Addressing the issues raised by the bill
Problem Gambling
When looking at the issue of addressing harm caused by gambling or the impact on problem gambling, it is difficult to separate emotion from the facts of the situation. At the same time though it is important to recognise that for the current three year period (2010 through to 2013) the problem gambling levy is set at $55,422,607 and paid by the sector. Class 4 operators pay 69% of the levy based on the agreed formula (outlined below) to combat the issue.
Sector share of presentations, 2008/09
Non-casino gaming machines 69%
Casinos 18%
New Zealand Racing Board 7%
New Zealand Lotteries 6%
In addition, all gaming machines in New Zealand already have Player Information Displays (PIDs). These display how long a person has been playing a game and how much money they have spent. Players are also prompted as to whether or not they wish to continue to play.
Local Authorities
Under the current Gambling Act, Local Territorial Authorities currently have responsibility for setting policy on both the placement and number of pokies in their community. Many operate sinking lid policies which prevent additional machines from being added to an existing licence and limits the number of licences overall. The number of machines has dropped significantly since 2002; currently there are 18,133 machines compared to 25,221 at the end of 2002 – that’s a decrease of about 28 per cent.
While the model used by LTAs to distribute funds for the current Creative Communities Scheme works for that process, it is important to note that the amount of money and average grant size is relatively small. LTA’s across the country distributed about $2.8million under the Creative Communities Scheme and the average grant is about $1200. This is only a small fraction of the millions of dollars distributed via Class 4 gambling societies every year.
As a comparison the Class 4 sector distributed at least $228,459,539 in the 2010/2011 licence year. This information was published in the March 2012 Gambits, the amount distributed does not include information from 7 societies where the figures were unavailable.
It must be said that currently LTAs do not have the infrastructure to distribute the amount of money that trust’s do. Class 4 operators have well developed systems and processes already in place that are capable of efficiently managing applications from the time they are submitted until a decision is made. We suggest that it would be very hard for LTAs to replicate the model and provide as much community support at a similar cost to what the current Class 4 operators achieve.
Given the huge increase in money to distribute, LTAs would require additional funding to cover the costs of setting up systems as well as employing and housing staff to distribute funds to duplicate the processes Gaming Societies have developed. We do not believe it would be possible for cost of implementing the proper levels of checks and balances to be absorbed into current administrative overheads.
In addition, concerns have been raised by grant recipients that the application process will lose its accessibility and transparency. It is feared that LTA’s will politicise the process. There are also concerns that these funds will be used to replace or subsidise funding for community activities and infrastructure Local Authorities already support or it could be seen as a source of funds to help keep rates from rising.
The process around setting up administrative support and committees is unclear, although it is possible that they may use something similar to the current Creative Communities Scheme set up as the basis for distributing gaming machine funds. However, even with a model in place, it does not change the fact that funding is already distributed very efficiently and to simply replicate that process elsewhere adds additional cost with very little benefit.
Targeting
The Bill suggests that low income, Maori and Pacific Island communities are targeted. Gaming machines are located in licensed premises and can be found in a wide range of suburbs and communities. There was no deliberate ploy to place machines in areas of deprivation. The real determining factor is whether a premise held liquor licenses and has had gaming machines in the past.
Problem Gambling
When looking at the issue of addressing harm caused by gambling or the impact on problem gambling, it is difficult to separate emotion from the facts of the situation. At the same time though it is important to recognise that for the current three year period (2010 through to 2013) the problem gambling levy is set at $55,422,607 and paid by the sector. Class 4 operators pay 69% of the levy based on the agreed formula (outlined below) to combat the issue.
Sector share of presentations, 2008/09
Non-casino gaming machines 69%
Casinos 18%
New Zealand Racing Board 7%
New Zealand Lotteries 6%
In addition, all gaming machines in New Zealand already have Player Information Displays (PIDs). These display how long a person has been playing a game and how much money they have spent. Players are also prompted as to whether or not they wish to continue to play.
Local Authorities
Under the current Gambling Act, Local Territorial Authorities currently have responsibility for setting policy on both the placement and number of pokies in their community. Many operate sinking lid policies which prevent additional machines from being added to an existing licence and limits the number of licences overall. The number of machines has dropped significantly since 2002; currently there are 18,133 machines compared to 25,221 at the end of 2002 – that’s a decrease of about 28 per cent.
While the model used by LTAs to distribute funds for the current Creative Communities Scheme works for that process, it is important to note that the amount of money and average grant size is relatively small. LTA’s across the country distributed about $2.8million under the Creative Communities Scheme and the average grant is about $1200. This is only a small fraction of the millions of dollars distributed via Class 4 gambling societies every year.
As a comparison the Class 4 sector distributed at least $228,459,539 in the 2010/2011 licence year. This information was published in the March 2012 Gambits, the amount distributed does not include information from 7 societies where the figures were unavailable.
It must be said that currently LTAs do not have the infrastructure to distribute the amount of money that trust’s do. Class 4 operators have well developed systems and processes already in place that are capable of efficiently managing applications from the time they are submitted until a decision is made. We suggest that it would be very hard for LTAs to replicate the model and provide as much community support at a similar cost to what the current Class 4 operators achieve.
Given the huge increase in money to distribute, LTAs would require additional funding to cover the costs of setting up systems as well as employing and housing staff to distribute funds to duplicate the processes Gaming Societies have developed. We do not believe it would be possible for cost of implementing the proper levels of checks and balances to be absorbed into current administrative overheads.
In addition, concerns have been raised by grant recipients that the application process will lose its accessibility and transparency. It is feared that LTA’s will politicise the process. There are also concerns that these funds will be used to replace or subsidise funding for community activities and infrastructure Local Authorities already support or it could be seen as a source of funds to help keep rates from rising.
The process around setting up administrative support and committees is unclear, although it is possible that they may use something similar to the current Creative Communities Scheme set up as the basis for distributing gaming machine funds. However, even with a model in place, it does not change the fact that funding is already distributed very efficiently and to simply replicate that process elsewhere adds additional cost with very little benefit.
Targeting
The Bill suggests that low income, Maori and Pacific Island communities are targeted. Gaming machines are located in licensed premises and can be found in a wide range of suburbs and communities. There was no deliberate ploy to place machines in areas of deprivation. The real determining factor is whether a premise held liquor licenses and has had gaming machines in the past.
