|
|
Hearings Committee
1 December 2023
|
Part
A Reports
Results of consultation on review of Gambling
and TAB Venue Policy
Department: Civic
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 This
report presents a summary of the 17 submissions received on the review of the
Gambling and TAB Venue Policy (the Policy) to the Hearings Committee (the
Committee).
2 Of
the 17 submissions, responses were mixed. 47% of submitters supported no limit
to the number of class 4 gambling venues or gaming machines (GMs), some (24%)
supported the current sinking lid approach, and some (29%) suggested other
options such as capping the number of GMs and broadening the relocation policy.
3 Seven
submitters wish to be heard.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Committee:
a) Considers the submissions on the review of the
Gambling and TAB Venue Policy
b) Makes recommendations to the Council on the Gambling and TAB Venue
Policy.
BACKGROUND
Legislation
4 The
Gambling Act 2003 requires all territorial authorities to have a policy stating
if it would allow new class 4 (non-casino gambling or ‘pokie’
machine) venues within its district and, if so, where they may be situated. The
policy may also limit the number of gaming machines (GMs) at those locations.
5 Matters
to be considered during development of the policy are:
· The
characteristics of the district and parts of the district
· Locations
of kindergartens, early childhood centres, schools, places of worship and other
community facilities
· The
number of gaming machines that should be permitted to operate at any venue or
class of venue
· The
cumulative effects of additional opportunities for gambling in the district
· How
close any venue should be permitted to be to any other venue
· What
the primary activity of any venue should be.
6 The
Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Act 2013 requires territorial
authorities to include a ‘relocation policy’ which sets out if and
when it will grant consent for a venue to relocate within its district.
7 The
Racing Industry Act 2020 requires territorial authorities to adopt a policy on
New Zealand Racing Board venues (TABs) within its district.
8 While
the DCC must have a policy, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) is the
licensing authority and is responsible for the granting or refusing of gambling
licences.
Policy
history
9 In
2004, the Council adopted a Gambling and TAB Venue Policy. At that time there
were no restrictions on the number of venues or GMs. The number of venues and
GMs declined.
10 In
2013, the Council adopted a sinking lid for South Dunedin and a cap was
introduced for the rest of the Dunedin area. The number of venues and GMs
continued to fall.
11 In
2018, the Council extended the sinking lid to the whole Dunedin district and
introduced a relocation clause within the Policy allowing a venue to be
relocated in exceptional circumstances.
12 In
2021, the Council retained the sinking lid and made a minor amendment to the
relocation clause, including fire and natural disaster as examples of
relocation circumstances.
DISCUSSION
Current
review
13 In
September 2023, the Customer and Regulatory Committee approved a statement of
proposal for consultation.
14 The
statement of proposal did not propose any substantive changes to the sinking
lid policy and relocation clause. The only proposed change is to amend the
wording ‘electronic gambling machine’ to ‘gaming
machine’ to be consistent with the wording in the Gambling Act.
15 See
Attachment A for the statement of proposal which includes the current Gambling
and TAB Venue Policy.
Community
engagement
16 The
special consultative procedure was used for the Policy review, as required by
the Gambling Act. Formal consultation took place from 25 September until 25
October.
17 Consultation
included information in the Dunedin City Council website, the Otago Daily Times
noticeboard, as well as targeted emails to stakeholders such as corporate
societies that hold a class 4 venue licence for a venue and organisations
representing Māori, as required by the Gambling Act. Other stakeholders
such as health providers, community trusts and those that provide treatment and
support services for problem gamblers in Dunedin were also advised of the
review and invited to submit.
Results
of consultation
18 17
submissions were received and, of these, 14 were from organisations and three
from individuals.
General support
19 The
submission form asked: Overall, do you agree with the Gambling and TAB Venue
Policy?
|
Options
|
Number
|
%
|
|
Yes – overall agree
with the policy
|
4
|
24%
|
|
No – overall do not
agree with the policy
|
13
|
76%
|
|
Total
|
17
|
100%
|
Table 1: Agreement with Policy by number and percentage
20 The
majority of submitters (76%) do not agree with the Policy and 24% do agree.
Support for options
21 The
submission form asked: Which option do you support in relation to the
Gambling and TAB Venue Policy?
|
Options
|
Number
|
%
|
|
Option 1 (status quo and
preferred option): Retain the existing policy which has a sinking lid
approach to the number of venues and gaming machines in Dunedin and does not
allow relocation of venues unless in exceptional circumstances.
|
4
|
24%
|
|
Option 2: Do not limit the
number of venues or gaming machines anywhere in Dunedin and grant consent for
relocating gambling venues. Limit where new gambling venues may be
established.
|
8
|
47%
|
|
Option 3: Other, please
specify
|
5
|
29%
|
|
Total
|
17
|
100%
|
Table 2: Support for options by number and percentage
22 Of
the three options provided, most (47%) supported the option of not limiting the
number of venues or gaming machines anywhere in Dunedin and granting consent
for relocating gambling venues, whilst 29% chose the ‘other’
option. Of these, most suggested capping the number of GMs and broadening the
relocation policy. In addition, 24% supported the option of retaining the
existing sinking lid policy.
General comments
23 The
submission form asked: Do you have any other comments about the Gambling and
TAB Venue Policy?
|
Topics
|
Number
of submitters
|
|
Loss of community funding
|
10
|
|
Cap the number of GMs
|
5
|
|
Broaden the relocation policy
|
5
|
|
Reduce gambling harm
|
3
|
|
General
|
12
|
Table 3: Summary of comments by number
24 The
most common topic was concern over the loss of community funding potentially
associated with a sinking lid policy (10 submitters). Some suggested a cap on
the number of GMs and broadening the relocation policy (5 submitters) while
others supported the policy as it reduces gambling related harm (3 submitters).
25 The
amount of gambling venue spend in the Dunedin area is monitored by the
Department of Internal Affairs and is reported quarterly. Since Dunedin’s
first Gambling and TAB Venue Policy was introduced, there has been a decline in
the numbers of both class 4 gambling venues and GMs. However, there has not
been a corresponding decline in the amount spent on those machines. Therefore,
there has been no decrease in the amount of money available for community
funding in the Dunedin district.
OPTIONS
26 There
are no options with this report as its purpose is to present a summary of
submissions.
NEXT STEPS
27 Next
steps are for the Committee to consider consultation results, hear the
submitters and make recommendations to the Council regarding the Gambling and
TAB Venue Policy.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Kevin Mechen - Alcohol, Psychoactive Substances and
Gambling Advisor
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Clare Sullivan - Manager Governance
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
⇩a
|
Statement of proposal
for Gambling and TAB Venue Policy review
|
13
|
|
⇩b
|
Summary of Submissions
|
23
|
|
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
Fit with purpose
of Local Government
This decision enables democratic local
decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.
This decision promotes the social and
economic well-being of communities in the present and for the future.
|
|
Fit with strategic
framework
|
|
Contributes
|
Detracts
|
Not applicable
|
|
Social Wellbeing Strategy
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Economic Development Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Environment Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Arts and Culture Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
3 Waters Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Spatial Plan
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Integrated Transport Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Parks and Recreation Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Other strategic projects/policies/plans
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
This Policy contributes to the Social Wellbeing Strategy
priorities of vibrant and cohesive communities, connected people, and safe
and healthy people. It also contributes to the Spatial Plan priority of a
liveable city – a safe and healthy environment.
|
|
Māori Impact
Statement
It is a legal requirement to provide notice of the
proposed policy to organisations representing Māori in the area and this
was part of the community engagement plan. Māori and Pasifika are
disproportionately represented in problem gambling statistics.
|
|
Sustainability
This summary report has no known implications for
sustainability.
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan /
Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy
There are no implications for these documents.
|
|
Financial
considerations
There are no financial considerations.
|
|
Significance
This summary report is considered low in terms of the
Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. However, it recognised
that community views on gambling can be strong and polarised.
|
|
Engagement –
external
Consultation was carried out using the special
consultative procedure as outlined in the Local Government Act. The Gambling
Act requires this method of consultation. Consultation included information
in the Dunedin City Council website, the Otago Daily Times noticeboard, as
well as targeted emails to stakeholders such as corporate societies that hold
a class 4 venue licence for a venue and organisations representing Māori,
as required by the Gambling Act. Other stakeholders such as health providers,
community trusts and those that provide treatment and support services for
problem gamblers in Dunedin were also advised of the review and invited to
submit.
|
|
Engagement -
internal
There has been no internal engagement.
|
|
Risks: Legal /
Health and Safety etc.
There are no known risks.
|
|
Conflict of
Interest
There is no conflict of interest.
|
|
Community Boards
Community Boards were advised of the review and invited to
submit.
|
