At the FINZ Conference Trevor Garret of the Charities Commission reminded us to have a look at the amendments to the Fair Trading Act which include the Amy Adams proposal. This one certainly bears a look. It all started the year before last when Amy Adams proposed that charities should be challenged to notify donors about the cost of fundraising.
The second Bill we need to be aware of is the Gambling Harm Reduction Bill proposed by Te Ururoa Flavell. Again this has been around for some time but it has now passed its first reading by 83 to 7. Winston Peters is the only name of note opposing it largely because it removes racing as an authorised purpose.
So what is the purpose?
The aim of this Bill is to enable “local authorities, in consultation with their communities, to reduce the number of, or even eliminate, pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm”. The Bill also changes the responsibility for distributing pokie funds and “proposes to give gamblers more ability to limit and control their own gambling behaviour through player tracking and pre-commit cards
From an outside point of view this Bill be supported by a large number of charities but there are some drawbacks as I shall explain. The Bill proposes that territorial authorities will replace gaming societies as the arbiter of who gets the funds. Societies will no longer exist and each local council will instead appoint a committee of local people to make local decisions. At least eighty percent of the funds raised will go to local worthy causes.
So my question one is what happens to national applications. The Bill is only 11 pages long and I cannot find any positive explanation of how national charities could apply. So national fundraisers beware. You will have to apply to about 65 local body councils to get funds for a national project and then you will have to show how it's being spent in each council area.
For local organisations I see no particular benefit. Societies will be replaced by councils but there is nothing to say that the fund distribution committee will be anymore supportive of your group than any other. In fact if someone on this committee doesn't like your work (or you personally) there will be nowhere else to turn! At least at the moment you can find differing opinions by going to different gaming machine societies. If you don't succeed with one, you can at least try your luck (Ha!Ha!) with another. Under the proposed legislation you will be stuck with only one local funder. This actually gives amazing power to a few appointed people in your community. Too much power I would advocate! And remember if these people are appointees, they will change with every local government election. If your politics don't fit - all of you will be out!
I have to declare my personal interest here. I am an elected member of a licensing trust which has a class four gaming licence. We are established to support our local community which is a more restricted area than our local council covers. Under the proposed changes our gaming funds will be added to a pool for the entire area, thus having the opposite effect than the Flavell Bill intends. So in our case, our very local community will suffer as we're taken over by the big boys!
I'm also unsure how the local council will cope with responsibilities of owning/managing and supervising gambling in their communities. They are not going to be funded to run pokie venues. They don't have the ability to create economies of scale like the societies have done. They don't have specialist staff - they will need to recruit managers and inspectors. They will need to create mechanisms for appointing (and perhaps paying) community representatives and while this may sound like a great job, realistically would local people want to be held responsible for approving and declining funding for organisations and people that they know very well! Corruption is just as feasible in this scenario as it is with gaming societies.
So where is the good news?
This will benefit some very local charities who will have the opportunity to lobby very local representatives. Full stop! I can't really see anything else. I don't advocate that our current system is perfect but nor do I see this as a reasonable alternative.
Be aware, be very, very, very aware of all the implications and remember that it was passed on first reading 83 to 7!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment