Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19844] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The genesis of this bill goes back to some time ago when the Government realised it had made a mistake—another mistake. We have just heard in earlier debates about how this Government is prone to making mistakes. At the eleventh hour the Government wanted to bring in in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) the provision we are now talking about. National opposed that. We said that this was important legislation. This matter should have been corrected during the debate on the Gambling Bill in 2003. It was not therefore there needs to be an amendment to the Gambling Act specifically so those organisations affected by the key persons provision have the opportunity to have a say. Otherwise that opportunity would have been limited. 
In respect of the current provision in the Act I have a letter from the Department of Internal Affairs dated 19 December which went out to the trusts stating that it had great difficulty when wanting to make any changes. It stated that section 113(1)(b) of the Gambling Act prohibits a key person in relation to a venue from being involved in decisions about grants or in the management or distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. That is what the department said at the time. It went on to state that there could be a conflict of interest and then suggested that one could get around that by having a new independent community society. 
We must remember that prior to 1 July 2004—that was the operative date—elected members of licensing trusts were able to distribute the proceeds. It was only from 1 July last year that suddenly they were not able to be involved in the distribution of grants from their machines. The Department of Internal Affairs’ position at the time was that it could fix that but that the community would have to set up new independent community societies. That was a way around it. It stated: “It is open to the community in which a licensing trust operates to establish a trust to apply for a licence to operate gaming machines and to distribute the proceeds from those machines for authorised purposes within the community.” 
So there is conflict between the advice the Department of Internal Affairs is giving and the Government’s measure. It says that cannot be done but under the Official Information Act I got all these papers—because they are considerable—about the arguments relating to the provision about the key persons. On one hand the Government has realised it has made a mistake—a big mistake in fact—and on the other hand its advisers through the Department of Internal Affairs are suggesting another means by which it could be remedied; that is that by setting up a separate independent operation. 
National does not subscribe to that. We believe elected members of the trusts are clearly elected from the community and they should not be disqualified by that. They hold both these positions they have an interest in the licensing trust as an outlet and they should be involved also in what goes on. They clearly have no financial or proprietary interest in the operations of a licensing trust so why should they not be involved in the distribution of those funds to the community? I have a list of licensing trusts and it is quite interesting to see that they are throughout the country. Northern Trusts Ltd which includes the Mt Wellington Otara and Papatoetoe licensing trusts. There is the Invercargill Licensing Trust Charitable Trust. We have the Trust House Charitable Trust which includes Masterton Rimutaka and Flaxmere licensing trusts— 
Georgina Beyer 
: Hear hear! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: —the member from those areas has acknowledged that. We have the Ashburton Trust Charitable Foundation; West Auckland Trust Services Ltd which includes the Portage Licensing Trust and Waitakere Licensing Trust; Mana Community Grants Foundation which is the Porirua Licensing Trust; and then we have the Trust Charitable Foundation which covers both the North and South Islands including the licensing trusts at Cheviot Clutha Geraldine Johnsonville Mataura Oamaru Papatoetoe Portage Te Kauwhata and Waitakere. So there is a wide spread of interests throughout the community. 
Our position is quite clear: those people who are elected are elected by the community; they should have an opportunity to be part of that. One must realise that licensing trusts are not eligible to operate gaming-machines under the Gambling Act. However some licensed gaming-machine societies choose to operate the machines in those premises. So it is not an argument about whether we agree at all with liquor licensing trusts and whether we should have them. They exist and we want to make sure they have the ability to perform their functions. Many charitable societies have allowed and want to continue to allow the elected licensing trust members to be involved in the decisions about the operation of gaming-machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. As I said earlier this was the position prior to 1 July 2004 and it is only since this Act came into being that that provision has been taken away. 
National is very happy that this bill has come forward in this form as a Gambling Amendment Bill not as a Statutes Amendment Bill because it is worthy of further debate. We are particularly interested that this be progressed now so that those people elected to licensing trusts throughout the country who do a good job and put back into the community the profits from the proceeds of gaming machines—about $25 million—should be able to exercise their best judgment and be part of the distributions committee.