Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8512] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to finish the debate on Part 4 of the Gambling Bill by speaking to a couple of amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 which I put forward. I draw the Minister’s attention to the self-exclusion procedures in clause 278A. Subclause (3) provides for that to be for a period of up to 2 years in the case of a class 4 venue or casino venue. I want to know from the Minister in the chair George Hawkins—and he has an opportunity to explain to me—what happens for those who have exclusion orders for longer than 2 years. Section 67 of the Casino Control Act allows for casinos to be able to keep people out including those who are self-barred. Christchurch Casino which has 650 self-barred people is a case in point. Those people have not been barred by the casino. They have decided that they do not want to be in the casino so they are self-barred and half of them are for more than 2 years. My question to the Minister is whether a period of up to 2 years as specified in clause 278A(3) means that the maximum period of time that one can self-bar is 2 years. 
If that is the case we have a major issue. I have here the findings of a court case with a judgment delivered in the court by Justice Keith upholding a decision that the Sky City Casino was able to have somebody barred for longer than a 2-year period. If this bill supersedes the provision that casinos now operate especially when people are self-barred we will have a huge problem on our hands. I give the Minister the opportunity to answer that query. The officials may be able to help as they are sitting there and it may well be that they can help us clarify that position. 
My amendment to clause 278A on Supplementary Order Paper 110 adds a number of subclauses to it. This relates to excluded persons in the light of what happens overseas. In most Australasian jurisdictions excluded people have the right to have the decision to exclude them reviewed by the regulator but under this bill there is no opportunity for that to happen. It is my view that my amendment would be a very valuable addition to the New Zealand system. It would provide for an independent review of what are difficult decisions. Those can often be very emotionally charged. By allowing the amendment on my Supplementary Order Paper we would have natural justice. At the end of the day that is what it is about. If people get kicked out of a place they should have the opportunity to appeal that decision to somebody else. That is the point that Judith Collins made with her own Supplementary Order Paper which was along similar lines. 
I want to look at clause 298 which provides for gambling inspectors to seize equipment and for it not to be retrieved for 48 hours. I do not know of any organisation in which one cannot get back an item that has been seized until 48 hours have passed. 
Simon Power 
: It seems like a long time. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is a long time. I say that the court should decide. The court should make the decision of whether people are able to redeem seized equipment. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of Judith Collins to clause 277 be agreed to.