Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTisch Lindsay: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11402. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): As the Minister said the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) is a technical bill and in the first instance I want to draw the House’s attention to page 19 of the explanatory note where it states: “Casino and class 4 venues are required to exclude self-identified problem gamblers from the gambling area of the venue for up to 2 years and to remove them from the venue if they return in that time.”If we look at the Act we see there is a conflict because section 310(1) states that a venue manager or a casino operator must “issue an exclusion order to a person that prohibits the person from entering the gambling area of a class 4 venue or casino venue (as the case may be) …”. If we were to then look further at section 311(1) of the Act we would see that it states: “a person acting on behalf of …” a venue manager or a casino operator “must remove any person who enters the gambling area …”. So here we have a conflict. In one part of the Act it states that the venue manager or casino operator must “prohibit the person” and in the other part it states that the venue manager or casino operator must “remove the person”.During this debate I will highlight the inconsistencies that are in the Act and what this amendment is actually portraying it will do. Section 312(4)(b) of the Act imposes a $10000 fine on the venue manager if he or she knowingly fails to remove a self-excluded problem gambler who has entered the gambling area. But there is no fine—no fine at all—for knowingly failing to remove a venue-excluded gambler who has entered the gambling area. So here again is a major discrepancy in this interpretation. If a voluntarily self-excluded person defaults that person is penalised but if a venue operator excludes a problem gambler and that person defaults then there is no penalty. That is a discrepancy.Similarly a self-excluded gambler cannot stay in hotel accommodation at the venue because as I mentioned on page 19 of the explanatory note of the bill it states: “Casinoand class 4 venues are required to exclude self-identified problem gamblers from the gambling area of the venue for up to 2 years”. We understand that; that is very clear. But it goes on to state: “and to remove them from the venue …”. The venue in this case is not just the gaming area; it is the whole complex. It includes the accommodation as well.Clause 84 of this amendment bill amends section 312 of the Gambling Act and substantially changes the onus of proof for a charge relating to a “breach of exclusion order”. If an excluded person enters the gambling area whether or not the operator knows that person has entered then it is an offence. The current provision in the Act states that the venue manager the holder of the casino operating licence or a person acting on behalf of those persons are liable only if they knowingly allow the person to enter the gaming area or knowingly fail to remove a person who enters those areas. The current procedures are based on identification and removal after entry.However under the proposed changes in the bill allowing the person to enter will be a strict liability offence. What is the case if the person uses a disguise or changes his or her appearance? It will be difficult to identify an excluded person in this case unlike the identification of a youth in the context of the Sale of Liquor Act due to age limitations. The question will be whether this new section will in any way minimise and prevent harm as envisaged under the Gambling Act or whether it will just work against venue operators.Clause 85 which inserts new section 312A needs close attention. The proposal there is that a self-excluded gambler will be required to register with a third party if the secretary—which presumably refers to the Secretary for Internal Affairs—requests. That is quite inappropriate. The self-excluded gambler’s requirements for privacy should be paramount. Otherwise for many the act of self-exclusion may not be forthcoming. Demographic information including age and gender could be recorded without personal information. Nowhere in the Gambling Act are there any requirements for a self-excluded problem gambler to be registered in any way with a third party.The Department of Internal Affairs’Gambits publication dated 2005 shows how many gamblers were excluded over a 12-month period. I quote from that publication. Those excluded by casinos in that period numbered 188 and those who were self-excluded—they took it upon themselves to exclude themselves—numbered 593 which was a total of 781. So that was a 12-month period for which those exclusion orders were applied. In theGambits publication of June of this year June 2007 it states that casinos across New Zealand exclude between 50 and 60 patrons per month.Clause 86 amends section 313 of the principal Act. This is an empowering provision which extends the Department of Internal Affairs’ regulatory powers. There is no definition at all for what constitutes “inducements to gamble”. What does it mean? The Department of Internal Affairs under the Act is responsible for everything. It is responsible for gaming policy for enforcement for licensing and for regulation. The Department of Internal Affairs is judge and jury and this clause 86 delegates to it the power to create implement and enforce regulation without the scrutiny of this House or of a select committee.National members have some reservations about certain clauses in this bill which I have outlined and we will want answers during the select committee process. However we are happy to support the first reading of this bill.