Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 13 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2887. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Is he concerned that Pub Charity Chief Executive Martin Cheer has publicly declared that Pub Charity was using gaming machine money to fight the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill and what actions has the Department of Internal Affairs taken to enforce its direction that net proceeds were not to be used for lobbying? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 In answer to the member’s question I have not heard those particular comments but I am concerned about the misuse of gaming-machine money and am aware that some gaming societies may have been using net proceeds to support lobbying activities. The actions taken by the department are operational matters for the chief executive but I am advised that—[ 
Interruption 
] Do you want to hear the answer to the question or not? But I am advised that the department has written to all gaming-machine societies to remind them that gaming proceeds cannot be used for lobbying. I am also aware that in the case of Pub Charity the department has been assured that all activities relating to the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill are being funded by other sources and not from gaming proceeds. I am confident that should any evidence emerge that this is not the case the department would take the matter further. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister accept Mr Cheer’s view that the problem is “squarely at the feet of the DIA which had been ineffective in enforcing some of the exposed rorts”; if not what role does the Government play in alerting the Government to potential risks associated with deals such as that considered with Skycity in which additional pokie machines and gambling tables and an extension of the gambling licence are up for discussion? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I do not accept that the department is to blame for the problem. I believe that where non-compliance is a problem the blame lies squarely at the feet of the societies concerned. However I do believe that there are wider issues in the class 4 sector that need to be addressed to enhance the compliance regime. This is why the Government will be paying close attention to the gambling harm reduction bill and to the select committee process in order to inform our actions going forward. 
David Shearer 
: Is he satisfied that New Zealand’s gaming laws are not for sale to lobbyists? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Is it his intention to apply a similar standard—i.e. net proceeds are not to be used for lobbying purposes—to Skycity which has successfully lobbied the Prime Minister for preferential gambling arrangements? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Points of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: The primary question to be answered here deals with class 4 gambling. The regime that is applied to casinos is a totally different regime and not applicable to the main question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think there are two points that can be made that will mean that you will rule out the—I see the Minister is getting advice from the maestro at the moment. There are two points that should be made. One is that the answer that the Minister gave to the primary question was very wide and certainly allowed that supplementary question. The second one is that asking whether or not rules that apply to one class of gambling should be applied to another is also within order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The primary question principally was to the Minister of Internal Affairs and that is where his responsibility actually lies. His responsibility is managing and affirming the way in which the Department of Internal Affairs operates and I regardthis supplementary question by the Leader of the Opposition as having stepped wide of that. 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I spoke directly to that Minister and his responsibilities. I was simply giving the example of the way that Skycity has used its proceeds to lobby the Prime Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This Minister is responsible for the gaming legislation which applies both to pokie trusts and to Skycity. Asking him whether or not he is going to be consistent between those classes of gaming is certainly a matter absolutely for his responsibility. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Deputy Speaker I do think you need to—as you have already directed the House—go back to the primary question. It talked about the Pub Charity Chief Executive Martin Cheer and then asks for comment on his publicly declared statement etc. That was a very very specific primary question; it got very very specific answers. To try to widen it through other supplementary questions I think is pushing too far. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Sorry Mr Deputy Speaker but I want to speak further to that— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will hear the member. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: —because it is an important point that the Leader of the House makes. It has always been the tradition in this House that supplementary questions are based on questions further supplementary questions and all answers that Ministers give. If we cannot do a supplementary question based on an answer if the Minister extends it wider as he did—and there is no doubt that he did that; it was a very long answer—then the whole purpose of questions falls apart. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contribution. I am just a little concerned that if we do step wide of the mark it does not continue to keep opening up the subject wider and wider. I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to restate his question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to the ruling you have just made I just want to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 169/7 which says “If a Minister in an oral answer to a question adds something more than was sought the additional material could be the basis for a supplementary question.” That seems to be directly contradictory to what you have just said. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No what I have just said is I want to hear the Leader of the Opposition restate the question. 
David Shearer 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that. Is it his intention to apply a similar standard—i.e. proceeds are not to be used for lobbying purposes—to Skycity which has successfully lobbied the Prime Minister for preferential gambling arrangements? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The second part of the question is an opinion. The first part of the question is in order and I will ask the Minister to respond to the first part of the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There have been multiple press statements and claims by the Prime Minister in the election campaign of a change for Skycity. For you to say that that is an opinion and not a fact is just wrong. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Deputy Speaker I just want to contribute by saying that I think you are right to say that there were two parts to that question. The first part was a very straightforward question—I think relatively easily answered by the Minister—but the second part was a supposition that cannot be reached. We are talking about a public company. Public companies do all sorts of things including inviting people to corporate boxes to watch rugby.  
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I intend to apply the law consistently and on the second part of the member’s question I reject his assertion. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Te Ururoa Flavell. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Can the House please come to order. I am accepting a supplementary question from Te Ururoa Flavell. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does he agree with the Lion Foundation that legislative reform is necessary to address some of the problems in the charitable gaming sector and increase the returns to the community; if so what is his response to its recommendation that a minimum of 80 percent of the net proceeds raised in a territorial authority or council district must be granted to applicants in that same territorial authority or district? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Again I have not heard those exact comments but I agree that there are problems in the charitable sector and action of some kind is necessary. The Government will be paying close attention to the submissions made to the Commerce Committee on this bill to inform the actions we take in response to this issue. I am aware that the bill seeks to return proceeds to the communities from which they are raised and I am sure the select committee will hear many interesting submissions in this regard.