|
| NZ Gaming Column Where is the balance? The Gambling Act calls for reduction in harm from gambling and the optimisation of returns to the community. No reasonable person can disagree with those objectives. Why then do the policies and interpretations being applied by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) seem to be single-mindedly determined to drive out any gambling venue which has few machines and low turnover. The latest gazette notice by the DIA reducing the amount that societies can pay to venues by 12.5% will mean that societies are going to be forced to look closely as to whether they can continue to have as part of their society small, rural, or indeed urban sites. These sites are arguably optimising their return to their local community. Without them those communities will find it much more difficult to secure any gaming grants. This is effectively reducing, not maximising, the return from gaming machines to the community. These are not venues which traditionally have a huge issue with problem gamblers. The venue operators know personally every customer and are well placed to intervene. Indeed it is much easier to intervene in these circumstances than it is in a more impersonal 18 machine site with a high turnover. While people complain about the Gambling Act, the Gambling Act itself is not the major issue. The real issue is the interpretation being applied to the Act and the blind adherence to a suite of policies and measures which will result in the concentration of gaming machine fundraising in 18 machine urban sites. This is not what was intended by Parliament. The 16% cap on expenses should go. There is no need for it given the venue expenses formula which limits venue expenses to actual, necessary and reasonable at a site level. Removing this cap is something the whole industry should be focussing on. It is unnecessary and is resulting in perverse outcomes. It is time that there was a more balanced approach with a more practical and realistic interpretation of minimising harm from gambling and optimising the return to the community. Bruce Robertson |
|
