DIA tries to show pokie system isn't broke!

Gaming machines in a Huntly bar will be switched off for two days next week (30 and 31 July) because a staff member was not trained to deal with problem gamblers.

Internal Affairs’ Gambling Compliance Director, Debbie Despard, said the two-day suspension of Pub Charity’s gaming machine operator’s licence at a Huntly bar emphasises the responsibilities gambling trusts have to ensure bar staff are adequately trained to deal with problem gambling.  It also highlights the importance of gaming societies ensuring that their venues comply with all gambling law requirements.

The Department suspended Pub Charity’s licence for one day after a complaint that the sole staff member at McGinty’s Turf and Sports Bar failed to issue a self-exclusion order to a problem gambler, due to lack of training.

The Gambling Commission doubled the sanction after the trust appealed the Department’s decision. The Commission said it was very concerned that a problem gambler “who had decided to take the difficult step of seeking self-exclusion to avoid ongoing harm” had not been able to make good the commitment on the day in question. Pub Charity had breached an important obligation over about three months.

Debbie Despard said self-exclusion allows a person to ask a venue manager to ban them from a venue for two years and can be very effective for people experiencing harm from gambling. Venues will be aware that a person has self-excluded and must take action if they try to re-enter.

“Gambling societies are responsible for ensuring that a person trained in problem gambling awareness is on duty whenever there is gambling offered,” she said.

The Department is working with problem gambling services and gambling operators to introduce multi-venue exclusion (MVE) programmes around the country.

“These allow a person to self-exclude from several venues at once without having to visit each personally,” Debbie Despard said. “Providing a ‘one-stop shop’ avoids the daunting prospect of a problem gambler having to repeatedly seek self-exclusion, losing resolve in the process.”

The MVE programme was started in 2006 by Internal Affairs’ gambling inspectors in Queenstown, where approximately 170 gamblers have sought self-exclusion.  The programme was extended to Invercargill, Dunedin, Nelson, Hamilton, Rotorua and Tauranga; Christchurch, Lower Hutt and Auckland are the latest areas to implement MVEs. The United Kingdom’s problem gambling care provider, GamCare, adopted a similar scheme after being briefed on the programme.

Time to put the heat on pokie charities - Herald Editorial

   The scrutiny on poker machines and the damage they cause has never been more intense. Such has been the product of SkyCity's proposed convention centre deal and Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell's Gambling Harm Reduction Bill, which passed its first reading in Parliament last month.In such circumstances, it might be expected that pokie charities would be doing everything possible to keep their noses clean. Not a bit of it, apparently. According to the Problem Gambling Foundation, they are using money meant for community projects to oppose Mr Flavell's bill. Such activity succeeds only in further undermining their position and adding weight to the legislation.

   It is easy to see why the gaming trusts strongly oppose the bill. Their very existence is threatened. It would strip power from the gaming trusts that dominate the pokie industry in pubs and clubs, placing the power to distribute the $300 million available to community groups in the hands of committees appointed by local councils. Further, 80 per cent of the poker machine proceeds would have to go back to the communities where the gambling took place.

   The latter aspect has much to commend it. At the moment, poorer communities suffer the consequences of this insidious and addictive form of gambling disproportionately. It makes sense that, as far as possible, the proceeds from pokies help those most harmed by them, rather than community groups, charities, schools and sports clubs in areas where they barely have a presence.         This may encourage the installation of more pokies in such suburbs. The relatively small number of users would, however, temper any such development. Equally, the 80 per cent threshold, rather than a dogmatic 100 per cent, provides flexibility in the distribution of money.

   It should be far harder to support the transfer of that distribution power from gaming trusts to local committees. Such an upheaval makes sense only if the pokie charities are not properly and fairly maximising returns to the community while minimising the harm caused by pokies.

Unfortunately, they are erring in rather too many cases. Two years ago, the Internal Affairs Department suggested that 30 of the country's 50 gambling trusts had "issues of non-compliance" similar to those of the Trusts Charitable Foundation, which paid more than $500,000 to one of its trustees to sign up new pokie venues.

   There has also been discontent over the vast sums going from poker machines to trotting clubs in a way that has raised questions of conflict of interest. In 2009, three trusts were banned from giving any more money to four trotting clubs after their grants to them soared from less than $500,000 a year to $5.4 million over two years.

   Issues of transparency and non-compliance raised by these episodes have been compounded by the money apparently being used to oppose Mr Flavell's bill. Rules governed by the Internal Affairs Department stipulate that pokie proceeds should be spent on reasonable and necessary purposes. It is difficult to see how this spending qualifies. Ethically, it is certainly unsustainable. Money meant to be returned to community groups or to fund harm minimisation measures is being used unconscionably.

   It hardly helps that the Pub Charity Incorporated chief executive insists that the harm caused by pokies is overstated. An abundance of research suggests this is far from so.

The pokie charities' behaviour is self-destructive. It may be all the more reckless given that parties should, by convention, allow their MPs a conscience vote on gambling issues. They will have only themselves to blame if Mr Flavell's bill gains far more traction than initially seemed likely.

Northland communities short-changed by 'Pokie Trusts'

Denise Roche MP

Community and sporting groups in Northland stand to benefit by nearly $10 million annually if a new Bill currently before Parliament is supported, Green Party gambling spokesperson Denise Roche said today.

The Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is a Private Members Bill put forward by MP Te Ururoa Flavell, which was supported by 85 votes to 7 at its first reading in April.  The Bill will require councils to set up independent committees to distribute funds from the pokie industry.

“Pokie trusts operating in Northland only return an average of 39% of the $26 million lost annually into their pokie machines back to the community,” said Ms Roche.

"The rest is used by the pokie trusts for admin costs, including directors' fees, or goes back to the government in GST and levies.

"The new Bill will change this situation, requiring a higher rate of return of 80% to the local community, or almost $21 million annually in Northland’s case.

“Pub Charity, one of the two largest pokie trusts in Northland, returned only just over the legal minimum of 37.12% of money lost in its pokie machines to community and sporting groups,” said Ms Roche.

"Pub Charity alone would have to hand over about $4 million extra a year to Northland groups if the Flavell Bill goes through.”

"Pokies are the most harmful form of gambling, but as we recognise they will be around for some time, it is vital that any benefits gained offset harm they cause in the communities affected.”

Ms Roche was also pleased that the proposed legislation would clamp down on pokie money being recycled into the gambling industry via donations to support horse-racing and would introduce systems on pokie machines designed to reduce addiction problems.

Submissions on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill to the Commerce Select Committee close on 21 June, with hearings expected to be around August. The Green Party supports the Bill.

Pokies and Porkies

Te Ururoa Flavell MP

Am I the only one who thinks folks from the pokie trusts have been telling a load of porkies lately, in their desperate attempts to get public opinion on side?Te Ururoa Flavell’s Gambling Harm Reduction Bill certainly seems to have caused a flurry of lobbying – with Pub Charity and the Lion Foundation, two of the largest trusts, doing much of the lobbying.
In the last week they’ve:
- Emailed thousands of community organisations who are grant recipients, asking them to make submissions opposing the Bill
- Launched a website called Ban the Bill
- Spent tens of thousands of dollars on a 12-page insert in the weekend papers promoting their organisation’s role in the community.
From what I can see, however, all this activity does seem to be based on self-interest, rather than in the best interests of the community.
The Bill, which passed First Reading with a massive 85 votes in favour, with 7 votes opposed, would do away with these self-appointed pokie trusts. They would be replaced with local distribution committees set up by councils, in much the same way the Government’s Creative NZ Fund is currently managed.
Under current law, these trusts are only required to redistribute about 37% of pokie machine takings back to the community. So only about $240 million annually from pokie machine losses goes back to communities. The rest is split between Government levies and the well over $100 million which goes towards the trusts’ own administration costs.
This Bill increases the percentage of pokie machine takings which must be given back to the community to 80%. If the Bill becomes law, the DIA’s latest figures indicate that over $224 million in additional support would be sheeted back to the community in grants, or a total of about $464 million.
The Bill also requires new mandatory gambling addiction prevention measures on pokie machines – something problem gamblers desperately need.
All of this runs counter to what the industry’s saying in the media. Martin Cheer, CEO of Pub Charity, has claimed that the Bill would mean less money for the community. That’s ironic, given that his own outfit is short-changing community groups by nearly $28 million a year, returning only 37.7% of the $65 million currently lost via the pokie machines it owns. That’s one of the worst rates of return of any pokie trust. Mr Cheer ought to clean up his own backyard before criticising this Bill.
What there would be less money for is the expensive salaries and flash offices of the trustees and management in these self-appointed groups. And possibly less for professional rugby and other professional sports.
The reality is that communities are being ripped off by cronyism and rorts in the pokie industry. The funds consumed by the pokie trusts are enormous. The Green Party believes it’s time some transparency and accountability was brought to bear. That’s why we’re supporting Mr Flavell’s Bill.
Submissions to parliament’s Commerce Select Committee close 21 June; to make an online submission click here.
- Green Party MP Denise Roche

Pokie trusts accused of misusing community cash

[By David Fisher, NZ Herald, 6/6/12]

   Pokie charities have been accused of using money meant for community projects to oppose a proposed law 

change which threatens their survival. A complaint has been lodged with the Department of Internal Affairs asking if gaming trusts were legally entitled to spend money to oppose a bill which seeks to reform the gaming industry. 

   The gaming sector's lobbying has had an effect on senior Cabinet ministers, said Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell, who drafted the bill. Mr Flavell's private member's bill would strip power from the gaming trusts which dominate the $700 million pokie industry in pubs and clubs.

   It would put power to distribute the $300 million available to community groups in the hands of local authorities, wiping out the current funding bodies. The bill also aims to increase harm prevention measures and to increase the amount of money returned to communities which host pokie machines.

   The gaming trusts which distribute grants have been organising meetings and started an online campaign seeking support to overturn Mr Flavell's bill. The campaign included a website, barthebill.co.nz, created by Pub Charity Incorporated and emails from the Lion Foundation urging opposition.

   Problem Gambling Foundation chief executive Graeme Ramsey said he had complained about money being spent by the trusts on opposing the bill. He said the rules, governed by the department, stipulated pokie proceeds should be spent on reasonable and necessary purposes.

   "It is very questionable as to whether this meets that purpose," Mr Ramsey said.

He said the gaming sector was rallying because the bill "absolutely threatens their survival".

"Turkeys don't vote for Christmas," he said. "They are running seminars and encouraging grant recipients all over the country to put in submissions against it."

   Green Party spokeswoman on gambling Denise Roche accused gaming trusts of bullying community groups to put in submissions. She said she knew of one group which had been told by four different funding bodies in one week to put in a submission.

   The submissions were publicly declared and would allow gaming trusts to see who had opposed the bill.

   Mr Flavell said he drafted the bill because of the negative effects gambling had on Maori, Pacific and lower socio-economic communities. He said it had also become clear the gaming trust system was flawed.

   "Some of the trusts are straight out and out rorting the system. There are a number of trusts getting away with murder."

   Mr Flavell said he was concerned opponents of the bill had made statements which he believed were untrue. "Scaremongering" was counter-productive to the debate around pokie trusts which the public needed to have. He said he knew of senior Cabinet ministers being approached by the gaming sector and told of flaws in his bill.

   He expected the bill to go through changes as part of the select committee process, under which the public would have the opportunity to debate pokie machines, their proceeds and how they were distributed.