No SkyCity link to gambling funding cut, court told

The Salvation Army is expected to pick up most of PGF's loss. Photo / APN

Any suggestion funding was cut from the Problem Gambling Foundation because it opposed the Government's controversial SkyCity convention centre deal is "wrong" and should not be entertained, a court heard today.

In the third and final day of submissions at the High Court in Auckland -- where the Problem Gambling Foundation is applying for a judicial review of the tender process in which it lost almost all of its funding -- counsel for the Attorney-General refuted claims there was a "political aspect" to the decision.

The Problem Gambling Foundation lost 70 per cent of its funding to the Salvation Army in March, following a Ministry of Health tender process in which 32 bids were made.

It was left with only one specialist contract for Asian problem gamblers, resulting in the closure of its 10 offices and 11 outreach clinics by July 1.

However, its contract was extended until February 2015 after the foundation filed for an urgent judicial review.

At the time of the decision, Opposition MPs claimed the foundation's vocal opposition to the SkyCity convention centre deal, which would allow the casino to open 230 more pokie machines, had a bearing on the ministry's decision.

However, in court today the lawyer for the Attorney-General, Matthew Andrews, said there was no evidence this had a bearing on the decision.

"[The allegation of] whether there was a political aspect to this ... [it has been] proved there isn't anything there," he said.

He asked for an entire affidavit from an expert witness, who alluded to the allegations, to be deemed inadmissible due to bias.

"The suggestion that it's been tainted in this way, it's not just that it's wrong, its that he thinks it's possible. It's that contemplation of it that, in my submission, should concern the court," Mr Andrews said.

The Problem Gambling Foundation had filed an "inadequate" proposal, he said, and that was the reason why it lost out on the Government contracts.

"All the other organisations submitted fully formed bids with costing. The plaintiff [did not]. It's not acceptable to say you could have expanded on those at a later date -- essentially the submission had to make sense in and of itself," Mr Andrews said.

Pointing to the rules of the tender process, which indicated applicants should include all information and evidence in support of their bid, which may be checked by the ministry at a later date, he added: "I read that as trust but verify, not 'you provide us with something inadequate and we will provide you with an opportunity to improve'."

Mr Andrews said his team accepted the decision-maker for the ministry, Rodney Bartling, did not read any of the proposals submitted by potential providers before making his decision, but said he had considered the panel memorandum, which outlined the scores given to each organisation by panel members.

Justice Peter Woodhouse is expected to reserve his decision.