Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCrimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 02 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:986. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment BillIn CommitteeTIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National):I seek leave for debate on the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill to be taken as one question with separate questions to be put on each clause at the end of the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave for that purpose has been sought. Is there objection? There is objection.Clause 1 TitleHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):Because this bill spent very little time being considered at the Law and Order Committee the Labour Opposition wants to look at it carefully and to ask a series of questions.The first question I would like to ask is whether Nathan Guy the Minister who is currently in the chair has been briefed on the legislation to the point where he understands it and can answer questions. If the Minister could shake his head or nod his head to indicate whether he has been briefed and can answer questions—no he has not. Well I just want to make it clear to the Committee that the Labour Party was prepared to flick this bill through with no consideration at the Committee stage if in fact there had been a proper process of a couple of hours at a select committee where the questions from the Labour Party could have been answered. But notwithstanding an undertaking from Mike Sabin the committee chair that that would take place that did not occur and therefore what the Labour Party will do today and if necessary tomorrow as part of the Committee process—which is four debates on this bill—is ask the questions until we get satisfactory answers. I regret that that has to be the case especially with legislation that we generally support—especially with legislation that we generally support.I would like to start off with the title and whether it is in fact the appropriate title—in particular the 2014 date that is involved with it. As to that the first question I would like to ask is in regard to New Zealand’s share of the arrangements for the Cricket World Cup next year. When was it made clear that New Zealand would be involved in that? I have got a vague memory that it might have been in 2006 and I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith to confirm that it was in 2006 that we got to the point of knowing that this would be happening in February of 2015. I might be wrong but I am pretty certain it was somewhere around that time. So the question that flows from that is: why have we taken so long to get legislation to come in?I was a Minister of sport until a date in 2007 when I was involved in the sporting activity of boxing with one of my colleagues who I understand is currently before the courts. I am not sure whether we are allowed to refer to his case; I know we are not allowed to refer to the details of it. But I am pretty sure New Zealand’s involvement in the Cricket World Cup was known before that time and we knew then that we would need legislation on match fixing. I had discussions in I think June 2012—maybe in 2011 but in 2012 certainly—in 2013 and four or five times earlier this year with Ministers opposite to indicate that the Labour Party was supportive of whatever reasonable legislative change was necessary in order to get this legislation through in a way that helped our international reputation and was fair to the players involved.There were a lot of discussions and even at the point that the legislation was sitting on the Table—and it sat on the Table for a reasonable period of time before it was sent off to the Law and Order Committee—I indicated to Ministers opposite that we did not want to be caught in exactly this situation after the election in the period heading up to Christmas taking up valuable parliamentary time on legislation around which there was a degree of unanimity within Parliament. So I indicated to Ministers opposite that if they wanted to they could send the committee off with a truncated first reading as long as we had a day at the committee to question the officials from Sport New Zealand the Ministry of Justice and the various sporting organisations. It would probably have taken a couple of hours to work through the questions with the people who had the answers to those questions.I do not know what happened to the organisation of the House but that did not occur. We had the first reading. The bill was sent off and—as I have indicated to the House previously and it is not worth going over it too much more—I indicated to the chair of the Law and Order Committee that if we could work through the issues with Sport New Zealand with the Rugby Union with the Rugby League Association and with New Zealand Cricket as a minimum group and as part of a group with the TAB which of course has quite a lot of expertise in that area then the Labour Party would facilitate the further passage of the bill. I again indicated to Ministers opposite that this stage of the bill would probably not be necessary if we could get unanimity but as has been indicated the undertaking to get the sporting organisations in was not met apparently because officials told the chair of the select committee that it was not necessary. Officials told the chair of the select committee that it was not necessary. It is an unusual approach for members of a select committee who are looking to foreshorten parliamentary time and debate to get things through not to work in a cooperative way.I do want to say that it is not my intention that the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill be the Act of 2015. You know it is our intention—just to stay strictly on the letter of it—to get it through in 2014 rather than leave it to the couple of days that would be available when Parliament gets back in the new year. It might interrupt the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement if we have to pressure it in that way to get it through before the Cricket World Cup.With regard to some of the detailed questions I think it is probably worth giving a bit of a signal as to the areas that we do want to ask questions about. I want to ask questions when we get on to later clauses of the bill around the International Rugby Board rules and how they relate to this—whether they are consistent with this area or not. I want to ask about the FIFA rules and the decisions as to where to hold matches that are currently the subject of corruption allegations as far as the FIFA organisation is concerned. I want to ask whether the location of matches and the betting on where matches are located are caught by this bill or whether or not it is concerned with only match-fixing within a particular match or not. So what I am trying to find out here is the scope of the legislation.I want to ask the Minister in the chair—and I do not mind whether he replies later when he is properly briefed—which countries are covered. Is it a betting outcome in New Zealand and therefore a bet within New Zealand? Is a bet with Centrebet covered and if it is a New Zealander who makes the bet and if the bet with Centrebet is covered what if the activity is offshore? Are offshore activities covered or are they only covered in New Zealand? So is a New Zealander betting with Centrebet on something in New Zealand covered or not? Is someone betting with a local bookie covered? Are we covering only legal bets or are we covering illegal bets? There are a lot of questions in that area.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First):I appreciate the time given. I would like to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of this amendment bill albeit it is only a very short piece of amendment that is taking place but I think a very very important one. I spoke on this amendment last week for some time although I struggled to fill up 10 whole minutes because of course it is in fact only one line of difference but a very important line none the less.I do support some of what Mr Mallard is talking about with regard to what it is going to be covered as far as betting goes whether it is illegal betting or otherwise. In actual fact I think this piece of legislation does make sense. I can understand the reference to the speed with which it is coming forward because of course we have this very auspicious occasion starting up on Valentine’s Day next year which of course is the start of the Cricket World Cup. All lovers of cricket will be making love to the game and getting out there in plentiful supply and watching this great game. All nations of the world will obviously have their eyes fixated on New Zealand. I think that is great and it is very very important for us to be able to push this piece of legislation forward in a manner so as to actually say that this sort of behaviour—this match fixing this illegal activity—is not going to take hold in this country.It was mentioned by a member in the last sitting that this is something that has only just started to creep in in recent times. In fact I do not believe that is the case at all. I think match fixing has been around for a long time. I think it is the ugly side to sports and recreation. Of course now that we have got so much sport betting going on around the world I think we need to be seen to be doing a lot more with regard to that sort of illegal activity. There was a reference to the cost in 2010—that internationally illegal betting and match fixing cost the world about $140 billion which is a huge figure when you think about what goes on behind the scenes to organise this sort of activity. We can all remember in very recent times of course the gamekeeper and poacher Lou Vincent coming clean with what has been going on within our own cricket. That was a great eye-opener for all who thought that we were somehow disenfranchised from the rest of the world when it comes to game fixing. Of course we have seen it with the boxing in Don King’s era and many other sports and of course Lance Armstrong with his Tour de France. It was a big shock to New Zealand and New Zealanders when we saw our very own hero sportspeople being enthralled by that sort of illegal activity.We remember the Rugby World Cup final in 1995 which of course you could say was match fixing by illegal activity in South Africa where we had the World Cup final. Our All Blacks were poisoned in the final and therefore lost by a slim margin. That to me is a huge indictment on that particular sporting event and a sporting occasion that the world holds in such high esteem let alone New Zealanders who hold rugby and netball at the heart of their souls. In 1981 we witnessed the underarm bowling by Trevor Chappell. On the last ball we had to get a six to make it even for the Benson and Hedges World Series Cup final and of course he did a dirty underarm bowl and we will never forget that moment either.These are the sorts of things that I think should be encapsulated in this bill because they are the sorts of illegal activities that change the outcome of bets. People do like to put money on but that can of course be manipulated by one person within a team of many. It may or may not be themselves gaining some remunerative interests and some gains. We need to make sure that that behaviour does not happen because of course it has been going on for such a long time. With the World Cup coming we have got the world’s eyes looking upon New Zealand—with the Cricket World Cup in particular. I think this piece of legislation needs to be put through as quickly as possible with as little objection as possible and New Zealand First will commend the bill. Thank you very much.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.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau):As a brand-spanking-new member of the Law and Order Committee I have not been privy to the passage of this bill through the House up until this stage but as a self-confessed couch potato sports-mad—Jacinda Ardern: Well qualified.KELVIN DAVIS: Yes well I do consider myself well qualified—in fact I know I am the unluckiest guy never to be considered to be an All Black but despite that—Mike Sabin: There’s a queue of us.KELVIN DAVIS: There is a queue of us. There are a number of us who have just felt that if only the breaks had gone our way we would all be there along with Richie and Dan and the rest of them.I have to say that it brought back terrible memories too when the member from New Zealand First Clayton Mitchell started raising those historical issues such as the 1995 World Cup and that deceit—Suzie the tea lady how dare she bring down the hopes of a nation? Not to mention the referee in 1905 who denied Bob Deans that try—it was the saddest day of my life I have to say.The member the Hon Trevor Mallard raised a number of points though about the passage of this bill through the whole parliamentary process. I had to ask him what the issues actually were and he was saying that the select committee did not ask the sporting bodies to come in and explain their side of the story as this went through. I do take his point that it would have been really good to hear from Sport New Zealand to understand its thinking and from the New Zealand Rugby Union New Zealand Rugby League and New Zealand Cricket. It would be good to actually hear what best practice is in terms of preventing match fixing. Look I am not sure what best practice is. That is why it would be good for these organisations to tell us what it is they are actually doing already to prevent match fixing from going on.As we have heard—again from the New Zealand First member—who would have thought that Lance Armstrong would get away with what he did for so many years? We all just thought he was an awesome athlete and a machine on the cycle but we did not realise that in reality he was taking banned substances to improve his performance.I would really like to know some statistical information around where match fixing normally occurs. Which countries? Which sports? Are sportsmen more prone to match fixing when they are overseas or is it back here in New Zealand? Which nations and which sports are most prone to match fixing?Again someone else raised a point about Lou Vincent. We thought New Zealand cricket was squeaky clean and there was no way any member of the Black Caps or any other New Zealand national teams would even consider match fixing. Of course we have sadly been proved wrong—that in fact our New Zealand athletes can be as guilty as anyone else.It also raised the tragic circumstances around Hansie Cronje the South African cricket captain. He was a national icon and a national hero. Nobody ever thought that he would be involved in match fixing. I am actually told that his tragic death a few years later in a plane crash was not actually so much an accident; that was actually part of the cartels and syndicates actually getting their own back on him for fessing up to match fixing and implicating a whole lot of other people.Coming down to the title again the Hon Trevor Mallard has said that in 2006 the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill was first mooted. It could have been implemented in any year—2007 2008 right through until 2014 which is the date that is in the title at this stage. As he says we are not interested in making sure this is the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Act of 2015. We are happy for it to be 2014 but we are not happy that the process of this bill was truncated through the Law and Order Committee and that we did not have those sporting bodies that I have spoken about Sport New Zealand and the Rugby Union come in to talk.Of course the TAB is an organisation that we should not forget in our deliberations. I have to admit I have got a little TAB account. I put $50 in it some time back. I must admit I have not become a millionaire because of it. In fact it has been sitting in abeyance for the last 6 months or so because of a few bad bets. I have to say that the Thames Valley versus Buller rugby matches take on a whole new significance when you put 5 bucks on which way that game is going to go. Otherwise I would not necessarily watch it. The TAB would be an organisation that would be really good to hear from in terms of the way it monitors bets and whether or not it sees trends what sorts of things spark its interest if it sees massive amounts of money going on to real underdogs or anything like that. Again I am speculating but it would be good to know just what it does as the TAB to make sure that match fixing or bad bets do not get laid.With that I would just like to reiterate that it is unfortunate that those organisations did not get to come in and speak to the select committee. I am interested to listen to further argument and debate on this issue. Kia ora.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):This is a pretty short bill actually. It is only one page. It is about match fixing; that is what the title is. It is the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. We have known for a very long time that match fixing is a potential problem. We have also known for a very long time that early next year New Zealand will be hosting the international Cricket World Cup matches—half of them in New Zealand and half of them in Australia. We have known that we have the FIFA U-20 World Cup towards the middle of the year. These are important events.I have got to admit that I was very surprised when Trevor Mallard in his comments on this bill said that actually we have known for 9 years that we are getting these fixtures in New Zealand. If we have known for 9 years that we are getting these fixtures in New Zealand my question to the Minister in the chair Nick Smith is: why are we a week before we rise for Christmas and under some degree of pressure only now bringing this bill before the Committee for its Committee stage?I worry about that because first of all the title is about match fixing. Match fixing we know from all of the information that the Law and Order Committee received and the House has been given including in this departmental disclosure statement that there is a high risk of match fixing. It may be surprising to some New Zealanders but there is big money involved in it. For example the departmental disclosure statement says that international threat assessments warn of the increasing risk of crime syndicates and individuals targeting Australasia for sports match-fixing.Do we need a bill with this title? Yes of course we do. It is important. The disclosure statement also mentions as you will know Mr Chair that there have already been cases of match fixing in Australia and we know in relation to cricket with the Lou Vincent affair and the questions surrounding Chris Cairns that this has also been a problem affecting New Zealanders.This is not something that is without cost to New Zealand economically. Match fixing is bad in its own right because it is the exact opposite of what sport should be about. Sport is meant to be fair. You are meant as a spectator to be able to rely on the outcome of the match reflecting the respective strengths of the contesting teams.But this disclosure statement also points out that “Match-fixing would significantly damage the integrity value and growth of New Zealand sport which contributed $5 billion to our economy”. That is annually and their figures are based upon a number of years ago. So we do need a bill that makes a crime of match fixing.But then I was reading the regulatory impact statement and this really worries me. It says that the objective of having this in place in time for the world cup in February “imposes constraints on the range of legislative options that can be considered.” If we have known about this Minister for 9 years why are we dealing with it in a way that imposes constraints on getting the best bill possible before the House? Nine years. You can imagine back in 2006-07 the Minister was just getting some preliminary information about it. But this thing is getting really close. This could have been done a year ago. It could have been done 2 years ago or 3 years ago. I would not have expected the Government to have done it in 2009 but it should have done it over the last 3 years. This is what else the regulatory impact statement warns the House: “Requiring a Bill to be passed by the end of 2014 means creating comprehensive stand-alone and potentially complex match-fixing legislation is impractical.”Because this Government has been so tardy we have ruled out getting a comprehensive solution to this problem. On the one hand in the departmental disclosure structure they say this is an important problem. This is so important in fact that I think it costs the world $140 billion a year. That is the cost of match fixing.We know we have got important sporting events and the Government does what? It sits on its tail does nothing and rules out some of the important options that should have been considered. I hope Minister you are getting an answer to this question because it is a straightforward valid question going to the heart of whether this is the right piece of legislation to have before the House. I would have thought that—Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):I am very happy to answer the questions of the Opposition. Firstly who is the enforcement agency for this bill? That is absolutely common sense: it is the New Zealand Police. The second question: what happens when there is a mix of international sporting ventures where some of the offending may occur overseas and some may occur in New Zealand? Where any part of the offending occurs in New Zealand an offence is committed under this legislation. In respect of the questions about sporting codes there is non-criminal activity that may be unfair and is inappropriate and that is perfectly proper for each of the sporting codes to deal with.But in terms of the question asked by Mr Goff it is somewhat ironic. The Labour Party has just launched a workforce productivity question. Well I will talk about this workforce—Hon Phil Goff: I hope this is within the scope of the bill.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We are dealing with a one-clause bill Mr Goff. This is a one-clause bill. Should this Parliament be able to progress a one-clause bill in 6 months? Well I say the productivity of this Parliament needs to be questioned if we cannot progress a very simple bill that makes a simple change to the Crimes Act by making it plain that deception under the Crimes Act includes anybody who attempts to manipulate the betting process. That is why I say this Parliament should simply get on and pass this bill so we can ensure that events like the international Cricket World Cup are conducted in New Zealand with integrity.The last challenge I make to members opposite is that if they really had serious concerns about this bill why did they not do their job and do it with a minority report? They did not because they know this bill is well drafted and it is the right answer. They should stop filibustering improve the productivity of this Parliament and pass this bill.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):The Hon Nick Smith got to his feet I thought to answer my question. I thought: “That’s good. The Minister is on the ball. He’s well informed. He knows what the answer to the question is.” Did you hear Mr Chairman what the answer to the question was when we knew for 9 years that this was going to happen—why the regulatory impact statement says that options have been ruled out because the legislation has come so late to the House? We have not been obstructing this bill. Ask the chairman of the Law and Order Committee. We have been very cooperative in trying to pass it.I have got to say that this is a pretty shoddy job. The Minister says that the bill is well drafted. For heaven’s sake! This is a four-clause bill. One of the clauses they got wrong and it took the Legislation Advisory Committee in its submission to the House to bring it back to say: “Hey if you put this clause in you create a defence so that nothing could be match fixing for the purposes of making money.” The bill was not well drafted unfortunately. It had an out. It said that it does not apply to match fixing when match fixing is “for tactical or strategic sporting reasons”. Why Minister did you put that into the bill? The Legislation Advisory Committee said that that creates a loophole you could drive a railway train through—drive a railway train through.First of all this bill is late to the House—so late that the Government itself confesses we could not have a comprehensive piece of legislation to do the job. Secondly when the Government brings the bill to the House it has got only about 50 lines and three of them would have defeated the other 47. I do not call that effective. I do not call that good law-drafting. I do not call that a good job by the Minister.I want to come back to another point which was raised by Mr Mallard and that is that this bill by itself is of course just not going to do the job we want it to do. That is if this bill is to work you need a coordinated strategy. You need legislation. You need sporting codes in each of the major sporting organisations. They need to be mutually consistent and they need to be consistent with this bill. Sadly we did not have any of the sporting organisations before the committee to talk to the committee about that.Hon Trevor Mallard: Despite the undertaking from Mr Sabin.Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes. This is what I picked up. This is a note I took in the select committee. It was from the advice we got that the lifetime ban by a sporting body may be more effective in disincentivising match fixing than the penalties that are set out here under the match-fixing legislation which amends the Crimes Act. Obviously what we were told is that things other than this legislation would be absolutely vital. But I want to hear from the Minister not the sort of politicised response he gave before which said absolutely nothing; I want from the Minister some outline of what work has been done with those sporting organisations to find out whether the things that are really necessary to prevent match fixing have been done have been coordinated by the Government or Sport New Zealand and will be effective in stopping the scourge of match fixing and the money that can be made out of that.We were told of course that if things went wrong in this Cricket World Cup it would be badly damaging to the reputation of New Zealand. I accept that so what I wanted was comprehensive legislation yet the Government has said we do not have time to do it. Nine years is not long enough. Secondly I want to know that the other pieces of the jigsaw are there and do come together and we can go forward next year into an international Cricket World Cup knowing that all of the rules are in place because Sport New Zealand and the Minister for Sport and Recreation have done their job and can assure us that that is the case.I want a proper answer Minister. I do not want any political flimflam. I do not want an attack on this party or that party. I simply want to know whether you or the Minister whom you are representing have done their job. I have not heard that in your explanation to be fair. I have not heard it and I have not heard yet why you have taken so long. While you are thinking about those questions the regulatory impact statement says that this approach—because it is not the comprehensive approach—will only “substantially reduce the risk”. There is still risk there because it is not a comprehensive approach. I want to know how big that risk is. The regulatory impact statement says: “our preferred approach is proportionate to the level of risk.” What is the level of the risk? You know what the cost of match fixing was in 2010? It was $140 billion. That is a lot of money—$140 billion. Is this answer this rushed little piece of legislation proportionate?LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Kia ora Mr Chair. Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill as Labour’s associate sport spokesperson. It is interesting given we are 54 days away from the beginning of the Cricket World Cup. In fact the reality of this piece of legislation is that on 1 March 2011 New Zealand knew that it would be co-hosting the Cricket World Cup because New Zealand and Australia made the only bid to the ICC the International Cricket Council so we knew concretely that we would be hosting this event at this time. So I think our questions about why it has taken this Government so long to implement a piece of legislation that globally represents a $440 billion industry are serious. There have been articles written since 2010 about match fixing as a serious threat to sport so this issue is something that the Minister for Sport and Recreation certainly should have had a grasp of and that this Government has known has been on our agendas both sporting and political for over 3 years now.For the relevance of this piece of legislation in terms of betting specifically on the Cricket World Cup we have to look at the 2011 Cricket World Cup. There was over £1 billion worth—that is $NZ2.2 billion worth—of betting on the 2011 Cricket World Cup. So this is an incredibly significant piece of legislation.Obviously that is the economic argument about why this piece of legislation is incredibly relevant but having attended the National Māori Sports Awards on Saturday night I note that there are also social and other benefits to sport and unless we actually get legislation like this right it undermines the integrity of something that is dear to all New Zealanders’ hearts. As an international sportsperson having played both netball and rugby for New Zealand I understand how important sport is. It provides aspirations for young people to want to represent their country and through that obviously comes a sense of recognition of hard work being part of a team and being successful. So from my perspective it is all those things that matter to me when I look at sport and the context of sport in New Zealand.It has a $5 billion value here at home but the bigger value is actually about children being able to play sport being fit being healthy being part of teams competing building character and a whole lot of other things. Having attended the FNDC Far North Sports Awards a few weeks ago I know that the dream that young people have to represent their country and the community solidarity around ensuring that those young people have an opportunity to fulfil their potential really for me are the most important aspects of this piece of legislation and the relevance to us here in Aotearoa New Zealand.We have 49 matches that will be played. Australia will host 26 games in 14 venues. New Zealand will host 23 games across 7 venues. So this is an incredibly important piece of legislation and it seems ridiculous to me that the sporting codes in New Zealand have not had an opportunity to have much input into a comprehensive piece of legislation. This is a piecemeal approach and this really does reflect badly I believe not only on the Minister of Sport and Recreation but on the Government’s lack of prioritisation of the importance of sport in New Zealand.I think there are some serious questions to be answered by the Minister given that we have known since 1 March 2011 that we would be co-hosting the Cricket World Cup. I have chosen to focus on cricket because it is one of the four leading codes here in New Zealand along with rugby league and netball. I was not a member of the Law and Order Committee but I know how passionate my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard particularly is about sport and from our perspective not having the sporting codes involved to the degree we would have liked them to be is not about filibustering; actually this is serious business. We would have hoped that we would ensure that the specific voices—ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua):I move That the question be now put.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I want to reiterate to the Committee that it was my hope that this Committee stage would not be necessary. There was a series of questions that Labour Opposition members wanted to ask at the Law and Order Committee and we were denied that opportunity by Mike Sabin breaking his undertaking. I will give some of the questions on the list in the hope that the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith can now answer them. They are really practical questions like: who did Sport New Zealand consult? I ask him to list the organisations. Did it issue a consultation document? If so can that document be tabled? What were the responses from the sporting organisations? The Minister in the chair smiles but actually he is asking us to pass legislation and to pass it quickly. These are simple practical factual questions that should have been answered in the select committee but we were denied the opportunity to do so because of the approach of the chairman.What is the view of Drug Free Sport New Zealand? Does New Zealand suffer from match fixing as a result of cocaine debts as has occurred in Australia? Is that a practice that has occurred in New Zealand? Has it been picked up? Does Sport New Zealand know about it and if so within what sports? There is the question of steroid users and blackmail with them. Again there has been international evidence of blackmailers from sportspeople who have been involved in steroid use. Is that an issue in New Zealand? Has it been picked up and if so at what level? I think that all of us who have been around sports for a few years know that as dope testing has improved—for one thing at the time it came in the weight of the All Black front row dropped substantially—steroid drug use has gone away we think at the very top level. But what is happening further down and are people who are involved in steroid use subject to extra pressures that lead to blackmail and that lead to match-fixing?A number of colleagues have asked about the consistency of the rules. I want to reiterate to the Committee that it is my understanding that if I go to the local kōhanga reo and sit down with the boss there because she is the mother of a contracted rugby player albeit playing in London at the moment I am not allowed to have a bet on a rugby match at the New Zealand TAB or send a bet or whatever. Friends and family are caught out by the International Rugby Board’s rules. The question I have got is around what role Sport New Zealand has taken in trying to get consistency between the various rules and the law so that everyone can know we have a consistent package to work with.I want to ask when the Minister for Sport and Recreation last received a briefing on the Cairns case. We know that because of the importance of the issue to New Zealand’s reputation and the fact that there will be massive subcontinent betting on the cricket that is happening here in February and March the Minister will be receiving regular reports. I do not want the details of those reports but I do want to know that the Minister whether it is part of the weekly or fortnightly briefings or in some separate way is being properly kept up to date with the behind-the-scenes details. We know that we have some very good contacts in the International Cricket Council at the moment but the details are needed so that the Minister is kept up to date. I heard the Minister—I was out of the Chamber temporarily—indicate that the activities were to be activities that occur in New Zealand—SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 CommencementHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I want to reiterate to the Government whip in particular that if we get these questions answered then the debate is finished. If the questions the Opposition is asking are properly answered by Minister Smith—not in the way that I heard the Minister answer before but straight answers to straight questions—then as far as the Labour Opposition is concerned this debate will be completed. I cannot though speak for the other parties.There has been a series of questions asked. They are serious questions. They concern the commencement date when it starts. You know we are under a lot of pressure to get this through. The legislation comes into effect it says on 15 December. It could probably come into effect earlier than that if the Government wanted it to and gave straight answers. I want the Minister to give the straight answers. I am not the slightest bit interested in Mr Sabin after his reprehensible behaviour when he was giving answers to the questions that have been asked.I do want to ask the activity question. I am asking whether it will capture individuals who are involved in match fixing if they are currently offshore and if the activity is in New Zealand. What is the territorial basis for this—for the activity for the procurement and for the betting? Does a Centrebet bet count if it is made from New Zealand? Does a bet in the local pub count if it is made from New Zealand? If it is an activity in New Zealand and it is procured from Australia and the bet is in India is it captured? Who is captured? Is it only the people in New Zealand or is it the people who are involved offshore? Are they captured as well?I also want to ask a question about the International Cricket Council. Was it consulted and what was its response? One of the advantages of being a former Minister is that you do get a little bit of feedback from organisations and I know that New Zealand Cricket was certainly consulted. But was the International Cricket Council consulted and is it satisfied that this legislation does enough? Even more important is do the people who are really pulling the strings in international cricket care? Do the people from the subcontinent involved in this area—obviously not the New Zealanders involved—actually care or are there so many people on the take in this particular area that they actually encourage some of this approach?What consultation has there been with the sports broadcasting organisations including the international broadcasters especially around the timing issues? I think all of us know that on occasions the way that modern television occurs there is sometimes a slight delay and it is to fit in advertisements at the end of an over or during the ends of overs but it means that the timing is not exactly right. The question then is have there been consultations in that area and if so what are the results of those consultations? Of course a very slight delay gives a massive opportunity for spot fixing. It can be just 30 seconds and millions of rupees can be won or lost as a result of a spot-fixing approach where the result is certain to everyone—well not everyone; everyone other than the people who are taking the bets. They do not know about the exact result in this area.I go back to the Minister and I go back to the Government whips and ask whether they are prepared to answer the questions—or would the members opposite like to continue this debate at a clause an hour when in fact we would be prepared to wrap it up in 2 minutes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):It is hardly good faith for the member to demand that his questions be answered. For instance he has asked me how this works in respect of international jurisdictions when part of the offence is committed in New Zealand and part overseas. He then leaves the Chamber while I answer the questions and then on the next clause—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I left the Chamber before the Minister got to his feet. He is not allowed to draw attention to the absence of any member and I just want to assure the Chamber that I was listening to the political diatribe from the Minister in the chair.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I answered that specific question. I am more than happy to answer any legitimate questions on the clause and the clause that we are debating is clause 2 which states: “The Act comes into force on 15 December 2014.” That is the best practical date for this law to take effect.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The point was made about references in respect of members not being in the Chamber and the Minister know the rules around that. Is someone else seeking the call?Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Clause 4 New section 240A inserted (Application of section 240 to match-fixing)Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):A very quick question to the Minister: is he prepared to answer the straight questions that were asked on previous clauses now?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):I did give the Committee very plain answers to each of the questions in respect of who leads the enforcement which was the question that was raised by Jacinda Ardern. I said that it would be the police that would lead the enforcement. I was asked the question as to who would be responsible where a corrupt offence occurred and some of it occurred in Australia and some of the betting or some part of the offence was committed in New Zealand. My answer was that if any part of the deception occurred in New Zealand that would enable a charge to be laid under the Crimes Act in New Zealand. I was asked the question about the sporting codes and I again restate the answer and that is in May the Minister for Sport and Recreation released a policy around ensuring integrity in our sports. That developed into each of the sporting codes developing its code of ethics because this is about the highest offences. A person who commits a crime against the Crimes Act and against this betting offence is subject to up to 8 years’ imprisonment but it is perfectly proper that each sporting code also in parallel develops its sporting code.I reiterate that reasonable questions will be answered but I stress again that this bill has been before the House for 6 months. This bill has been to a select committee. No amendments have been put forward by any member. This is a very straightforward amendment that Parliament needs to get on and pass so that New Zealand can successfully host the Cricket World Cup with integrity and I think that is what all members of the Committee would like us to do.Clause 4 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.