Coddington Deborah: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8507] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This thing about harm minimisation is just a load of old cobblers. If members look at clause 272 “Age restriction on class 4 gambling” they will see we do not know what Internet gambling is. Is it class 4? This is the problem with having a 65-page Supplementary Order Paper that has not been to a select committee. United Future did a deal with the Government and is supporting it. Now we have a situation whereby we do not know what Internet gambling is. We know that it is allowed because the Government will be promoting it by allowing the Government body to have a monopoly on it. Then we have the problem whereby under clause 272 an Internet provider could breach this legislation and commit an offence by allowing or failing to stop a person under 18 years from participating in class 4 gambling at its venue but the legislation does not actually state whether Internet gambling is class 4. We do not know. 
Further down the clause states that a defence to the charge is if the offence was committed without the knowledge of the defendant. With Internet legislation at the moment that is a very flimsy defence. It does not stack up when it comes to things like defamation. In my opinion clause 272 exposes all Internet providers to huge risk and that is something the Minister of Internal Affairs should immediately address and tidy up. He accused me of coming down here without having read the bill; no doubt he has read it a million times but that matter still has not been picked up. The reason it has not been picked up is that a huge Supplementary Order Paper has been introduced. It has not been to a select committee and this matter has not been sorted out. 
Part 4 also deals with the levies. It is a typical example. We have had letters from clubs and Returned Services Association clubs all over the country. They are responsible operators and they will be levied to deal with the bad boys. It is exactly the same situation we had with the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. What we will get is a knee-jerk reaction from the Minister every time as has happened with the language provider that today went belly up. What happens? All the private language providers are to be levied. The polytechnics which were never levied to provide the $50 million bail-out that was pumped into the Wanganui polytechnic will not be levied; the Government institutions will not be levied—only the private providers. 
I move on to Supplementary Order Paper 108 introduced by Judith Collins. We support that Supplementary Order Paper. It is very important because this Government has established a State-legislated virtual monopoly in terms of Sky City. The Minister knows what Sky City is doing; he is being very clever with his words. Yes at the moment Sky City Casino is able to put trespass orders on anyone it does not like the look of—basically people who are very good at playing blackjack and are making a lot of money from it. Clause 277 is the anti - Kerry Packer clause. It goes further in stating that a casino can exclude anyone without any good reason. It is like pubs being allowed to ban people who drink only water or lemonade and do not spend a lot of money on alcohol. That sort of principle is in practice here. This Government is saying to the virtual State-legislated private monopoly Sky City that if someone who is good at what he or she does goes into Sky City and makes a lot of money out of blackjack Sky City will be able to get rid of them. 
As Judith Collins said if legislation were passed that allowed private people to ban someone because he or she was Maori lesbian or any of all the other politically correct things that an earlier part of this bill goes into where it states whom distribution agents must distribute grants to if we were to legislate to allow people to be banned for those reasons we would be hauled before the Human Rights Commissioner before we could say “responsible gambling”. 
I call on the Minister to take a call to explain to us—going back to clause 272—exactly the age restriction on class 4 gambling. The phrase “harm minimisation” is just empty weasel words because who will police the Internet?