Editorial - Tuesday January 22, 2013

Let's make this easy

THERE is no question that the organisers of Kaitaia's annual surfcasting competition should abide by the law, as should those who organise similar events. There must be a question, however, regarding how enthusiastically the Department of Internal Affairs applies the law, specifically the Gambling Act 2003, the extent to which it might reasonably erect barriers to the staging of such events, and how well it is serving the people it is supposedly protecting.

There is a rich irony in the fact that the 90 Mile Beach Captain Morgan Snapper Bonanza and others can thank a complaint from a poker machine trust for the scrutiny they have endured over recent months. Given that poker machines are widely regarded as the most pernicious form of gambling in this country, it beggars belief that an organisation that benefits from them, albeit ostensibly in the pursuit of supporting worthy causes, could sool Internal Affairs on to a handful of people who are devoting extraordinary amounts of their time and effort, not to mention risking their own money, to organise an event that effectively represents a community service.

Internal Affairs seems to be concerned that those who contest the Snapper Bonanza could be exposing themselves to a gambling addiction, although that doesn't hold a great deal of water. The department's concerns will apparently be met by the forming of an incorporated society (done) and the purchase of a licence (not actually done, but last year's effort was apparently sufficiently meritorious for the department to graciously allow this year's competition to proceed without one), which presumably satisfies the bureaucracy but in reality will do nothing to deter a problem gambler from blowing the housekeeping on bait and swivels.

What we really seem to be talking about is a bureaucratic process that has two objectives - to satisfy the insatiable need for the civil service to regulate, and, not to put too fine a point on it, to ensure that shady individuals are not using the tournament as a smokescreen for an event that will fill their own pockets via money laundering.

It is difficult to come to any other conclusion when the sticking points include competition expenses that the department does not regard as 'actual, reasonable and necessary'. The writer doesn't know the details of those concerns, but is aware that they include the cost of employing surf rescue teams to patrol the beach throughout the hours of fishing. Internal Affairs, which would no doubt concede that it knows nothing about how the Bonanza functions (until relatively recently it was understood to be under the misapprehension that the contest was fished over one day as opposed to five), seems to think that is excessive, and has suggested halving it would be reasonable.

How it reached that conclusion is anyone's guess, but the inference is unmistakable; that the organisers, who have negotiated a deal with Far North Surf Rescue, are paying over the odds for the service rendered. Again, the only reasonable inference to be taken from that is that they, in complicity with Far North Surf Rescue, are laundering money.

No one is saying that, of course, and it should be stated here and now that the writer has never had any grounds whatsoever to doubt that the organisers of this event are anything but scrupulously honest, not to mention community-spirited people who have assumed responsibility for keeping this tournament alive as a means benefiting the local community and economy as opposed to themselves.

Internal Affairs apparently has suspicions to the contrary, given that it is questioning costs that it needs convincing are 'actual, reasonable and necessary.' What other explanation is there if there are genuine concerns that the organisers are paying costs that have not actually been incurred, are not reasonable and are unnecessary?

This inquisition stems from an apparent breach of the Gambling Act 2003 - which as far as the Snapper Classic/Snapper Bonanza, other competitions of its ilk and various expos are concerned apparently went unenforced from its inception until last year - in terms of handing out spot prizes worth more than $500. The Snapper Classic/Bonanza was and is built around major spot prizes, which have arguably had as much influence over selling tickets as the major cash prizes for snapper. Vehicles, boats, overseas travel and major household appliances have all been given away as spot prizes, with nary a murmur from anyone in Wellington. Now, nine years after the relevant Act became law, there are more than murmurs. The Bonanza organisers have been told that that they may stage this year's event but will have to comply after that if they wish to continue.

How they will do that is not yet clear. Once the sand has settled from the 2013 competition they will turn their attention to convincing the department that nothing nefarious is going on, but while common sense might suggest that'll be a gimme, it would not pay to rely on that quality prevailing.

More pertinently, it might well come to pass that the time, energy and financial resources available to the organisers will expire before a satisfactory conclusion is reached. These people do have day jobs, businesses to run and people to employ. It would not be surprising if they were to get the stitch long before a government department does.

Once again this seems to be a situation where civil servants are setting out to make something as difficult as possible when they might be expected to be looking for ways to reach a positive outcome.

To be fair, they have a job to do, and there would be plenty of squeals if they didn't do that job properly and people were hurt. They should not assume that the licence applicants they deal with are all honest, genuine, ethical people. They have a standard to enforce without exception, to protect people who might otherwise suffer loss. But that has to be tempered with common sense.

At the end of the day, the Bonanza's books will be audited, a process that will surely expose anything sinister. The suggestion that the awarding of major spot prizes somehow represents illegal gambling will surely not be a hindrance. That is a silly interpretation of a longstanding practice that no one, even in Internal Affairs, believes for a moment, surely.

And while it is this department's job to ensure rules, preferably sane ones, are complied with, it might bear in mind that last year's Bonanza, according to the organisers' calculations, benefited the Kaitaia economy to the tune of almost $1.6 million thanks to competitors, their families and friends, who travelled from outside the district. The expectation for this year is that that will rise to $1.9 million, or if it's a sell-out more than $2.1 million.

That is not to be sneezed at by a community that doesn't get many chances to extract money from 'foreign' pockets. And in fact the gains might be considerably greater than that. There is no doubt that contests past have benefited the Far North's tourism industry, or that the event has given the district a profile that the community could never hope to fund.

That doesn't mean that the organisers should enjoy open slather and to hell with the rules, but it might be seen as meaning that government departments should seek ways of helping them. Internal Affairs should be guiding the Bonanza where guidance is needed for genuine, reasonable reasons of compliance, not waving a stick and muttering darkly about needing to do better next time.