The ongoing debate regarding the overhaul of gambling legislation in New Zealand has taken a significant turn this week as the Gaming Machine Association of New Zealand (GMANZ) participated in a High Court hearing concerning new rules devised by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). Set to take effect in less than two weeks, specifically on December 1st, these rules represent the final installment of a series of regulations aimed at curbing problem gambling.
GMANZ has openly endorsed the principle of effective regulation designed to mitigate gambling-related harm. At the same time, the association has expressed concerns about numerous elements within the new regulations, arguing that they fail to confront the broader issues within the Class 4 gambling sector.
Furthermore, GMANZ independent chair Peter Dengate Thrush has been particularly vocal about the manner in which these regulations were conceived, criticizing what he regards as a lack of “proper” consultation. Dengate Thrush underlined the invaluable perspective of those working within gambling venues, saying, “Who are better to identify potential harm than the people working in the venues.”
He lambasted a range of the stipulated measures, highlighting, for instance, one that deems more than two cash withdrawals by a player within a day at a Class 4 venue as a red flag for potential gambling addiction. This assumption does not account for the fact that these venues often include bars and pubs, rendering it impossible to ascertain what patrons are actually spending their money on.
Another contentious proposal requires staff to document each individual in a gaming room every 20 minutes, along with a physical description for reference. Given the scale of this task—what Dengate Thrush quantifies as approximately 720 recordings daily or a staggering quarter of a million annually—concerns have been raised about the practicality and intrusiveness of such measures.
“The staff have to do this work while pouring drinks, cleaning up, monitoring intoxication, and everything else required of a responsible venue host,” Dengate Thrush stated. “Our venue operators consider this unworkable. We have raised these concerns with DIA on a number of occasions, in person, via workshops and webinars, they are completely unwilling to hear us.”
The criticism extends beyond the new regulations to also encompass the regulatory body itself. There is a prevailing sense among industry representatives that the new regulations reflect broader systemic issues with the regulator’s performance, as it is perceived as being out of touch with the realities faced by Class 4 venues and their staff who actively participate in the front-line efforts to reduce gambling harm. According to Dengate Thrush, the regulator seems more intent on producing unfeasible regulations to validate its existence rather than collaborating with the industry.
Despite the criticisms of the proposed regulations, GMANZ is not opposed to the concept of refining industry practices—quite the contrary. The association is advocating for the utilization of problem gambling levy funds towards staff training and the introduction of technology, such as facial recognition systems, to fortify the fight against gambling harm.
Dengate Thrush reiterated the industry’s commitment to reducing harm and supporting those who require help, emphasizing that none of the association’s members desire to see anyone harmed in their venues. He underscored the urgent need for the Department of Internal Affairs to engage meaningfully with industry stakeholders, acknowledging their crucial role within the larger ecosystem. As the High Court hearing proceeds, the outcomes hold substantial ramifications for the future of gambling regulation and its effectiveness in New Zealand.
