Tisch Lindsay: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tisch Lindsay: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17802. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I would like the Minister to explain the weightings in the levy formula if he can. I know that it is a technical matter but I did mention it in the second reading debate. When recommendations were first made—and I have the figures from a Cabinet policy paper—the presentation figures were 0.8 or 80 percent and the expenditure items were 20 percent based on turnover. In the Gambling (Problem Gambling Levy) Regulations of 2004 why do we find that the presentation figures are at 0.9 or 90 percent and the expenditure or turnover figures are at 0.1 or 10 percent? The point I am making is that there is no substantive information in changing the recommendation that was made some time ago to justify why the weightings between W1 and W2 were changed in the problem gambling levy formula. I think that is significant because when we remember that these levies have been set now for 3 years we know there will be a distortion within the industry as to what those weightings will mean in 3 years’ time. I am thinking 3 years ahead to 2007 when we will see major distortions in my view as to what the weightings actually mean. 
All the research that has been done and certainly that I have had access to would indicate a weighting even lower than the Cabinet paper states—even as low as 70 percent—for presentation. I will explain what presentation means. It is the incidence of someone coming along and saying that he or she has a problem. That is what that 0.9 figure has been based on not on whether the person has been assessed as having a problem. It is just a matter of someone coming along and saying he or she has a gambling problem; that is where the presentation and the 0.9 figure comes from. There is no clinical analysis and no one sits down and analyses whether the person does actually have a problem and what sort of help may be needed. If we take that into account then the figure here in this bill of 0.9 or 90 percent is far too high. It cannot be justified by the Ministry of Health and it cannot be justified by the treatment providers whose job it is to be at the forefront of trying to work this problem through. So I question the Minister about that figure. I see him throw his hands up in horror but he should be aware that we are supporting this bill. I just want to be given some clarification of that figure. Maybe the advisers could come back to me at a later time because I know the Minister will discuss the issue with them. I think that when statistics have been used and figures have been taken out of national statistics then there certainly can be some room for error. That is the first point and I am happy if I can have an answer on that at a later date. 
The second point I want to raise concerns the actual percentage of the problem gambling levy. When we look at what the levy states which is in the schedule under problem gambling levy rates we see that the casino operator will pay 0.51 percent the gaming machine operator 1.11 percent the Lotteries Commission 0.14 percent and the New Zealand Racing Board 0.57 percent. That is fine; I have no difficulty with that at all. But I also ask the same question of the Minister about another memo that has different figures for the 3-year period. The figures in the bill are actually lower than those so that is fine—I am happy with that. But I want to know why the figures are lower now than those in the earlier recommendations when the levy calculations were being worked out for the proposed problem gambling levy. We agree that they should be lower for some of the reasons that I mentioned before but once again there has been no justification given in replies to questions I have asked as to how those figures have been worked through. 
When the proposed problem gambling levy was mooted the requirement was for a sum of up to about $56 million over a 3-year period and that figure has come back to $54.5 million. We are comfortable with that. Although as I said earlier there is no justification for the huge increases at least the percentage has come down. In terms of gaming operators whether they be the Lotteries Commission the Lottery Grants Board of which I am a member the Racing Board casinos or non-casino operators huge compliance costs have been put on them. The figures have not been justified; they have been just plucked out of the air. No doubt members are being inundated at the moment by groups especially those in the charitable cultural and sporting areas that are being told by the major gaming operators that less funding will be available to them for their purposes and that they will have to budget accordingly. When we look at where the proceeds of the levy go in terms of funding for organisations we see that it is just another huge compliance cost that adds to the burdens and woes of those groups. The organisations that need to be helped in the community will be the losers from that.