Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8468] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to pick up on the point I made earlier and on my question to the Minister. I ask him again to respond on that issue about operating a business because it is a serious matter. Those businesses are major contributors to communities throughout New Zealand by means of gaming funds. They give back a third of their operating profits to the community and we know the requirements. It is high time that people realised those businesses are run professionally. They have transparency are accountable for their actions have audits and at the end of the day have contributed to the success of communities throughout New Zealand. 
I am actually referring to one of those businesses but the issue I raise relates to the definition of “corporate society”. In Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins the Minister states there will be just one society. First I go back to the letter that the Department of Internal Affairs wrote about corporate societies—I guess it went out to a number of those operators. It is really interesting that the letter is dated 12 June 2003 yet we have before us a Supplementary Order Paper that was launched last Friday. So we have had a time lag from June through to September. Therefore this change has been mooted for a long time but no one has had the opportunity to provide any input. 
The letter of 12 June 2003 talks about partnerships in the second paragraph in particular and states: “The difficulty with partnerships of associations of individuals”—this is the difference Minister as opposed to groups of people—“is that it is often difficult to ascertain who is responsible for a particular action or omission. It is open to each of the partner bodies to argue that they are not individually responsible for an offence or other breach. Corporate status also provides for continuity of legal obligations undertaken by a corporate body.” We need to understand how partnerships work. Partnership law makes it very clear that each partner is responsible for the actions and omissions of the other partner. That is what partnerships are all about. Many businesses get into trouble in the real world because partners do not appreciate what their responsibilities and duties are. 
I have here an example of an organisation that has been set up and the criteria are laid down in a letter from the Department of Internal Affairs. We have here the licence. I ask this question of the Minister: what will happen if this bill goes through in its present form? Or is the Minister intending to accept Supplementary Order Paper 140 in my name which allows—the Minister is shaking his head. I would like you to explain to the other organisations around the country—those that find themselves in a similar position to the one I refer to—whether you will revoke their licences as soon as this bill is passed just because they have formed— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is referring to the Chair when he uses the word “you”. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Will the Minister be responsible for the fact that this legislation will revoke the licences of a number of operators throughout the country—operators that are currently operating within the law under two statutes that I mentioned before: the Charitable Trusts Act and the Companies Act of 1993? The Minister knows whom I am referring to because he just mentioned the name. But other organisations fall into the same category. There has been no movement from the Minister to suggest that he will take a call and explain that. Therefore I take it that we will not be able to make any progress on this matter. In that case the issue falls back fairly and squarely into the Government’s domain. 
The United Future party is allowing this bill to go through because it is supporting this part of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. It could support Supplementary Order Paper 140 in my name which would tidy up this problem. I am not asking for anything unreasonable—I am not asking for any deal. I just say that my Supplementary Order Paper clarifies the position and tidies it up. I ask the United Future members who are sitting here this afternoon to look very closely at what the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper means as opposed to what I am suggesting. I am not trying to beat the system. I ask for the support of the United Future members on this issue.