Coddington Deborah: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8493] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I will carry on from where Lindsay Tisch was asking about the $800000 that he understands is in the Crown account. This Minister loves gathering revenue and putting it in the Crown account. Up and down this whole country he has his speed cameras raking in a huge amount of revenue to put in the Crown account. Yes Mr Chairman I will come back to the debate in hand. 
This part deals with institutions—and that is a gamble. We could call it—[ 
Interruption 
] No in the spirit of cooperation I will not go there. But this part deals with institutions and setting up commissioners. That is the other thing this Government loves doing—it loves setting up little commissions big commissions and bureaucracies and appointing a whole lot of commissioners. We have that happening again with this legislation. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to us the obvious conflict of interest or the dichotomy in wording of the legislation because when it describes institutions the establishment of a Gambling Commission and the appointment criteria it states that gambling commissioners must be entirely independent and should not be selected on the basis that they represent or may be seen to represent sectional interests. So far so good—that is fine. 
Then we get to the point that however—and there is always a “however” is there not? In every piece of legislation this Government passes it now has to comply with either sustainable development or with Te Puni Kokiri. Of course—would we not just guess it?—the gambling commissioners have to be appointed and there is a requirement that Te Puni Kokiri be consulted. So there must be a consideration of the mix of representation on the commission including the representation of Maori. Can the Minister please explain how on the one hand these commissioners can be entirely independent and not selected on the basis that they represent sectional interest and on the other hand be selected in consultation with Te Puni Kokiri. The two things absolutely do not go together. How they can on the one hand be independent and on the other have to represent the aims and aspirations of Maori is something that I think will require quite a bit of explaining. 
In reference to clause 199(3)(b) the Gambling Commission has no power to employ people. That is another thing the Minister should explain to us because as I understand it the commission is semi-independent but will have a sort of Clayton’s independence by coming under the auspices of the Department of Internal Affairs. So how will it be that the Gambling Commission will not employ people if it is under the same auspices as the Department of Internal Affairs? There is another contradiction in that. Further on clause 199A is titled: “Gambling Commission may engage experts and receive wide evidence”. Why have five commissioners who are appointed presumably on the basis that they know what they are doing; and that they have knowledge and expertise in this area—we pay them to be there—and then allow them to go on further and appoint experts? They are supposedly not allowed to employ people but they are allowed to appoint experts who may be separately reimbursed for expenses reasonably incurred and also paid fees. 
This legislation is just open-ended legislation for this Government or for any Government if one likes to appoint mates to sinecures. It could be for failed Labour Party politicians after the next election. We could see George Hawkins here as a gambling commissioner. It will be a guaranteed job for Parekura Horomia. He will be there as an expert appointed to consult Te Puni Kokiri. That ministry will say: “Yes yes. Parekura is a good one.” If we are to have gambling commissioners appointed on the basis of their expertise why should we have experts as well?