Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8508] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I have lodged Supplementary Order Paper 136 and I want to finish up on what I mentioned earlier in terms of the formula in clause 287. I made the point that we were quite happy with the Minister of Internal Affairs’ formula on Supplementary Order Paper 132 but it did not go far enough. I want to reiterate the main points and say what in my Supplementary Order Paper the value of “P1” is. I talked about “C” being the integrated approach which covered a number of issues and now will explain what “P1”—it is referred to in the explanatory note—relates to. 
We have new technology coming in with new games and new machines and it is increasingly difficult to restrict access to gambling. As we have heard tonight interactive gambling is going to be available and it is going to be very very difficult to control because we can do it from home. Because New Zealanders have access to so many different forms of gambling “P1” will cover those costs not associated directly with gambling. At the moment we have “P1” on the costs not associated with the five industry classes—that is gambling operators casinos the TAB racing clubs and the Lotteries Commission. I say to the Government that we are happy with what the Minister has done but let us take it a bit further bring this formula in and allow for this flexibility because the bill as drafted does not give flexibility to the Minister and does not give that discretion. 
We see in clause 287(2)(c) on Supplementary Order Paper 132 a reference to the full cost but we do not actually know what the cost is going to be. We have heard from the Minister that there needs to be a fair assessment in terms of the formula. We have no difficulty with a fair assessment of what the levy should be but as I said earlier no one has been able to substantiate why there is going to be such a huge increase in the levies. I will repeat the point I made earlier which is that Roger Parton a Gaming Machine Association of New Zealand member on the Problem Gambling Committee said that this year there were 4866 new calls to the Gambling Problem Helpline with 3100 people being treated face to face. The average cost was $1200 per person with an overall cost of $6 million. So why does the Ministry of Health state that problem-gambling levies will go out to $25 million within 5 years? There is no justification for it. At the select committee no one was able to say—and I specifically asked the question—why there are going to be such huge increases in the problem-gambling levy. No one was able to tell me. In fact still no one has been able to tell me. The Minister also has not been able to inform me why this cost is going on the industry. As soon as that cost goes on the industry there will be less money going back to the community. It is as simple as that. 
When the Ministry of Health gets its hands on the money it will go into a big hole because it does not have a strategy at the moment for problem gambling. I am told that once it gets its hands on the money about 10 percent of it will go on administration costs. That is a huge hole with 10 percent going into just administration. What we are looking for is accountability. We can solve this by allowing the formula “1-P1” as proposed in my Supplementary Order Paper; that would be a win-win situation for both parties. I ask the Committee to support that proposal when the time comes.