Wanganui District Council got the cart before the horse when it deliberated on its gambling machine policy, according to the Charity Gaming Association and as a result the association will be asking the Department of Internal Affairs to investigate the council's decision.
Francis Wevers, chief executive of the association, said the council's decision to impose a sinking lid on gambling machines in the district breached both the Gambling Act and the Local Government Act.
Mr Wevers said it was also "unfortunate that the Mayor has seen fit to play the man rather than the ball because there is a serious issue here, which I have also drawn to the attention of council".
He was referring to Mr Laws' broadside at Martin Cheer, CEO of Pub Charity, who had suggested the council had made the wrong decision and had breached the Local Government Act. The Charity Gaming Association is the industry organisation representing a number of other trusts and foundations operating gaming machines around the country, including Pub Charity.
Mr Wevers told the Chronicle yesterday that council got the timing sequence of the process wrong in terms of its obligations under the Gambling Act 2003.
"The Gambling Act says at section 102 (1) that the class 4 gambling venue policy '& must be adopted in accordance with the special consultative procedure in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 &'," he said.
"It then goes on in section 102 (2) that a policy (which has already been adopted in accordance with the special consultative procedure) '& may be amended or replaced only in accordance with the special consultative procedure &'."
He said section 83 of the Local Government Act requires a territorial authority to prepare a statement of proposal and put the statement of proposal on the agenda.
"Most importantly it must publicly notify the proposal and tell its community how to make submissions, how much time has been allowed etc. Under the Gambling Act key affected groups must be specially advised.
"The council appears to have gone to consultation about options but not about the specific proposal which resulted from its consideration of the options. Therefore they are in breach of the requirements of both Acts, which require consultation about the specific amendment or replacement of the existing policy," Mr Wevers said.
"In my view that effectively makes the new policy null and void."
He said that had been conveyed in a letter he sent to council's chief executive who replied that it would be on the agenda for the next council meeting.
Mr Wevers said he would be asking the Department of Internal Affairs to review whether the council acted in breach of the requirements of the Gambling Act 2003.
He said if the current procedure makes the council's decision null and void, he believed it would be left with two alternatives to go through the process again and do it properly or do nothing and leave the previous policy to stand.
He said because it was a full council that voted on the sinking lid policy "then they can't effectively go through the procedure again, in my view, because they've all predetermined the outcome".
"By default they should go back to the status quo prior to this process and leave that in place until the next local body elections and revisit it then," Mr Wevers said.
At the hearing in July, Cr Sue Westwood, chair of the hearing committee, said that once council adopted the policy there was no right of appeal. A judicial review could only be requested if it was deemed the council's processes were flawed.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.