Every three years, Council is legally required to review its Gambling Venue Policy—and it’s time to do it again.

This policy guides how we make decisions about class 4 gambling venues (pokie machine venues) and TAB venues in our district. Although we’ve reviewed the policy regularly, it hasn’t changed in 12 years. Now, some updates are needed to keep it compliant with current legislation and we want to hear what you think about these and the other changes we’re proposing.

Under the Gambling Act 2003 and the Racing Industry Act 2020, all councils must have a policy that sets rules for:

• Class 4 gambling venues: these are places like pubs and clubs that have pokie (gaming) machines.
• TAB venues: these are venues where people can place bets in person on horse racing and sports.

Ashburton District Council currently has a combined policy that covers both types of venues. It’s important to note that this policy does not apply to other forms of gambling like casinos, online gambling, or Lotto.

The policy must state whether new class 4 gambling and TAB venues can be established in the Ashburton District, and if so, where they may be located.

The policy can also include additional rules, such as setting a maximum number of pokie machines allowed at each venue, venue numbers, and whether existing venues can relocate while keeping their current consent conditions—for example, retaining the same number of machines.

The policy reflects the key purposes of the Gambling Act 2003 at a local level. Wherever possible it aims to:

• Control the growth of gambling
• Prevent and minimise harm from gambling
• Facilitate responsible gambling
• Ensure that money from gambling benefits the community
• Enable community involvement in decisions about the provisions of gambling

We see the policy as a key tool that Council can use to help shape the long-term impact of gambling in our district. When considering what the policy can influence, we think of it as a spectrum: at one end, stronger local regulation can gradually reduce the presence of the gambling industry over time; at the other, more flexible rules may allow venues greater freedom to establish and operate.

This approach helps us balance the policy, to ensure that any decisions made reflect both local values and the broader regulatory framework.

As a Council, we’ve carefully considered the social impacts of gambling alongside other relevant factors, and we believe a controlled growth approach is the most appropriate approach for our community. This reflects the reality that the gambling industry in our district appears to be somewhat self-regulating, due to the district’s size and the limited market space for new venues to establish.

We are proposing to keep the policy the same, allowing a stand-alone TAB venue to establish in the district given it meets the conditions of the policy.

Why are we proposing this approach?

Given that TAB betting is largely conducted through the online app or at TAB areas within other venues, we think it’s unlikely that a stand-alone TAB venue will establish in our district. However, in the unlikely event that an application is received, we don’t see that this will significantly increase the risk of gambling related harm as it is likely that anyone who would visit the venue already engages in TAB gambling through other means currently available.

We believe the most effective way to manage the growth of TAB gambling in our district is to introduce an additional location-based condition that prohibits new TAB venues from being established in areas identified as having high levels of deprivation. These areas are more likely to experience greater exposure to gambling-related harm due to existing social and economic pressures. By restricting venue placement in such locations, we can help reduce the overall risk of harm and support a more responsible approach to gambling activity across the district.

We are proposing to keep the policy the same, continuing to limit the number of machines allowed in a new venue at 5. We’re also proposing to introduce a district wide venue cap of 20 venues.

Why are we proposing this approach?

We propose to retain the cap on the number of pokie machines at 5 per venue—4 fewer than the maximum of 9 allowed under the Gambling Act. We see this as an effective way to manage the overall growth of machine numbers in the district. This lower cap still allows new venues to establish and benefit from the revenue generated by gaming machines, but it limits the scale of gambling activity at each location, helping to reduce potential harm.

In addition, we’re proposing a district-wide venue cap of 20, which would allow for up to 8 new venue consents beyond the 12 existing consents. This approach strikes a balance between enabling future business development while maintaining control over gambling expansion. It ensures that growth is gradual and measured, rather than reactive or unchecked.

Under this model, the total number of machines in the district could reach 230 housed across 20 venues.

We are proposing to update the policy to permit existing venues to relocate to an alternative site while retaining the same consent conditions for specific reasons. Relocations would be subject to additional conditions and would only be permitted where the venue is moving to a new location within the same town and the proposed area has a deprivation score of 7 or less (medium – low deprivation).

Why are we proposing this approach?

A recent Court of Appeal decision clarified the application of the Gambling Act. This decision means councils must give formal consent for any gambling venue relocation—no matter how small the move. As a result, we need to update our policy to reflect this legal change and decide what our approach to relocations will be.

We’re proposing to update the policy to allow relocations under a defined set of conditions. This approach recognises that many of the existing venues have operated in the district for over 20 years and are supported by the community. We acknowledge that, for practical reasons such as lease changes venues may need to relocate during the course of their operations.

We don’t think it’s fair to revoke gambling consents solely due to a change in location. However, it is essential that relocations don’t contribute to increased levels of harm. That’s why we’re proposing to restrict new locations to areas of lower socioeconomic deprivation. We think this will help reduce the concentration of gambling venues in higher-risk communities, while still allowing existing operators to continue under their current consent conditions.

Overall, we believe this approach strikes the right balance between supporting local businesses while meeting our responsibility to help minimise gambling-related harm in our community.

We are proposing to largely keep the location controls the same but introduce one additional location control which prohibits venues from establishing in, or existing venues relocating to areas that have a socio-economic deprivation score of 8 or more (indicating high levels of deprivation).

Why are we proposing this approach?

There is extensive evidence that gambling harm is disproportionately experienced by individuals living in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation. In recognition of this, the Act requires councils to specifically consider the impact of gambling on these communities when reviewing their gambling venue policies. While incorporating this consideration into policy is likely to have a positive effect in reducing harm, it’s important to acknowledge the geographic context of our district. Due to the relatively compact nature of our towns, residents—regardless of where they live—can easily access gambling venues across the district. This means that even if venues are not located in high-deprivation areas, they remain relatively accessible to those most at risk.