is, in my view, entirely wrong, particularly as it evinces this: that here we have a party that has no regard to the nature of questions, whatsoever. It just comes along here like some robotic institution, and asks the same number of questions planned for at the start of the debate.

Mr SPEAKER: That might be the member’s opinion; it is not mine.

Sue Bradford: With regard to a reply made earlier to Mr Alexander, is the Minister not aware of repeated efforts by the Green Party to communicate with his office and with the Labour Party about the Gambling Bill, subsequent to its being reported back from the select committee?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I have made briefings on the bill available to any party that wants them, and those who have asked for them have been given them.

Land Transport Safety Authority—Small Passenger Service Vehicles

10. RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) to the Minister of Transport: Is he satisfied that the Land Transport Safety Authority is properly applying the licensing rules for small passenger service vehicles for hire or reward, and what are the maximum penalties for operators operating vehicles which are incorrectly licensed?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): The reward aspect of hire and reward is a complex issue, and has been the subject of much debate over the years. In this context I am satisfied that the Land Transport Safety Authority is properly applying the licensing rules for small passenger service vehicle operators. The maximum penalty for an incorrectly licensed vehicle is a $500 fine if it has the wrong class shown on the vehicle’s annual licence label. In terms of a person offering a passenger service without a passenger service operator’s licence, the maximum penalties are, for a first offence, a maximum fine of $10,000, and for a second or subsequent offence, a maximum fine of $25,000, and the court can order the surrender of the vehicle used in the unlicensed service for up to 90 days.

Rodney Hide: How does he square his reply with the Land Transport Safety Authority deciding that the Government’s own VIP Transport service did not need to licence the Mercedes-Benz that it used to ferry around United Emirates airline staff last month, because it was “a courtesy service”, when the Minister in charge, the Prime Minister, says that she cannot answer parliamentary questions in this House about what cars were used at what cost because the transportation was provided on a “commercial basis”, with the information being commercially sensitive? What is it: a courtesy service or a commercial deal?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I can easily reconcile my answer. I said it was a complex business, right from the start. Having said that, if the member has, or is part of, a complaint that is going into the Land Transport Safety Authority, then it would not be appropriate to comment. If he has not, then I suggest he takes it up with the Land Transport Safety Authority.

Moana Mackey: What is the procedure if a member of the public has a complaint about the hire and reward licensing rules?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Fortunately, I have that with me. People can approach their local Land Transport Safety Authority office with the vehicle registration number. The Land Transport Safety Authority will check to see whether the driver holds the necessary licence, and the Land Transport Safety Authority compliance staff in the regions will do any further investigation that is needed. The public also has the option of laying a complaint with the police, who will liaise with the Land Transport Safety Authority to check licence details.

Hon Roger Sowry: Will the Minister undertake to the House today that he will investigate what the true facts are surrounding these allegations? Is it, as the Land Transport Safety Authority has stated, that the cars that VIP Transport service used were supplied as courtesy cars, or is it, as the Prime Minister has stated, that they were supplied as part of a commercial contract?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I understand that the Land Transport Safety Authority is currently looking into this matter, so it would not be appropriate to comment any further.

Rodney Hide: Does the Minister think it fair or reasonable that private sector operators like Jean-Michel Jefferson get weighed down with considerable cost and hassle to have their Mercedes-Benz vehicles meet Land Transport Safety Authority regulations when the VIP Transport service does not have to bother about that, because following the complaint to the Land Transport Safety Authority the authority wrote back to Mr Jefferson and said that was a courtesy service and it was not investigating the complaint further; or is it the case, as everyone suspects, that VIP Transport is a special case because Prime Minister Helen Clark is in charge?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: In answer to the last part, absolutely not.

Rodney Hide: I seek leave to table the Land Transport Safety Authority’s response to the complaint.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rodney Hide: I seek leave to table Prime Minister Helen Clark’s answer saying that, contrary to the Land Transport Safety Authority’s view, it was a commercial operation and she cannot answer questions.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Arts—Government Assistance

11. JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) to the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: How is the Government assisting New Zealand’s professional, regional, Māori, community, and emerging arts organisations?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): This year Creative New Zealand received an extra $11.6 million, spread over 4 years, to continue its support for well-established professional arts organisations, emerging organisations, regional arts initiatives, Māori arts, community arts, and contestable project funding. The Government also increased the Royal New Zealand Ballet’s funding by $2 million over the next 4 years, to continue the company’s artistic and audience growth. This support builds on the cultural recovery package, which has seen a strong, confident New Zealand voice emerging in the creative sector.

Jill Pettis: What reports has the Minister received as to how that funding increase is benefiting New Zealand’s professional arts organisations?

Hon JUDITH TIZARD: With the recent increase Creative New Zealand has been able to offer more funding to several of the 38 recurrently funded organisations it supports. This means more New Zealand works will be created, more New Zealanders will see that work, and more New Zealanders will have work in the creative industries. For example, the National Business Review New Zealand Opera plans to stage another national tour, following its extremely successful tour this year, as well as to develop new New Zealand operas, while Taki Rua Productions reports that next year it will be able to extend its tour of a New Zealand play in te reo Māori.

Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Testing

12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What additional tests was he referring to on 10 July 2002, with respect to “corngate”, when he said: “The reason that the Ministry for the Environment advised the Government that there were some contaminated corn in New Zealand was that at that moment, after the Lincoln tests, before the Australian tests, we thought there was. We rushed to get more testing done and found to our relief that there wasn’t.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): The additional tests were the Australian tests done by GeneScan Australia in Melbourne. There were also tests done by Central-Hanse Analytical Laboratory in the United States, and by Crop and Food Research in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister tell the New Zealand Herald on 11 July 2002, as well as Television New Zealand on 12 July 2002, that “The subsequent test disproved the suggestion of contamination”, when the last test results from Australia on 5 December”—just 3 days before the Cabinet decision—from GeneScan concluded “one may draw the conclusion that the samples do contain trace contamination levels of BT11 GM sweetcorn.”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Officials came to advise the Government that they felt there was sufficient evidence to conclude that there was no contamination. I will give the member a little context. The protocol that used to exist stated that a good idea would be to test 1,400 seeds. The current protocol used in this country states 3,200 seeds should be tested, and the number of seeds tested in that episode totalled 49,000.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Has the Minister seen any reports endorsing the Government’s handling of the allegations about genetically modified corn?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, I have. I saw the editorial in last week’s National Business Review, which states that the Prime Minister appears to have acted properly throughout this matter. It also states that Mr Nick Smith has “long been a Green in National drag”, and that Bill English should sack him if he wants to pursue the “corngate” conspiracy.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Given that the samples sent to GeneScan Australia were larger than those at either Crop and Food Research or in the United States, that three of them showed preliminary positive results before an equipment breakdown, and that GeneScan Australia advised that “our standard operating procedures dictate repeat testing to the point of a definitive result”, why did neither he nor any other Minister or Government official show the slightest interest in ever having those tests completed?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I repeat that officials got themselves to the point where they felt there was more than enough evidence to advise the Government that the tests for that corn were negative, and, on that basis, the Government proceeded.

Hon Ken Shirley: Does the Minster not find it strange that the three tests undertaken by GeneScan Australia that showed preliminary positive results were not completed to validation; and, on reflection, does the Minister not want to rethink the statement reported in this primary question?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I will say again that officials had this corn tested by Crop and Food Research on more than one occasion, by GeneScan Australia, by Biogenetic Services in the USA, and by the Central-Hanse Analytical Laboratory in the USA. That sample of corn was tested to the ends of what was reasonable. Officials then concluded that they had sufficient evidence to advise the Government that there was no contamination.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: If what the Minister just said is correct, why are there no official papers showing that they ever said that there was no contamination; and why did he, the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister of Agriculture all say there were further tests beyond those mentioned in Nicky Hager’s book, yet nobody in the last 11 months can find them?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The further tests that we referred to, then and now, are the further tests taken after an initial test at Crop and Food Research in New Zealand gave a suggested positive. No other test did.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister, on Television New Zealand when the interviewer referred to five positive tests, interject twice, saying: “Not true; absolutely false!”, when the chief executive of the Environmental Risk Management Authority said there were positive tests, when the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment said there were positive tests, and when all the papers that the Local Government and Environment Committee received—38 of them—refer to positive tests; and why was the Minister telling porkies in the middle of the election campaign?

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member will withdraw and apologise for that last statement.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. Why was he making incorrect statements in the middle of the election campaign?

Mr SPEAKER: No, that part of the question is taken out. The rest can be answered.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The tests—and the member will know this full well, because he has been studying them for 4 months now—involve testing two parts of a gene. One needs to get a positive result for both parts to get a positive test. Getting a positive result in one part is not difficult. It is usually caused by an agro-bacterium. In other words, any amount of soil contamination will cause that—

Hon Richard Prebble: No, incorrect.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member should not say that is incorrect. It is well-known science that an agro-bacterium will give a positive NOS test. I suggest that the member, who has a doctorate, starts to use his brain to understand whatever part of “negative” he really has not got his head around.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table a formal report by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade dated 18 June 2001, which states that the two constructs are not required for a positive result. In fact, for six out of 10 GM corns, what the Minister said is not true.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Bills

Gambling Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Gambling Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 69

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs): The title of this bill is the Gambling Bill. The bill is the result of a very comprehensive review of gaming conducted in the year 2001. At the moment the sector is governed by several different pieces of legislation, each with its own objectives. The Gambling Bill brings together all the different parts of the sector. It repeals the Gaming and Lotteries Act and the Casino Control Act. It also includes aspects of racing, so it is fair to say the bill creates a fairly complete regulatory framework for gambling in New Zealand. It is truly a gaming bill.

Gaming is a complex issue. It will always generate debate—and some of that is fairly heated debate—because people have such widely differing views on it. Some people enjoy a little flutter, and see gambling as a harmless leisure activity.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The debate on the title clause in the Committee is limited strictly to the elements of that clause—that is, whether the proposed title adequately describes the bill. It is not an opportunity to debate the general principles of the bill, its intent, or anything else. It is a very narrow debate, unless members seek leave to widen the debate.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: What I am doing is saying why the bill is called the “Gambling Bill” and not the “Responsible Gambling Bill”, which is what it was previously called.

Hon David Carter: Seek leave and we will give it to you.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I bet you will! I think it is very important that people realise that gambling is something that most people in New Zealand, some time or another, will do—have a bit of a flutter. The bill deals with such things as Melbourne Cup sweepstakes. As such, I believe it is very, very important.

I know that people will possibly look for different names for this bill, and I am sure the National Party will suggest lots of different names.

Lindsay Tisch: You would be right there.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes, I would be right on that. It looks as though someone wants to bet that I will be right. Well, that just shows us how bad it is around this place. The name of this bill clearly signifies what it is about. Originally it was introduced as the “Responsible Gambling Bill”, but when people looked at the titles of Acts later on and wanted to look at gambling, they might not have thought of looking under the term “Responsible Gambling Act”. So the bill is now called the Gambling Bill, and I think that is most appropriate.

JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon): I would like to congratulate the Minister on acknowledging that the name of this bill should have been changed, and on acknowledging that when people are looking for a Gambling Bill, they are unlikely to find it—or to expect to find it—under the letter “R”. So well done to the Minister on that point! That said, however, we come now to why it is no longer called the “Responsible Gambling Bill” in reality. It is because it is not really all that responsible any more. That is one of the problems that we in the National Party have with this particular bill. Certainly, when the name “Responsible Gambling Bill” was first mooted some years ago and brought to the attention of those in the gambling industry—or gaming industry as they prefer to be called—people like myself looked at this name and asked how anyone could possibly call it a “Responsible Gambling Bill”, and said what a whitewash, sort of wimpy, sort of liberal, rubbish name it was. Of course it was—and good on the Minister for acknowledging it!

I question whether it should be called the “Irresponsible Gambling Bill”, on the basis that some of its provisions are irresponsible. I will refer to those later on, but seeing that we are looking at the title, I will give members a little rundown on it. Internet gambling and gambling on pokie machines are the two most addictive forms of gambling. That is a proven fact. Every international study has shown it. With this bill, we are being asked not only to allow both these forms of gaming in New Zealand by the Lotteries Commission, but—worse than that—the Lotteries Commission will now be able to compete with private enterprise in this area.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Talk to the title.

JUDITH COLLINS: I keep coming back to this title. It should be called the “Irresponsible Gambling Bill” because the Lotteries Commission will be able to do this without any proper regulation of how it operates. That is one of the reasons it should perhaps be called the “Irresponsible Gambling Bill”.

I want to come back to the title. One of the problems the Minister had when he was introducing the title was that he kept calling it the “Gaming Bill”. He has trouble saying the “Gambling Bill”, so perhaps we should just call it the “Gaming Bill”. I do not know why it had to be called the “Gambling Bill”, when the Minister does not want to call it that, and when most of the people in the industry do not refer to the industry as the “gambling industry” any more, but call it the “gaming industry”. That is how the industry is referred to overseas, and how it is referred to here. I understand that the reason for calling this bill the “Gambling Bill” is that the word “gambling” has a more negative connotation than the word “gaming”, and that part of the purpose of originally calling it the “Responsible Gambling Bill” was to constantly put in those negative connotations.

In his last speech, the Minister referred to how a lot of people in this country are able to go into the gaming industry in a responsible way, and, of course, most people can do that, but some cannot. Our primary concern is to look to those who have problems with gambling, and also to look at why the Government is promoting gambling, when that is contrary to what it should be doing. The Government should be there to regulate gambling, to take the taxes out of it, and to make sure that those taxes are properly used and that there are fair gains. One of the primary provisions of this bill is to make the Government one of the main promoters and sellers of gambling products, which makes it a somewhat irresponsible gambling bill.

We have reservations over the name of this bill. In some ways, we think it is good, because we can now look for it under “G”—or possibly even “I” for “irresponsible”—rather than “R”, but at the end of the day, it is just another indication that the Minister has given up worrying about being responsible with the gambling industry and with gambling legislation. This bill will be all about taxing the industry out of existence, and about the Government competing with people in private enterprise—with casinos, and with people in the community who have pokie machines, where the money goes back to the community and does a good job.

DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East): I am pleased to speak on the title of this bill, which was recommended by the Government Administration Committee. I believe that the select committee unanimously decided that the title to this bill should be the “Gambling Bill”, rather than the “Responsible Gambling Bill”. It deals with many forms and classes of gambling, and I am pleased that we have a gambling bill before this House after many years, and that we have got to the Committee stage of this bill.

In talking to New Zealanders, one will find extreme points of view on what gambling should or should not be allowed, what gambling is and is not, and what is responsible and what is not. On the whole, I think the select committee worked very hard at trying to find a middle ground between the views of all New Zealanders. What is responsible is the fact that the Government has at last come forward with this bill and is getting it through the House. We are concerned about the growth of gambling, and I do not think that there is one New Zealander who would not agree that gambling has grown, that the proliferation of pokie machines has caused tremendous social problems, and that we need greater restriction.

As I have said, there are many items in this bill that deal with many forms of gambling, and with the responsibilities of the community and of local government. The bill puts in more restrictions and limits the number of machines, and I wish to thank the Minister of Internal Affairs and officials for the work that has been done. I also thank the select committee. It was not unanimous on much in this bill, but it was certainly unanimous on the title.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): After about 3 years, and maybe even longer, we now have a bill—

Dianne Yates: About 10 years.

LINDSAY TISCH: There we go, it is 10 years, but in my time, it is 4 years, because we first started looking at a discussion document entitled Gaming Reform in New Zealand that the department put out. A number of submissions were made at that time, and then we moved through the genesis of this current bill, which was initially called the Gaming Law Reform Bill. At that time, the bill was looking at two parts of the industry: the licensing side of gaming, and the regulatory side. That title disappeared somewhere during the select committee stage, and we came up with the Responsible Gambling Bill—and, for those who do not know, it was 330 pages long. The bill will now be known as the Gambling Bill.

What is really interesting is that on Thursday we had a Supplementary Order Paper that was 65 pages long. This bill should be called the “United Future Reform Bill”, because the United Future party has done a deal with the Government to come up with 163 new clauses—and I did not count the changes in the schedules. Of members here today, only the chairperson of the Government Administration Committee, Dianne Yates, who has just spoken, and myself, who sat on the committee right through, know what happened during that time. This bill had no United Future members considering it, because at that time there was only one United Future member. Yet the influence that United Future has had on this bill comes through in the form of the Supplementary Order Paper lodged on Thursday, which significantly changes some of the content of this bill.

This bill is about winners and losers. I could call it the “Winners and Losers Bill”, because there will be some winners. The winners, for example, will be the casinos, because at this stage there will be no more casinos, so those who are out there now and are well established will be the real winners. Another winner out of this legislation will be the racing industry. I do not decry the racing industry—the TAB and the racing clubs—having pokie machines. Good on them!

Yet a sector of the community will be the losers, and that is those involved in the gaming industry and the pokies, and whatever, because of the restrictions and compliance costs that will be put on them, and the very prescriptive nature of this bill. So my title refers to those people as the losers in the bigger scheme of things.

My colleague Judith Collins talked about the interactive aspect—Internet betting. We could refer to this, because that has now been removed, and the Lotteries Commission will be able to go out there—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

LINDSAY TISCH: Yes, I am getting to the Internet part. We could call this bill “The Bill That Supports Internet Betting”. Reports that have been done suggest that by the year 2005 Internet betting will be worth about £7 billion. I have here some glossy magazines that have been sent out to me. One is called Fortune Gaming: Bringing Gaming on Line, and that is really what will happen. In fact, we can sit in our lounges at home—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

LINDSAY TISCH: This is about Internet betting, Mr Chairman. It is in the bill, and that is why I have referred to it. This bill could be called “Opening Up Internet Betting”, because there is a clause that relates to that. I can sit at home in my lounge and log on to 1,000 different sites around the country. That is what I can do now, so this bill needs to be renamed.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): I speak on the title with a sense of pride but also, I must admit, a feeling of regret and disappointment. The disappointment is symbolised by the fact that the bill is now called the Gambling Bill, not the Responsible Gambling Bill. The Progressive party supports people having fun. I have been known to bet myself—with very little success, but I have been known to bet. But we are also deeply concerned to protect families, and especially the children, of those people afflicted with gambling problems. Unlike United Future and, it seems, its potential partner in the next Government, the ACT party, we are serious about protecting the liberty, freedom, and future of the children of problem gamblers.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I remind the member that this debate is a very narrow debate. It concerns whether the title adequately describes the bill.

Hon MATT ROBSON: Of course, Mr Chairman. The centre-left coalition Government in its first term was able to introduce the Responsible Gambling Bill. That would not have been possible without the support of our then supporting party, the Green party. We live in an MMP world. Neither the first Clark-Anderton coalition nor the current Labour-Progressive Government has ever held a majority in this House. The reality of MMP dictates that, to make any progress at all in making the gambling industry more family-friendly and less potentially harmful to our society, the minority centre-left Labour-Progressive coalition requires the support of at least one Opposition party, and that is no different from the situation in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament I was confident we would get strong legislation that would please anti-poverty campaigners, because the Greens were lined up with us. The Greens, like the Progressives, knew the importance of cutting, then capping, the number of pokie machines in New Zealand. We on the progressive left knew the importance of not making it any easier for addicted gamblers to throw their families’ $1 notes into pokie machines, and not having an open-slather Internet gambling regime.

As we have 63 seats in Parliament, we should have had more to celebrate today. The truth is that the Progressives and the Greens were making progress with Labour on this issue, then, sometime earlier this year, the Greens walked away. They were not getting everything they wanted, so they walked out the door. There is emotional satisfaction, perhaps, in walking away from issues when the negotiating gets tough, but we did not get everything we wanted, either, in the Responsible Gambling Bill. If we had walked away, the improvements to gambling regulations that are, undoubtedly, contained in this bill would have been lost, and we would not have made any progress at all. I urge the Green Party members, with all comradely respect from an ally on many issues, to consider the effect of their collective decision. The lesson of what they have done on this bill has ramifications for every other bill of relevance to the centre-left as a whole. The vacuum in numbers created by their walking away has been filled by United Future—a party that says it is pro-family but will vote against 4 weeks’ annual leave.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the member that I know that the title debate is a difficult one, and Parliament often has trouble with it, but we are supposed to be debating whether the title is the right one—something along those sorts of lines—rather than giving a general speech, which can be part of the debate on Part 1. This is a very narrow debate.

Hon MATT ROBSON: I take your guidance, Mr Chairman, and all I ask, regarding the title of this bill, is that the Green Party please learn from the position we find ourselves in today.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): I will take just a short call on the title. I am pleased to see that the Government has taken “Responsible” out of the title, because there is nothing responsible about excessive gambling, and, unfortunately, this bill does lend itself to allowing excessive gambling. It does nothing, really, to tighten it up.

The Gambling Bill, as it is now entitled, should, I suggest have a different title. The bill is nothing more than a licence for this Government to print money, so it should be called the “Licence to Print Money Bill”. This Government has set itself up to grab more taxes and more levies under the guise of supporting problem gambling. In actual fact, the Government is not doing that with this bill. The title could be the “Government’s Golden Opportunity to Grab More Taxes Bill” because, as this bill is set up, it allows huge profits to be made, and as those huge profits are made, huge taxes will come from them. The Government takes a huge grab of those profits in taxes. So another title could be the “Opportunity for the Government to Grab More Taxes Bill”.

United Future’s part in this bill has been to allow the anti-family section of it, so it should be called the “Anti-Family Bill Promoted by United Future”. United Future members have set out to promote huge volumes of this bill. They are proud to say they have had some changes made. Supplementary Order Paper 132 is 65 pages long, and they claim that in it are some changes that they have had made. So the bill could be called “United Future’s Anti-Family Supplementary Order Paper Bill”. That is a more apt title.

The Government has removed from the title the word “Responsible”—the responsible part of it. The Government is now calling the bill the Gambling Bill.

HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ): I rise to speak to the title. The bill is now called the Gambling Bill. The changes to the title that have gone on are indicative of what has happened to the bill itself. It has been passed from side to side, there have been dealings with different parties, it has gone round and round, through swings and roundabouts, and all sorts of changes have transpired. In fact, the bill as it started off bears little resemblance to what we have now. But is the title a good indication of what is in the bill? I do not think so.

It was interesting to listen to the Hon Matt Robson’s speech on the title. When he was not diverted to making comments about other parties in the House, when he was not having to be reined in by the Chair, he made a lot of comments about disappointment, about concern over the content of the bill now, about concern about families, and about gambling not being conducive to good family life and what not. Because he expressed those great concerns, I look forward to Progressive casting its two votes with this side, and opposing the bill. His speech certainly sounded to me like a speech of a member who opposes what is inside this legislation—whether or not he agrees with what the title now is.

We have heard several suggestions about changing the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I again say to members that, in debating the title, they have to ask themselves whether the proposed title adequately describes the bill.

HEATHER ROY: Thank you, Mr Chair. That is why I was coming—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Every member has had a problem with this. I refer members to Standing Order 108(2). If the discussion continues in this way, then I will terminate speeches or take a closure motion.

HEATHER ROY: Many other members have suggested alternative titles. Judith Collins suggested “Irresponsible Gambling Bill” instead of “Responsible Gambling Bill”. That is a very good suggestion. What we see here is not a lot of responsibility, at all. From what the Hon Matt Robson said, one would have thought that people who go to gambling premises to gamble had a gun held to their heads. It is good that the word “Responsible” has been taken away, because the general theme in this legislation is that personal responsibility does not count at all; that people are not responsible for their actions, and therefore the legislation is necessary. So “Irresponsible Gambling Bill” is a reasonably good suggestion.

Another suggestion by Judith Collins is that the title be the “Gaming Bill”. Who would like to stand to tell us what the difference between gaming and gambling is? Why have we had this change? It seems there is no good reason, except that we have had backwards-and-forwards toing and froing between parties. Gambling is, I suppose, a much more negative term, and that is what this Government wants to imply—that gambling is a terrible thing, that people cannot be held responsible for gambling, and that the Government must take care of those who have problems with it. I feel much more sorry for the families of those who encounter difficulties. But people must be held responsible for their own actions.

Is it responsible to allow more power to go to the Department of Internal Affairs? Most certainly, I stand in this Committee today and say “No”. I guess that “Responsible Gambling Bill” is not appropriate; it must be called the Gambling Bill. Is it responsible to hand over responsibility for problem gambling to the Ministry of Health? The section under the heading “Background”, in the commentary, cannot even name the Government department that is to be responsible, such is the shame, I suppose, that goes with it. The ministry itself has had a great deal of difficulty with accountability; I could name many examples, but I suspect the Chair will not let me go that way.

The problem gambling committee, which we have at the moment, has representatives both from the industry and from groups concerned about the treatment aspect of gambling addiction. It actually provides a very good service at the moment. If one speaks to the members of those organisations, one hears them say that the right chord has been struck and there is a reasonable sort of balance, but, no, again the Government wants to take responsibility for people. It wants to hand over responsibility for problem gambling to an organisation that has not had a lot of success in many other areas—the Ministry of Health. That is a retrograde step. The public health aspect of this measure will be a dismal failure, and not nearly as good as what we have at the moment.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): For the first few years of this bill’s existence—and it has taken a remarkably long time to reach this stage—it was known as the Responsible Gambling Bill. It was only in the last phases of the select committee process that it was decided to change the title by removing the word “Responsible”—a truly prescient warning of what was to be this bill’s eventual fate.

What was then called the Responsible Gambling Bill started its life at a time when the Alliance was part of the Government, and when both the Green Party and the Alliance were pleased that Labour was willing, in theory at least, to take the bull by the horns and try to begin to deal with some of the most dubious aspects of the ever-burgeoning gambling industry in this country. We supported moves to place a moratorium on casinos; to tidy up the morass of regulations around various classes of gaming; to clarify the purposes to which the proceeds of gambling can be put; and, theoretically at least, to place some limits on the numbers of gaming machines out there in the community. We were also pleased that it looked like local bodies were to be given more control over what happened in their districts in relation to gaming venues. All of this suited the name “Responsible Gambling Bill”.

However, as time wore on, it became apparent that the bill would not be as responsible as had first appeared, and “Irresponsible Gaming Bill”, as other members have indicated, became a far more suitable name for the bill. First of all, it became sadly clear that Labour had no intention of introducing greater responsibility into its new gambling regime, when it refused to listen to Local Government New Zealand or to the Green Party about the need to change the bill so that it would allow local councils the authority to review gambling venues in their own districts established prior to October 2001. Nor was Labour willing to reconsider any alteration to the distribution regime for the proceeds of non-casino gaming machines, despite widespread calls from church and community organisations and the local government sector for it to do so. On top of that, about a week ago a 65-page Government Supplementary Order Paper suddenly appeared. This lengthy amendment—unseen, of course, by the Government Administration Committee—contains a whole raft of amendments that render this bill completely irresponsible.

It is appalling that the Government has now seen fit to allow the Lotteries Commission to provide and promote interactive gaming, including Internet gambling. That makes one of the most addictive forms of gaming even more accessible to everybody, including children and young people in particular.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This is a very narrow debate.

SUE BRADFORD: Yes. I am talking about the responsibility or otherwise of what was called the Responsible Gambling Bill. In addition the Government, with its United Future friends, has decided in its wisdom to rescind an amendment agreed to earlier by the select committee, and will now allow the practice of installing banknote acceptors into pokie machines to continue. It has also brought in amendments that enable the gambling industry to be involved in determining how much money should be set aside for treating gambling addiction, and where it should go. As one commentator for the group Gambling Watch has said, this is like setting a fox loose in the chicken run.

In conclusion, I have to agree that this title—minus the word “Responsible”—does adequately describe the bill. It is really sad that this is no longer a responsible gambling bill. I think this is a day that, when Labour members look back, will cause many of them to hang their heads in shame.

MOANA MACKEY (NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put..

Ayes 62

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 62

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Supplementary Order Paper 132 has not been before the Government Administration Committee. As I said earlier, it has 163 new clauses in it, plus changes to the schedules. I seek your indulgence that, when we move through these parts of the debate, you will accept multiple calls so that we can have a fair debate. I, for one, will seek multiple calls on the remaining parts.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I recognise that we do have a large Government Supplementary Order Paper, and I am also aware that Standing Order 178 no longer exists as it has been suspended. I will certainly, in taking into account the number of calls that members make, recognise the importance of the Supplementary Order Paper.

DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East): Part 1 gives the definitions. As we have said, this bill defines the various forms of gambling, and, as is usual in a bill, Part 1 is basically the defining part. There are two important issues that I want to talk about.

One is the word “casino”. Throughout this bill we have made it absolutely clear what a casino is, because there are many establishments around the country calling themselves casinos, and that is very confusing to people. There are casinos, casino bars, and an amazing number of gambling outlets calling themselves casinos. One of the points that the Government Administration Committee wanted to make absolutely clear is that “casino” applies only to what is defined in this bill, and is not the generic name for any gambling outlet. Other gambling outlets will have a period of time in which to give themselves another name, and they will not be covered by the casino part of the legislation.

The other point that I think is very important is the definition of “territorial authority”. I have heard it said in the Committee today that local government will have no say. The important thing in this bill is that local government does have a say. Local government bodies should already have been planning for this bill and be working on their gambling plans. It is not correct to say that local government does not have a say. The select committee was very careful also to outline whom local government bodies should consult when establishing their plans, and to make sure that they did consult their communities of interest.

So I just wanted to point out two things in the definition clause: firstly, a casino is a casino, and not any gambling establishment—a cafe or casino bar that has pokie machines cannot call itself a casino—and, secondly, local government is in the bill, under the definition of “territorial authority”.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I rise on behalf of the ACT party to talk about Part 1, which deals with the purpose of the bill—one of the important areas that we have to debate. The purpose of this bill seems to be in total contradiction of what the bill actually will do and what the bill actually will promote.

One of the purposes of this bill is to control the growth of gambling. There is a real anomaly here, because if one looks at Internet gambling one finds—as Judith Collins has already pointed out—that research has shown that it is one of the most addictive forms of gambling, yet it will now be promoted by a Government body. At the moment, we can all access Internet gambling, but it is run by offshore operators. Would it not be far better to have Internet gambling run by New Zealand - based operators, so that we can have some sort of control over the age of people who access it, instead of having it run by a Government monopoly? We all know why it will be run and promoted by the Lotteries Commission—the Government body. It is because the Government will be able to suck out of it as much tax as it can. We know why this Government likes to get lots and lots of nice tax from organisations: to buy votes. This is a heartless, “tax and bribe” Government.

Darren Hughes: Ha, ha!

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: I thank Labour members for that round of applause. They obviously agree over there.

The purpose clause states that the bill will “prevent and minimise the harm caused by problem gambling,”. Well, I have already gone into that with Internet gambling. But problem gamblers will now be the problem, if one likes, of the Ministry of Health. What on earth have problem gamblers in this country done to deserve that? The Minister is absolutely hopeless with the portfolio she has right now, and she will have problem gamblers added to that. Why does this Government not just say it does not care about problem gamblers, instead of pretending that it cares about problem gamblers then handing them over to the Ministry of Health? So that is another part of this Part 1 that is totally demolished and down the gurgler.

The purpose clause also states that this bill will “facilitate responsible gambling;”—well, we know that is an oxymoron—and “ensure the integrity and fairness of games;”. What is fair about giving Sky City a monopoly on casinos? This bill will prohibit any new casinos. That is something that has been pushed by the Alliance from way back. Because this bill has taken so long to get to this stage, Sky City—and I do not blame it; any good business would do the same in the circumstances—has been given the opportunity to get to the stage where it has the “Situations Full” sign up; it has got all that it wants in this country. So this bill will promote anti-competition. It would be far better for this Government to allow more casinos to be set up, because if one has more casinos one has greater competition, higher standards, and better self-regulation. If one industry is in control and has a monopoly, what is the point in having an industry body that is self-regulating?

The other thing that I would like to go into is the gaming machines. One of the purposes of the bill is to “limit opportunities for crime or dishonesty associated with gambling;”. Gaming machines within casinos in this country amount to around 3,000. Outside casinos there is something like 25,000 gaming machines. The Government gets 4 percent plus GST of the total take of those gaming machines.

If this Government were really serious about reducing the growth of problem gambling, it would totally ban gambling. But what we see once more is hypocritical legislation, just like the smoke-free environments legislation. This Government will not stop being so hypocritical and ban gambling.

JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon): This part contains the definition clause. It is a very substantial part and there are some significant points in it.

One of the areas that I would like to look at is lotteries. Most people in this country would say that they know what a lottery is. They would say it is something that, often, the Government or the State runs, it is like a raffle but bigger, it is done once a week or maybe twice, and it is something that is hardly likely to cause addiction. But in this definition clause the Government is actually removing that sort of definition of a lottery. Now, it will not be limited to that; it will include the operation of pokie machines, and it certainly will not exclude the use of remote interactive gaming.

I do not have a problem with remote interactive gaming if it is done well, responsibly, and with proper controls. I do have a problem with the thought that the Government is promoting and selling Internet gaming in competition with the private sector, or, in this case, to the exclusion of the private sector. Worse than that, it is sort of like the Government deciding it will now sell cigarettes and alcohol because that way it will get more of the take. The role of the Government in the gambling industry is the role of a regulator and of a tax collector, and that is it. The Government should not be out there competing with the private sector, and doing all the things it can to encourage gambling; what it should be doing is regulating and collecting taxes. That is its responsibility. So that is one of the problems I have with this whole new definition of a lottery.

One of the points made by the previous member speaking is that the Ministry of Health will now be in charge of problem gambling. Once I would have thought that was probably a good idea. When I was the chair of the Casino Control Authority I probably made submissions along that line. However, having spent a year on the Health Committee, I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that the Ministry of Health or the Minister of Health are the right people to be looking at problem gambling. I have absolutely no faith whatsoever that they will be able to help one problem gambler.

I look now at the definition of a casino. I rejoice in the fact that the Government has finally listened to my pleas and those of the Casino Control Authority and the casinos, and we have a definition that means that a casino is an organisation that is regulated as a casino—not a “kasino”, which we have often seen. Registered casino operators object to the fact that they are damned all the time because of the practices of little operations with 18 pokie machines that call themselves casinos yet are not regulated by the same rules.

There are lots of reasons it is important to look at the regulation of casinos. One reason is the huge increase in money-laundering in this country and overseas. Just the other day I read in the New Zealand Herald a report on the increase in money-laundering, and on the fear of it being a major operation in New Zealand. I could tell any member how to money-launder through a casino, and I am sure there are many other people who could do that. I have looked at how money-laundering can be stopped in New Zealand. [Interruption] It is a very serious issue. Darren Hughes, who is out of his seat and making all sorts of rude interjections, is probably not old enough to go into a casino or a gaming area, but he should be aware that there is a massive methamphetamine situation in this country, which the Government has ignored, there is a massive drugs problem, and we now have a situation where people constantly use casinos, and every other opportunity they can, to money-launder. I do not think that is very funny. The member Mr Hughes should be aware that it is a very serious issue. We do not need organised crime in this country. One of the great things about the present rules is that we have tried to keep organised crime out of the casinos.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): In particular, I bring the Committee’s attention to clause 4, which includes the definition of a number of things. First, I ask the Minister to be prepared to take a call on a very important issue that was sneaked into his Supplementary Order Paper the other day and not debated in the select committee. It relates to the definition of “corporate society”. Page 13 of the bill states that “corporate society means a society that is—”, and four subclauses are then listed that relate to “corporate society”. The Supplementary Order Paper states that a corporate society will be “one society”, and there is concern about the impact that that will have on the operations of a number of existing businesses with partnerships and companies under the one umbrella.

My Supplementary Order Paper tidies up the issue the Minister is trying to overcome. I have no difficulty with what the Minister is trying to do—that is, stop unincorporated partnerships, and Supplementary Order Paper 132 does that. I have no objection to that at all, but we need to identify—and certainly I will be asking for the Minister’s response on this—the existing partnerships of entities that have the approval of the Department of Internal Affairs. What is their status? They have a licence to operate now, and I have the licence of such a business here.

Darren Hughes: Whereabouts?

LINDSAY TISCH: I have it right here. It is a licence to operate gaming machines, and it falls under the category I am talking about. My Supplementary Order Paper adds to the definition of “corporate society” the words “a partnership, joint venture, or other unincorporated body whose members are all corporate entities within the meaning of paragraphs (a) to (d) and, where applicable, includes any of those members.”

Existing operators are now able to operate by way of a partnership or a company under one umbrella. I draw the Minister’s attention to that, because if the amendment in respect of “one society” goes through, existing operators that form under that umbrella will have to form two separate corporate societies. That is the first thing. Both will be regulated by statute, and that means extra work, the costs of restructuring, additional administrative costs, and greater potential for trustee liability, which was not thought through earlier on. There will also be increased potential for income tax on non-charitable distributions from those organisations. At the end of the day, that simply means that less money will go back to communities. Those organisations were set up specifically to give proceeds back to the community—that is their real reason for existence, and why they are there.

However, the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper is saying no, they cannot be grouped together and must operate as two separate entities. I would like to clarify that the department has sent out a letter to organisations stating they cannot operate in that way, yet the business I am referring to has a letter—and I have a copy here, dated 9 February 2000—that states: “Thank you for the information supplied. If you are able to meet the following criteria”—and there are five—“then we are happy, because you meet the requirements under existing statutes—the Charitable Trusts Act and the Companies Act—and you are able to operate.” With that in mind, I am prepared to table the licence to operate I have here.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): I rise to speak to clause 4 in particular, and some amendments proposed in the definition section. The background to my Supplementary Order Paper is that it seeks to bring the Rotorua casino development back into contention, having been unfairly ruled out by the imposition of the 1997 moratorium. In relation to the objective of the developers, clause 4 seeks to insert two additions relating first to public notice, and then to the Rotorua application. As I said, the background to this is the ruling out of contention—unfairly in the view of the developers, in my view, and in National’s view as well—an application for a casino licence that was very far advanced at the time. It was one of two that were well advanced, and we were caught when the moratorium was imposed.

This issue has been brought forward now for the same two reasons, and that is the economic development of Rotorua as a tourist destination—the developers being some of the city’s big landholders in that area as well—and the issue of Parliament using its power wrongly to bar legitimate developments without any just cause in 1997. In a sense Parliament was acting unconstitutionally by barring certain developments when companies and organisations had ordered their business on the basis of certain legislation, only to find that at a point in time the axe came down and they were barred. Seen in those two lights, the way that the legislation was brought in in 1997 was unconstitutional, and it also bars economic development and growth in what is one of New Zealand’s premier tourist destinations.

The other current issue is that no other casinos are intended to proceed under this legislation. We have actually allowed a monopoly in New Zealand, and that is to be deplored. National does not support that in any event.

As I say, subject to later amendments to the bill, with the insertion in the appropriate alphabetical order of a definition of “public notice”, clause 4 will take into account—if Supplementary Order Paper 109 is supported—the circulation of the intentions of Pukeroa-Oruawhata Holdings, the promoter seeking a casino venue licence. It will also include the definition of “Rotorua application”.

Since the legislation that imposed the moratorium was passed, the developers have done a survey of Rotorua residents. It was done in April this year, and showed that a majority of Rotorua residents would like a say on whether this development should go ahead. That is a point of difference; in other words, this does not say per se that the casino should be allowed. It takes into account the fact that the local community ought to have the say in the end as to what happens in its area—particularly in the case of casinos, because, as we know, it is a hotly contested issue. In that sense, if the majority of the community is in favour, that gives it a better—

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): I want to speak to clause 4, which refers to the definitions. We heard the Government member—I think it was Dianne Yates—mention the ability of local territorial authorities to control gambling activities in their areas. I point out to the member that those authorities have control only up until they issue a licence. Once the licence is issued, they no longer have control over what happens. If they suddenly discover that gambling is out of control in their areas, they cannot do anything about it.

I also want to bring up the issue of “corporate societies” and this “one society”. It seems to me that the bill is forcing many organisations to separate and call themselves individual societies—an individual from one can step aside and create another one. I guess that defeats the whole purpose of the bill, and I think it is an issue that the Government has overlooked.

With regard to the description of “casino”, this bill is trying to remove the small casino operations—the ones that are basically pokie bars or pokie parlours—by removing that name from them, but they will simply come up with another name and continue in operation, perhaps under the name of “pokie parlour” or “pokie gamblers”. They will come up with an alternative, so the bill will not stop a great deal there.

Another issue I would like to look at is the description of housie in Supplementary Order Paper 132. It touches only briefly on the process of housie, and I suggest that the officials take a closer look at that provision, because the definitions do not set out many of the rules and ways of restricting that particular form of gambling. In reality, there are a tremendous number of rorts and means of bypassing the rules in housie, and I suggest that the bill will not cover the rorts and schemes that attempt to get around the so-called limits on the housie system.

Finally, I refer to clause 7A, “Secretary may seek information to assess influence”. Is that influence with regard to management and employment, or does it include the influence of patrons within a casino and gambling operation? Although patrons are not supposed to have any influence on the running of things, there are schemes that have an enormous amount of influence within a casino or a gaming house. It is an area that I think needs to be re-examined and looked at more closely.

SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel): I am pleased to speak on Part 1. I refer to the definition of responsible gambling, which “means lawful participation in gambling that is—(a) lawful, fair, and honest; and (b) conducted—(i) in a safe and secure environment; and (ii) without pressure or devices designed to encourage gambling at levels that may cause harm; and (iii) by informed participants who understand the nature of the activity and do not participate in ways that may cause harm”. Yet here we have State-sponsored gambling on the way, as stated in a recent press release by my learned colleague Judith Collins. She is absolutely right. We now have State-sponsored gambling on the way, yet the bill has a definition of “responsible gambling”. I put it to the Committee that gambling is meant to be done by informed participants who understand the nature of the activity. We are supposed to set regulatory environments and to be responsible about how we govern those sorts of environments. However, as a State we are now getting into State-sponsored gambling, and that is absolutely deplorable.

Further to that, United Future has been a significant part of that. The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services has had to express its extreme disappointment to the United Future party because the latest move in Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins makes a complete mockery of the definition of responsible gambling provided by the bill. United Future has done a deal that has resulted in that 65-page Supplementary Order Paper. The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services is absolutely appalled at that, and it has been prompted to write a letter to Mr Dunne, expressing its huge disappointment. It has also issued a press release stating: “United Future gambles on its future survival”. I believe that United Future has lost that gamble, because it is not being responsible in the way that it is dealing with gambling issues. This bill talks about responsible gambling, and this Government—and United Future, in working with the Government—has completely failed in that regard. The Government has failed because we are now looking at State-sponsored gambling, and that is absolutely reprehensible.

I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon George Hawkins, whether he would care to take a call and explain to the Committee and to the people of New Zealand how the Government will be accountable for its part in gambling, now that it is to get into gambling in a big way. Government members are to get into interactive gambling. I tell you, they will be rubbing their hands as they—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will not tell me. She cannot use the word “you”.

SANDRA GOUDIE: I beg your pardon. Will the Minister be responsible for what arises from State-sponsored gambling? Will he be fully accountable for anything that may happen to go wrong, or are he and the Government excluded from any liability arising from activities pertaining to gambling, or for any actions that may be considered illegal or unconscionable in the pursuit of funds through State-sponsored gambling initiatives? I hope the Minister cares enough to take a call, to tell us whether he is responsible for that. Or is the Department of Internal Affairs responsible, or the Inland Revenue Department—after all, this issue is all about regulation and taxes.

In thinking about that, I wonder about local authorities. The definition of “territorial authority” in the interpretation clause of the bill mentions the inclusion of the Chatham Islands Council, and I note that Supplementary Order Paper 132 deletes subclause (b) of clause 4 and substitutes a new one. If the Chatham Islands Council is a territorial authority, then it is a mystery as to why that council was mentioned in the bill.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): I want to pick up on the point I made earlier and on my question to the Minister. I ask him again to respond on that issue about operating a business, because it is a serious matter. Those businesses are major contributors to communities throughout New Zealand, by means of gaming funds. They give back a third of their operating profits to the community, and we know the requirements. It is high time that people realised those businesses are run professionally. They have transparency, are accountable for their actions, have audits, and, at the end of the day, have contributed to the success of communities throughout New Zealand.

I am actually referring to one of those businesses, but the issue I raise relates to the definition of “corporate society”. In Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins, the Minister states there will be just one society. First, I go back to the letter that the Department of Internal Affairs wrote about corporate societies—I guess it went out to a number of those operators. It is really interesting that the letter is dated 12 June 2003, yet we have before us a Supplementary Order Paper that was launched last Friday. So we have had a time lag from June through to September. Therefore, this change has been mooted for a long time, but no one has had the opportunity to provide any input.

The letter of 12 June 2003 talks about partnerships, in the second paragraph in particular, and states: “The difficulty with partnerships of associations of individuals”—this is the difference, Minister, as opposed to groups of people—“is that it is often difficult to ascertain who is responsible for a particular action or omission. It is open to each of the partner bodies to argue that they are not individually responsible for an offence or other breach. Corporate status also provides for continuity of legal obligations undertaken by a corporate body.” We need to understand how partnerships work. Partnership law makes it very clear that each partner is responsible for the actions and omissions of the other partner. That is what partnerships are all about. Many businesses get into trouble, in the real world, because partners do not appreciate what their responsibilities and duties are.

I have here an example of an organisation that has been set up, and the criteria are laid down in a letter from the Department of Internal Affairs. We have here the licence. I ask this question of the Minister: what will happen, if this bill goes through in its present form? Or is the Minister intending to accept Supplementary Order Paper 140 in my name, which allows—the Minister is shaking his head. I would like you to explain to the other organisations around the country—those that find themselves in a similar position to the one I refer to—whether you will revoke their licences as soon as this bill is passed, just because they have formed—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is referring to the Chair when he uses the word “you”.

LINDSAY TISCH: Will the Minister be responsible for the fact that this legislation will revoke the licences of a number of operators throughout the country—operators that are currently operating within the law, under two statutes that I mentioned before: the Charitable Trusts Act and the Companies Act of 1993? The Minister knows whom I am referring to, because he just mentioned the name. But other organisations fall into the same category. There has been no movement from the Minister to suggest that he will take a call and explain that. Therefore, I take it that we will not be able to make any progress on this matter. In that case, the issue falls back fairly and squarely into the Government’s domain.

The United Future party is allowing this bill to go through, because it is supporting this part of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. It could support Supplementary Order Paper 140 in my name, which would tidy up this problem. I am not asking for anything unreasonable—I am not asking for any deal. I just say that my Supplementary Order Paper clarifies the position and tidies it up. I ask the United Future members who are sitting here this afternoon to look very closely at what the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper means, as opposed to what I am suggesting. I am not trying to beat the system. I ask for the support of the United Future members on this issue.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 62

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 130 in the name of Sue Bradford to the definition of authorised purpose in paragraph (b) of clause 4 be agreed to.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I note on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins there is an amendment to clause 2, and you have gone to clause 4.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is a longstanding convention that we do the Minister’s amendments at the end. [Interruption]

LINDSAY TISCH: I thought they were done before.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, the Minister has the right to aggregate his amendments.

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 130 in the name of Sue Bradford to the definition of Community Organisation Grants Scheme in clause 4 be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 140 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to insert new paragraph (e) in the definition of corporate society in clause 4 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Noes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 109 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to insert definitions of public notice and Rotorua application in clause 4 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Noes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 62

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 62

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Gambling

JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon): Part 2 is a massive part. It is the sort of thing that, if this were our bill, we would have had in about four different parts, so that we could have all had a proper discussion and debate on it, and it could have been voted for correctly in terms of the various issues it deals with.

I want to look at a measure in Supplementary Order Paper 132, which the Minister has put in. It is about having no more casinos, and no increase in casino gambling opportunities. I find it ridiculous that a law will be put in place that states there will be no more casinos in New Zealand, when we have a situation where, since this Minister has been in charge of this portfolio, the number of pokie machines outside casinos has grown from just over 12,000 to 25,000 now. What is the harm that the registered casinos are producing? The total number of gaming machines in all the casinos in New Zealand is just over the 3,000 mark, so I do not understand what the Minister is getting at when he says that we do not want to have any more casinos, but we can have more pokie machines. Worse than that—because at least with the pokie machines the money goes back into local communities—the Lotteries Commission will now compete with the casinos and with the charitable trusts that run the pokie machines.

We are looking at a situation where the casinos are being told there cannot be any more casinos. The people of Rotorua, who have a serious tourism industry, are being told they cannot have a casino, but they can have lots and lots of pokie machines that are not in a casino, and, better than that, they can get the tourists on to the online gaming that the Lotteries Commission will run. It seems to me that there is clearly no commitment to the responsible gambling that this bill is supposed to be all about. Another issue is that we are to have no increase in the gambling opportunities in casinos. Why is that? Is it because that panders to a politically correct sort of notion that casinos are evil places? Well, they are not; that is another nonsense.

Yet section 8C, inserted by clause 8 on Supplementary Order Paper 132, states that when looking at the increase in gambling opportunities, the Gambling Commission will be able to say to the casino operators that they do not really have to have table games any more in casinos, which is one of the requirements of casinos in this country, because they can have pokie machines instead. Will we be looking to see the casinos in this country simply become great big pokie machine venues? That will take away any concept of a real casino. We will end up with the leagues club situation that they have in Sydney. We are looking at a situation here whereby casinos, which do provide a tourist opportunity and an employment opportunity, particularly in the table games area, will now be given the option of cutting back on the table games, and instead increasing the number of the far more addictive pokie machines. That just seems absolute nonsense to me. There has clearly been some sort of trade-off with the casinos. They are to be stopped from having any more gaming opportunities, but they are just allowed to choose the most cost-effective way for them. That will be the one that will earn them the most money, but it will not increase the employment that we need in that area. That is one concern.

When we look at Rotorua, for instance, we see this Government will not allow any more casinos, yet it will allow all sorts of other gambling opportunities. The Rotorua people put in their application for a casino just after the moratorium started, in 1997. It was a matter of a day or so after that, as I recall. So those people have a tremendous opportunity. In the United States one of the most profitable casinos is owned by the local Native American people of Connecticut. In the Foxwoods Resort they have one of the most successful casinos in the United States. They also happen to be the wealthiest tribe of Native American people in the United States. This Government is depriving the people of New Zealand of a similar opportunity. It will not allow people to get up and make their own income.

DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East): Part 2 of the Gambling Bill comprises well over 180 clauses. It is a very long part and is the meat of this bill. It refers to the four classes of gambling that are restricted in terms of the amounts of money involved, and those that require licences and those that do not, those that require operator licences as well as venue licences. It also refers to casino gambling and lotteries. The select committee spent a considerable amount of time over the details of this part of the legislation, the part that will take a good deal of administration, monitoring, and policing.

I point out that one of the parts in the Supplementary Order Paper that was not favoured at the time by the select committee, or that was considered very seriously, was the whole role of the Lotteries Commission and interactive gambling. That was a very difficult question. One of the questions that we have to consider is the amount of money—given that Internet gambling is a fact of life—that is retained within this country, rather than money being spent overseas, and also the fact that we are looking at the continuing viability of lotteries, as such. They were matters that were considered several times by the select committee, and I can say that they were discussed very fully in this case.

There was also the additional matter of the use in machines—which of course will be electronically monitored—of note acceptor devices. That was not a matter that the select committee felt relaxed about, but we realised that people, whether or not they had gambling cards, or notes, could whip outside to a money machine, anyhow, and acquire money, or access money from their credit cards, and so on. Sometimes we have to face realities, and accept them. The select committee, as I can say, debated some of those issues very strongly, backwards and forwards, and looked at them in great detail. In many cases, we had submitters come back to the committee, report, and bring us additional information. So those were the deliberations of the committee, in that respect.

I can also comment on a little bit of history. I remind those members, who do not remember when we voted on the moratorium on casinos, that it was a conscience vote, and I remember that some very notable members of the National Party, including Mrs Shipley, at the time voted in favour of the moratorium. I see people smiling. I remember that vote very distinctly.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): My colleague Judith Collins basically set the tone for debate on the issue of casinos—of which there will be no more. I am very disappointed that the Minister did not support amendments to the definition clause, which would have allowed the Rotorua application for a casino venue licence to be at least considered. I wonder what it is that this Minister and this Government have against Māori seeking to participate in the economic development and growth of Rotorua, which, as has been stated already by a member from this side of the Chamber, is one of our premier tourist destinations in New Zealand.

What is in the issue, that the Government seeks to bar participation by legitimate tribal business organisations to bring gambling and casinos into the city in an ordered way, and to make provision at the same time for genuine community consultation, which was one of the big things the member Dianne Yates promoted earlier in the piece? It was not that it would be a foregone conclusion; it would be that Rotorua people would have the opportunity to say whether they wanted this development in their town.

As I said earlier, there are two planks to this matter. The first is the unconstitutional nature of the legislation that unfairly shut the door of development for Rotorua. The real harm that results when moratoriums are used is because of the fact that, if applications are just about in the door, thousands of dollars-worth of money has already been spent in getting applications to that point. That happened in 1997. Money had already been spent in developing the application—hundreds of thousands of dollars—only for it to be shut out.

It was thought that no long-term harm would ensue, because when the moratorium came in, in 1997, it was brought in such a way that the country could take a couple of steps back to review the whole of casino development. But there was an expectation, particularly on the part of the Rotorua developers, that once the issue came back on the table, they would have a fair chance to participate. Given the extraordinary amounts of money they had already expended, that would have seemed an entirely fair expectation. So it was a huge disappointment that the Minister did not support my amendments to the definition section. Of course, he still has time to change his mind, and this Government still has time to change its mind.

There is a big Māori voting population up there in Rotorua—of good people. They are very responsible not just in terms of their commercial development but also in terms of understanding their social responsibility. Both can be taken care of, which is not what can be said of the current situation with the proliferation of pokie machines. I would invite the Minister to go and visit Rotorua, to go into all of those little bars and clubs, and to have a look at the disarray occurring with the pokie machines—

Hon David Carter: Open a police station.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: He could open a police station, and add some more police there. The reality is that while the Government supposedly wants to be responsible about this area, it is nothing of the sort. This Government will not allow another casino development in the country, but it is doing nothing to stop the proliferation of pokie machines. They are dangerous to the community—absolutely. It is shameful that the Minister is not moving to do anything about them. He should go to visit those many clubs and bars in Rotorua and see the types of people who are there. There is no control.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs): I have just listened to the speech from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. I have to say that Rotorua has missed the boat, and it has missed it by a long way. I do not think that I need to remind her of the anguish the people of Hamilton were put through, after the moratorium came in. Hamilton was different because it had its plan before the time of the Casino Control Authority, but Rotorua did not. The moratorium has been in place, and there will be no more casinos in New Zealand when this bill is passed. People talk about trying to restrict them while other machines are going in. It seems to me a bit odd that people want to oppose the amount of gaming going on, but they do not want to oppose casinos. I find that logic a little fuzzy. We want to make sure that there are no more casinos. We have done that, and we are doing it. [Interruption] In the end, people cannot sit on both sides of the fence. This bill aims to limit the number of pokie machines around—

Peter Brown: How does it do that?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: It gives local government bodies the power to plan for their own areas. There are restrictions that go back to 17 October 2001. We have wide public support for no more casinos. The support is absolutely wide; people do not like them.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Who says?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The public have been telling us for a long while, and I am surprised that the member over there on the Opposition side has not been listening to what the public are saying. A small group of people in Rotorua want a casino, but the majority does not. I tell the member to have a look at what happened to the Queenstown casinos, when people thought that tourism would be the answer and that it would be tourists who would go and use those casinos. The reality is that most tourists get out there, enjoy themselves, work hard at having fun all day, and become too tired to go to casinos. Casinos in New Zealand depend on local people, and in order to help casinos we are making sure that no one steals their name—“casinos”. That is very, very important—[Interruption] Yes, Judith Collins has said that and I agree with her. There is not a lot we agree on, but I agree with her on that. The bill does say very clearly—and these people have known this since 17 October 2001—that as a Government, we will not allow any more casinos. We cannot be plainer than that.

HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ): That was a very confused speech. The Minister made lots of contentious arguments. The public do not like casinos, apparently. [Interruption] It must be why they are not going to them! The public, I would contend to Mr Hawkins, do not particularly like pokie machines either, but they do like the proceeds that come from them. The sporting and cultural groups that are the recipients of the proceeds, like them particularly—despite the fact that they do admit they do not like the machines themselves. I think that Mr Hawkins has been spending too much time in Manurewa and not enough time in places like Rotorua and Queenstown.

I support my colleague in the National Party, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, who is complaining about the situation in Rotorua, and she is quite correct. That is why the ACT party supported her amendment in Part 1. The Minister said that the Rotorua casino missed the boat by miles. He is very badly informed, because it missed the boat by 1 day, because of the 1997 moratorium. One day is not missing the boat by miles. Mr Hawkins is very deliberately ignoring the gains that are made to this country by casinos—whether or not people like them, casinos bring a lot of money to this country. Casinos bring a lot of money, a lot of tourism opportunities, and a lot of employment opportunities. However, if we look at the amendment to clause 8A, “No more casinos”, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132, which I will come to in a minute, we see that subclause (1) provides: “No new casino venue licences may be granted under this Act.”

Sandra Goudie: The Lotteries Commission doesn’t want the competition, does it?

HEATHER ROY: It does not want the competition. New clause 8A(2) provides: “However, an existing casino venue licence may be renewed.” Is this just yet another example of this Government picking winners? That question does have to be asked, does it not? Existing casinos are all right, but new ones are not. If casinos are such terrible things and the public hate them as much as that, why are we not banning all casinos? Why do we not ban everything, as this Government is wont to do?

I want to come now to Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins. This Supplementary Order Paper is a disgrace. It contains 65 pages of amendments to the bill that will have absolutely no scrutiny at all. The most disgraceful part of this Supplementary Order Paper is who it is being supported by—the United Future party. I campaigned in Ohariu-Belmont with Peter Dunne at the last election, in 2002. I went to every meeting and we were both there. It was an interesting experience, because I used to hope that my number was drawn first out of the cup or plate or whatever it was we were drawing numbers out of. Do members know why that is?

Sandra Goudie: Why?

HEATHER ROY: Because we would always be saying the same thing. I wanted to be on my feet first, because—

Judith Collins: He should join ACT.

HEATHER ROY: He should join ACT, because that is what he really believes. The fact that he campaigned on more transparency and more accountability shows the farce of the support that United Future is lending to this Supplementary Order Paper, which will have no scrutiny—

Sandra Goudie: The worm has turned.

HEATHER ROY: That is right, the worm is turning. There will be no scrutiny, and no way for this side of the House to make any amendments or contribution to what is in this Supplementary Order Paper, and there is certainly no provision for the public to make any sort of submission on it. I noticed that Matt Robson is suddenly over the intense disappointment he described in the debate on the title.

Sandra Goudie: It didn’t last long.

HEATHER ROY: It did not last long at all. The holes in this bill that he spoke about—the terrible disappointment he was expressing—have gone! I was expecting him to vote against the bill, given his intense disappointment, but that did not happen. I do not know. It beggars belief, does it not?

The other amendments have been out for quite some time, but this Supplementary Order Paper contains 65 pages full of amendments—I have forgotten how many. Mr Tisch told us previously, but I cannot remember, because there were so many of them. The amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper will receive absolutely no scrutiny. This process makes a farce of the lawmaking process and the democracy that we are so proud of in this country. I say to Mr Hawkins that I think that is truly contemptible.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): I want to pick up on the contribution made by the Minister, when he said that this legislation will enable his Government to help casinos. That is what the Minister said.

Judith Collins: He said that?

Hon DAVID CARTER: He said, if we look back through his Hansard: “We are here to help casinos.” So I ask the Minister to open up his Supplementary Order Paper and explain to us, when he takes the next call, what is meant by new clause 8B, which states: “No increase in casino gambling”. The clause provides that: “A person must not increase the opportunities for casino gambling.” I ask the Minister, if he is here to help casinos, what that clause is doing in the legislation Does he really expect the successful casinos that are operating around New Zealand not to attempt to increase the turnover of their business and not to encourage more people to come in through their doors and enjoy a night of fluttering on the machines or the tables? Does the Minister really expect that to happen? If the Minister is suggesting that this legislation will prohibit an existing casino from attempting to increase the profitability of its business, then he is dreaming.

I also want to pick up on some of the comments made by Heather Roy, and take this opportunity to read into the debate my compliments to some of the casinos that do operate in New Zealand. I know that in my own area of Christchurch we have a very professionally run company that has provided employment since it opened to thousands of New Zealanders, particularly young New Zealanders—a lot of them without a lot of skill, but some of them with a huge amount of personality. I say, good on it, to the Christchurch Casino, for the work it has done there. I do not particularly enjoy going to the casino myself; it is not something that appeals to me, but clearly by the number of people who go in and out of the front doors of that establishment, it appeals to a lot of New Zealanders and to a lot of our visitors. But the most important things it is providing are entertainment opportunities and employment opportunities.

I was recently in Auckland and stayed at the hotel associated with Sky City. I spent a little bit of time wandering around there, and I make the same comments. It is a very successfully run organisation; it is one of the most successful companies on the stock exchange. If George Hawkins thinks we will be voting today on a Supplementary Order Paper that suggests there will be no increase in casino gambling, then I say to him that he is dreaming.

I want to also pick up on a very interesting press release that I have come across from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. The headline of this particular press release put out by Major Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army based in Christchurch—a remarkable individual, an absolutely remarkable individual—states: “United Future sold itself to New Zealanders as a party of common-sense family values, and many citizens voted for them for that very reason.” He goes on to say: “However, United Future’s latest policies so directly contradict their stated value base, that the party risks alienating its supporters at the next election.” Major Campbell Roberts went on to say that this Government’s proposed legislation changes call into question United Future’s and Labour’s claim to care about creating a culture that values families and strong communities.

Mark Peck: Wind it up.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Mark Peck suggests we should wind it up. He does not want to debate this legislation. He is not prepared to take a call. He is about as wimpish as he was when we had a farmers’ rally recently in Invercargill—he would not even front up.

Jill Pettis: Why didn’t you listen to Major Campbell Roberts about market rents?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Now we have Jill Pettis having a crack. She wants to talk about market rents. We are talking about the Government’s Gambling Bill. The member should take a call.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I invite the member to table that press release. It is of considerable interest to New Zealand First.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is not a point of order.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): The Green Party has three fairly substantial amendments in this part of the bill, and I hope that if it is possible I might be allowed a second call later on, but I will try to cover all our amendments briefly. The first amendment deals with the role of local government in determining what happens with pokie venue licensing in its districts. At the time that this bill was formed we had hoped it would mean that local government would be able to have a real say, and be able to create real gambling policies for a whole district about where pokie venues would be situated, how many would be situated in the area, and how many machines would be in each venue, but, unfortunately, that is not how the bill has transpired.

We have an amendment on the floor that is supported by Local Government New Zealand, and by many of the mayors and councils all over this country, who believe, as the Green Party does, that councils should have a say over all the pokie venues in their district. At the moment, only those venues that were licensed after October 2001 will be under council control; others will not be. We believe that communities do need the strength to have it in their own hands to combat the hugely increasing problem of gambling addictions in places all over this country, but most particularly in some of the most low-income districts, like Manukau City and many others.

No one territorial authority in this country will have the ability to control more than 30 percent of the pokie machines in its area after this bill is passed. As many councils and community groups that deal with gambling addiction problems would agree, that is totally unacceptable. At the moment, of the nearly 20,000 gambling machines in around 1,800 venues in this country, only 16 percent will be able to be regulated by councils. A total of 15 territorial local authorities will have no control over the pokies in their district. That will affect a huge range of districts, ranging from Carterton, Clutha, and Gore, through to Kaikoura, Kaipara, Kapiti, Kawerau, Matamata, Opotiki, Otorohanga, south Waikato, Waimate, Waitomo, and Whakatane. In those districts, local councils and local people will have no say over the numbers of pokies. The purpose of our first amendment is to try to reverse that so that councils will have control.

The second major amendment we have on the floor today deals with the distribution system for the proceeds of the pokie machines. Again, that is a huge problem that is not dealt with in the bill. We believe that the distribution of around $200 million a year of proceeds from non-casino gaming machines should be distributed through publicly accountable systems. Unlike some of the misconceptions that have been spread around this House about what the Green Party is putting up, we are not promoting some kind of centralised, bureaucratic, totally governmental system; what we are proposing is a carefully planned and thought-out range of ways in which the money will be distributed.

First of all, a portion of it would be distributed through the Lotteries Commission nationally, but only a third. That would go to national bodies, including sports and recreation bodies. One-third of all proceeds would go to the Department of Internal Affairs to go out to the territorial authorities to distribute to arts, culture, and sports and recreation. The final third of all the proceeds of pokies would go to the Community Organisations Grants Scheme to be distributed through local committees. That is not about some kind of centralised system. Two-thirds of the proceeds would be going through local groupings, but they would be publicly accountable bodies; the proceeds would not be in public hands. The fact that we now have around $200 million a year going out through the private pub charities is totally unacceptable to us.

There is a third area in which we are seeking a change in the bill. We would like to see a requirement for a report to be supplied to the Minister each year on all the income that the Government has received from gambling sources in the previous financial year. We believe that the public should be entitled to be informed about the Government’s total income from, and potential dependence on, the gambling industry. We feel that MPs, and, indeed, everyone in this country, should be able to clearly understand, in a transparent way, what exactly the Government’s reliance on the proceeds of gambling is, in the same way that we should be able to see how much the Government depends on the proceeds of things like tobacco and alcohol, so that we can determine the extent to which the Government really is dependent on the gambling industry.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): This bill has been a long time in the making, and my party has been involved with it at many levels, particularly at the level of Government. We found that we came to some sensible arrangements through discussions on many aspects of the bill, and that, in the main, the bill helped us to reach an agreement on taking care of both the social concerns, and the needs, of communities, in terms of gambling being part of life and also of fundraising.

However, we came to a part where we found one area with a particular problem, and that is, therefore, the burden of the Supplementary Order Paper in my name, on behalf of the Progressive party. The issue that concerned us in particular, and which we wished to highlight, related to the number of gaming machines that has grown in New Zealand. We believe that if the situation is not regulated properly with a sensible cap being placed on that number, it will help to foster a social problem that exists, and that we cannot close our eyes to. It seems to me that that is the position of a number of speakers who have represented their parties in the Committee today. They are closing their eyes to the social problem we have when gambling takes control of a person, rather than the situation being the other way around—when the person has fun and a sense of relaxation through gambling.

In October 2001 there were 2,095 gaming-machine sites in New Zealand, with 20,597 machines, but by 30 June this year there were 25,221 gaming machines in 2,122 gaming-machine sites. If people do their mathematics, they will see that there has not been a correlation between the rise in population in that time and the number of gaming machines per person. So the Supplementary Order Paper in my name, on behalf of the Progressive party, is aimed particularly at that issue.

The Supplementary Order Paper seeks to put a limit on the number of gaming machines to not exceed the number at 17 October 2001, so that we have a reasonable level of machines and a reasonable gap, and so that there is not just a continual and exponential growth of gaming machines. That will allow people to have access to gaming machines; it will not prevent people from taking part in gaming. But with the limitation, the provision will be an assistance in the area of addiction—the area that is of enormous concern to those social agencies or individual families that have to deal with that problem. It is not the total answer. Of course, there has to be a whole range of other activities—which there are—and interventions, but it is part of those.

Another area as important, which is not in the Supplementary Order Paper, but which I wish to mention now, is the area of note acceptor machines. We will be voting against the clause that enables note acceptors to be part of the gambling scene. We know that it is clunky and inconvenient to be carrying lots of coins around, and people can find that rather difficult, but a ban on note acceptors is one way of limiting those people, those who have an addiction, from feeding machines with large notes, which usually come out of their own family budgets. So we have concerns in those two areas.

Lastly, I note that there was some advice from the ACT party. I always appreciate advice, except when it comes from Richard Prebble’s party. I think I stopped taking advice from Richard Prebble in 1974, and I certainly advised the Labour Party not to take his advice on GST in 1985, and I was right about that. I advised the Labour Party through the 1980s not to take his advice on the sale of public assets to line the pockets of those people who are now the major supporters of the ACT party. I gave that advice then. He did not accept it, so I am not about to accept advice from the ACT party now, and neither are the Progressives.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): I have a Supplementary Order Paper, No. 110, which covers a number of clauses in this part that I believe are important and that deserve the consideration of the Committee. They are important clauses. The first one I draw members’ attention to is clause 100, which came up earlier when we were talking about the definitions of “casino”. It came up in the debate about organisations, taverns, or whatever, that use the name “casino”, and I have a Supplementary Order Paper relating to that clause. It is very important to note that, although the bill allows for a reduction in organisations calling themselves casinos, and that the period for reduction is now down from 3 years to 18 months, it does not actually stop somebody going out today and calling his or her business a casino—because there is a time-lag. So although we can pass the bill today, it does not stop me from going out tomorrow and calling my business a casino.

The idea of casino branding is specifically to stop those places that are not casinos and not licensed under the Casino Control Act from calling themselves casinos. Under the Fair Trading Act, this is a very, very important point. In fact, some case law says that a business cannot call itself a casino when it is not a casino licensed under the Casino Control Act. So the point that I make here, which is very important, is that this bill does not go far enough—and this would be one of the clauses that National would support if it went further—because it allows those organisations that want to start up businesses tomorrow to call themselves casinos in this interim period of 18 months. We believe that that is wrong. We believe adequate notice has been given to those places that call themselves casinos to adapt to their own brand—and this is a branding exercise—and to make those changes with their signage, promotion, advertising, and whatever. But to call themselves casinos is misleading. It is against the Fair Trading Act. This is one area of my Supplementary Order Paper that deserves consideration.

The next clause I bring members’ attention to is clause 75D about note acceptors, which are also referred to in clause 154B. There is absolutely no evidence around the world, at all, that if we did away with note acceptors and moved to coins the problem-gambling issue would disappear. There is absolutely no evidence, at all. In fact, places like South Australia, which does not have note acceptors, have approximately the same levels of problem gambling as the states of Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland. But the issue about doing away with note acceptors is that there will be huge compliance costs and a lot more cash will have to be handled. The research I mentioned before does not actually overcome this area of problem gambling.

The other issue is that people can bet with bet cards, such as I hold in my hand. In the second reading debate I talked about these cards, and this one has about $4 in value left on it. Instead of using cash and putting my $20 or $50 note in the machine, I could put in this “e-bet” card, which is a united gaming solution card, and use this means of gambling. So the technology is here. If we want to eliminate or reduce problem gambling, the best way to do it is to slow down the machines. That is what we could do. Telling people that they cannot put $50 notes or $100 notes into machines does not actually solve the problem. So my Supplementary Order Paper omits the whole of clause 75D and also the clause relating to gambling machines in casinos, clause 154B, which says: “Get rid of them. They are a nonsense; they are not necessary; they do not do anything.” The idea behind the clause is one of all for nothing; there is no evidence to support it.

My Supplementary Order Paper also relates to clause 120, “Suspension or cancellation of casino licence”. It is very, very important when we bring forward this sort of legislation that it carries forward a provision currently in the Casino Control Act. At the moment it does not do that, so I have suggested an amendment to clause 120 to insert: “the integrity of casino operations is jeopardised and the public interest adversely affected, because”—of whatever reason. There really needs to be a gateway. There needs to be a yardstick by which we can measure whether a suspension or cancellation of a licence is important. If we were to carry through the provision currently in law, then clause 120 would suffice if added to, and we would be happy to support it. I have moved, then, for clause 120 to be changed by the addition of another sentence that, in our view, clarifies the position we believe is so important.

My Supplementary Order Paper also inserts a new clause, which I refer to as clause 125B, and which is headed: “Appeal to Gambling Commission regarding significant influence”. There is nothing in the bill that takes care of that subject, and it is certainly my view, having studied it very seriously and having sat on the select committee, that there is an opportunity here to include a clause, as I have done in my Supplementary Order Paper. My new clause 125B states: “When the Secretary determines that a person has significant influence in a casino, that person or the licence holder may appeal to the Gambling Commission against that determination.” That is the sort of transparency that we believe is so important. At the moment the bill is lacking in that area.

Moving further through the Supplementary Order Paper, I have a new clause 125C, “Pending applications”, which states: “The Secretary may permit a person who will become an associated person by virtue of his or her position as an employee of a casino licence holder and who has submitted an application for approval as an associated person to commence employment in the casino or undertake services ...”. At the moment, people who want to have employment in a casino can wait for months. It can take months for those people to be able to work in a casino, because they have not been approved. My amendment would allow for some flexibility. I am not saying that we should relax the laws. I am saying that we should go through the process of vetting those people and making sure they fit the criteria, because if there is a pending application—and that is what my new clause 125C states—it is important that those people are allowed that opportunity.

The explanatory note to my Supplementary Order Paper clearly articulates the points I am making. It states: “New clause 125C allows employees who need to be approved as associated persons to commence duties prior to receiving their approval. Approval tends to take three to five months and this new clause is consistent with the provision contained in clause 141 relating to certificate of approval.” So this clause gives flexibility. It allows that person, who may be the best person for the job but who is hamstrung because the bill does not allow that opportunity, to be taken on board. When people are working in this area, especially in the area of casino operations, then the restrictions, the criteria, and the vetting that goes on is very, very important. Casino operators want to make sure that they have the best people for the job and that those people have the integrity to work in those operations, because that reflects on the way operators do business.

So I have a number of amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 110. I ask for support for those amendments, because they add value to the bill as presented by the Government.

MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill): I move, That the question be now put.

SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel): Given the complexities of this particular bill and the huge, 65-page Supplementary Order Paper 132, it is absolutely vital that we have plenty of opportunity to debate all the aspects of the different parts of the bill.

I want to raise another aspect in Part 2—that is, territorial authorities. In relation to territorial authorities, I want to refer to compliance costs. My learned colleague Lindsay Tisch also mentioned compliance costs. There are compliance costs for business as well as for territorial authorities. I notice that this bill actually lacks a compliance cost report in its commentary, which is another omission that seems to be fairly regular on the part of this Government when it introduces bills to the House. It seems to leave out the compliance cost report. Perhaps it does not fully understand the huge impost on both businesses and local authorities of the enactment of this bill.

Clause 88 states that a territorial authority can provide a consent to an applicant, but before it can do that it has to have a gambling venue policy. For the venue policy, it has to consult the public, and that consultative process has to be extensive. The authority has to go throughout the district, and cover all the different urban enclaves throughout the district. That is incredibly costly, and it includes advertising costs. This bill is also prescriptive about whom the authority is required to consult. It specifies that the territorial local authorities have to consult Māori and whomever else they think fit. I put it to the Committee that they should just consult everybody; the bill should not specify whom they consult. Certainly, they should consult everybody throughout the whole of the district. There is a cost to that. There will be no way to recoup that cost, because only a small proportion of the population will be seeking a consent. The cost to the applicant of that consent will in no way match the cost of the authority consulting on its venue policy. Then it will have to renew it after a 3-year period.

I specifically draw the Committee’s attention to clause 87. Even when a territorial authority has gone through the whole process of establishing a venue policy, an applicant who has gained a consent can then go for ministerial discretion. I would like the Minister of Internal Affairs to take a call to respond to this; I would like him to explain to me what clause 87(4) means. Under clause 87, people who have got a consent from a territorial authority can then decide to ask the Minister to use his discretion to allow more gaming machines, and that is fine, but there is no further direction back to the local authority. It is done between the applicant who has the consent, and the Minister. However, if we look at clause 87(4), we can see that the Minister’s approval must specify the number of gaming machines that may be operated, but they “must not in any case exceed 18” machines, and “must not exceed the number … specified in the territorial authority consent;”. But clause 87(1)(e) has already stated that applicants who have a consent can then ask the Minister to use his discretion to increase the number of machines. Perhaps the Minister would care to take a call to explain what that means, because it is somewhat confusing.

I also draw the Minister’s attention to clause 17, which is about class 1 gambling. I want to enter a fishing competition, and the prize pool is $1,000. I have looked at the definition of “gambling”; given that fishing to some degree is a game of chance, is my ability to aim for a prize pot of $1,000 impeded by this bill? It could well be. Would the Minister care to look at the definition of “gambling”, relate it to clause 17, which is in Part 2, and take a call to explain?

JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon): The Minister of Internal Affairs said that people do not like casinos. He referred to the huge kerfuffle over the Hamilton casino. At that stage I was not on the Casino Control Authority, but my former colleagues were. There was a tremendous amount of talk, which was being rarked up by the Alliance, the rump of the Labour Party. People were saying that Hamilton would become the Sodom and Gomorrah of the South Pacific. I was born in Hamilton. When I was growing up in the Waikato, Hamilton to me was the big town. I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams that Hamilton could ever be the Sodom and Gomorrah of the South Pacific. It is a great town, and it is going places despite its MPs, but it will never be the Sodom and Gomorrah of the South Pacific, because it is too much country.

I went to three or four meetings in Queenstown of the problem-gambling committee there, which was set up after the Casino Control Authority said it was listening to the concerns of the people of Queenstown, and would make sure there was such a committee. The committee decided that it would stop meeting. The problem-gambling people themselves decided that—the community liaison group. They did it because there was no problem gambling. The reason is that the closest thing to a gambling problem in Queenstown is that there is not enough gambling in its casinos. That is the problem in Queenstown. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that if people do not go along in sufficient numbers, the casinos will not be very successful. What has happened in Queenstown? During the hearings, which were being rarked up by a former member of this House, Phillida Bunkle, people were told that Queenstown would be the Sodom and Gomorrah of the South Island. And was it? No, it was not. I think that now people would look far more kindly on casinos.

The people who do not want more casinos are the current casino operators. They do not want any competition, and I understand that; if I were in their business, I would absolutely agree with them and I would be arguing for that, too. But that is not our role. Our role is to represent the people of New Zealand.

I would like to talk a little bit about the pokie machine operators. The charitable trusts that distribute the money have really cleaned up their act. They have very much taken responsibility for their industry and their sector, and are doing a good job. I congratulate them, and I congratulate the Department of Internal Affairs on pulling finger, for once, and doing something to help the industry get its act in order. I used to be a great complainer about the industry, before things changed and it got rid of the problem people. It is important to say that, because we hear all the time about problem gambling, but for most people gambling is not a problem. Most people who go to casinos do not have a problem.

What will be a real problem for casinos and for some of the community groups operating pokie machines is the smoke-free legislation. That will be a problem for the casinos, and a problem for the little operations that run pokie machines. It is great that we will not be accepting the Greens suggestion to take all the proceeds of the pokie funds and put them into three different accounts, none of which will be about my local community. I think that is great.

I will say for the Green members that they are at least consistent. They told us what they were going to do, and I say good on them for doing that. They did not hide their light under a bushel; they told us back in January what they would do, so we could tell the rest of New Zealand. Good on them for doing that! It did mean that poor old Labour had to go off to United Future and say: “The Greens won’t be in bed with us; will you?”. We are hearing tonight about the great relationship among United Future, the Greens, and Labour. There were three in the bed, and one said “Roll over!”, and one did. Now the poor old Greens have rolled out, and United Future is in bed with Labour. Its members will vote for some of the stuff in this bill that they tell me they do not really believe in, and I believe them. But they are cuddled up to Labour, their feet are warm, and that is what it is all about.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): Mr Chairman—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The senior Government whip made an unparliamentary comment, and I object to that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): It was not unparliamentary at all.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: I would just like to touch on clause 8. Mr Hawkins raised the point that the Government, in the way that it has structured Supplementary Order Paper 132, was making things easier for the casinos.

Hon David Carter: He hasn’t taken a call since.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: That is right; he has not taken a call on that, because he knows that his statements were out of order, I believe. The Supplementary Order Paper states, in clause 8B: “A person must not increase the opportunities for casino gambling.” The comment the Minister of Internal Affairs made that the Government was making things easier for casinos contravened his Supplementary Order Paper, so I hope he will vote against that particular clause on his Supplementary Order paper. That could be interesting!

Throughout the Supplementary Order Paper—and it is a rather large one—are a number of clauses that enhance the racing industry. That is an area that New Zealand First is very much in support of. We believe that the racing industry has not been on an even footing with gambling for a long time. Any clauses that bring back a level playing field, or even a level gaming board, are preferable to the existing situation. Any clauses that assist the racing industry will be supported by New Zealand First.

I would like to move on to clause 87, which gives ministerial discretion to permit more than nine gaming machines per venue. The Minister has touted that this bill limits the number of gaming machines. It will limit the number of gaming machines at new venues to nine. Yet this clause allows the Minister discretion to increase that number. Pressure from a corporate society that is supportive of the Government could see that society receive preferential treatment under this clause. This clause allows the Minister discretion to increase the number of machines in a venue that is supportive of the Government. That is political interference, and this bill leaves wide open the possibility of that. I suggest that the Minister should go back and review that.

Sandra Goudie: Where’s United’s call for accountability now?

BRENT CATCHPOLE: Yes, absolutely. United Future has sat quietly and done nothing about this clause. It is willing to accept it and, obviously, willing to have a quiet word in the Minister’s ear to allow societies that are supportive of it to have increased numbers of machines. The Minister must have a look at that, and question whether it is the best measure for the general community—not just for people who are supportive of the Government. I suggest that this Supplementary Order Paper really needs to be reviewed, and that clause 87 in the bill needs further amendment to correct it, because it leaves wide open the possibility of political interference.

JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to insert the following new clause 13A be agreed to:

13A Report by Minister required

(1) The Minister is required to prepare and table in Parliament as soon as practicable after 30 June each year, a report on all income the Government has received from gambling sources in the previous financial year.

(2) This report shall include, but not be limited to—company tax collected on all gambling providers:

(a) Company tax collected on all gambling providers:

(b) GST collected from all gambling providers and gambling transactions:

(c) Any specific gambling taxes.

(3) This report shall appear on the Parliamentary Order Paper next sitting day immediately after questions of the day, and set down for one hour’s debate.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 62(1)(ma) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 65(1)(b) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 67(5)(c) and (d) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 67(5)(c) and (d) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 68(5)(b) and (c) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to omit clause 75D be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Noes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 82 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 83(2) to (6) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 83(5) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 84(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 84(4) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to subclauses (5), (7), and (8) of clause 84 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of Sue Bradford to omit clauses 86 and 87 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 88(e) and (f) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 130 in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 92(5) to (7) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Noes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 100(1)(c) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Noes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 109 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to clause 101(4) to (6) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Noes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): A further amendment to clause 103(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 109 in the name of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu is out of order because it is inconsistent with the one we have just voted on.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 119(2)(d) be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): There is an amendment to clause 119 in the name of Lindsay Tisch set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110, to omit subclause 2(d). That amendment is out of order given that the Committee has just agreed to the previous amendment.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 119(3)(b) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Noes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 120 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Noes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 121(7) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Noes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to insert new clauses 125B and 125C be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Noes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to omit clause 154B be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.

Noes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clauses 75D and 154B be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 108

Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACTNew Zealand 8; United Future 8.

Noes 11

Green Party 9; Progressive 2.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 62

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

Amendments agreed to.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the Committee, but in relation to an earlier amendment in the name of the Minister that went through on the voices, I seek the leave of the Committee for that vote to be put again because I did not voice our objection to that amendment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The member can seek leave to take the vote again.

NANDOR TANCZOS: I seek leave to do that.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We want to know what clause the member is referring to. We cannot give leave unless we know what we are going to vote on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, the member requesting leave will need to refer to the number.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I apologise but I am not sure what number it was.

Jill Pettis: Let’s move on. We can’t vote on something when we don’t know what we are voting on.

NANDOR TANCZOS: It was the only vote that went through on the voices. I am not sure—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 62

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8;Green Party 9.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6.04 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Part 3 Institutions

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that Part 2 contains 185 clauses and has 37 subheadings, but the Chairperson took only 13 substantive calls. I say that is not good enough, and I hope the Chairperson and the Committee will be a little bit more tolerant on the remaining parts. This is a major bill, it is quite complicated, and it should be subjected to strong debate. The Minister has a Supplementary Order Paper of some 65 pages, representing about 20 percent of the bill itself. I believe it is Parliament’s duty to do this bill justice—at least by having some thorough debate. I say again that having 13 substantive speeches—that is, 5-minute speeches—on a part with 185 clauses and 37 subheadings is not good enough.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I was listening to the debate. I say to the member that under Standing Order 139 and Speaker’s ruling 54/2 the Chairperson is the sole judge of relevancy and when to accept the closure. It is entirely in the Chairperson’s hands, and is not a debatable matter. Whoever is in the Chair endeavours to be as fair as he or she possibly can, recognising, of course, the proportionality of the House. I am aware that there are several subparts to Part 3, and I assure the member that there will be reasonable speaking opportunities on this part.

PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand your ruling. I do not want to cast any aspersions on a personal basis—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Under Speaker’s ruling 64/3(1), the member cannot do that.

PETER BROWN: I listened intently to the speeches up to that time, and there was very little repetition from anybody. It was an extremely good debate. My colleague took the last call and raised a very pertinent point, which we were hoping the Minister would respond to. I am just asking you to take note of my concern.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Chair has given an assurance of that.

DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East): Part 3 abolishes the Casino Control Authority and establishes the Gambling Commission. Two subparts of Part 3 are major—one deals with the Gambling Commission and the other with the Lotteries Commission. Part 3 has a large number of clauses, but they are fairly much contained within those two issues.

The issue around the Gambling Commission, which was discussed at the Government Administration Committee, was the level of its independence from the ministry. There were a number of submissions on that matter, which was discussed fully. In a majority report, the select committee reported back that it felt the commission did have sufficient independence and would be able to do the job adequately.

With regard to the Lotteries Commission, the main item of interest at this stage is the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. It allows for interactive gambling, and, as I mentioned previously, that is inevitable in this modern age. It was something that the select committee discussed in considerable detail. We called the Lotteries Commission back two or three times to present to the committee. I think the Committee of the whole House will be quite pleased with the Supplementary Order Paper, in that although it allows interactive gambling, it also realises that it is inevitable. Also, with the Internet there is far greater opportunity for people to participate internationally, and therefore we need to keep what gambling money there is within this country.

As we have seen, Part 3 deals with the set-up of the Gambling Commission. It deals with the membership, structures, and administration of that commission. It also deals with the Lotteries Commission, the Lottery Grants Board, and, as I said initially, with the abolition of the Casino Control Authority. Those bodies are all dealt with in Part 3 of this bill.

JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon): I will just continue on from the previous speaker—the chairperson of the Government Administration Committee. The Casino Control Authority is being abolished under this bill, and the authority accepted that—in fact, its submissions to the committee were quite supportive of the concept. However, the authority was extremely concerned to make sure that the Gambling Commission be something more than a puppet of the Department of Internal Affairs and/or the Minister.

One of the issues we have is that the Gambling Commission is specifically prevented, under this bill, from having staff. Under the Supplementary Order Paper—obviously as a result of the work done by the United Future party—there is a bit of a saving grace whereby staff of the Department of Internal Affairs, who will now work for the Gambling Commission, will be housed in a different place. I do not think that housing them in a different place will make very much difference. They will still be Department of Internal Affairs staff, and they will still be working under the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. They will, in fact, be captured. One of the roles of the Gambling Commission is to look at appeals and concerns about licences—in other words, to review the work of the Department of Internal Affairs and its gaming inspectors in relation to casinos and pokie machines. So we have a regulator captured by its department, and very much, we believe, subject to political interference. That is a serious concern, because gambling in this country needs to be kept under the control of an independent body.

One of the other concerns I am aware of is that the chief gaming inspector in New Zealand has now left his job. He had been told he had to move from Auckland to Wellington. In other words, the people involved in the regulation of casinos will move away from where the casinos are located to Wellington, where there are no casinos. That makes no sense at all. What we have here is more bureaucracy and less independence, resulting in less faith by the gambling industry in the gambling authority.

Another issue I want to raise is the Lotteries Commission. Under this bill, the commission is getting a tremendous amount of whatever it wants. One of the things I would say to the Minister is that the Lotteries Commission is only about making money out of gambling and collecting taxes, so why is it in a Government commission? It is doing something that would be far better given over to the private sector. The Lotteries Commission is being given interactive gambling, so that it can compete with the pokie machines and the casino operators, who have put a tremendous amount of effort into buildings, staff, and all that sort of infrastructure. They are being told that a Government body, which is politically appointed, will be going around competing with them.

That is not good enough. The role of Government in this industry should be regulation and the collection of taxes. It has no right being in the business of competing with the private sector. That is absolutely wrong. The people of this country have accepted lotteries only on the basis that they are a once-a-week sort of thing, and that people can have a flutter for $5, or whatever. They will not be very impressed with having the Government supporting and promoting gambling for its own ends. That is as wrong as if this Government turned round and said: “Let’s now have the Lotteries Commission supporting and promoting tobacco sales or alcohol.” It is exactly the same thing, and it is wrong.

I am very disappointed that United Future was not able to do a better deal with the Government on this issue. It should have stuck it out, because the Government had nowhere to go—it had already kicked the Greens out of bed. It would have been much better for United Future and for the country if that party had shown a bit more mettle and stuck with it.

Peter Brown: Did it show any mettle?

JUDITH COLLINS: There are some improvements, so it did show a little bit. I have made it very plain tonight that we do not say that everything in this bill is bad. In fact, some very good changes have been brought about, and we are quite happy to support those. But the problem is the limited amount of speaking time we get on a bill that comprises only four parts, whereas it should have been 14.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): I want to draw the Committee’s attention to clause 268 of the Gambling Bill. That relates to the abolition of the Casino Control Authority. That is an organisation that was set up many, many years ago. When I look at the Hansard of 24 July 1990, I note that, of the debates that took place at that time, there are six Labour members of Parliament still in the House, who voted for the Casino Control Bill, which set up the Casino Control Authority.

It is interesting to note that the reason the Casino Control Authority was set up back in 1989 was that it was deemed important that the authority be at arm’s length from the Government, and that by doing so, it was accountable and transparent. The Commerce and Marketing Committee stated of the Casino Control Bill in December 1989: “The New Zealand casino industry should not be Government-owned.” The report went on to state: “Decisions on licences should be made by an independent agency, not the Government.” Yet this bill takes those requirements away from the Casino Control Authority—those will go to the Gambling Commission—and we are concerned about the politicisation that will occur through the Department of Internal Affairs. Further, the Commerce and Marketing Committee stated in its report of December 1989 that, mindful of the principles that no single body or individual should be both policeman and judge, it had decided that there was a very clear demarcation in the roles.

That is National’s position. We have said all along, in the select committee and right through the process, that there needs to be a clear demarcation between an independent body to monitor performance and licensing, and anything associated with casinos. However, the Gambling Commission that will come into effect does not actually cover the whole realm of gaming. The TAB is excluded. That is an industry that deals with a gaming product. One would have thought that the Gambling Commission would be a one-stop shop where one would go to consider anything related to licensing and the policing of a gaming product, but the TAB, which has now merged with the Racing Industry Board to form the New Zealand Racing Board, is not included. Yet the racing industry, through its products, including sports and race betting, on which it has a monopoly, is not included and does not come under the jurisdiction of the Gambling Commission.

The Lotteries Commission, which Judith Collins has just mentioned, is another stand-alone body, and one would have thought that it would have also been subject to the Gambling Commission. The position that I, and National, hold is that there needs to be a one-stop shop that handles the whole area of gaming.

If we look at clause 267, “Casino Control Authority abolished”, we note that it is not included as a provision that comes into effect on the day after the date on which the legislation receives the royal assent. The amendment to clause 2 on Supplementary Order Paper 132 includes all the sections that will come into effect then, and we note that the abolition of the Casino Control Authority is not included. We do not actually know what the date will be. We know that there will be some lead time. The clause states that the authority will be dissolved 3 months after the section comes into force. It does not come into force on the day after the date on which the legislation receives the royal assent, which is something that one might have considered to be important.

The other area that I think is important and that we should consider is what happens when the Casino Control Authority is dissolved. In clause 268, “Consequences of dissolution”, we find that it is an organisation that, over time, has built up some non-monetary assets. There was also some Government money that went to set up the authority at the time it was established. That was repaid, but any money that is now held by the authority has come from those who have made applications for casino licences, because it has been a self-funding regime. There has been no Government money go into it. It has been self-funding. Yet clause 268 provides, in subclause (1)(d) that: “all proceedings by or against the Authority may be continued, completed, or enforced by or against the Crown.”

There is some money in the kitty—about $800,000, I understand—and that money will go to the Crown. The Crown has not had any involvement other than at the start, and that money was paid back. It is our view that—and I would like the Minister in the chair, George Hawkins, to take a call on this—that money that is sitting there at the moment, paid for by casino applications, should go back to the people who put the applications in. Why does it not go back to the casinos? There have been some surpluses from casino applications in some cases, but in a lot of cases the application fees did not cover the costs. There has been a rollover and a levelling out, but there are some monetary assets in existence. I would like the Minister to take a call to explain why this bill provides for the Crown taking those assets and putting them into the consolidated account. They will not go into the problem gambling levy, although they could—most people would not have any objection to that—but instead, the Crown will take the money and put it into the consolidated account.

The point I am making is that that money was never put up by the Government in the first place. One of the shortcomings of the bill is that it is taking money put into the authority by the private sector for private applications—and even those people whose applications were not successful had to pay the money. Clause 268(1)(a) states: “all property belonging to the Authority vests in the Crown;”. I would like the Minister to take a call to justify why there is so much money—about $800,000—sitting there that will go into the Crown account when it should go back to the industry and the participants who put the money into that particular area.

The Casino Control Authority has proved its point and has been a very good watchdog. Judith Collins was the chair of that authority, so she knows specifically how it works. She knows where it could have been improved and what it could contribute. When that disappears, the expertise of the people who were involved in it disappears. We are moving to a Gambling Commission that, as I said earlier, has a lot of shortcomings because it does not encompass the whole realm of gaming. I say again that any gaming authority should be a one-stop shop, and this bill falls short of that.

There could have been opportunities to have the TAB included in the legislation. The TAB is a huge provider of gaming services. As I said, it is an industry that has a monopoly in sports and race betting, with online accounts, so it is a significant player in the whole gaming industry, yet the Gambling Commission will have no jurisdiction or input into how the TAB will operate in the future. That would have been a very good area to be included.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): I will carry on from where Lindsay Tisch was asking about the $800,000 that he understands is in the Crown account. This Minister loves gathering revenue and putting it in the Crown account. Up and down this whole country, he has his speed cameras raking in a huge amount of revenue to put in the Crown account. Yes, Mr Chairman, I will come back to the debate in hand.

This part deals with institutions—and that is a gamble. We could call it—[Interruption] No, in the spirit of cooperation I will not go there. But this part deals with institutions and setting up commissioners. That is the other thing this Government loves doing—it loves setting up little commissions, big commissions, and bureaucracies, and appointing a whole lot of commissioners. We have that happening again with this legislation. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to us the obvious conflict of interest, or the dichotomy in wording, of the legislation, because when it describes institutions, the establishment of a Gambling Commission, and the appointment criteria, it states that gambling commissioners must be entirely independent and should not be selected on the basis that they represent, or may be seen to represent, sectional interests. So far, so good—that is fine.

Then we get to the point that, however—and there is always a “however”, is there not? In every piece of legislation this Government passes it now has to comply with either sustainable development, or with Te Puni Kōkiri. Of course—would we not just guess it?—the gambling commissioners have to be appointed and there is a requirement that Te Puni Kōkiri be consulted. So there must be a consideration of the mix of representation on the commission, including the representation of Māori. Can the Minister please explain how, on the one hand, these commissioners can be entirely independent and not selected on the basis that they represent sectional interest, and, on the other hand, be selected in consultation with Te Puni Kōkiri. The two things absolutely do not go together. How they can, on the one hand, be independent, and, on the other, have to represent the aims and aspirations of Māori, is something that I think will require quite a bit of explaining.

In reference to clause 199(3)(b), the Gambling Commission has no power to employ people. That is another thing the Minister should explain to us, because, as I understand it, the commission is semi-independent but will have a sort of Clayton’s independence by coming under the auspices of the Department of Internal Affairs. So how will it be that the Gambling Commission will not employ people if it is under the same auspices as the Department of Internal Affairs? There is another contradiction in that. Further on, clause 199A is titled: “Gambling Commission may engage experts and receive wide evidence”. Why have five commissioners who are appointed, presumably, on the basis that they know what they are doing; and that they have knowledge and expertise in this area—we pay them to be there—and then allow them to go on further and appoint experts? They are supposedly not allowed to employ people, but they are allowed to appoint experts, who may be separately reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred, and also paid fees.

This legislation is just open-ended legislation for this Government, or for any Government if one likes, to appoint mates to sinecures. It could be for failed Labour Party politicians after the next election. We could see George Hawkins here as a gambling commissioner. It will be a guaranteed job for Parekura Horomia. He will be there as an expert appointed to consult Te Puni Kōkiri. That ministry will say: “Yes, yes. Parekura is a good one.” If we are to have gambling commissioners appointed on the basis of their expertise, why should we have experts, as well?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs): We know when the Opposition is running out of things to say, because its members start their speeches by talking about speed cameras rather than about the bill itself. That is the first thing I want to say. The second thing is that I want to tell the previous speaker that the Government appoints the members of the Casino Control Authority at the moment, so it is no big deal that it appoints the members of the Gambling Commission. There is no big secret about that. Most members know that, because they have read the bill before coming down to the Chamber, but some have not.

A number of clauses make it clear that the Gambling Commission is independent. Clause 198(2) requires the commission to make decisions independently of the Minister of Internal Affairs and of the Department of Internal Affairs. Clause 199 provides that the commission must be treated as a commission of inquiry. That is very, very important indeed. That is in addition to the powers under the bill. The Government Administration Committee inserted clause 199A, which allows the commission to appoint experts to assist it, and that is very important. If the previous speaker had read that, she would have understood that. The select committee also inserted clause 201A, which requires the commission to report annually to the Minister of Internal Affairs on its activities, and for the report itself to be tabled in Parliament. That is very, very important. We do not have those sorts of controls across all forms of gambling that go on, so this provision encompasses all of that. The commissioners will be able to report to this Parliament, through the Minister of Internal Affairs, and, I dare say, they will raise any concerns they have. That is really important, also.

The bill provides that there must be a clear separation between staff in the regulation of gambling, and those who provide administrative support to the Gambling Commission. So the Department of Internal Affairs will not have its hands playing marionettes; it will make sure that the Gambling Commission is independent and that there will not be political pressure. All those Opposition members should think about the way in which they would operate things. They would start putting pressure on people, but that is not the way it is done. As a country, we have moved on from those days, and I think that that is very important.

I also want to say that the Lotteries Commission and the Lottery Grants Board will carry on. The Lotteries Commission is doing a very, very good job, and it is getting even better. I think that people realise that the commission is overcoming difficulties that most other lottery bodies around the world are experiencing. They are losing funding, with perhaps the exception of India, where funding in lotteries is going up. In most places, it is going down. I think that our Lotteries Commission has stopped the rot, and is now making some progress. [Interruption] Well, the member is talking about buildings. When the commission was run by the Tories, it used to have a flat on top of the building. That has gone. It used to have a big wine rack. That has gone. I say again, the Lotteries Commission is doing a tremendous job.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): I will pick up on what the Minister was just talking about regarding the Lotteries Commission. While I have not agreed very much with the Minister at all today on this bill, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Lotteries Commission on some of the changes that are being made. I think the reforms they are making to the Lotteries Commission are great, and, as Mr Hawkins says, they are aimed at stopping the rot. That is why, however, I think it is such a pity that in this part of the bill we see a provision on Supplementary Order Paper 132 from the same Minister that will start the rot, inside the Lotteries Commission, of introducing, and allowing the commission to allow, remote interactive gambling and gambling machines.

That will allow the Lotteries Commission to enter the Internet world of gambling, and to conduct lotteries via gaming machines. I do not know whether the Government has really seriously considered or looked at the overseas literature, particularly from comparable countries to New Zealand like Australia or the United States, to see the impact of that and what those countries are doing about it. I am really sorry that the Government has chosen to go with its erstwhile friends from United Future on this issue.

Internet gambling has become such a problem in the United States that both the Congress and the Senate have moved on bills that would ban United States banks and financial institutions from transferring money to Internet gaming sites. The number of websites there has gone from 25 in 1997 to around 1,800 now. It is the most addictive kind of gambling—it can be done any time of the day or night; there are no limits, no bars, and no stopping—and there is a concern in that country that athletes are even betting on their own sporting games. The possibilities for corruption are becoming even greater. It is the No. 1 cause of problem gambling for young people in the United States, and it is very easy for young people to get hold of their parents’ credit cards or to acquire credit cards by other means.

Marc Alexander: So what’s the solution?

SUE BRADFORD: The solution, I say to Mr Alexander, is not to allow it. [Interruption] Well, there is no reason that the Government, through the Lotteries Commission, has to legislate for it to happen.

Youth gambling, which Internet gambling promotes, is strongly associated in this country and elsewhere with substance abuse, depression, thinking about suicide, anxiety, criminal behaviour—obviously, that includes stealing money to support the habit—poor performance at school, and disruptions to relationships. We have enough problems with youth crime, mental illness, and addiction at the moment, without making the situation worse. Preliminary research in this country indicates that we already have a huge problem with adolescent gambling, despite the fact that theoretically at least, adolescents are not supposed to be gambling. A study of 425 high school students indicated that the rates of gambling problems among them are between 12 and 23 percent, and young people from lower socio-economic groups are more likely to be involved. It is a real pity that the Government is going ahead and allowing that kind of pernicious gambling to proceed.

A number of credit card companies overseas are starting to block payments to online gaming companies that are losing too much money from losing bets that are not paid. One way to control it is to pass a law that makes Internet gambling debts non-enforceable. That is a way of undercutting the industry. So, not only can we stop it by opposing this critical amendment that the Minister is putting up, but we could also amend the bill to make debts non-enforceable, which would undermine the very industry that thrives on this stuff. In Australia it has been made an offence for a person to provide Internet gambling to anyone in Australia, regardless of where it is provided from. That country is taking absolutely the opposite direction to the one this Government is taking.

Finally, I note there have been a lot of media releases and communications, to all MPs, I am sure, about this bill over the last couple of days—much of it from church organisations and community organisations. The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services is appalled at this amendment, which allows the Lotteries Commission to promote interactive gambling. Major Campbell Roberts, who, I am sure, is well-respected by everyone in this House, said: “This measure is potentially highly destructive. Communities and families will be put at much greater risk of problem gambling.” The church and community groups in this country who work at the hard end of the problem-gambling situation are very clear that we do not need yet more legislation and another Government that promotes the most pernicious types of gambling. Organisations like that see the negative effects of problem gambling constantly, and we should listen to what they say.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future): I rise to talk about the problem gambling levy and the Gambling Commission, but before I do, I will make just a couple of quick points. They are these. The extraordinary contribution by the Greens has me flabbergasted. They want to somehow put a stop to Internet gambling, without offering anything constructive whatsoever. One of the things that they say is that they are in favour—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I remind the members on the cross benches that Speakers’ ruling 53/4, a longstanding convention in this House, indicates that it is not courteous to interject from the cross benches, because that muffles the microphone of the person who is speaking.

Sue Bradford: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am aware of the ruling and I will respect it, but I just say that you could have applied it to Mr Alexander when I was speaking a minute ago.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I accept that.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not want to interrupt the member’s speech, but as it has already been interrupted I ask Mr Alexander whether he could address formally through the microphone some of the questions that Sue Bradford has raised.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is a debating point, Mr Brown.

MARC ALEXANDER: I find it extraordinary that a party that advocates the decriminalisation of marijuana and advocates prostitution can now turn round and have a problem with gambling.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That has nothing to do with the bill. I ask the member to please speak to this part of the bill.

MARC ALEXANDER: Let us look at the problem gambling levy and the Gambling Commission. Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins adds a role in the problem gambling levy-setting process to the functions of the Gambling Commission. I think that is important. It is a critical element of the bill, because for once it will not be left up to the Ministry of Health to pluck a figure out of thin air and attempt to impose that plucked figure on the industry. Instead, the ministry will have to justify itself. The commission will invite interested parties and the industry itself to take part in negotiating and scrutinising the—

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think the member is talking about Part 4 when he is talking about the problem gambling levy. That comes up in Part 4, not Part 3.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is all right. Will the member please continue.

MARC ALEXANDER: I am addressing some of the activities that the Gambling Commission will be able to be involved in, and one of the reasons that its independence is so critical to this bill. There will be an opportunity for greater scrutiny of what the gambling levy will be through the process of the commission, and that is vitally important.

There are a number of aspects of the commission that reinforce its independence—seven of them, in fact. Members are statutory appointees with statutory functions, and there are no ex officio members. The commission must make decisions independently of the Minister and the Department of Internal Affairs. I think that is extremely important. It must be treated as if it were a commission of inquiry, and in addition to its other powers under the bill, it has the powers of such a commission. That is provided for in clause 199. The commission may engage experts to assist it—something that the Minister has already indicated. That is also vitally important, and is something that was missing previously. The commission must report annually on its operations directly to the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is required to table the report. Again, that provides accountability and transparency—something that is presently missing, but is included in the provisions on Supplementary Order Paper 132. There is no appeal when the commission decides appeals against Department of Internal Affairs decisions. I think that is fundamentally important, because that distinguishes the department from the commission. It shows that there is an independence to it, which must be upheld—and it will be. If complainants are unhappy about the way that the Department of Internal Affairs has handled a complaint about gaming-machine operations, they may take their issues to the Gambling Commission. If it considers that the Department of Internal Affairs did not handle a complaint appropriately, it must report directly to the Minister.

Again, I say the seven points that I have outlined here, and which have been emphasised by the Minister previously, enhance the independence of the Gambling Commission. That is the jewel in the crown of the whole Supplementary Order Paper, because it takes direct control of things like the gambling levy away from a particular Minister’s province and puts it into a place where scrutiny can take place. That is vitally important.

When we look at the Internet gambling aspect, which has been credited to us—unfairly, I might add, because it is not something that we sought—once the rationale for it is looked at, we see there is actually a sound basis for supporting it. One of the points is simply this. We will not be able to stop Internet gambling. The Supplementary Order Paper will allow one particular aspect of Internet gambling, to at least allow the funds to return to the country from which they originate. Some of the funds will go to the gambling levy, to help to address the problems of the 1 to 3 percent of gamblers who have gambling problems. So what that measure does is to close off one particular avenue of unaccountable funds that go into the gambling industry. I think that is important, because we do not want to allow all the money that is gambled in this country through the Internet to fill the pockets of foreigners, when we need not do that.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): Part 3 bill sets up the Gambling Commission—[Interruption] Did Jill Pettis have something that she wanted to contribute?

Jill Pettis: I’m not talking to you, Mr Catchpole.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: Part 3 sets up the Gambling Commission and dissolves the Casino Control Authority. It has quite an extensive number of clauses that set out what the Gambling Commission is supposed to do, and one of those things is to grant casino licences. I certainly hope that the wording is such that the commission will be limited to only the renewal of licences, because otherwise that contradicts clause 8 in Supplementary Order Paper 132, which states strictly that there will be no more casinos.

Another area I would like to look at is Internet gambling. That is an area that the world has access to, and if New Zealand wants to be part of that, then we should look at ways of limiting the accounts that are set up with Internet gambling. It is quite easy to set up an account, and we would have to make sure that there is an age restriction, as there is with other forms of gambling within this bill. The age restriction would be very hard to police, because Internet gambling involves ticking a series of boxes, so that is an area that would really need to have close scrutiny. The next issue is to limit the account in terms of the amount that may be gambled in any one period, because if the account is allowed to run free, then gambling problems start to generate and there is no way to control that. Caps on accounts were operated successfully in Australia before the Federal Government clamped down on Internet gambling, so it would be worth looking at the issue of account caps and time limits. We could go and look at the Australian examples to see how they were working, because they were working well before the Government closed them down.

Internet gambling is an area that does need a lot of close scrutiny and work. It can work, and it can certainly generate taxation income for the Government in this country. I am sure that this Government would love to have those further taxes coming in, rather than have people here operating Internet accounts off shore, and have all the profits and the capital go off shore. I suggest that the Government should take a closer look at the caps on the accounts and at the way they operate.

Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National): I thank the Minister for taking a call earlier with regard to the appointment process for the Gambling Commission. My concern is with the questions he did not answer, and I have one very simple and direct question: will Derek Fox be appointed to the Gambling Commission? When I look at the criteria and summarise clause 196, I see that it effectively means that a commissioner must have skills, knowledge, experience, etc. in gambling. I cannot think of a person who has more experience in gambling than Mr Fox, who has been gambling with about $70 million of taxpayers’ money for some time—I note that Mr Horomia has now woken up, and let us hope that he will take a call—and if he now decides to go back to his original intention of leading a political party, he will become a danger. [Interruption] No, I am talking about clause 196 and the criteria for the selection of people as gambling commissioners. I want to be guaranteed that there is no intention—

Jill Pettis: We’re going to stick Jim Bolger on it.

Hon DAVID CARTER: We have Jill Pettis giving the first bit of honest advice. Jill Pettis has announced in Parliament tonight that Jim Bolger has been selected. It has been determined that he will be one of the first gambling commissioners. He will probably be quite good at it, but that is not the question I asked. I want an assurance from the Minister that Mr Derek Fox will not be appointed. There is no answer from the Minister in the chair, the Hon George Hawkins. The Minister said there is nothing new in the way that political appointments are made. He said that the Government has been making them for some time, as have previous Governments. But as I recall, no Government in recent years has had the sort of history for political appointments that this Government has. I could mention names like Susan Bathgate and Ella Henry—

Jill Pettis: What about Jim McLay? He would have a whale of a time on it.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Jill Pettis is coming out with another nomination. Jim McLay is now going to be appointed as a gambling commissioner. Well, here are two; there are three more to go.

I also note that the Minister said that the members of the Casino Control Authority had been appointed by political parties—and I accept that—and that the authority has done a tremendous job. But it struck me that it has not had a lot to do since that Minister and his Government have been appointing people. There has been a moratorium, so it has not had a huge challenge before it.

Brent Catchpole: Is it being paid?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I am sure that the authority is being paid. It has been doing quite a lot of valuable monitoring. But the real challenge in that role is around those new applications for casinos, and I think that even the Minister has to agree that his Government’s appointments to the Casino Control Authority have not been hugely challenged, given that that Minister and his Government imposed a moratorium, which meant the authority did not have a lot of work to do.

So I am certainly not satisfied by the Minister’s suggestion that there will not be undue political influence in terms of who gets appointed to the Gambling Commission, and I am certainly not satisfied that Derek Fox will not be somebody appointed to it. I do not know whether the Minister will be confirming the announcement, made tonight by the junior Government whip, Jill Pettis, that Jim Bolger has been appointed, but I tell that member that I think it is a fairly wise choice. I congratulate the Minister on making the Rt Hon Jim Bolger his first appointment to the Gambling Commission. I think he will do quite a sound job. But if the Government is prepared to announce its first appointment in Parliament tonight, then let us hear the others.

Jill Pettis: What about Jim McLay?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I am not sure whether that is a confirmation or just a suggestion from Jill Pettis. It is interesting to note that she certainly does not have many people in her electorate whom she is nominating.

Jill Pettis: What electorate do you hold?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The member just keeps on chipping away with inane comments.

Jill Pettis: What electorate do you hold?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I represent all those farmers who were out on the steps of Parliament a week ago, and who were doing a far better job than the member is.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National): Part 3 deals with institutions. It deals with the establishment of the Gambling Commission, and sets out appointment criteria. As an aside to that, it abolishes the Casino Control Authority, which is a great pity, because I think that the record of that authority was a very fine one, particularly under the previous Government. More than that, it was a body that could be seen to be at arm’s length from the Government, which is more than one can say for the new organisation that will take its place—the Gambling Commission. I say that—notwithstanding the Minister’s earlier speech in which he tried to reassure the Committee that the Gambling Commission would be independent—because of the record of this Government in its appointments to quangos. The Government has had failures with the likes of Susan Bathgate—

Hon David Carter: Ella Henry.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Yes, Ella Henry, and Greg Fortuin.

Hon David Carter: He wasn’t exactly a huge success.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: No, he was not. Funnily enough, the only success the Government has had has been with people of a National background—reliable sorts of people. But its own political appointments have been abysmal failures.

Hon David Carter: They haven’t got a huge bulk of talent to select from.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: That is probably it, and that is probably why Jill Pettis can shout out the names of only National supporters to appoint. The reality is, I suppose, that the Government’s people get so mixed up in the politics of things that they are unable to discharge statutory responsibilities properly. That is the record of this Government.

The other reason I am not convinced by the Minister’s earlier speech on the so-called independence of the Gambling Commission is that it is tied to the department. It has no administrative independence of its own. It is totally dependent on the administration of the Department of Internal Affairs, which, itself, is beholden to the Minister, or is it the other way around? The Minister might be beholden to the department. He is probably captured by his officials, anyway, and that is why, when he stands up to make a speech and reassure us about the commission’s independence, his explanation does not make sense and will not wash.

This bill establishes a new organisation, which has no particular value as far as I can see. After the review that the Government has had of this whole area, the new Gambling Commission will not even cover all the forms of gambling in this country. So on that point the Government has not succeeded either, and Part 3 is symptomatic of the myriad of contradictions that are present in this bill.

The other point I want to raise follows on a little from my colleague David Carter—though I will not, in particular and from my point of view, pick on Derek Fox, as he has been used and abused by the current Government. My point relates to the appointment criteria of knowledge, experience, and expertise. I am not quite sure what they relate to. Is it gambling? Is it business?

Hon David Carter: No, just gambling with $70 million of taxpayers’ money.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Well, that is in relation to the contribution my colleague just made. The section of the commentary on the bill, under the heading “Part 3—Institutions” states: “… we do not agree with submitters that a proportion of Gambling Commissioners should have expertise in particular disciplines such as public health,’’—right; National certainly agrees with that—“or enjoy the support of particular sections of the community (such as Māori) ...”. That is fine, but at the end of that paragraph it states: “Notwithstanding this, we note, the State Services Commission’s Board Appointment and Induction Guidelines requires consultation with TPK on appointments and consideration of the mix of representation on the body including the representation of Māori.” Why would that be relevant now, when this is the Government that is preventing the Rotorua development company, Pukeroa-Oruawhata, from developing a casino? Why on earth would that note be relevant in that commentary when this Government—the one that takes the votes of Māori people—will happily deny the Pukeroa-Oruawhata development company the opportunity to take the issue back to the residents of Rotorua?

STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): I know why the member for Rotorua wants to shut down this debate. It is because what is in this bill is exactly the opposite of what Labour campaigned on in 1999. This bill was meant to be the Responsible Gambling Bill, but now it may as well be the “State Sponsored Gambling Bill”, because the provisions we see in this part and other parts are an absolute U-turn for Labour members. They are red with embarrassment and so they should be. I also want to challenge the Minister in the chair, George Hawkins, because I heard so many speeches in the 1990s from this member about the harms of gambling and about how Labour was going to fix it. Then we see that this bill is going to expand gambling in New Zealand, and, not only that, we are going to have the State running it.

I have to ask what the limits are of this Government’s view of the State’s involvement. If it is good enough for the State to now be involved in running pokie- machines, and given that we are now to have Internet gambling, I ask the Minister of Internal Affairs where it is all going to stop. Are we next going to have the Government running brothels? I know the Government has made it legal; is that the next vice the Government is going to sponsor? [Interruption] I see that Jill Pettis has caught on to the idea. Perhaps I should not mention it, because the next minute it will be happening!

What are the limits? How far will this Government go? Why is the Government determined not only to do a U-turn in its policy approach to gambling but now to have the State enticing New Zealanders to spend more and more of their money on gambling? I say that it is wrong. I say to the Minister that he has presided over the biggest expansion of gambling of any Minister who has ever held the portfolio. Yet he came from a party that was going to take a tighter approach. It is no wonder that the word “responsible” has been deleted from the title of the bill. There is nothing responsible about it.

Then we come to good old socialism—the State has to run everything. So we have the abolition of an independent authority, because this Minister wants to get his sticky little fingers on this big-money industry. So we are going to have the Department of Internal Affairs with its sticky little fingers all over the casinos. I say to the Minister: “If it ain’t broke, why try to fix it?”. I have not heard in this debate a single view from any Government member that will tell me what the Casino Control Authority has done wrong. What is it about its functions that requires this takeover bid and for it to be run by a Government department? I tell members that it has nothing at all to do with running effective controls on casinos. It has everything to do with this Labour Minister wanting to get his sticky little fingers closer to the hundreds of millions of dollars that are turned over.

Then we have another dose of sickly political correctness in this part. We on this side of the House believe in one standard of citizenship. We believe that all New Zealanders, regardless of their ethnicity, have an equal contribution to make. Yet what we see in this provision with the authority is somehow that when a Māori person plays a pokie- machine, goes to a casino, or participates in some other way, he or she is somehow now different. I say to the Minister that I think that requires some justification. I think it is just another dose of the Government’s sickly political correctness, which ordinary New Zealanders have had a gutsful of. We would like the Minister to justify that.

The last point I make in respect of this part concerns the Department of Internal Affairs. I have to say that of all the Government departments I have watched in my 13 years in this Parliament, the greatest doozy is the Department of Internal Affairs. It has a capacity to make a mess of more than anything else.

Jill Pettis: Leave public servants out of this.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: According to Jill Pettis, we are not allowed to hold the public service to account.

Hon David Carter: What about Christine Rankin?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Do members remember Christine Rankin? Do members remember Jill Pettis sticking up for the feminist Christine Rankin when her colleague Steve Maharey was getting stuck in? She was cheering with that wenching noise across the Chamber, and she now changes her tune.

HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I have sat here listening to this debate with interest. It is a complex bill, and the Supplementary Order Paper tends to make it a good deal more complicated. Before I get into my speech I want to acknowledge that the Minister offered my colleague and myself a briefing the other evening. We were very appreciative of that.

Judith Collins: He never gave me one.

PETER BROWN: I can understand that, with due respect. We thought it was very worthwhile. The officials in particular highlighted some areas and put our minds to rest. I tell the Minister in all sincerity that New Zealand First has debated this bill again as a result of that briefing. However, we are still opposed to it; nevertheless, it was an enlightening briefing.

Clause 217A,“Gaming machines and remote interactive gambling excluded” bans Internet gambling. The select committee sent it back. It is quite clear, and categorically bans Internet gambling. I listened to Sue Bradford with interest, and I have spoken to her since. I understand from the Greens that the Australians banned Internet gambling, and the Americans are trying to do the same.

Judith Collins: Ask me; I’m the expert.

PETER BROWN: The member says that she is an expert. How many other countries ban Internet gambling?

Judith Collins: I will take a call.

PETER BROWN: The member will take a call. I ask United Future people why they think they are greater than average New Zealanders. This bill came back from the select committee process banning Internet gambling. United Future members have put their hands up and said: “That’s not necessary; we will support this, and we will amend it in the Supplementary Order Paper; but to hell with the public: we won’t even have to go out to the select committee. We will support this, willy-nilly.” United Future members will put their hands up and support it without any criteria or input whatsoever from the public. I ask United Future members whether that is what they mean by common sense. Is that what they mean by family values?

Gambling in this country has the ability to turn moderately wealthy people into poor people, and it frequently does. It has the ability to tear families apart and to split them up. Here we have United Future members coming into this Parliament, greater than anybody else in this country, saying: “Throw clause 217A out. We’re not in favour of banning Internet gambling. The Australians and Americans are, but we’re not, and we will reverse what the select committee said.” They will do that willy-nilly with no consultation, and will support the Government on its Supplementary Order Paper. I ask the Minister how the dickens he convinced United Future members. I think they must have been on cannabis. I think they have been smoking pot in the secret chamber somewhere around here.

Jill Pettis: That’s not appropriate.

PETER BROWN: Well maybe Jill Pettis will stand up and explain how she justifies a select committee coming back banning Internet gambling and she wants to reverse it. Will she explain that—because I am at a loss to explain it? I am also at a loss as to how a party that supposedly stands for the principles and ideals that United Future do, can come and just sit in this Chamber with only one person taking a call, and saying that this is good enough for New Zealand and it will be imposed upon New Zealanders.

Internet gambling will do a huge amount of damage to some of the families in this country—mainly the not so well off—Māori families, and Pacific Island families, but there will be a few non-Māori families amongst them. It will split families. It will turn the moderately wealthy into the poor, and we come to this Chamber and see people who I thought had higher expectations and ideals for New Zealanders just passing the legislation through without any consultation with the public.

That is not good enough. If the Government wants to make drastic changes like this, the bill should go back to the select committee. I do not know whether United Future people have read this press release put out today by the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, but they should read it and take it on board. It is put out by people who I thought supported them.

JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote

That the question be now put.

Ayes 60

Labour 52; United Future 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6;Green Party 9.

Motion agreed to.

was called for on the question,

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 3 be agreed to.

A party vote

That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Labour 52; United Future 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6;Green Party 9.

Amendments agreed to.

was called for on the question,

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Labour 52; United Future 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6;Green Party 9.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Harm prevention and minimisation, enforcement, and other matters

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): I draw the attention of the Committee to the formula that is used to calculate the problem gambling levy. I know that the Minister has a formula in his Supplementary Order Paper, and that is probably a consequence of the Supplementary Order Paper that I originally lodged back in March. I was not happy with the formula in clause 287 of the bill, and way back in March I lodged a Supplementary Order Paper. Subsequently, we find that there is a Supplementary Order Paper in the Minister’s name, but in my view it falls short. I am happy with the formula, except that it actually stops and does not allow for what is known as 1-P1. I want to explain what that means. As the formula stands, it is fine, but it does not explain specifically what I would like to see happen, and, more important, what the industry wants to see happen.

It is important that the stakeholders, the people who are paying the levies, are the people who should have a say, because the bill legislates against flexibility. This formula as presented in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper legislates against flexibility. If we leave it the way it is, then we will find that within a couple of years there will be far more demands on the health system than there are now, because we know that the Ministry of Health will take over the jurisdiction of collecting the problem-gambling levy.

I first want to draw the Committee’s attention to what “C” in the formula stands for. If members want to follow this, they will find it on page 34 of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. The costs that are associated with “C” include things like education. They are the total costs of the integrated strategy, health promotion, and advertising. They could be included in school curricula, could be promotions by district health boards, and could be treatment. It is very, very wide. What we are saying, and what the industry is saying, is that that needs to be constrained. The Government at the moment currently collects about $422 million in taxes, GST, and levies. Part of that money could be used at the Minister’s discretion to do those things. That is what 1-P1 means. It gives the Minister discretion. As I said, we are not opposed to the formula per se, but we are concerned that a lot of the costs not associated directly with the five industry leaders—racing clubs, the gambling operators, the TAB, the Lotteries Commission, and the casinos—will be incurred on them, when, in fact, a lot of the promotion, those points I mentioned in “C”, could be covered at the discretion of the Minister in the formula that I am promoting.

So when it comes to voting on this I would hope that members would consider this. As I said, I am happy with the Minister’s formula here, but it needs to be expanded out. I tell the Minister that that is what the industry is asking for. Maybe the Minister could take a call on this to explain why he has not included 1-P1, because that gives the Minister flexibility at any time to strike a rate to do those things that are obviously important in this whole question of harm minimisation.

I want to follow that through and say that now that the Ministry of Health will take control of the process, there are huge costs that are associated and seem to have got out of hand. In fact, Roger Parton, who has been a member of the Problem Gambling Foundation, has been levying the groups and has been able to provide the treatment. What we are seeing is that the costs have now gone out from about $6 million—and that is what is believed is enough money for problem gambling—and are escalating to $12 million and $15 million. In fact, within a couple of years it will be $25 million. What is that for? No one knows what that is for.

DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East): We are now discussing Part 4, which is to do with harm prevention and minimisation. I just point out that there are a number of issues in this part. Some are to do with age restrictions. Mr Tisch jumped straight into the levies, but he also skipped over parts that deal with them, particularly clause 278 about the policy for identifying problem gambling, and the responsibility on those who are running gambling establishments to assist in the identification of problem gamblers. That is a very important part of this legislation. Mr Tisch also talked about the levy, the application of the levy, and the involvement of the Ministry of Health in this. That will give us greater certainty on who is doing what in terms of problem gambling, which has had some controversy up to this point.

I also point out that there was some discussion at the Government Administration Committee on warrants and the powers to search and inspect gambling establishments. We had to work those issues through the select committee stage.

This part of the bill is about harm prevention. It is also about penalties and infringements, the types of notices that are given, and more about the enforcement of the law in relation to not only problem gambling, but also the fees, the infringements, the evidence, and so on, that must be brought forward. We are getting now to the nitty-gritty of enforcement and how we deal with those who wish to break the law. That includes matters such as cheating, and counterfeit chips. The major emphasis in relation to the submissions was the area around problem gambling. Many people who made submissions were relieved that this would be going through the Ministry of Health.

JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon): There are a couple of points I would like to speak about in Part 4. The previous speaker said that Part 4 is primarily about harm prevention and minimisation enforcement. If only! In looking at Subpart 1, “Age restriction on certain gambling”, I cannot, for the life of me, see any age restriction on Internet gambling. I had a look through the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper and I could not see any mention, but I am happy to be proven wrong by the Minister. I do hope it is there.

The National Party does not believe that Part 4 is all about harm minimisation. If it were, an age restriction on Internet gambling would be included. Internet gambling, as we have heard this afternoon, and this evening, is the most addictive form of gambling. There is nothing to stop people from gambling on the Internet. There are no social barriers. People do not have to say they are aged 20, and they do not have to worry about being seen by a neighbour, a friend, or a family member. They can be at it; just keep on gambling 24 hours a day. This part is supposed to be about harm minimisation, but it is not.

I have put forward Supplementary Order Paper 108 that would omit clause 277 and substitute a new clause. It deals with the right that casinos have to exclude people, under the Casino Control Act. The Act should give casinos the ability to exclude problem gamblers, or people causing a disruption, and things like that. That is fair enough, but it is not being used for that purpose, and that is my concern. Some casino operators are using the Act to exclude people whom they feel are too good at playing blackjack. Blackjack is the only game that the punters have much of a chance at. For everything else, they may as well take their money and flush it down the toilet, because that is what it amounts to. Casino operators do not build casinos because they want to give money away. They build them as a business in order to make money. That is fair enough, and we understand and applaud that. But what we do not applaud is this Government’s confirming and giving existing casino operators an open-door policy that enables them to decide who comes in and who goes out.

At the moment that right is being used to exclude people who are good blackjack players, and that is wrong. If an operator turned round and said to one of the Government’s Labour Party mates—some shaven-head lesbian type—“We don’t want you in here.”, then all hell would break loose. There is nothing wrong with operators deciding they do not necessarily want that sort of person in their casino because it might put the punters off, but they should not have the right to do so. If they are operating in a monopoly situation, as they are, they should not be able to do that. If it is not all right to exclude someone, just because that person might be a politically correct friend of someone in the Labour Party, then it should not be all right to exclude people who know how to play blackjack and know how to win. Those people are currently being persecuted in some of our casinos, and that is not right.

I am asking the Committee to support my Supplementary Order Paper to show that Parliament is not here to pass laws that protect only casino operators. We certainly support good operators and good practices, but if we pass laws that create a monopoly situation and then say to people: “You can exclude anyone you like for any reason, except if they’re a mate of the Prime Minister.”, then that is not good enough. This Parliament should stamp down on that sort of behaviour. If an oil company or anyone else did that we would be in there, boots and all. A member of the Labour Party seems to be agreeing with me. I would like the Hon Dover Samuels to take a call on this part. If somebody said to that member that he could not go into a certain casino because he might know how to play a certain game very well, he would object, and so he should.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs): The Government Supplementary Order Paper includes amendments to allow the health levy for problem gamblers to be set at 3-yearly intervals. Not only will that reduce the costs of setting it each year, but, more important, it will provide certainty about funding. It will be very good for the providers of those services, which, unfortunately, are needed in our communities. Problem gamblers might account for as much as 1 to 3 percent of the people involved in gambling, so that funding is important.

Clauses 271 to 284 include provisions that allow casino and gaming-machine operators to exclude people who appear to be having problems. They also allow those people to exclude themselves. It is not a matter of whether they happen to be fancy blackjack players. At the moment, casinos have the power to do those sorts of things. They can trespass people, so it is no big deal. There is no major change in respect of people—

Judith Collins: It is a big deal.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I think that member knows that casinos can trespass people at the moment, and that is very important.

Part 4 sets age limits for people playing various games. The age of 18 is the limit we are using, except for casinos, where it will be 20. We used to have different ages for different sorts of games. That rule has now been simplified, and that is fairly important. Part 4 also includes regulation-making powers that focus on harm prevention. Clauses 281 to 284 provide regulations relating to problem gambling, awareness training for venue staff, and the provision of consumer information on the odds. That is very important. Some people think they can go into casinos and clean up. I have yet to meet people who can go into casinos and clean up. I suppose there is always the hope that one will do well, and some people do, day after day. But we need to give operators these powers to make sure that certain people are protected from themselves.

Clauses 294 to 309 deal with the powers and functions of gambling inspectors. Their principal role is to inspect, audit, and investigate the conduct of gambling, and that is a very important job. They may also prosecute those who have breached the bill’s requirements. There are various measures to support their roles, such as the power to obtain information and to apply for search warrants. The Government Supplementary Order Paper tidies up a number of those powers and includes appropriate safeguards. People generally support the harm minimisation we are now talking about. In terms of this debate, it is a matter of degree. We have tried to make sure that people are protected from themselves, and that operators cannot take advantage of them.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ): This thing about harm minimisation is just a load of old cobblers. If members look at clause 272, “Age restriction on class 4 gambling”, they will see we do not know what Internet gambling is. Is it class 4? This is the problem with having a 65-page Supplementary Order Paper that has not been to a select committee. United Future did a deal with the Government and is supporting it. Now we have a situation whereby we do not know what Internet gambling is. We know that it is allowed, because the Government will be promoting it by allowing the Government body to have a monopoly on it. Then we have the problem whereby under clause 272 an Internet provider could breach this legislation and commit an offence by allowing, or failing to stop, a person under 18 years from participating in class 4 gambling at its venue, but the legislation does not actually state whether Internet gambling is class 4. We do not know.

Further down, the clause states that a defence to the charge is if the offence was committed without the knowledge of the defendant. With Internet legislation at the moment, that is a very flimsy defence. It does not stack up when it comes to things like defamation. In my opinion clause 272 exposes all Internet providers to huge risk, and that is something the Minister of Internal Affairs should immediately address and tidy up. He accused me of coming down here without having read the bill; no doubt he has read it a million times, but that matter still has not been picked up. The reason it has not been picked up is that a huge Supplementary Order Paper has been introduced. It has not been to a select committee, and this matter has not been sorted out.

Part 4 also deals with the levies. It is a typical example. We have had letters from clubs and Returned Services Association clubs all over the country. They are responsible operators and they will be levied to deal with the bad boys. It is exactly the same situation we had with the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. What we will get is a knee-jerk reaction from the Minister every time, as has happened with the language provider that today went belly up. What happens? All the private language providers are to be levied. The polytechnics, which were never levied to provide the $50 million bail-out that was pumped into the Wanganui polytechnic, will not be levied; the Government institutions will not be levied—only the private providers.

I move on to Supplementary Order Paper 108 introduced by Judith Collins. We support that Supplementary Order Paper. It is very important because this Government has established a State-legislated virtual monopoly in terms of Sky City. The Minister knows what Sky City is doing; he is being very clever with his words. Yes, at the moment Sky City Casino is able to put trespass orders on anyone it does not like the look of—basically, people who are very good at playing blackjack and are making a lot of money from it. Clause 277 is the anti - Kerry Packer clause. It goes further in stating that a casino can exclude anyone without any good reason. It is like pubs being allowed to ban people who drink only water or lemonade and do not spend a lot of money on alcohol. That sort of principle is in practice here. This Government is saying to the virtual State-legislated private monopoly, Sky City, that if someone who is good at what he or she does goes into Sky City and makes a lot of money out of blackjack, Sky City will be able to get rid of them.

As Judith Collins said, if legislation were passed that allowed private people to ban someone because he or she was Māori, lesbian, or any of all the other politically correct things that an earlier part of this bill goes into, where it states whom distribution agents must distribute grants to, if we were to legislate to allow people to be banned for those reasons, we would be hauled before the Human Rights Commissioner before we could say “responsible gambling”.

I call on the Minister to take a call to explain to us—going back to clause 272—exactly the age restriction on class 4 gambling. The phrase “harm minimisation” is just empty, weasel words, because who will police the Internet?

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): I have lodged Supplementary Order Paper 136, and I want to finish up on what I mentioned earlier, in terms of the formula in clause 287. I made the point that we were quite happy with the Minister of Internal Affairs’ formula on Supplementary Order Paper 132 but it did not go far enough. I want to reiterate the main points and say what, in my Supplementary Order Paper, the value of “P1” is. I talked about “C” being the integrated approach, which covered a number of issues, and now will explain what “P1”—it is referred to in the explanatory note—relates to.

We have new technology coming in, with new games and new machines, and it is increasingly difficult to restrict access to gambling. As we have heard tonight, interactive gambling is going to be available, and it is going to be very, very difficult to control because we can do it from home. Because New Zealanders have access to so many different forms of gambling, “P1” will cover those costs not associated directly with gambling. At the moment we have “P1” on the costs not associated with the five industry classes—that is, gambling operators, casinos, the TAB, racing clubs, and the Lotteries Commission. I say to the Government that we are happy with what the Minister has done, but let us take it a bit further, bring this formula in, and allow for this flexibility, because the bill as drafted does not give flexibility to the Minister and does not give that discretion.

We see in clause 287(2)(c), on Supplementary Order Paper 132, a reference to the full cost, but we do not actually know what the cost is going to be. We have heard from the Minister that there needs to be a fair assessment in terms of the formula. We have no difficulty with a fair assessment of what the levy should be, but, as I said earlier, no one has been able to substantiate why there is going to be such a huge increase in the levies. I will repeat the point I made earlier, which is that Roger Parton, a Gaming Machine Association of New Zealand member on the Problem Gambling Committee, said that this year there were 4,866 new calls to the Gambling Problem Helpline, with 3,100 people being treated face to face. The average cost was $1,200 per person, with an overall cost of $6 million. So why does the Ministry of Health state that problem-gambling levies will go out to $25 million within 5 years? There is no justification for it. At the select committee no one was able to say—and I specifically asked the question—why there are going to be such huge increases in the problem-gambling levy. No one was able to tell me. In fact, still no one has been able to tell me. The Minister also has not been able to inform me why this cost is going on the industry. As soon as that cost goes on the industry, there will be less money going back to the community. It is as simple as that.

When the Ministry of Health gets its hands on the money it will go into a big hole, because it does not have a strategy at the moment for problem gambling. I am told that once it gets its hands on the money about 10 percent of it will go on administration costs. That is a huge hole, with 10 percent going into just administration. What we are looking for is accountability. We can solve this by allowing the formula “1-P1”, as proposed in my Supplementary Order Paper; that would be a win-win situation for both parties. I ask the Committee to support that proposal when the time comes.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): I shall refer to the clauses that deal with the age-limits in various gambling organisations. The bill itself has a clear age restriction of 18 years and 20 years for casinos, but Supplementary Order Paper 132 gives the means for an out. When I say it gives the means for an out, I mean it allows ignorance as an excuse for a casino or gambling outlet to get off any prosecution. That means those gambling organisations do not have to require any real checks; they can allow people in until such time as somebody spots that a person is under age, and then they have the excuse that they thought everybody was of age. That is not good enough because it allows for too much flexibility on the part of the operators and gives them a clear out.

I will now touch on harm prevention. This legislation goes into great detail on the harm prevention side of things. It looks at a means of preventing problem gambling. One of the most difficult areas, in terms of preventing problem gambling, is Internet gambling. As I said earlier, that will be a very difficult area to police. Without the proper precautions and so on in place, harm prevention will be bypassed because people will be gambling in their own homes without the checks and balances that are required in a properly run venue. If it is done correctly, it still will be very difficult to police.

In relation to Lindsay Tisch’s formula, I think—

Simon Power: The “Tisch formula”.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: I think the “Tisch formula” is very sound. It clearly sets out a progressive increase so that, as required, the money can be available. Instead, this Government is going from a $6 million levy for problem gamblers to a levy of up to $25 million to $30 million over a 5-year period. I cannot see that there will be an increase as huge as that in the problem-gambling requirements. A formula like Lindsay Tisch’s will allow a slight progression, and there will not be a huge pool of money that goes into a slush fund or even into the consolidated account, and never goes anywhere near the problem-gambling requirements. Without the formula, the situation will be the same as with the petrol tax—it goes into the slush fund and is not used where it should be. The particular levies being set here, which go from $6 million up to $25 million to $30 million, are absolutely ridiculous. It is being done without any consultation and without any clear direction from the public or interested parties. There has been no explanation as to where this extra money is going to be used. If there is no explanation, then there is no check on the Government as to whether it is using that money for the purpose for which it was collected.

Sadly, this Government is one that is happy to put on taxes and levies and not use them where they are supposed to go. I have mentioned the petrol tax; the 4.7c a litre tax is not going to Auckland, which, it was stated, was why it was put on. None of that tax has gone to Auckland. This measure is another example of this Government putting on a tax and a levy that will be used elsewhere to prop up its other failings. It may well go to the health system, but not to help problem gambling.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson): In talking to Part 4, I want to challenge the Minister—

Sue Bradford: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I believe that this is the fourth call the National Party has had in this debate. The Green Party has still not had one call, and we have made a significant contribution to this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes, it is National’s fourth call. I have called the Hon Dr Nick Smith. The member’s time will come.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When I read Part 4, I am truly astounded, because I see all these provisions about age restrictions. I have a simple question for members of United Future and the Labour Party. How does one enforce an age restriction on Internet gambling? Through a slick move at the last moment—this bill has been sitting around for 4 years—the Minister in the chair has slipped in a Supplementary Order Paper, so that New Zealand can have the most liberal gambling laws anywhere in the world. There is no Internet gambling in Australia, no Internet gambling in the United States, and no Internet gambling in the United Kingdom. But we are going to have it in New Zealand. We are going to have the most liberal regime—brought in by United Future, the family-friendly, anti-gambling party!

But we are also going to have, in Part 4, harm prevention and minimisation enforcement. I want to know from Mr Marc Alexander and his friends in United Future how one enforces an age restriction on Internet gambling. I can understand how it could be done for Lotto sales. I can understand how it could be done for casinos. I might understand how it could be done for the TAB. But how does one apply an age restriction on Internet gambling? We know that 815,000 homes—[Interruption] Could “Mr Benson-Dope” tell the Committee how we are going to enforce an age restriction—

David Benson-Pope: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is not the first occasion on which that member has insulted me. I do not take it personally; I think it is a reflection on his puerility. But I do think an apology is in order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I ask the member to withdraw.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw. I wish he would not interject but just answer the question as to how one would put an age restriction on Internet gambling.

David Benson-Pope: Go and find the truth somewhere. Go and look.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member says “Go and look.” I have looked through all the 60-plus clauses, and if the member would only take a call—that lazy member—and explain to the Committee how one would enforce an age restriction—[Interruption] The member is getting all excited. The provisions in this part are all nonsense. Members opposite cannot explain the reason for this radical liberalisation that the Minister of Internal Affairs is introducing at the last moment, in providing for Internet gambling. The Minister believes that one can enforce an age restriction. Who in the Committee believes that? Who would possibly believe that, given the 815,000 home computers out there, somehow the 30-odd staff in the Department of Internal Affairs will be able to make sure that nobody under the age of 18 is taking part in Internet gambling? What a laugh! The provision for age enforcement is a joke.

Then we come to the issue of problem gamblers. Can the Minister explain how the department will be able to prohibit problem gamblers from gambling on the Internet? We can understand how they might be banned from a casino. We can understand how they might be banned from the TAB. But what about the Internet? I do not think the Minister has the foggiest idea. I do not think he has thought about it. We do not expect it of him, because we all know he is a fool. But the real issue is United Future. It claims to be the great family-friendly party. Its gambling policy talks all about restrictions. How can it be condoning the introduction of Internet gambling?

R Doug Woolerton: Is it voting for this bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is, but its members will not take a call to explain how we can possibly provide a restriction on people who are problem gamblers using Internet gambling. I say to the Minister, to every Labour member, and to United Future that their problem-gambling provisions are an absolute joke, given that this bill introduces Internet gambling. There is absolutely no way that those provisions will provide any restrictions on, or capacity to restrict, gambling through that form.

HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): It is in Part 4 that we see another of the really terrible effects of the deal that this Labour Government has done with United Future. The new clause in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper introduces a new process for developing the problem gambling strategy, which gives a greater voice, and hence a greater influence, to the gambling industry, the Gambling Commission, and the Minister of Internal Affairs, over what happens with the problem gambling strategy and the associated levy. For those who may not be aware, the process is that the Ministry of Health develops a draft of the problem gambling strategy, and, in the process of developing the strategy, the ministry must consult all branches of the gambling industry, including problem gambling providers. Then they go on to convene a meeting of a whole lot of bodies, including the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Health, treatment providers, and also the gambling industry itself. As a colleague from the problem gambling sector has said: “It’s like putting a fox among the chickens.” So the industry makes recommendations to the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Health about what happens to the level of funding and the problem gambling strategy.

The gambling industry should not have a central role in developing the problem gambling strategy and the associated levy. Not only are the gambling industry representatives the agents responsible for problem gambling but also they have a major vested interest in reducing the size of the levy, because, of course, they are the ones who pay it. We know from bitter experience that the gambling industry does not, on the whole, have a great sense of social responsibility, when it comes to wanting to see those levies being equal to what is actually needed in the area of problem gambling. The industry’s estimates of the cost of problem gambling in this country, which it submitted during the Government Administration Committee hearing, were far lower than those presented by groups that work on the ground—those who know the real cost of treatment and the real cost of providing services at every level.

The Green Party feels that the involvement of the gambling industry will not assist in the public health aspects of dealing with problem gambling. We were pleased that public health was a primary focus of the bill, as initially drafted. We were pleased with the direction the Government was taking on this, and it has been really distressing not only for the Green Party but for the many groups in this country that work on the ground—trying to deal with all the consequences of problem gambling—to feel that we are taking a giant step backwards with the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper tonight. It is also unclear why the Department of Internal Affairs and its Minister should have such a central role, given that neither the Minister nor the department has any particular expertise or responsibility in either direct dealing with health issues or with public health strategies.

We want to know whose voice Labour is listening to in this debate. Whose voice will it want to hear in the months and years ahead, when it comes to dealing with problem gambling in this country? It is of huge concern. Will it even listen to the voice of its own party, which came out today? The New Zealand Council of the Labour Party—the leading body of the Labour Party itself—which met in the weekend, reached a unanimous decision on this issue, which it put in a memo to the Labour Party caucus this morning stating: “In particular Labour New Zealand Council urges that this bill be: Not enabling the gambling industry to be involved in determining how much money should be levied for funding gambling treatment services and where it should be spent.” That directive came from a unanimous decision of the Council of the Labour Party. But is the Labour caucus listening to that voice? No, obviously it is not.

Labour members seem to be quite relaxed about the booming culture in gambling in this country and about allowing the Lotteries Commission to engage in one of the most dangerous and pernicious forms of gambling—interactive and remote gambling. Have they listened to the problem gambling groups or looked at the statistics that are released week after week and month after month? No, they are not listening at all. Do they take notice of the fact that women and young people are among those worst affected by the proliferation of pokie machines and all the other forms of gambling? The number of women problem gamblers is going up all the time. As with the statistics I quoted earlier, I was shocked, on visiting a problem gambling group in Hawke's Bay a couple of weeks ago, to hear, from that mainly tangata whenua group working with people on the ground there, that in the pokie parlours in Hastings there are still children sitting with their mothers at the machines.

What does that say? We thought the Department of Internal Affairs was supposed to be doing a much better job these days of regulating the machines and the pokie industry. I know it is trying hard, but it is really distressing to hear that there is very little, if any, inspection or regulation happening to the industry in the provinces.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State): I move, That the question be now put.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): I want to finish the debate on Part 4 of the Gambling Bill by speaking to a couple of amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110, which I put forward. I draw the Minister’s attention to the self-exclusion procedures in clause 278A. Subclause (3) provides for that to be for a period of up to 2 years, in the case of a class 4 venue or casino venue. I want to know from the Minister in the chair, George Hawkins—and he has an opportunity to explain to me—what happens for those who have exclusion orders for longer than 2 years. Section 67 of the Casino Control Act allows for casinos to be able to keep people out, including those who are self-barred. Christchurch Casino, which has 650 self-barred people, is a case in point. Those people have not been barred by the casino. They have decided that they do not want to be in the casino, so they are self-barred, and half of them are for more than 2 years. My question to the Minister is whether a period of up to 2 years, as specified in clause 278A(3), means that the maximum period of time that one can self-bar is 2 years.

If that is the case, we have a major issue. I have here the findings of a court case with a judgment delivered in the court by Justice Keith upholding a decision that the Sky City Casino was able to have somebody barred for longer than a 2-year period. If this bill supersedes the provision that casinos now operate, especially when people are self-barred, we will have a huge problem on our hands. I give the Minister the opportunity to answer that query. The officials may be able to help, as they are sitting there, and it may well be that they can help us clarify that position.

My amendment to clause 278A on Supplementary Order Paper 110 adds a number of subclauses to it. This relates to excluded persons in the light of what happens overseas. In most Australasian jurisdictions, excluded people have the right to have the decision to exclude them reviewed by the regulator, but under this bill, there is no opportunity for that to happen. It is my view that my amendment would be a very valuable addition to the New Zealand system. It would provide for an independent review of what are difficult decisions. Those can often be very emotionally charged. By allowing the amendment on my Supplementary Order Paper, we would have natural justice. At the end of the day, that is what it is about. If people get kicked out of a place, they should have the opportunity to appeal that decision to somebody else. That is the point that Judith Collins made with her own Supplementary Order Paper, which was along similar lines.

I want to look at clause 298, which provides for gambling inspectors to seize equipment, and for it not to be retrieved for 48 hours. I do not know of any organisation in which one cannot get back an item that has been seized until 48 hours have passed.

Simon Power: It seems like a long time.

LINDSAY TISCH: It is a long time. I say that the court should decide. The court should make the decision of whether people are able to redeem seized equipment.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of Judith Collins to clause 277 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6;Green Party 9.

Noes 60

Labour 52; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 278A(5) to (10) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 46

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.

Noes 69

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 287(1AA) and (1) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 62

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6;Green Party 9.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): There is an amendment in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 287(1AA) and (1), but I rule that amendment out of order given the decision on the previous vote.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 288(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 46

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.

Noes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 298(3) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 46

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.

Noes 71

Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 4 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 62

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6;Green Party 9.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 62

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6;Green Party 9.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Schedules

JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon): Ordinarily, one might expect that the schedules would not be so bad, and quite a few of the parts of the schedules here are not so bad—until we turn to schedule 1 and have a little look at the conditions that may attach to casino licences. The first 11 conditions are all right, and seem to me to be reasonable. But there are a couple of new provisions that will now be able to be attached to casino licences by the—no doubt—politically correct appointees to the Gambling Commission. These provisions are the salary arrangements and personnel practices of the casinos, and I ask what they have to do with the Gambling Commission. What sort of condition will they be attached to? Attached to the casino licence are arrangements relating to procedures, forms, and, if appropriate, formulas for, and in respect of all sorts of things. Then the schedule lists salary arrangements and personnel practices. What is this Government commission doing in telling casinos: who they can hire, how they can hire, and what the salary arrangements will be?

I would love to hear from United Future how that party could bring itself to agree to this sort of nonsense, or did those members simply not read the schedule? I do not think that they did. I can see from the looks on their faces right now that they are going: “Oh dear, what have we done?”, and so they should be. United Future is a party that does not declare itself to be anti-business, but it simply should not be agreeing to this provision.

Then we go on to schedule 1A, “Minimum operating standards”, which again are in relation to casinos. One of the minimum operating standards will be about job descriptions, the system of organising personnel, and the chain of command authority. What business is that of a Government agency?

R Doug Woolerton: None!

JUDITH COLLINS: None at all, and I thank Mr Woolerton. These casino operators know what they are doing. They do not need some boffin in the department, in the Minister’s office, or in the Gambling Commission to tell them how to run their businesses. It is absolutely right that the commission should be involved in the integrity of the game and operation, and absolutely right that the commission should be concerned that operations are run in such a way they are not subject to fraud, theft, or criminal activities, but it is absolutely not right that the commission, this Government, or anyone connected to this Government, should tell any business what they should be paying as salary, or what the personnel practices should be.

We go on with these schedules and have a little look at provisions about the Lotteries Commission. This commission will now be charged with responsibility for Internet gambling and the operation of pokie- machines. Under clause 37 we see that the Lotteries Commission will now be told that it has to be a good employer. I had a look at that clause, and I wondered where the provision was that we would employ the best people for the job. Well, guess what! It is not there. There is nothing about the best person for the job. Yes, employees have to have good and safe working conditions—and there is nothing wrong with that—and, yes, they have to have, under subclause (2)(c), “the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons for appointment; and (d) recognition of—(i) the aims and aspirations of Māori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Māori; and (iii) the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the Lotteries Commission;”. Just in case there is anybody not recognised, we have to recognise, under paragraph (f) “… the aims and aspirations, and the cultural differences, of ethnic or minority groups: and (g) recognition of the employment requirements of women;”. What! Women do not need this Government to tell them how they should be employed, for goodness’ sake! They know what their requirements are; they do not need some namby-pamby, Nancy-boy State to go around and tell them how they should be employed.

It is absolutely not all right that this provision should be put in this bill, and it is absolutely not all right that the United Future party, for whom I often have nice things to say, should be supporting it. It is absolutely not all right, and I can think only that its members have not read it.

LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako): I want to take a brief call on schedule 4, which relates to infringement offences. Schedule 4A states that an infringement under section 11, “Advertising overseas gambling prohibited”, attracts a fee of $5,000. If I go back to clause 11 of the bill, I see that subclause (3) states: “A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000.” Schedule 4A sets a fee of $5,000 for an infringement offence, but the body of the bill states $10,000.

I will not go through them all, but another section of the schedule provides that certain information must be displayed to customers at a casino venue, which relates to clause 151. The fine there is $2,500, but clause 151(3) states: “The holder of a casino licence who fails to comply with this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000.” I do not know why there is a difference between schedule 4A and what is in the body of the bill, but there may well be an explanation for it. If the Minister does not know, he might be able to ask his officials why there is a difference in the fee structure, as I have outlined it. I believe that members need to have that explained when we go through the voting procedure.

Technical amendments come through this bill in the schedules, and, in particular, I draw the Committee’s attention to schedule 5, which relates to amendments to the Racing Act. It is exciting that the racing industry and the TAB will now have the opportunity to have gaming machines, and to be able to keep the proceeds from those gaming machines. I have a particular interest in racing—I come from Matamata in the Waikato, the heart of racing. That is what the town and the area is known for, and I know that people in that area will welcome the opportunity to be part of this, and to be able to have their own machines. I am sure, though, that small racing clubs will not put machines in, because they meet only two or three times a year, but they will have the opportunity to have machines—as with the TRAC group, which includes Matamata, Rotorua, and Bay of Plenty racing clubs.

R Doug Woolerton: Don’t know about Paeroa.

LINDSAY TISCH: No, Paeroa is not in it, but those three racing clubs, in particular, have had access to gaming money for stakes. I was talking to the treasurer of the Matamata Racing Club on Monday, and he said it is worth about $90,000 a year to them to be able to have access to gaming-machine money for their operations and stakes. This year they are budgeting for a $30,000 loss. If they are not able to access funds, then a provincial racing club is looking at a huge $120,000 loss. The Matamata Racing Club is probably one of the more affluent racing clubs in the country. It is well run, it has a very good racecourse, it has a very good reputation, and it is the home of New Zealand’s top jockeys. We support schedule 5, “Amendments to Racing Act 1971”, which allows that provision to take place.

We are not comfortable—as my colleague Judith Collins mentioned—with some of the other schedules. I will not go into those in detail, as we canvassed them during the Committee stage of this debate. Suffice to say that we will be voting against the schedules, as we will be voting against the bill.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First): I am looking at schedule 1, “Conditions that may attach to casino licence”, and, as Judith Collins asked, what on earth do salary arrangements and personal practices have to do with the casino licence? It is nothing more than putting in the demands of the unions and others who have obviously influenced this Labour Government so heavily. Those things have no place in the licence. Similarly, when one goes on to look at schedule 1A, one sees that the job description once again has no place in that particular schedule. The job description should be handled purely by the authorities that are running the casinos; it should not be put into the bill.

If we then turn to schedule 3, clause 4, we see that the Minister has a huge influence. He is able to remove the presiding member from the board just by supplying a written notice to that person and then sending a copy to the board. In other words, he can just snap his finger and that board member is gone.

R Doug Woolerton: What does that letter say?

BRENT CATCHPOLE: I think the letter would probably start with the words “Dear John”. The schedule does not state that the Minister has to give any clear reasons for removing the member. If he does not agree with the board member’s political thoughts, then he can get rid of him or her—just like that.

Lindsay Tisch touched on schedule 5 with regard to the Racing Act, and mentioned the support in that schedule for the racing clubs. It assists racing clubs by giving them a bit more of a level playing field, and New Zealand First supports that part of the schedule for that reason. That is one area that New Zealand First is strongly supportive of, because it is a huge industry for New Zealand.

Hon Trevor Mallard: You have to be a punter to be a New Zealand First member.

BRENT CATCHPOLE: One does not have to be a punter to enjoy racing, and to enjoy watching the racing industry. One can enjoy that just by watching the races on television, or by going to the track and having a wonderful time there—as many people do. New Zealand First is very supportive of the racing industry, we support any measures that will help the racing industry, and we particularly support any measures in this bill that will help the racing industry. We will support that section of the bill.

I will wind up by thanking the Minister for his assistance earlier on, when he allowed us to come and chat with him about this bill. We thank him very much, but we found that there were issues in the bill that meant that we just could not give our overall support to it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 109 in the name of the Hon Georgina Te Heuheu to schedule 1B is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with an earlier amendment that was defeated in Part 2.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of Hon George Hawkins to the schedules be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 62

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6;Green Party 9.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the schedules as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 62

Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6;Green Party 9.

Schedules as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

The House adjourned at 9. 52 p.m.