Sio William: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSio William: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6471. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I am happy to take a call on Part 2 “Miscellaneous matters”. It is very brief and therefore I will try to keep my comments brief as well. I do want to refer immediately to clause 17. As I understand it the Gambling Commission follows the judicial line when it comes to the appeals process. What I am noting is that before any person can apply for a judicial review they have actually got to exercise their right to appeal.The question I would ask the Minister of Internal Affairs is to do with the fact that I thought the purpose of this particular section was to ensure that the appeals process was done efficiently. Therefore there is an expectation that the appeals be conducted quite quickly. The way I read it a person could not seek a judicial review in the immediate sense unless they conducted the appeal and it reached an end. Therefore it seems like in this particular process we have actually prolonged the whole appeals process and if a decision has been made about cancelling or suspending or revoking a licence how long will this process take before a final decision is made?The reason why I ask that question Minister is that as many in the Chamber will be aware there are many sports organisations that may be dependent on the funding that comes from that particular pokie machine. To not be specific about the length of time that it will take in order for appeals to take place particularly where a licence has been suspended actually leaves those sports organisations in a bit of limbo. That is the first question.The second thing I would say about the appeals process is that what is not there which I think the Minister ought to be concerned about is the fact that the community and local government have over successive years taken a keen interest in this particular industry particularly where gambling-licensed pokie machines are concerned. What is not there is where local government can play a role or communities can play a role in the instance where a licence has been granted. What happens if local government or the local board has a policy where it is saying that it has a sinking-lid policy? Does it then have a right under this political process to appeal a decision by the Gambling Commission in order to maintain that sinking-lid policy despite the fact that a person might be applying for an extension of that particular licence?I know that the Minister would be very well aware that many communities and particularly impoverished communities have become reliant on pokie-machine gambling in fact as a natural part of them attempting to just make ends meet. There are organised communities including church organisations that would want to have the right to have a say in decisions that have been made by the Gambling Commission and in particular with the granting of particular licences in certain aspects of our community. Again that seems to be missing from clause 17. If the Minister has any intention of including the rights of local government and local boards—the rights of communities to be part of the appeals process—then it should also be in clause 20 in terms of the new schedule there. Again because it is missing in clause 17 it appears to be missing in clause 20.But ultimately if this bill is about being open and being transparent then there is nothing in here about how the Gambling Commission intends to minimise the harm that pokie machines bring to the local communities. Some years back when I was on local government on that famous Manukau City Council before it was rudely destroyed by this Government the council undertook to do a review of the impact of pokie machines on that particular city. After the council had conducted the review in 2004 it found that after taking all the money that came in and disbursing the money to the sports organisations what it ended up with was a deficit of $100 million in that community.So I would have thought that ultimately the fundamental legislation was about reducing harm. Ultimately this bill here is about being open and being transparent and yet it fails to highlight how these procedures would enable the community to have a say would enable local government to have a say and would also enable the community to see how these processes are going to ensure the reduction of harm to the local community.But I want to emphasise that I think if the Government is quite serious about being open and transparent in how it conducts this particular industry then what is missing in Part 2 clause 17 is where community organisations and local board organisations can intervene and have a say on the Gambling Commission’s decisions where licences have been granted and yet the communities may have wanted that particular licence to be no longer established or where the community has a policy or the local board may have had a policy a sinking-lid policy pertaining to that community. I am genuinely asking the Minister whether he would entertain making an amendment that can ensure that local boards and communities can have an input in terms of the appeals process in clause 17 and also in clause 20.