Goudie Sandra: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8480] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Given the complexities of this particular bill and the huge 65-page Supplementary Order Paper 132 it is absolutely vital that we have plenty of opportunity to debate all the aspects of the different parts of the bill. 
I want to raise another aspect in Part 2—that is territorial authorities. In relation to territorial authorities I want to refer to compliance costs. My learned colleague Lindsay Tisch also mentioned compliance costs. There are compliance costs for business as well as for territorial authorities. I notice that this bill actually lacks a compliance cost report in its commentary which is another omission that seems to be fairly regular on the part of this Government when it introduces bills to the House. It seems to leave out the compliance cost report. Perhaps it does not fully understand the huge impost on both businesses and local authorities of the enactment of this bill. 
Clause 88 states that a territorial authority can provide a consent to an applicant but before it can do that it has to have a gambling venue policy. For the venue policy it has to consult the public and that consultative process has to be extensive. The authority has to go throughout the district and cover all the different urban enclaves throughout the district. That is incredibly costly and it includes advertising costs. This bill is also prescriptive about whom the authority is required to consult. It specifies that the territorial local authorities have to consult Maori and whomever else they think fit. I put it to the Committee that they should just consult everybody; the bill should not specify whom they consult. Certainly they should consult everybody throughout the whole of the district. There is a cost to that. There will be no way to recoup that cost because only a small proportion of the population will be seeking a consent. The cost to the applicant of that consent will in no way match the cost of the authority consulting on its venue policy. Then it will have to renew it after a 3-year period. 
I specifically draw the Committee’s attention to clause 87. Even when a territorial authority has gone through the whole process of establishing a venue policy an applicant who has gained a consent can then go for ministerial discretion. I would like the Minister of Internal Affairs to take a call to respond to this; I would like him to explain to me what clause 87(4) means. Under clause 87 people who have got a consent from a territorial authority can then decide to ask the Minister to use his discretion to allow more gaming machines and that is fine but there is no further direction back to the local authority. It is done between the applicant who has the consent and the Minister. However if we look at clause 87(4) we can see that the Minister’s approval must specify the number of gaming machines that may be operated but they “must not in any case exceed 18” machines and “must not exceed the number … specified in the territorial authority consent;”. But clause 87(1)(e) has already stated that applicants who have a consent can then ask the Minister to use his discretion to increase the number of machines. Perhaps the Minister would care to take a call to explain what that means because it is somewhat confusing. 
I also draw the Minister’s attention to clause 17 which is about class 1 gambling. I want to enter a fishing competition and the prize pool is $1000. I have looked at the definition of “gambling”; given that fishing to some degree is a game of chance is my ability to aim for a prize pot of $1000 impeded by this bill? It could well be. Would the Minister care to look at the definition of “gambling” relate it to clause 17 which is in Part 2 and take a call to explain?