Mitchell Clayton: Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMitchell Clayton: Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1162. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill in its third reading. For me being quite new to the Chamber here—it may not be the last time; I certainly hope it is not—to see a bipartisan approach by all parties and to see the common sense at the highest level of supporting this bill gives me a great feeling. Although we probably do not share the same sentiments—I certainly do not with some of the aspects that have been shared by the Greens with regards to sports betting in its entirety—I think that the intent is there none the less to try to tidy up the dirty side of sports.I am pleased to rise. This is an overdue amendment to the legislation. It clarifies that match fixing is a form of deception under section 240 of the Crimes Act and it ensures that criminal sanctions are available. The bill is not designed to address every kind of match fixing; it focuses on the most serious kind where the intent is to influence a betting outcome and that relates specifically to a monetary gain. A strong connection with betting activity is necessary to reduce the risk that any unintended activity that may occur in the course of a sporting match be criminalised. For example collapsing a scrum in a rugby game or purposely kicking a ball out on the full from kick-off are the sorts of things that need to be addressed in having an approach with the betting agencies to make sure that those sorts of things do not go on by taking those betting activities outside of their scope. That may of course like every action have a reaction and it may introduce some new aspects that we had not thought of with regard to illegal betting. It is not going to be a very easy problem to fix and it has been around for a very long time.Those who manipulate a match for any other reason including tactical or strategic sporting reasons will not commit an offence under this bill. Where a player is blackmailed they will not have committed an offence under new section 240A of the Crimes Act. The player will be the victim of the blackmail and should not be liable for this offence but will in all likelihood be liable for punishment by the governing sports body. A person who blackmails a player to match fix is likely to have committed the offence of blackmail and can be held liable for that offence.Manipulation of sports matches for reasons other than to influence a betting outcome must be dealt with by non-legislative tools such as codes of conduct developed by governing sports bodies. Under this bill anyone who obtains a benefit or caused a loss by engaging in match fixing would commit an offence and be liable to a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment. I would however like to say that it would be a good addition to also give them a ban from their sports code which is not currently in the legislation but would certainly be a good point to raise in the future.As for any offences committed overseas the Crimes Act already covers the issue arising from match fixing by New Zealanders who live overseas. Section 7 of that Act ensures that where the event occurs in New Zealand or any act or omission that forms part of the event occurs in New Zealand then a person who is not residing in New Zealand at the time of the act may also be liable.The select committee recommended amending clause 4 of the bill by removing the words “otherwise than for tactical or strategic sporting reasons” from the definition of “deception”. This phrase could be confusing and might open up an unintended defence.As introduced the bill would provide a defence where a match was manipulated at least in part for tactical or strategic sporting reasons. This defence might apply even if the manipulator also acted with the intention of influencing a betting outcome. For example a person who deliberately lost a match to gain an advantage in the next round but also bet on the result would escape liability. This would clearly be contrary to the intent of the bill. Removing these words would make it clear that an offence would be committed whenever a match was manipulated with the intention of influencing a betting outcome.There are four parts to this bill. Very simply we have got the title; the commencement which is of course the Monday following this one 15 December 2014; and the principle of the Act. This Act amends the Crimes Act 1961. There are four new sections. New section 240A is inserted which I would just like to go through now. Section 240A “Application of section 240 to match-fixing” states: (1) “For the purposes of section 240 deception includes any act or omission that is done or omitted with intent to influence a betting outcome of an activity of a kind to which subsection (2) applies by manipulating …(a)the overall result of the activity; or(b)any event within the activity. (2) This subsection applies to activities of the following kinds:(a)sporting competitions games matches races and rallies involving human participants (whether or not they also involve equipment horses vehicles or vessels):”.The bill aims to protect the integrity of the sports stage in that match fixers will be found guilty in the eyes of New Zealand law and states what will happen in regard to New Zealand participating in international sports. On behalf of New Zealand First I commend this bill to the House and am pleased to be part of the decision that all parties have taken in agreeing on it. Thank you.