Collins Judith: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Collins Judith: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8505] 
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.