1 / 15

Regulatory reform of Class 4 gambling

Regulatory reform of Class 4 gambling. Presentation to the regional forums Joanna Gould and Ben Goodchild Policy Grou p May 2014. Introduction: Main points of discussion.

deron
Download Presentation

Regulatory reform of Class 4 gambling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Regulatory reform of Class 4 gambling Presentation to the regional forums Joanna Gould and Ben Goodchild Policy Group May 2014

  2. Introduction: Main points of discussion • The Department of Internal Affairs has been working to address key issues discussed in last year’s consultation document. • As a result, Cabinet has agreed to: • new regulations to increase the minimum rate of return and require localised return of net proceeds; • new legislation including a new Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) and amendments to the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). • The Department has also undertaken a review of possible regulatory responses to prevent and minimise gambling harm.

  3. Part 1: New Regulations - Increasing the minimum rate of return • The objective of reform is to maximise the proportion of funding returned to the community. • During public consultation, the majority of societies considered that an increase to 40% was achievable, though challenging. • Common society concerns included: • Societies may close low-turnover venues in order to meet the new minimum rate; • Overall returns to communities may decline; and • There may be increased competition for the scarce number of high-turnover venues.

  4. Increasing the minimum rate of return (cont) • Cabinet has agreed to increase the rate of return from 37.12% to: • 40% in the 1stfinancial year after the regulations come into force; • 41% in the 3rd financial year after the regulations come into force; and • 42% in the 5th financial year after the regulations come into force.

  5. Localised return of gambling proceeds • This objective of reform is to ensure that a significant proportion of GMP raised in a geographic area is distributed within that area. • During consultation, there was broad support for returning funds to where they were generated. • Cabinet has agreed that a minimum of 80% of net proceeds must be distributed in the same regional council area that generated them.

  6. Localised return: Defining “local” Net Proceeds • The Department is considering two main options for defining local net proceeds • Option 1: Local GMP divided by the minimum rate of return (i.e. 80% of 40% of regional GMP is required to be distributed locally). • Example: A society raises $3 million in GMP in Auckland over the financial year. • Auckland’s minimum “local” return is $0.960 million (40% of $3 million x 0.8).

  7. Localised return: Defining “local” Net Proceeds (cont.) • Option 2 (preferred): The distribution of net proceeds across the regions is dependent on the proportion of total GMP that is raised locally. • Example: a society raises $10 million in GMP nationwide, of which $3 million (30%) is raised in Auckland. • The societies distributes 45% of GMP ($4.5 million) in net proceeds to authorised purposes. • Auckland’s minimum “local” return is $1.08 million (30% of $4.5 million x 0.8).

  8. Localised return: Other issues • How should it be determined whether net proceeds have been “distributed in the same area that generated them”? The regulations will require that a grant is, in the main, demonstrably for the benefit of the residents of the region • How long should a society have to distribute 80% of their net proceeds? Societies will be required to distribute 80% of their net proceeds locally during each financial year

  9. Part 2: Gambling Amendment Bills • Cabinet has recently approved: • The tabling of a Supplementary Order Paper to the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2); and • The introduction of a Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3).

  10. SOP to the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) • The No 2 Bill makes mostly technical changes to the Gambling Act. • The SOP to the No 2 Bill proposes some further changes to clarify the intent of the Act, including: • Establishing that societies have ongoing obligations (e.g. minimising costs and maximising returns, and minimising the risks of problem gambling); • Clarifying that societies must incur only actual, reasonable and necessary costs; • Clarifying that the Secretary can suspend or cancel a licence for past, one-off breaches of the Act; and • Ensuring that the calculation of net proceeds bysocieties aligns with generally accepted accounting practice.

  11. Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) • The No 3 Bill makes a small number of important improvements to help fulfill the purposes of the Act. • The changes in the Bill aim to: • Reduce red tape by reforming venue payments; • Require more information on grant decisions and operational efficiency; • Strengthen the conflict of interest provisions; • Reduce compliance costs; and • Ensure the efficiency of the appeals process is not undermined.

  12. Part 3: Preliminary review of Gambling Harm Prevention and Minimisation Regulations • The Department has undertaken a preliminary review of possible regulatory responses to prevent and minimise gambling harm. • The review followed the passing of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill 2013 • The review analysed available evidence and research to assess whether there is a need to develop new regulations, or amend regulations already in place.

  13. Results of investigation into Pre-commitment technology • Existing pre-commitment systems vary considerably across jurisdictions. • Often the more effective systems have been costly to implement. • The review found that there is potential for pre-commitment to provide benefits. • At this stage, further research is required to understand the benefits that pre-commitment could provide in a New Zealand context.

  14. Current harm minimisation regulations and unused regulation-making powers • Research has been undertaken on the current regulations and their efficacy. • The Department will continue to monitor the evidence base to ensure the regulations are working as intended. • The Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) has additional harm minimisation regulation-making powers that could be explored.

  15. Questions? Comments?

More Related