12. SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Internal Affairs
Why is he allowing the New Zealand Lotteries Commission to introduce online gaming for Lotto products, as announced last Friday?
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) Link to this
In 2003, when Parliament passed the Gambling Act, it decided to retain the ability for the New Zealand Racing Board and the New Zealand Lotteries Commission to provide online services. The intention of this exemption is to provide New Zealanders with a safer alternative to online gaming-machine systems offered by overseas Internet-based gaming operators. Any benefits from Internet gambling would also, therefore, remain in New Zealand. Parliament made it clear in 2003 that the commission would be required to ensure that any risks of problem gambling and under-age gambling were minimised. Before I agreed to allow the commission to progress this proposal further, it had to satisfy me that appropriate safeguards would be in place in order for it to meet its responsibilities.
Madam SPEAKERWhy did the Minister and his officials not consult the expert advisory group on gambling, or, as far as I know, engage in any other form of community consultation as they are supposed to, before making the decision to introduce a new and highly addictive form of gambling at a time when he is conspicuously failing to control existing illegal online gambling in New Zealand?
There is no substance behind saying that Lotto is highly addictive; there is evidence to say that it is a relatively safe form of gambling. The second point I would make is that online gambling actually has more safeguards in it than gambling in the current regime, where people can walk into any Lotto shop as many times as they like and spend as much as they like.
Darien FentonFurther to the Minister’s last answer, what safeguards will the New Zealand Lotteries Commission put in place on the sale of online Lotto, and how does that compare with the current method of purchasing Lotto tickets?
For online Lotto, players will be able to register only one account. They will be able to set their own spending limits and, in advance, will be able to self-exclude. There will be a weekly spending limit of $150, with no more than $300 spent in any month. Players who consistently spend to the maximum will be required by the commission to make contact with it, for it to offer advice and support. Currently, there are no requirements for a Lotto player to buy from one shop, there are no spending limits, and the retailer does not know who the person is. The retailer does not have any ability to monitor players’ spending or collect information about Lotto-playing people. There are many more safeguards in this proposal.
Why does the Minister think that limiting someone’s weekly spend to $150 is actually helpful, given that many people cannot afford to lose that amount of money, especially as beneficiaries have the highest reported rate of expenditure on gambling, according to the Department of Internal Affairs itself?
Online Lotto is limited to $300 a month or $150 a week; for Lotto in a shop there is no limit whatsoever. Lotto online requires people to interact with Lotto through one account only, whereas with the current arrangement people can go to as many shops as often as they like and spend as much as they like.
Can the Minister guarantee that the Lotteries Commission will not in the future extend its use of online gaming from Lotto, Powerball, Keno, Strike, and so on, to even more addictive products like the instant games, which are incredibly addictive?
The only proposal in front of me was the proposal for online Lotto and other lotteries products. I know that Lotto does have an interest in looking further at the matter, but if it does wish to proceed with those proposals, it will have to go through much, much tougher scrutiny, and will have to assure me or the subsequent Minister of Internal Affairs that the risks of harm for those people are absolutely minimised.
How does the Minister justify introducing a product that can be paid for only by credit card, when such cards attract interest in this country at the moment of up to 24.9 percent; and why on earth is a Labour Government promoting gambling on credit anyway, especially when low-income people are among the most vulnerable to this form of addiction?
The problem with transferring money currently is that under most banking proposals money takes days to go through the various accounts. With a credit card, transfer is instantaneous. Or people can get themselves a debit card, which is the same thing but in a positive balance. I have advised the commissioner of the requirement that when the banking system changes, the commission will change with it and will require people to buy positively rather than negatively through credit cards. I accept the member’s point, but this was the only way the innovation could be financed.
Judy TurnerIs the Minister planning to act decisively if results from the investigation currently being run by his ministry into the allocation of pokie funds to the racing industry instead of to charitable outcomes are conclusive, in regard to what appears to be shoddy practice; if so—if he is going to act—what options is he prepared to consider to fix this outrageous situation?
When Parliament changed the legislation in 2003, it enabled money from this source to be transferred to the racing industry for stake money. I have made it clear to the sector that when the legislation was passed, Parliament used the word “community”, and assisting the community was seen to include allocating funds to address a broad base of issues, not a single one. If people continue to persist in allocating money for one cause, which the community does not see as representative of the community, then I am sure Parliament will react.