Gambling Bill

The title of this bill is the Gambling Bill. The bill is the result of a very comprehensive review of gaming conducted in the year 2001. At the moment the sector is governed by several different pieces of legislation, each with its own objectives. The Gambling Bill brings together all the different parts of the sector. It repeals the Gaming and Lotteries Act and the Casino Control Act. It also includes aspects of racing, so it is fair to say the bill creates a fairly complete regulatory framework for gambling in New Zealand. It is truly a gaming bill.

Gaming is a complex issue. It will always generate debate—and some of that is fairly heated debate—because people have such widely differing views on it. Some people enjoy a little flutter, and see gambling as a harmless leisure activity.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The debate on the title clause in the Committee is limited strictly to the elements of that clause—that is, whether the proposed title adequately describes the bill. It is not an opportunity to debate the general principles of the bill, its intent, or anything else. It is a very narrow debate, unless members seek leave to widen the debate.

What I am doing is saying why the bill is called the “Gambling Bill” and not the “Responsible Gambling Bill”, which is what it was previously called.

💬 Hon David Carter: Seek leave and we will give it to you.

I bet you will! I think it is very important that people realise that gambling is something that most people in New Zealand, some time or another, will do—have a bit of a flutter. The bill deals with such things as Melbourne Cup sweepstakes. As such, I believe it is very, very important.

I know that people will possibly look for different names for this bill, and I am sure the National Party will suggest lots of different names.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: You would be right there.

Yes, I would be right on that. It looks as though someone wants to bet that I will be right. Well, that just shows us how bad it is around this place. The name of this bill clearly signifies what it is about. Originally it was introduced as the “Responsible Gambling Bill”, but when people looked at the titles of Acts later on and wanted to look at gambling, they might not have thought of looking under the term “Responsible Gambling Act”. So the bill is now called the Gambling Bill, and I think that is most appropriate.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on acknowledging that the name of this bill should have been changed, and on acknowledging that when people are looking for a Gambling Bill, they are unlikely to find it—or to expect to find it—under the letter “R”. So well done to the Minister on that point! That said, however, we come now to why it is no longer called the “Responsible Gambling Bill” in reality. It is because it is not really all that responsible any more. That is one of the problems that we in the National Party have with this particular bill. Certainly, when the name “Responsible Gambling Bill” was first mooted some years ago and brought to the attention of those in the gambling industry—or gaming industry as they prefer to be called—people like myself looked at this name and asked how anyone could possibly call it a “Responsible Gambling Bill”, and said what a whitewash, sort of wimpy, sort of liberal, rubbish name it was. Of course it was—and good on the Minister for acknowledging it!

I question whether it should be called the “Irresponsible Gambling Bill”, on the basis that some of its provisions are irresponsible. I will refer to those later on, but seeing that we are looking at the title, I will give members a little rundown on it. Internet gambling and gambling on pokie machines are the two most addictive forms of gambling. That is a proven fact. Every international study has shown it. With this bill, we are being asked not only to allow both these forms of gaming in New Zealand by the Lotteries Commission, but—worse than that—the Lotteries Commission will now be able to compete with private enterprise in this area.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Talk to the title.

I keep coming back to this title. It should be called the “Irresponsible Gambling Bill” because the Lotteries Commission will be able to do this without any proper regulation of how it operates. That is one of the reasons it should perhaps be called the “Irresponsible Gambling Bill”.

I want to come back to the title. One of the problems the Minister had when he was introducing the title was that he kept calling it the “Gaming Bill”. He has trouble saying the “Gambling Bill”, so perhaps we should just call it the “Gaming Bill”. I do not know why it had to be called the “Gambling Bill”, when the Minister does not want to call it that, and when most of the people in the industry do not refer to the industry as the “gambling industry” any more, but call it the “gaming industry”. That is how the industry is referred to overseas, and how it is referred to here. I understand that the reason for calling this bill the “Gambling Bill” is that the word “gambling” has a more negative connotation than the word “gaming”, and that part of the purpose of originally calling it the “Responsible Gambling Bill” was to constantly put in those negative connotations.

In his last speech, the Minister referred to how a lot of people in this country are able to go into the gaming industry in a responsible way, and, of course, most people can do that, but some cannot. Our primary concern is to look to those who have problems with gambling, and also to look at why the Government is promoting gambling, when that is contrary to what it should be doing. The Government should be there to regulate gambling, to take the taxes out of it, and to make sure that those taxes are properly used and that there are fair gains. One of the primary provisions of this bill is to make the Government one of the main promoters and sellers of gambling products, which makes it a somewhat irresponsible gambling bill.

We have reservations over the name of this bill. In some ways, we think it is good, because we can now look for it under “G”—or possibly even “I” for “irresponsible”—rather than “R”, but at the end of the day, it is just another indication that the Minister has given up worrying about being responsible with the gambling industry and with gambling legislation. This bill will be all about taxing the industry out of existence, and about the Government competing with people in private enterprise—with casinos, and with people in the community who have pokie machines, where the money goes back to the community and does a good job.

I am pleased to speak on the title of this bill, which was recommended by the Government Administration Committee. I believe that the select committee unanimously decided that the title to this bill should be the “Gambling Bill”, rather than the “Responsible Gambling Bill”. It deals with many forms and classes of gambling, and I am pleased that we have a gambling bill before this House after many years, and that we have got to the Committee stage of this bill.

In talking to New Zealanders, one will find extreme points of view on what gambling should or should not be allowed, what gambling is and is not, and what is responsible and what is not. On the whole, I think the select committee worked very hard at trying to find a middle ground between the views of all New Zealanders. What is responsible is the fact that the Government has at last come forward with this bill and is getting it through the House. We are concerned about the growth of gambling, and I do not think that there is one New Zealander who would not agree that gambling has grown, that the proliferation of pokie machines has caused tremendous social problems, and that we need greater restriction.

As I have said, there are many items in this bill that deal with many forms of gambling, and with the responsibilities of the community and of local government. The bill puts in more restrictions and limits the number of machines, and I wish to thank the Minister of Internal Affairs and officials for the work that has been done. I also thank the select committee. It was not unanimous on much in this bill, but it was certainly unanimous on the title.

After about 3 years, and maybe even longer, we now have a bill—

💬 Dianne Yates: About 10 years.

There we go, it is 10 years, but in my time, it is 4 years, because we first started looking at a discussion document entitled Gaming Reform in New Zealand that the department put out. A number of submissions were made at that time, and then we moved through the genesis of this current bill, which was initially called the Gaming Law Reform Bill. At that time, the bill was looking at two parts of the industry: the licensing side of gaming, and the regulatory side. That title disappeared somewhere during the select committee stage, and we came up with the Responsible Gambling Bill—and, for those who do not know, it was 330 pages long. The bill will now be known as the Gambling Bill.

What is really interesting is that on Thursday we had a Supplementary Order Paper that was 65 pages long. This bill should be called the “United Future Reform Bill”, because the United Future party has done a deal with the Government to come up with 163 new clauses—and I did not count the changes in the schedules. Of members here today, only the chairperson of the Government Administration Committee, Dianne Yates, who has just spoken, and myself, who sat on the committee right through, know what happened during that time. This bill had no United Future members considering it, because at that time there was only one United Future member. Yet the influence that United Future has had on this bill comes through in the form of the Supplementary Order Paper lodged on Thursday, which significantly changes some of the content of this bill.

This bill is about winners and losers. I could call it the “Winners and Losers Bill”, because there will be some winners. The winners, for example, will be the casinos, because at this stage there will be no more casinos, so those who are out there now and are well established will be the real winners. Another winner out of this legislation will be the racing industry. I do not decry the racing industry—the TAB and the racing clubs—having pokie machines. Good on them!

Yet a sector of the community will be the losers, and that is those involved in the gaming industry and the pokies, and whatever, because of the restrictions and compliance costs that will be put on them, and the very prescriptive nature of this bill. So my title refers to those people as the losers in the bigger scheme of things.

My colleague Judith Collins talked about the interactive aspect—Internet betting. We could refer to this, because that has now been removed, and the Lotteries Commission will be able to go out there—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Yes, I am getting to the Internet part. We could call this bill “The Bill That Supports Internet Betting”. Reports that have been done suggest that by the year 2005 Internet betting will be worth about £7 billion. I have here some glossy magazines that have been sent out to me. One is called Fortune Gaming: Bringing Gaming on Line, and that is really what will happen. In fact, we can sit in our lounges at home—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

This is about Internet betting, Mr Chairman. It is in the bill, and that is why I have referred to it. This bill could be called “Opening Up Internet Betting”, because there is a clause that relates to that. I can sit at home in my lounge and log on to 1,000 different sites around the country. That is what I can do now, so this bill needs to be renamed.

I speak on the title with a sense of pride but also, I must admit, a feeling of regret and disappointment. The disappointment is symbolised by the fact that the bill is now called the Gambling Bill, not the Responsible Gambling Bill. The Progressive party supports people having fun. I have been known to bet myself—with very little success, but I have been known to bet. But we are also deeply concerned to protect families, and especially the children, of those people afflicted with gambling problems. Unlike United Future and, it seems, its potential partner in the next Government, the ACT party, we are serious about protecting the liberty, freedom, and future of the children of problem gamblers.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I remind the member that this debate is a very narrow debate. It concerns whether the title adequately describes the bill.

Of course, Mr Chairman. The centre-left coalition Government in its first term was able to introduce the Responsible Gambling Bill. That would not have been possible without the support of our then supporting party, the Green party. We live in an MMP world. Neither the first Clark-Anderton coalition nor the current Labour-Progressive Government has ever held a majority in this House. The reality of MMP dictates that, to make any progress at all in making the gambling industry more family-friendly and less potentially harmful to our society, the minority centre-left Labour-Progressive coalition requires the support of at least one Opposition party, and that is no different from the situation in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament I was confident we would get strong legislation that would please anti-poverty campaigners, because the Greens were lined up with us. The Greens, like the Progressives, knew the importance of cutting, then capping, the number of pokie machines in New Zealand. We on the progressive left knew the importance of not making it any easier for addicted gamblers to throw their families’ $1 notes into pokie machines, and not having an open-slather Internet gambling regime.

As we have 63 seats in Parliament, we should have had more to celebrate today. The truth is that the Progressives and the Greens were making progress with Labour on this issue, then, sometime earlier this year, the Greens walked away. They were not getting everything they wanted, so they walked out the door. There is emotional satisfaction, perhaps, in walking away from issues when the negotiating gets tough, but we did not get everything we wanted, either, in the Responsible Gambling Bill. If we had walked away, the improvements to gambling regulations that are, undoubtedly, contained in this bill would have been lost, and we would not have made any progress at all. I urge the Green Party members, with all comradely respect from an ally on many issues, to consider the effect of their collective decision. The lesson of what they have done on this bill has ramifications for every other bill of relevance to the centre-left as a whole. The vacuum in numbers created by their walking away has been filled by United Future—a party that says it is pro-family but will vote against 4 weeks’ annual leave.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the member that I know that the title debate is a difficult one, and Parliament often has trouble with it, but we are supposed to be debating whether the title is the right one—something along those sorts of lines—rather than giving a general speech, which can be part of the debate on Part 1. This is a very narrow debate.

I take your guidance, Mr Chairman, and all I ask, regarding the title of this bill, is that the Green Party please learn from the position we find ourselves in today.

I will take just a short call on the title. I am pleased to see that the Government has taken “Responsible” out of the title, because there is nothing responsible about excessive gambling, and, unfortunately, this bill does lend itself to allowing excessive gambling. It does nothing, really, to tighten it up.

The Gambling Bill, as it is now entitled, should, I suggest have a different title. The bill is nothing more than a licence for this Government to print money, so it should be called the “Licence to Print Money Bill”. This Government has set itself up to grab more taxes and more levies under the guise of supporting problem gambling. In actual fact, the Government is not doing that with this bill. The title could be the “Government’s Golden Opportunity to Grab More Taxes Bill” because, as this bill is set up, it allows huge profits to be made, and as those huge profits are made, huge taxes will come from them. The Government takes a huge grab of those profits in taxes. So another title could be the “Opportunity for the Government to Grab More Taxes Bill”.

United Future’s part in this bill has been to allow the anti-family section of it, so it should be called the “Anti-Family Bill Promoted by United Future”. United Future members have set out to promote huge volumes of this bill. They are proud to say they have had some changes made. Supplementary Order Paper 132 is 65 pages long, and they claim that in it are some changes that they have had made. So the bill could be called “United Future’s Anti-Family Supplementary Order Paper Bill”. That is a more apt title.

The Government has removed from the title the word “Responsible”—the responsible part of it. The Government is now calling the bill the Gambling Bill.

I rise to speak to the title. The bill is now called the Gambling Bill. The changes to the title that have gone on are indicative of what has happened to the bill itself. It has been passed from side to side, there have been dealings with different parties, it has gone round and round, through swings and roundabouts, and all sorts of changes have transpired. In fact, the bill as it started off bears little resemblance to what we have now. But is the title a good indication of what is in the bill? I do not think so.

It was interesting to listen to the Hon Matt Robson’s speech on the title. When he was not diverted to making comments about other parties in the House, when he was not having to be reined in by the Chair, he made a lot of comments about disappointment, about concern over the content of the bill now, about concern about families, and about gambling not being conducive to good family life and what not. Because he expressed those great concerns, I look forward to Progressive casting its two votes with this side, and opposing the bill. His speech certainly sounded to me like a speech of a member who opposes what is inside this legislation—whether or not he agrees with what the title now is.

We have heard several suggestions about changing the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I again say to members that, in debating the title, they have to ask themselves whether the proposed title adequately describes the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. That is why I was coming—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Every member has had a problem with this. I refer members to Standing Order 108(2). If the discussion continues in this way, then I will terminate speeches or take a closure motion.

Many other members have suggested alternative titles. Judith Collins suggested “Irresponsible Gambling Bill” instead of “Responsible Gambling Bill”. That is a very good suggestion. What we see here is not a lot of responsibility, at all. From what the Hon Matt Robson said, one would have thought that people who go to gambling premises to gamble had a gun held to their heads. It is good that the word “Responsible” has been taken away, because the general theme in this legislation is that personal responsibility does not count at all; that people are not responsible for their actions, and therefore the legislation is necessary. So “Irresponsible Gambling Bill” is a reasonably good suggestion.

Another suggestion by Judith Collins is that the title be the “Gaming Bill”. Who would like to stand to tell us what the difference between gaming and gambling is? Why have we had this change? It seems there is no good reason, except that we have had backwards-and-forwards toing and froing between parties. Gambling is, I suppose, a much more negative term, and that is what this Government wants to imply—that gambling is a terrible thing, that people cannot be held responsible for gambling, and that the Government must take care of those who have problems with it. I feel much more sorry for the families of those who encounter difficulties. But people must be held responsible for their own actions.

Is it responsible to allow more power to go to the Department of Internal Affairs? Most certainly, I stand in this Committee today and say “No”. I guess that “Responsible Gambling Bill” is not appropriate; it must be called the Gambling Bill. Is it responsible to hand over responsibility for problem gambling to the Ministry of Health? The section under the heading “Background”, in the commentary, cannot even name the Government department that is to be responsible, such is the shame, I suppose, that goes with it. The ministry itself has had a great deal of difficulty with accountability; I could name many examples, but I suspect the Chair will not let me go that way.

The problem gambling committee, which we have at the moment, has representatives both from the industry and from groups concerned about the treatment aspect of gambling addiction. It actually provides a very good service at the moment. If one speaks to the members of those organisations, one hears them say that the right chord has been struck and there is a reasonable sort of balance, but, no, again the Government wants to take responsibility for people. It wants to hand over responsibility for problem gambling to an organisation that has not had a lot of success in many other areas—the Ministry of Health. That is a retrograde step. The public health aspect of this measure will be a dismal failure, and not nearly as good as what we have at the moment.

For the first few years of this bill’s existence—and it has taken a remarkably long time to reach this stage—it was known as the Responsible Gambling Bill. It was only in the last phases of the select committee process that it was decided to change the title by removing the word “Responsible”—a truly prescient warning of what was to be this bill’s eventual fate.

What was then called the Responsible Gambling Bill started its life at a time when the Alliance was part of the Government, and when both the Green Party and the Alliance were pleased that Labour was willing, in theory at least, to take the bull by the horns and try to begin to deal with some of the most dubious aspects of the ever-burgeoning gambling industry in this country. We supported moves to place a moratorium on casinos; to tidy up the morass of regulations around various classes of gaming; to clarify the purposes to which the proceeds of gambling can be put; and, theoretically at least, to place some limits on the numbers of gaming machines out there in the community. We were also pleased that it looked like local bodies were to be given more control over what happened in their districts in relation to gaming venues. All of this suited the name “Responsible Gambling Bill”.

However, as time wore on, it became apparent that the bill would not be as responsible as had first appeared, and “Irresponsible Gaming Bill”, as other members have indicated, became a far more suitable name for the bill. First of all, it became sadly clear that Labour had no intention of introducing greater responsibility into its new gambling regime, when it refused to listen to Local Government New Zealand or to the Green Party about the need to change the bill so that it would allow local councils the authority to review gambling venues in their own districts established prior to October 2001. Nor was Labour willing to reconsider any alteration to the distribution regime for the proceeds of non-casino gaming machines, despite widespread calls from church and community organisations and the local government sector for it to do so. On top of that, about a week ago a 65-page Government Supplementary Order Paper suddenly appeared. This lengthy amendment—unseen, of course, by the Government Administration Committee—contains a whole raft of amendments that render this bill completely irresponsible.

It is appalling that the Government has now seen fit to allow the Lotteries Commission to provide and promote interactive gaming, including Internet gambling. That makes one of the most addictive forms of gaming even more accessible to everybody, including children and young people in particular.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This is a very narrow debate.

Yes. I am talking about the responsibility or otherwise of what was called the Responsible Gambling Bill. In addition the Government, with its United Future friends, has decided in its wisdom to rescind an amendment agreed to earlier by the select committee, and will now allow the practice of installing banknote acceptors into pokie machines to continue. It has also brought in amendments that enable the gambling industry to be involved in determining how much money should be set aside for treating gambling addiction, and where it should go. As one commentator for the group Gambling Watch has said, this is like setting a fox loose in the chicken run.

In conclusion, I have to agree that this title—minus the word “Responsible”—does adequately describe the bill. It is really sad that this is no longer a responsible gambling bill. I think this is a day that, when Labour members look back, will cause many of them to hang their heads in shame.

I move, That the question be now put.