Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8504] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I draw the attention of the Committee to the formula that is used to calculate the problem gambling levy. I know that the Minister has a formula in his Supplementary Order Paper and that is probably a consequence of the Supplementary Order Paper that I originally lodged back in March. I was not happy with the formula in clause 287 of the bill and way back in March I lodged a Supplementary Order Paper. Subsequently we find that there is a Supplementary Order Paper in the Minister’s name but in my view it falls short. I am happy with the formula except that it actually stops and does not allow for what is known as 1-P1. I want to explain what that means. As the formula stands it is fine but it does not explain specifically what I would like to see happen and more important what the industry wants to see happen. 
It is important that the stakeholders the people who are paying the levies are the people who should have a say because the bill legislates against flexibility. This formula as presented in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper legislates against flexibility. If we leave it the way it is then we will find that within a couple of years there will be far more demands on the health system than there are now because we know that the Ministry of Health will take over the jurisdiction of collecting the problem-gambling levy. 
I first want to draw the Committee’s attention to what “C” in the formula stands for. If members want to follow this they will find it on page 34 of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. The costs that are associated with “C” include things like education. They are the total costs of the integrated strategy health promotion and advertising. They could be included in school curricula could be promotions by district health boards and could be treatment. It is very very wide. What we are saying and what the industry is saying is that that needs to be constrained. The Government at the moment currently collects about $422 million in taxes GST and levies. Part of that money could be used at the Minister’s discretion to do those things. That is what 1-P1 means. It gives the Minister discretion. As I said we are not opposed to the formula per se but we are concerned that a lot of the costs not associated directly with the five industry leaders—racing clubs the gambling operators the TAB the Lotteries Commission and the casinos—will be incurred on them when in fact a lot of the promotion those points I mentioned in “C” could be covered at the discretion of the Minister in the formula that I am promoting. 
So when it comes to voting on this I would hope that members would consider this. As I said I am happy with the Minister’s formula here but it needs to be expanded out. I tell the Minister that that is what the industry is asking for. Maybe the Minister could take a call on this to explain why he has not included 1-P1 because that gives the Minister flexibility at any time to strike a rate to do those things that are obviously important in this whole question of harm minimisation. 
I want to follow that through and say that now that the Ministry of Health will take control of the process there are huge costs that are associated and seem to have got out of hand. In fact Roger Parton who has been a member of the Problem Gambling Foundation has been levying the groups and has been able to provide the treatment. What we are seeing is that the costs have now gone out from about $6 million—and that is what is believed is enough money for problem gambling—and are escalating to $12 million and $15 million. In fact within a couple of years it will be $25 million. What is that for? No one knows what that is for.