Ardern Jacinda: Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:989. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to give a contribution in the Committee stage of this bill. Although I was a member of the Law and Order Committee that heard this bill unfortunately I was not present for much of either the submissions or debate but I have read over the recommendations made by the select committee which as it will be obvious to the Committee were brief. It is a very brief but important bill and important on two grounds. First there is obviously the timeliness of this bill and perhaps why it has been kept so succinct in the parts that we are debating is that it is important that we make sure these protections are in place in time for some of the important fixtures that we will see in New Zealand. Based on 2008-09 figures we know that sporting fixtures and the like are a $5 billion revenue contribution to our economy so it is important that we make sure that we have these protections in place maintain our reputation and maintain our reputation as being one of the least corrupt nations in the world as well.In the part that we are debating today though I think it is important to point out that what this bill does is insert in the Crimes Act the fact that there will be able to be a crime of deception under that Act specifically obviously setting out—well even less specifically than before—that that includes “any act or omission that is done or omitted with intent to influence a betting outcome of an activity of a kind to which subsection (2) applies … ” and then it makes reference to manipulating the overall result or activity or any event within the activity. Obviously the select committee wanted to make sure there were not unreasonable defences included in that clause and I think it is right that the decision was made to allow that definition to be broadened out by removing what could be interpreted as a defence there keeping out that wriggle room.But I want to reflect though on a couple of questions that are still left open as a result of the bill that we are debating here today—things that were not included and perhaps could have been within the part that we are debating. Mr Mallard referred to the fact that there were not many submissions from sporting organisations and that individual codes were not asked to submit I understand and that raises for me the question as to whether or not those individual codes have plans on enforcement around the new protections that will be contained within the Crimes Act. How do we for instance oblige enforcement? How do we oblige monitoring? There is reference to codes of conduct. Do we know that every major code has these codes of conduct? These are questions that you are really able to intimately understand only if they are individually submitting on the bill so it is difficult to know whether or not this part that we are debating could or should have gone further in terms of obliging codes to ensure that this new offence within the Crimes Act is not being committed because you know what you know and sometimes you only know when you go looking.We have been told of course that the Department of Internal Affairs Sport New Zealand the New Zealand Racing Board the Ministry of Justice the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand and the Serious Fraud Office have agreed to collaborate to try to address match fixing. Again collaboration is one thing; being well resourced to undertake that work is another. We already know for instance that the Serious Fraud Office is a seriously under-resourced organisation. The office has even made budget bids to this Government to allow it to do preventative work around potential corruption and financial crime off the back of the massive rebuild following the earthquakes in Christchurch. We know that the Serious Fraud Office was denied this additional support. We know that it is prosecuting fewer cases and that the threshold for prosecution has really been raised in practice. So yes great collaboration between those organisations is necessary but it is hard to know how much proactive enforcement will be undertaken so I question whether or not we are actually missing some of what should have been included around this part.Also I have heard some discussion over the fact that individual codes have rules that allow for instance the New Zealand Racing Board to cancel Sportsbet if it considers that there may be a risk of corrupt betting. Those kinds of provisions may have been necessary in other codes. A racing board obviously has a number of reasons it would want to make sure that its sport is squeaky clean and that it is not falling foul of any best practice but do we know for sure that other codes have similar rules in place—specifically around the way that their betting is conducted and applied?Creating the offence that we are debating here is one thing but as we all know as parliamentarians simply setting a new set of rules and guidelines is actually only the first step. Enforcement and monitoring is just as important as having the redress in legislation when things do go wrong. We can see the damage that is done if you allow a sporting code to get to a point where it is having to use the strength of the law in order to uphold standards and therefore we know how damaging that can be to that code.So those are two of the major points that I wish to raise for this part of the debate. Are we missing a step when it comes to ensuring decent enforcement? I encourage the Minister if I have missed that and there is some other work that has gone on behind the scenes—additional codes of conduct that have been established—then I would be interested to hear about that. As Mr Mallard pointed out I think we missed an opportunity by the fact that some of those codes were not asked to submit and therefore did not submit at the select committee so we know only what we know in that regard. The second point is whether or not the coverage therefore is going to meet Parliament’s expectation.So those would be the issues that I would not mind the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith perhaps addressing. If he could also speak to the nature of the collaboration that is apparently going to happen between the Department of Internal Affairs Sport New Zealand the New Zealand Racing Board the Ministry of Justice the Organised and Financial Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office—is there any particular one of those agencies that is the lead agency that will take the key responsible role? In taking that role has it had additional support in terms of resourcing to make sure that it takes preventative action around match fixing? Has the Serious Fraud Office for instance raised any concerns about its ability to be involved at the degree to which the Government may expect it to be given we have seen a considerable change in its resourcing in recent times?Those are all of the things that I would not mind hearing about from the Minister in the chair and that I would be interested in responding to in another part of the debate depending on how adequate the answers to those questions may be.