Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8478] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I have a Supplementary Order Paper No. 110 which covers a number of clauses in this part that I believe are important and that deserve the consideration of the Committee. They are important clauses. The first one I draw members’ attention to is clause 100 which came up earlier when we were talking about the definitions of “casino”. It came up in the debate about organisations taverns or whatever that use the name “casino” and I have a Supplementary Order Paper relating to that clause. It is very important to note that although the bill allows for a reduction in organisations calling themselves casinos and that the period for reduction is now down from 3 years to 18 months it does not actually stop somebody going out today and calling his or her business a casino—because there is a time-lag. So although we can pass the bill today it does not stop me from going out tomorrow and calling my business a casino. 
The idea of casino branding is specifically to stop those places that are not casinos and not licensed under the Casino Control Act from calling themselves casinos. Under the Fair Trading Act this is a very very important point. In fact some case law says that a business cannot call itself a casino when it is not a casino licensed under the Casino Control Act. So the point that I make here which is very important is that this bill does not go far enough—and this would be one of the clauses that National would support if it went further—because it allows those organisations that want to start up businesses tomorrow to call themselves casinos in this interim period of 18 months. We believe that that is wrong. We believe adequate notice has been given to those places that call themselves casinos to adapt to their own brand—and this is a branding exercise—and to make those changes with their signage promotion advertising and whatever. But to call themselves casinos is misleading. It is against the Fair Trading Act. This is one area of my Supplementary Order Paper that deserves consideration. 
The next clause I bring members’ attention to is clause 75D about note acceptors which are also referred to in clause 154B. There is absolutely no evidence around the world at all that if we did away with note acceptors and moved to coins the problem-gambling issue would disappear. There is absolutely no evidence at all. In fact places like South Australia which does not have note acceptors have approximately the same levels of problem gambling as the states of Victoria New South Wales and Queensland. But the issue about doing away with note acceptors is that there will be huge compliance costs and a lot more cash will have to be handled. The research I mentioned before does not actually overcome this area of problem gambling. 
The other issue is that people can bet with bet cards such as I hold in my hand. In the second reading debate I talked about these cards and this one has about $4 in value left on it. Instead of using cash and putting my $20 or $50 note in the machine I could put in this “e-bet” card which is a united gaming solution card and use this means of gambling. So the technology is here. If we want to eliminate or reduce problem gambling the best way to do it is to slow down the machines. That is what we could do. Telling people that they cannot put $50 notes or $100 notes into machines does not actually solve the problem. So my Supplementary Order Paper omits the whole of clause 75D and also the clause relating to gambling machines in casinos clause 154B which says: “Get rid of them. They are a nonsense; they are not necessary; they do not do anything.” The idea behind the clause is one of all for nothing; there is no evidence to support it. 
My Supplementary Order Paper also relates to clause 120 “Suspension or cancellation of casino licence”. It is very very important when we bring forward this sort of legislation that it carries forward a provision currently in the Casino Control Act. At the moment it does not do that so I have suggested an amendment to clause 120 to insert: “the integrity of casino operations is jeopardised and the public interest adversely affected because”—of whatever reason. There really needs to be a gateway. There needs to be a yardstick by which we can measure whether a suspension or cancellation of a licence is important. If we were to carry through the provision currently in law then clause 120 would suffice if added to and we would be happy to support it. I have moved then for clause 120 to be changed by the addition of another sentence that in our view clarifies the position we believe is so important. 
My Supplementary Order Paper also inserts a new clause which I refer to as clause 125B and which is headed: “Appeal to Gambling Commission regarding significant influence”. There is nothing in the bill that takes care of that subject and it is certainly my view having studied it very seriously and having sat on the select committee that there is an opportunity here to include a clause as I have done in my Supplementary Order Paper. My new clause 125B states: “When the Secretary determines that a person has significant influence in a casino that person or the licence holder may appeal to the Gambling Commission against that determination.” That is the sort of transparency that we believe is so important. At the moment the bill is lacking in that area. 
Moving further through the Supplementary Order Paper I have a new clause 125C “Pending applications” which states: “The Secretary may permit a person who will become an associated person by virtue of his or her position as an employee of a casino licence holder and who has submitted an application for approval as an associated person to commence employment in the casino or undertake services ...”. At the moment people who want to have employment in a casino can wait for months. It can take months for those people to be able to work in a casino because they have not been approved. My amendment would allow for some flexibility. I am not saying that we should relax the laws. I am saying that we should go through the process of vetting those people and making sure they fit the criteria because if there is a pending application—and that is what my new clause 125C states—it is important that those people are allowed that opportunity. 
The explanatory note to my Supplementary Order Paper clearly articulates the points I am making. It states: “New clause 125C allows employees who need to be approved as associated persons to commence duties prior to receiving their approval. Approval tends to take three to five months and this new clause is consistent with the provision contained in clause 141 relating to certificate of approval.” So this clause gives flexibility. It allows that person who may be the best person for the job but who is hamstrung because the bill does not allow that opportunity to be taken on board. When people are working in this area especially in the area of casino operations then the restrictions the criteria and the vetting that goes on is very very important. Casino operators want to make sure that they have the best people for the job and that those people have the integrity to work in those operations because that reflects on the way operators do business. 
So I have a number of amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 110. I ask for support for those amendments because they add value to the bill as presented by the Government.