Gambling Amendment Bill

I move, That the Gambling Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Gambling Act to allow licensing trust members to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to the community. Under the Sale of Liquor Act, licensing trust members are generally elected by their local communities. Some gaming-machine societies that operate their gaming machines on licensed trust premises have traditionally allowed licensing trust members to have input into their decisions. The Gambling Act prohibits that type of arrangement. It does this by way of a strict separation between those who run commercial premises in which gaming machines are operated and those who control the proceeds from the machines on those premises.

The bill exempts licensing trust members from this requirement, to reflect their unique position as elected members. The exemption also extends to community trustees where a licensing trust reconstitutes as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act.

The bill was introduced on 30 November 2004. It had its first reading on 14 December and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. I thank members on that committee for considering this bill within a short time frame. The committee considered 14 submissions, of which seven were supported by oral evidence. It reported the bill back to the House on 21 February and did not propose any substantive amendments.

The committee in its commentary made particular note of the local knowledge and accountability of licensing trust members, and the substantial contribution they make to the well-being of their local communities. The committee also noted that members cannot benefit financially from the trust. For those reasons, the potential for conflict of interest that the relevant provisions of the Gambling Act are designed to prevent is much lower in the case of licensing trust members than for other people with a role in running commercial premises.

I commend this bill to the House.

The genesis of this bill goes back to some time ago, when the Government realised it had made a mistake—another mistake. We have just heard in earlier debates about how this Government is prone to making mistakes. At the eleventh hour the Government wanted to bring in in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) the provision we are now talking about. National opposed that. We said that this was important legislation. This matter should have been corrected during the debate on the Gambling Bill in 2003. It was not, therefore there needs to be an amendment to the Gambling Act specifically so those organisations affected by the key persons provision have the opportunity to have a say. Otherwise, that opportunity would have been limited.

In respect of the current provision in the Act, I have a letter from the Department of Internal Affairs dated 19 December, which went out to the trusts, stating that it had great difficulty when wanting to make any changes. It stated that section 113(1)(b) of the Gambling Act prohibits a key person in relation to a venue from being involved in decisions about grants or in the management or distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. That is what the department said at the time. It went on to state that there could be a conflict of interest, and then suggested that one could get around that by having a new, independent community society.

We must remember that prior to 1 July 2004—that was the operative date—elected members of licensing trusts were able to distribute the proceeds. It was only from 1 July last year that suddenly they were not able to be involved in the distribution of grants from their machines. The Department of Internal Affairs’ position at the time was that it could fix that, but that the community would have to set up new, independent community societies. That was a way around it. It stated: “It is open to the community in which a licensing trust operates to establish a trust to apply for a licence to operate gaming machines and to distribute the proceeds from those machines for authorised purposes within the community.”

So there is conflict between the advice the Department of Internal Affairs is giving, and the Government’s measure. It says that cannot be done, but under the Official Information Act I got all these papers—because they are considerable—about the arguments relating to the provision about the key persons. On one hand the Government has realised it has made a mistake—a big mistake, in fact—and on the other hand, its advisers through the Department of Internal Affairs are suggesting another means by which it could be remedied; that is, that by setting up a separate, independent operation.

National does not subscribe to that. We believe elected members of the trusts are clearly elected from the community and they should not be disqualified by that. They hold both these positions, they have an interest in the licensing trust as an outlet, and they should be involved also in what goes on. They clearly have no financial or proprietary interest in the operations of a licensing trust, so why should they not be involved in the distribution of those funds to the community? I have a list of licensing trusts, and it is quite interesting to see that they are throughout the country. Northern Trusts Ltd, which includes the Mt Wellington, Ōtara, and Papatoetoe licensing trusts. There is the Invercargill Licensing Trust Charitable Trust. We have the Trust House Charitable Trust, which includes Masterton, Rimutaka, and Flaxmere licensing trusts—

💬 Georgina Beyer: Hear, hear!

—the member from those areas has acknowledged that. We have the Ashburton Trust Charitable Foundation; West Auckland Trust Services Ltd, which includes the Portage Licensing Trust and Waitakere Licensing Trust; Mana Community Grants Foundation, which is the Porirua Licensing Trust; and then we have the Trust Charitable Foundation, which covers both the North and South Islands, including the licensing trusts at Cheviot, Clutha, Geraldine, Johnsonville, Mataura, Oamaru, Papatoetoe, Portage, Te Kauwhata, and Waitakere. So there is a wide spread of interests throughout the community.

Our position is quite clear: those people who are elected are elected by the community; they should have an opportunity to be part of that. One must realise that licensing trusts are not eligible to operate gaming-machines under the Gambling Act. However, some licensed gaming-machine societies choose to operate the machines in those premises. So it is not an argument about whether we agree at all with liquor licensing trusts and whether we should have them. They exist, and we want to make sure they have the ability to perform their functions. Many charitable societies have allowed, and want to continue to allow, the elected licensing trust members to be involved in the decisions about the operation of gaming-machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. As I said earlier, this was the position prior to 1 July 2004 and it is only since this Act came into being that that provision has been taken away.

National is very happy that this bill has come forward in this form as a Gambling Amendment Bill, not as a Statutes Amendment Bill, because it is worthy of further debate. We are particularly interested that this be progressed now, so that those people elected to licensing trusts throughout the country, who do a good job, and put back into the community the profits from the proceeds of gaming machines—about $25 million—should be able to exercise their best judgment and be part of the distributions committee.

I thank the previous speaker for his cooperation both in the Government Administration Committee and in the House on the Gambling Amendment Bill, which is designed to allow elected members of licensing trusts and community trusts to be involved in decisions on the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds to that community. The main concerns of the committee were that the distribution of the proceeds should be transparent and that there should be accountability from the elected members, and we were assured of that.

One organisation the committee was particularly impressed with was West Auckland Trust Services, which presented us with its method of distribution and showed us that it also polled its community as to the community’s priorities in terms of where those funds should be distributed. We thought that was an excellent example to other trusts to poll their community as to whether they wanted the funding to be distributed to education, arts, sports, and so on. The West Auckland Trust Services distribution chart was based on its polling, which we thought was a very good example to other elected trusts in this regard. I wish to support this bill and look forward to its continued progress through the House.

I was fascinated by the brevity of the speech made by the Minister who moved the second reading today, because it brought to mind a recent announcement made by this Government about spending well over $40 million on problem gamblers. It was a press statement put out by one Damien O’Conner where he claimed, alongside his bureaucrats, that this bill was a world first. Well, I remind the House and the country just who it was that brought the problem of gambling into stark reality for New Zealand, and what we are dealing with now. Because all around this country we have huge problems with gambling, particularly in the Māori community, particularly in the Asian community, and amongst people who can least afford it, with disastrous results.

New Zealand First did not support the Gambling Act of 2003, which was an attempt by this Government, as John Tamihere would say, with its bureaucrats working night and day, with nothing else to do—no soccer on Saturday to watch, or Sundays to spend with families—to ensure that the profits from gambling went out of local communities and straight into some centralised bureaucratic disbursement regime—

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: No.

Oh, yes, they did, and that is why every hotel around New Zealand opposed that legislation. The Labour Party can make these sorts of grand promises that it is dealing—

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: No.

No, no. This bill actually improves upon that, and that is why we are supporting it. But it simply is the case of ignoring some of the realities.

What we have in New Zealand today of course is that the people who are bleeding with the gambling problems are spending money in localities where even the profits from gambling do not go towards the community in which they live. That is a fact. Damien O’Connor can shake his head, but the reality is that the Government decided to take full control off the local distribution agencies, and claim that the local people could not be trusted and central government could. That is as blunt as it got.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: No.

Yes, the Government did. More seriously though, we got this: a disastrous failure to acknowledge what a disaster so much gambling is in this country. Then to claim a “world first” as some sort of innovative enlightened Government is the worst and what one might call the “H” offence. I cannot use the word, but members will know what I mean. It is the very worst.

New Zealand First has always been opposed to this, and we want to remind New Zealanders who it was that changed the gambling society of this country—for the very worst. Can the House remember one Peter Tapsell when he was Minister? He brought in casino licensing in this country, and then, of course, against huge objections all around New Zealand, the Government imposed it upon Queenstown—

💬 David Parker: Twice!

—twice upon Queenstown—and then upon the people of Hamilton, even though the mass majority of the local people were against it. The Government ignored all that. I remind the National Party that it was as responsible for that as well, because it had members on that authority, one of whom was challenged as to his behaviour—a former member of Parliament, whose name I should not mention because it is just part of the sad history of the National Party.

💬 David Parker: Judith Collins was the chair, too.

That is right. That is a fact. But how quickly they forget! Well, New Zealand First wants to say that at least this bill gives back some local control, but it does not address the serious problem that should be addressed in this legislation as to what we are going to do with a society that Labour turned upside down, and a society in which the very roots of that society that claimed once to be Labour supporters, and that Labour once claimed to represent, have been significantly—in the case of so many families and individuals—destroyed. I want to know which Minister opposite will get up and start talking about that as a key issue, and do something about it.

It is very, very serious that we have in New Zealand today certain families whose lives have been destroyed—not just limited. [Interruption] My colleague Brian Donnelly tells me that in the early days of the New Zealand First - National coalition Government we brought down a moratorium on new casinos, so the issue could be resolved. That is what I call a responsible party. That is what I call an enlightened party that acknowledges the difficulties, and, unlike those who signed one and a half pages of “motherhood and apple pie” by way of an agreement, we demanded things and got them done.

💬 Darren Hughes: Mrs Shipley claimed credit for it.

I know that Mrs Shipley—

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: Jack Elder put it through.

Jack Elder put it through as a Minister for New Zealand First, and Mrs Shipley made many claims. That is why she is not here any more. She was of the reasons why the National Party is in the parlous state it is today, and why, after her little stint as Prime Minister, she took the National Party to the worst vote it ever had, since 1936 and its formation.

But Labour is no different. The Labour Party and the National Party are no different on this issue. They believe in all sorts of gambling. Why, they would have people betting on two flies going up a wall, if they could. If that could be organised, and they could get a tax cut and start getting their hands on the disbursement of the money and paying it out to all their pet little causes, they would.

💬 Dianne Yates: No, we can’t do that.

I tell that member from Hamilton that all sorts of things are being done in the name of the gambling industry today. All sorts of favourite projects are being funded—some of the most weird we would ever see—whilst people out there, the families and kids, are starving and going bankrupt because of problem gambling, encouraged by this administration.

So how about the next Labour speaker getting up and acknowledging that, because I know there are Māori members over there who know what I am talking about. They know what an abject disaster the industry is for Māoridom, and the sooner we do something about that the better.

💬 Dianne Yates: I opposed the casino.

The member said she opposed the casino but how worthy is that, when she supported the casino legislation? She is a member whose left hand does not know what her right hand is doing. She could not wait to line up and stand for the Labour Party that brought casino legislation into this country. That legislation is working like a giant vacuum, just sucking hundreds of millions of dollars out of Auckland, killing the culture, killing the society, and killing all sorts of leisure activities.

💬 Government Member: No, it’s not.

Yes, it is. If we asked any restaurateur or bar owner in Auckland about what is happening to the leisure dollar, he or she would tell us that the casino has had a profound effect. Is the money being spent in New Zealand? No. All the profits are being siphoned off overseas, in the case of Auckland—and somehow the Labour Party thinks that is good. But then again, for people who have sold $10 billion worth of State assets, anything would be a worthy prescription for their behaviour.

Anyway, I was listening to this debate and thought I should come down to the House to remind a few people about who is guilty, about who did what, and about where and when. One party in this country is opposed to this sort of gambling, because it is without merit, without employment, and without culture. It is the most base thing for somebody walking into a casino to say: “Here’s all my money. I hope I get a little bit back.” What industry in the whole world do members know of where people can walk into an establishment and say: “Here’s all my hard-earned savings. Whether or not my wife and kids can afford it, I don’t care. But, just in case, I would like to know whether I can win a little bit back.”

💬 Dianne Yates: What about the horses?

Do not talk about the horses. I will tell the member about the horses. The horses could be one of New Zealand’s most explosive export industries. The horse industry employs 32,000 people in real jobs.

💬 Dianne Yates: What about the TAB?

The TAB is part of the horse industry. At least there is employment. At least there are exports. At least there is an international reputation. That industry does have some redeeming features, but the industry that the member supports, and that the Government is so pleased to support, is in every way thoroughly bad for New Zealand.

Now that that member has resumed his seat, the pigs can stop flying. He does not seem to be able to control his own shadow, as far as I can see. The simple fact of the matter is that gambling problems are something that we ought to be seriously concerned about. But this legislation does not deal with that, at all. The point to make with gambling problems is that a lot has to be taken on board as personal responsibility. In my opinion, nobody has ever had a gun held to his head and been forced to go into a casino and put money into a slot machine.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is the “Family Party” speaking.

The “Family Party” actually wants choice. We want people to be able to decide for themselves what to do, and we want less Government intervention. But that member from the “Winston Party” obviously wants to have more Government intervention in people’s lives and more restrictions placed on individuals, and I think that is unconscionable. What did he do when we was in Government, other than melt down the National Party to the point where it cannot even get back into the race for the next election? It is crazy. The kiss of death is what the “Winston Party” is all about.

This bill amends the Gambling Act to exempt licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts, who are the equivalent of licensing trust members where the licensing trust is reconstituted as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act, from the definition of “key person” in the Gambling Act in relation to a class 4 venue. The amendment has the effect of excluding those members and trustees from the provisions of the Gambling Act that require the separation of functions, and it will enable them to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds.

Licensing trust members are elected under the Sale of Liquor Act to operate businesses in the hospitality industry. Licensing trusts are not eligible to operate gaming machines under the Gambling Act. However, some licensed gaming-machine societies choose to operate gaming machines on licensing trust premises. Many of these societies allow, or have allowed, licensing trust members to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. This was permitted under previous gambling legislation. The Gambling Act prevents this type of arrangement by way of a strict separation between those who run commercial premises at which gaming machines are operated and those who control the proceeds from the gaming machines at those venues. The separation of functions is designed to reduce the potential for conflict of interest. As licensing trust members are publicly accountable to their local community and cannot benefit personally from the licensing trust, the risk of conflict of interest is considerably lower.

Out of the Government Administration Committee came only one minor recommendation—that is, to clarify that the definition of “key person” includes trustees of a community trust who hold office under section 219Q of the Sale of Liquor Act. This is eminently sensible, and it is something that United Future will absolutely support. One thing that I would mention, however, is that, again, the previous speaker was utterly wrong, because the Gambling Act specifically avoided centralisation of the proceeds from gambling. He was simply wrong. But that is what we expect from the “Winston Party”, I suppose, despite the fact that its members might vote for other than what they talk about. Nevertheless, United Future will support this.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am very reluctant to interrupt this member’s speech—the sooner he gets it over with, the better—but the real fact is that he cannot talk about the “Winston Party”. We all know that the fastest rising party in this country is called New Zealand First, and it should be addressed properly by that name at all times—particularly by the “Poodle Party”.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Parties should be addressed by their correct name.

Speaking to the point of order, I apologise if there was any confusion in calling New Zealand First the “Winston Party”, but in the minds of most the two are indistinguishable. I would just like to correct the member by saying that we are not the “Poodle Party”; we are in fact the guide dog of Parliament—the guide dog.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind members that they should refer to parties by their proper names. Those two names should not be used.

I am taking over the debate on the Gambling Amendment Bill for two of my colleagues, especially Heather Roy, who has followed it all the way through and has provided quite a bit of cooperation with the Government on this. As she stated in her first reading contribution, the attempt was actually made to put it through as a statutory amendment.

💬 Rod Donald: It should have been.

Maybe that is the case, but that would have been an abuse of the power of Statutes Amendment bills, which are meant for non-controversial issues. As we have already seen by the debate in the House, this is not a non-controversial issue. Mr Peters actually had a good point, when he asked—but did not answer—where else, other than gambling, can one say: “Here’s all my money. Take all my money and I’ll see what I get back from it.”

The other example of that happening is with this Government, in taxes. It takes more and more taxes from taxpayers every day. Every week new tax laws are passed, and what do they get back from them? What are schools getting back from taxes at the moment? Schools are getting less and less back in terms of what the parents of the children pay in taxes; it is going into bigger and bigger bureaucracies. Schools are seriously underfunded. Paying one’s taxes in New Zealand now is a huge gamble, because people never know what they will get back, or whether they will get any money back. One reason that most people pay their taxes and are happy to pay their taxes is for the investment in the education of the future citizens of this country, but that is just not happening.

I also agree with some of what Marc Alexander said. I do not deny that there is a huge problem with gambling in this country. I take the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ word that it is a huge problem in the Māori communities, but there is an issue of personal responsibility here. People talk about gambling addiction. In what way is it a chemical that gets into one’s bloodstream, or one’s system, like drinking or smoking, or other drugs that become an addiction?

It is dangerous to blur the edges between addictions and problems. There are huge problems. There are families who go without because one or both parents are problem gamblers. But why does this happen when we see, in the paper, clients of casinos who are allowed to rack up huge debts, credit to the extent of—

💬 Hon Member: $21 million.

I find that very difficult to believe. I would have absolutely no sympathy with gambling operators or the owners of gambling institutions if they lost every cent of that money, because they are clearly stupid in allowing someone to rack up a debt as high as that. No one would be able to go down to his or her local hardware shop and rack up such a high debt. Clearly, people have a problem with gambling if they run up a debt that is so high.

The other area Mr Peters touched upon concerns horses, and I totally agree with him on that. We had an internationally recognised, world-class industry in New Zealand with the breeding, training, and export of thoroughbred racehorses. It would be beneath the elite people in the Labour Party today to go down to somewhere like the Matamata training track before dawn, at 4 o’clock or even 2 o’clock in the morning, and to see what goes on there in terms of the huge amounts of money going into the local economy from horses. But what do breeders, trainers, and owners get from that? They get hit with more and more taxes. Industry charges, even accident compensation alone that some of them have to pay for taking on apprentice jockeys, along with all the associated costs and compliance costs that go with being a trainer in the industry these days, are greater than the income that people get back out of the industry. Why? Because no Government will ever equalise the taxes that are forced out of them on gambling issues.

I support this Gambling Amendment Bill. I notice that its first reading was done under urgency. That is because of poorly drafted legislation—legislation this Government rushed through because it overlooked the fact that there are honourable people who are members of and can run a licensing trust, and who can make decisions about where the proceeds from those gaming machines should go in the community. I find it highly ironic that this Government prides itself on supporting the arts and sport in New Zealand—but predominantly the arts—and that hardly a week goes by when we do not see another photo opportunity of the Prime Minister or her sidekick Judith Tizard being photographed at some arty-farty art opening, yet much of the proceeds from gaming machines goes into local community arts projects, whether at local theatres, exhibitions, or productions.

All MPs in this House would have had letter after letter, numerous letters, from those local arts communities, theatres, and repertory groups that feared they would be forced to close because of this Government’s move against the distribution of the proceeds of gambling within the community. What New Zealand First has accused this Government of is absolutely right. The Government is always trying to wrest control from communities back to Wellington, and to control them from Wellington. That is what this Government is all about, so why does it not just admit that that is what it is proud of being: essentially a controlling Government with no interest in communities?

It has no interest in communities being autonomous. Members can look at the way schools were closed down, or at the way the Government treats boards of trustees. Nobody is allowed to be autonomous. We can look at what the Government is doing to universities.

So ACT supports this amendment bill going through. It is a tragedy that the legislation has come back in this form, yet again in urgency, but we will vote for it.

I am delighted to support this Gambling Amendment Bill on behalf of the Green Party, and I am even delighted that the bill is being dealt with under urgency. We opposed the urgency motion, but this piece of legislation is one that does need to be dealt with promptly.

I cannot help but comment on the crocodile tears of the previous speaker, who is from ACT, because my recollection is that ACT was the only party to block this amendment being made by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill. If ACT members had not been so bloody-minded last year, this legislative change could have already gone through. [Interruption] Did New Zealand First also block that?

💬 Dail Jones: You did, too.

I do not think we did.

💬 Dail Jones: You did. You said so on the first reading.

I doubt it, because the matter should have been dealt with. I will check the Hansard. It should have been dealt with by way of a Statutes Amendment Bill, and that is certainly what I lobbied the Government to do, because there was a glaring mistake. The Act got it wrong in the first place. How can the principal gambling legislation give racing clubs and chartered clubs an exemption for key persons but not extend that provision to licensing trusts? That is exactly what this bill sets out to fix.

It is good that it is being done promptly, because, of all those organisations, licensing trusts actually have the most robust election processes. They are far more robust than chartered clubs or racing clubs, because licensing clubs have to conduct their elections under the Local Electoral Act every 3 years. There is a proper process they have to follow. It is a very open process, and every resident and those on the ratepayer roll in the territory of the licensing trust get to vote for the representatives on that trust. It would have become a ridiculous farce for the licensing trusts to have to set up parallel organisations to handle the distribution of profits from the trusts’ gaming activities. It is far better that one organisation addresses both the operation of the trusts and the distribution of the profits. I believe there are sufficient safeguards in the legislation to make sure there is not a transfer of money from one part of a trust’s operation to another in order to subsidise internally those operations, so I do not see any difficulty with the same people running the operation and distributing the profits.

What I do see is the enormous benefit of those profits actually going back to the community, and the licensing trusts during their lobbying activities made the very good point that they have returned the highest percentage of gaming monies to the community in New Zealand. For example, in the 2003-04 year the Invercargill trust returned 57 percent compared with most other organisations returning under 40 percent. On behalf of the Green Party, I say we would much rather that the profits from activities such as gambling and liquor sales went to the community than lined the pockets of the shareholders of casinos or big booze companies.

Having said that, I would like to conclude with a personal note, which is that I have real difficulty with the invasive nature of gambling in our society. There are far too many pokie machines around the country. I make a personal point of not going on the premises of any casino for any purpose whatsoever, because I believe that casinos are a scourge on society no matter what money is funnelled back through various trusts and charities. But if pokie machines are going to exist, it is far better that they are under the control of a community trust or licensing trust, where there is some sense of obligation to take account of the wider concerns of the local community, rather than their being under the control of those totally motivated by profit.

I will take a brief call to say that when this matter was first discussed with New Zealand First and other parties in this House, the suggestion was made that the matter should be put in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). People were told that that would be quicker. New Zealand First had pressure put on it from licensing trusts that said every other party supported that action except for us. As we discovered during the course of discussions with the National Party and other parties, and during the course of the debate at the first reading, that particular line—that other political parties supported the legislation going into the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)—was used with every political party. But it transpired that that was not the case, as National and other parties proved during the first reading debate.

In fact, if this legislation had gone into that Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4), it would still not be getting passed today, because that bill is well down the Order Paper. So putting it as a separate bill has proved to be the best thing possible. I think that the stand taken by New Zealand First, National, and other parties to have this legislation as a separate bill works very much to the advantage of the Licensing Trusts Association. The attitude adopted by the trusts would have backfired on them if the legislation had been left in that Statutes Amendment Bill.

We all want to make sure that when money is raised by gambling in west Auckland, it can be spent in west Auckland, if it is raised in Ashburton, it can be spent in Ashburton, and that that can be done in a similar way right around the country in places where there are licensing trusts. The people of Invercargill would like their money spent in Southland—on Southland rugby, perhaps, rather than supporting, say, North Harbour, although North Harbour members would appreciate any extra funds that might be made available to the North Harbour Rugby Union, which has an unfortunate habit of losing players to South Island cities.

However, New Zealand First supports this legislation. It is short legislation that rectifies a mistake made by the Labour Government when it rushed through earlier gambling legislation under urgency. The Government Administration Committee has looked at this legislation closely, and has even made an amendment to it to take into account an error that cropped up. The amendment could not have been made if this were, for example, a statutes amendment bill, but it was able to be made by way of the Gambling Amendment Bill in order to help key operators.

I also make the point that the leader of New Zealand First considers the issue of gambling so important and so detrimental to family life that he has taken the trouble to come to the House to speak on the bill today. I see that no leader of any other political party in New Zealand is at all interested in the detrimental effect that gambling can have on family life. It goes to show that New Zealand First is very interested in what happens to struggling families, poorer families, Māori families, or any families in which people think that the answer to everything may be found in a pokie machine or in some other form of gambling. That is not the case. We consider gambling to be a very serious issue. I touched on it during the first reading, and the Rt Hon Winston Peters has expressed that view on it much better than I ever could. New Zealand First supports this bill, which makes a minor change to the advantage of licensing trusts.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading