|
|
Submission by
Hospitality Association of New Zealand
to the
Government Administration Select Committee considering The Gambling Act Amendment Bill (No 2) 12 October 2007
Hospitality Association of New Zealand Phone: 04 385 1369 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Hospitality Association is the industry organisation representing the majority of venues in which Class 4 gaming machines are operated. 1.2 It is estimated that over 1,000 of the Associations membership of 2,300 operate gaming machines on behalf of charitable trusts on their premises. 1.3 The Association’s membership accounts for approximately 15,000 gaming machines operated to raise funds for the community and provide entertainment to their patrons. 2. OVERVIEW 2.1 The Gambling Act 2003 has now been in operation for almost four years. 2.2 The Act is extremely robust and has achieved most of its objectives. 2.3 Electronic monitoring is now in place and any perception of the ability for venue operators to manipulate the system have now gone. 2.4 Venue operators are completely removed from the grant making process and have no means of influencing grant distribution. 2.5 The number of machines has reduced from 25,000 in 2003, to 20,120 in 2007. 2.6 Similarly the number of venues operating gaming machines has declined from 2,104 to 1,217 in 2007. 2.7 Gaming machine expenditure has shown a decrease from $1 billion to $900 million. 2.8 The number of new clients presenting to the gambling helpline has declined from 2,913 in 2003 to 1,630 in 2006. 2.9 This data collectively indicates that non-casino gaming is very much under control and the harm from those with gambling addictions which represent about 1.2% of the population is declining. 3. ISSUES WITH THE CURRENT ACT 3.1 Despite the successful implementation of the Gambling Act, there are a number of issues which have now been identified as perhaps being either unnecessary or overly bureaucratic. 3.2 The remuneration of venue operators for the reasonable work they do in operating gaming machines on behalf of charitable trusts is cumbersome and bureaucratic. 3.3 The industry and the Department of Internal Affairs are prevented from developing a fair, transparent and auditable low compliance cost remuneration system because of the Act’s preclusion of the use of a commission-based system. 3.4 Lotteries and TAB retailers currently operate very satisfactorily on a commission-based system. 3.5 The absolute focus of the Act on maximising returns and minimising costs has the unintended consequence of consolidating the sector towards large efficient 18-machine sites in heavily populated areas. 3.6 The Association does not believe it was the Government’s intention that small rural gaming machine venues be squeezed out of the market. 3.7 Should the current trend continue then within a decade the only venues deemed to be efficient and therefore continue to operate will be 18-machine sites in heavily populated environments. 3.8 Proposals to raise the required return for the community by societies will simply hasten that outcome. 4. GAMING HARM MINIMISATION 4.1 The Gambling Act and the Gambling Amendment Bill put a significant onus on venue operators to identify and to intervene where they suspect that their patrons may have a gambling problem. 4.2 This is a responsibility which in principle is accepted by the industry, but also one which challenges the industry in its implementation. 4.3 The practicalities of identification and intervention are significant and require managerial level skills. 4.4 The Association has been proactive in seeking to have a national qualification developed to both assist the industry and to meet their legislative requirements. 4.5 This has resulted in the Problem Gambling Awareness Qualification being registered on the Education Framework and the current development by the Hospitality Standards Institute of a Problem Gambling Awareness E-Learning resource. 4.6 The introduction of this qualification and further education and training being undertaken by the Association Societies and Department of Internal Affairs all under the auspices of the current Act will continue to enhance the ability of the industry to identify and react appropriately to problem gamblers. 5. SECTION BY SECTION COMMENTS 5.1 Part 1 – No comment. 5.2 Part 2 – Sections 8 to 19 – No comment. 5.3 Sections 20, 22, 26, 28: 5.3.1 The major change sought is to amend sub-section 1 substituting the words ‘Risk’ with the word ‘Possibility’. 5.3.2 This is a subtle but significant change which the Association believes is unnecessary. 5.3.3 It is difficult to see the reason for this change and how venues would minimise the possibility rather than risk, and indeed what sort of conditions could be reasonably, fairly and proportionately imposed on Class 4 Gambling Venues which would minimise the possibility of harm caused by problem gambling. 5.3.4 It needs to be remembered that for the very small number of New Zealanders who have a problem with gambling, it is their own lack of appreciation of the nature of their addiction which only becomes apparent when they are faced with a crisis situation. 5.3.5 It is absolutely appreciated that venues should do everything they can to identify and assist such problem gamblers before that personal crisis hits. 5.3.6 It needs to be recognised that this is a challenge in itself and the current provisions within the act need to be supported through continued education and training of venue operators. 5.3.7 Simply, subtly increasing the level of responsibility on Class 4 gambling venues by changing ‘Risk’ to ‘Possibility’ without further definition or qualification will not make a difficult task any easier and could lead to unintended consequences. 5.3.8 As commented in the overview the incidents of problem gambling continue to decline, suggesting that what is in place is working. 5.3.9 The Association believes that this change is not only unnecessary but places an unrealistic burden on venue operators. 5.4 Section 21 to 32 – No comment. 5.5 Section 33: 5.5.1 The Association supports the Charity Gaming Association’s submissions against extending the Crown Indemnity from liability for malfunctions of the electronic monitoring system to a private company which operates a system on behalf of the Crown. 5.6 Section 34 to 38 – No comment. 5.7 Section 39: 5.7.1 The Association continues to object to the differential treatment between clubs and bars in terms of the number of gaming machines permitted at the venue. 5.7.2 There is no logic, no rationale and no equity in clubs having the ability to have more machines than other licensed venues. Further, the duties and responsibilities on venues remain and would further suggest that this differential treatment has no logical basis. 5.8 Section 40: 5.8.1 The Association supports the proposal to require Territorial Authority consent to increases in machine numbers at a venue where a valid license has not been held for a particular venue within the last 6 months. 5.9 Section 79 – No comment. 5.10 Section 80: 5.10.1 The Association supports the proposal to reduce the maximum fine for a breach of Section 308 to $5,000. 5.11 Sections 81 to 85: 5.11.1 The Association supports the changes to these sections. 5.11.2 These changes provide some clarity as to the process required for self-exclusion and the requirement for a person seeking self-exclusion to supply their name, contact details and a recent photograph is most helpful and should assist enforcement. 5.11.3 The reduction in penalties is supported. 5.12 Sections 86 to 88 – No comment. 5.13 Section 89: 5.13.1 The Association has some major issues with the calculation of the Problem Gambling Levy. 5.13.2 In setting the Levy in 2006, it became clear that the data in support of this increase was woefully inadequate. 5.13.3 It is imperative that more appropriate means of measuring harm be included in the calculation of this levy prior to the setting of the next levy in 2009. 5.13.4 In the absence of an effective measurement of harm then the levy should be calculated as a simple proportion of total revenue. 5.13.5 Given the current challenge with the levy, Parliament may want to give some consideration to the levy setting process being set by regulation to allow greater flexibility, and for these issues to be addressed prior to 2009. 5.14 Section 92 to 97 – No comment. 5.15 Section 98: 5.15.1 The Association supports the adjustments to the penalties in Section 360. 5.16 Sections 99 to 104 – No comment. 5.17 Part 4, Sections 105 to 110 – No comment. |
|
