te Heuheu Georgina: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8500] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 Part 3 deals with institutions. It deals with the establishment of the Gambling Commission and sets out appointment criteria. As an aside to that it abolishes the Casino Control Authority which is a great pity because I think that the record of that authority was a very fine one particularly under the previous Government. More than that it was a body that could be seen to be at arm’s length from the Government which is more than one can say for the new organisation that will take its place—the Gambling Commission. I say that—notwithstanding the Minister’s earlier speech in which he tried to reassure the Committee that the Gambling Commission would be independent—because of the record of this Government in its appointments to quangos. The Government has had failures with the likes of Susan Bathgate— 
Hon David Carter 
: Ella Henry. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes Ella Henry and Greg Fortuin. 
Hon David Carter 
: He wasn’t exactly a huge success. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No he was not. Funnily enough the only success the Government has had has been with people of a National background—reliable sorts of people. But its own political appointments have been abysmal failures. 
Hon David Carter 
: They haven’t got a huge bulk of talent to select from. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That is probably it and that is probably why Jill Pettis can shout out the names of only National supporters to appoint. The reality is I suppose that the Government’s people get so mixed up in the politics of things that they are unable to discharge statutory responsibilities properly. That is the record of this Government. 
The other reason I am not convinced by the Minister’s earlier speech on the so-called independence of the Gambling Commission is that it is tied to the department. It has no administrative independence of its own. It is totally dependent on the administration of the Department of Internal Affairs which itself is beholden to the Minister or is it the other way around? The Minister might be beholden to the department. He is probably captured by his officials anyway and that is why when he stands up to make a speech and reassure us about the commission’s independence his explanation does not make sense and will not wash. 
This bill establishes a new organisation which has no particular value as far as I can see. After the review that the Government has had of this whole area the new Gambling Commission will not even cover all the forms of gambling in this country. So on that point the Government has not succeeded either and Part 3 is symptomatic of the myriad of contradictions that are present in this bill. 
The other point I want to raise follows on a little from my colleague David Carter—though I will not in particular and from my point of view pick on Derek Fox as he has been used and abused by the current Government. My point relates to the appointment criteria of knowledge experience and expertise. I am not quite sure what they relate to. Is it gambling? Is it business? 
Hon David Carter 
: No just gambling with $70 million of taxpayers’ money. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Well that is in relation to the contribution my colleague just made. The section of the commentary on the bill under the heading “Part 3—Institutions” states: “… we do not agree with submitters that a proportion of Gambling Commissioners should have expertise in particular disciplines such as public health’’—right; National certainly agrees with that—“or enjoy the support of particular sections of the community (such as Maori) ...”. That is fine but at the end of that paragraph it states: “Notwithstanding this we note the State Services Commission’s  
Board Appointment and Induction Guidelines 
 requires consultation with TPK on appointments and consideration of the mix of representation on the body including the representation of Maori.” Why would that be relevant now when this is the Government that is preventing the Rotorua development company Pukeroa-Oruawhata from developing a casino? Why on earth would that note be relevant in that commentary when this Government—the one that takes the votes of Maori people—will happily deny the Pukeroa-Oruawhata development company the opportunity to take the issue back to the residents of Rotorua?