Catchpole Brent: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8509] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I shall refer to the clauses that deal with the age-limits in various gambling organisations. The bill itself has a clear age restriction of 18 years and 20 years for casinos but Supplementary Order Paper 132 gives the means for an out. When I say it gives the means for an out I mean it allows ignorance as an excuse for a casino or gambling outlet to get off any prosecution. That means those gambling organisations do not have to require any real checks; they can allow people in until such time as somebody spots that a person is under age and then they have the excuse that they thought everybody was of age. That is not good enough because it allows for too much flexibility on the part of the operators and gives them a clear out. 
I will now touch on harm prevention. This legislation goes into great detail on the harm prevention side of things. It looks at a means of preventing problem gambling. One of the most difficult areas in terms of preventing problem gambling is Internet gambling. As I said earlier that will be a very difficult area to police. Without the proper precautions and so on in place harm prevention will be bypassed because people will be gambling in their own homes without the checks and balances that are required in a properly run venue. If it is done correctly it still will be very difficult to police. 
In relation to Lindsay Tisch’s formula I think— 
Simon Power 
: The “Tisch formula”. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I think the “Tisch formula” is very sound. It clearly sets out a progressive increase so that as required the money can be available. Instead this Government is going from a $6 million levy for problem gamblers to a levy of up to $25 million to $30 million over a 5-year period. I cannot see that there will be an increase as huge as that in the problem-gambling requirements. A formula like Lindsay Tisch’s will allow a slight progression and there will not be a huge pool of money that goes into a slush fund or even into the consolidated account and never goes anywhere near the problem-gambling requirements. Without the formula the situation will be the same as with the petrol tax—it goes into the slush fund and is not used where it should be. The particular levies being set here which go from $6 million up to $25 million to $30 million are absolutely ridiculous. It is being done without any consultation and without any clear direction from the public or interested parties. There has been no explanation as to where this extra money is going to be used. If there is no explanation then there is no check on the Government as to whether it is using that money for the purpose for which it was collected. 
Sadly this Government is one that is happy to put on taxes and levies and not use them where they are supposed to go. I have mentioned the petrol tax; the 4.7c a litre tax is not going to Auckland which it was stated was why it was put on. None of that tax has gone to Auckland. This measure is another example of this Government putting on a tax and a levy that will be used elsewhere to prop up its other failings. It may well go to the health system but not to help problem gambling.