Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8492] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to draw the Committee’s attention to clause 268 of the Gambling Bill. That relates to the abolition of the Casino Control Authority. That is an organisation that was set up many many years ago. When I look at the  
Hansard 
 of 24 July 1990 I note that of the debates that took place at that time there are six Labour members of Parliament still in the House who voted for the Casino Control Bill which set up the Casino Control Authority. 
It is interesting to note that the reason the Casino Control Authority was set up back in 1989 was that it was deemed important that the authority be at arm’s length from the Government and that by doing so it was accountable and transparent. The Commerce and Marketing Committee stated of the Casino Control Bill in December 1989: “The New Zealand casino industry should not be Government-owned.” The report went on to state: “Decisions on licences should be made by an independent agency not the Government.” Yet this bill takes those requirements away from the Casino Control Authority—those will go to the Gambling Commission—and we are concerned about the politicisation that will occur through the Department of Internal Affairs. Further the Commerce and Marketing Committee stated in its report of December 1989 that mindful of the principles that no single body or individual should be both policeman and judge it had decided that there was a very clear demarcation in the roles. 
That is National’s position. We have said all along in the select committee and right through the process that there needs to be a clear demarcation between an independent body to monitor performance and licensing and anything associated with casinos. However the Gambling Commission that will come into effect does not actually cover the whole realm of gaming. The TAB is excluded. That is an industry that deals with a gaming product. One would have thought that the Gambling Commission would be a one-stop shop where one would go to consider anything related to licensing and the policing of a gaming product but the TAB which has now merged with the Racing Industry Board to form the New Zealand Racing Board is not included. Yet the racing industry through its products including sports and race betting on which it has a monopoly is not included and does not come under the jurisdiction of the Gambling Commission. 
The Lotteries Commission which Judith Collins has just mentioned is another stand-alone body and one would have thought that it would have also been subject to the Gambling Commission. The position that I and National hold is that there needs to be a one-stop shop that handles the whole area of gaming. 
If we look at clause 267 “Casino Control Authority abolished” we note that it is not included as a provision that comes into effect on the day after the date on which the legislation receives the royal assent. The amendment to clause 2 on Supplementary Order Paper 132 includes all the sections that will come into effect then and we note that the abolition of the Casino Control Authority is not included. We do not actually know what the date will be. We know that there will be some lead time. The clause states that the authority will be dissolved 3 months after the section comes into force. It does not come into force on the day after the date on which the legislation receives the royal assent which is something that one might have considered to be important. 
The other area that I think is important and that we should consider is what happens when the Casino Control Authority is dissolved. In clause 268 “Consequences of dissolution” we find that it is an organisation that over time has built up some non-monetary assets. There was also some Government money that went to set up the authority at the time it was established. That was repaid but any money that is now held by the authority has come from those who have made applications for casino licences because it has been a self-funding regime. There has been no Government money go into it. It has been self-funding. Yet clause 268 provides in subclause (1)(d) that: “all proceedings by or against the Authority may be continued completed or enforced by or against the Crown.” 
There is some money in the kitty—about $800000 I understand—and that money will go to the Crown. The Crown has not had any involvement other than at the start and that money was paid back. It is our view that—and I would like the Minister in the chair George Hawkins to take a call on this—that money that is sitting there at the moment paid for by casino applications should go back to the people who put the applications in. Why does it not go back to the casinos? There have been some surpluses from casino applications in some cases but in a lot of cases the application fees did not cover the costs. There has been a rollover and a levelling out but there are some monetary assets in existence. I would like the Minister to take a call to explain why this bill provides for the Crown taking those assets and putting them into the consolidated account. They will not go into the problem gambling levy although they could—most people would not have any objection to that—but instead the Crown will take the money and put it into the consolidated account. 
The point I am making is that that money was never put up by the Government in the first place. One of the shortcomings of the bill is that it is taking money put into the authority by the private sector for private applications—and even those people whose applications were not successful had to pay the money. Clause 268(1)(a) states: “all property belonging to the Authority vests in the Crown;”. I would like the Minister to take a call to justify why there is so much money—about $800000—sitting there that will go into the Crown account when it should go back to the industry and the participants who put the money into that particular area. 
The Casino Control Authority has proved its point and has been a very good watchdog. Judith Collins was the chair of that authority so she knows specifically how it works. She knows where it could have been improved and what it could contribute. When that disappears the expertise of the people who were involved in it disappears. We are moving to a Gambling Commission that as I said earlier has a lot of shortcomings because it does not encompass the whole realm of gaming. I say again that any gaming authority should be a one-stop shop and this bill falls short of that. 
There could have been opportunities to have the TAB included in the legislation. The TAB is a huge provider of gaming services. As I said it is an industry that has a monopoly in sports and race betting with online accounts so it is a significant player in the whole gaming industry yet the Gambling Commission will have no jurisdiction or input into how the TAB will operate in the future. That would have been a very good area to be included.