Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill

When we were last on the first reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, Todd McClay was speaking and has 30 seconds remaining, if he wishes.

Thirty seconds? I tell you what, I will toss you for it: heads I get a minute, tails I sit down right now. That is some of the problem we have with people who have problems with gambling in New Zealand. They do not know when to stop. In the remainder of my 30 seconds can I congratulate Mr Flavell on bringing this bill to the House and confirm that I and members of the Government will be supporting this being referred to the Commerce Committee. I look forward to many people from our constituency having their say on this issue and that we give it—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member; he has had 30 seconds.

I rise to take the call for the Greens on the first reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Firstly, let me say that I applaud the intent of this bill. I am pleased that all the speakers so far, including the National members, are supporting this bill through its first reading and through to the Commerce Committee.

The Greens will be supporting this bill, because it addresses many of the problems associated with pokie machines in the community, in pubs and bars. It is totally appropriate that this is a bill from the Māori Party—kia ora, Mr Flavell—as Māori and Pasifika are most likely to be harmed by this type of gambling. In my maiden speech I said that gambling on pokie machines was the transfer of wealth from women to men, from the poor to the rich, and from the brown to the white. When one looks at who loses the largest amount of money on pokies and who benefits the most from the proceeds, this statement is clearly accurate.

Pokies are the most harmful gambling product we have in New Zealand. A previous chief executive officer of the Problem Gambling Foundation once described them as the crack cocaine of the gambling industry, and he is right. The industry itself preys on problem gamblers to ensure that it makes a profit, and it whitewashes this harm by distributing some of that profit, currently 37 percent, to the community through grants. The industry is cynically selective. It targets the poorest communities. Look around Remuera. There are hardly any pokie bars at all. But in Manukau, in Māngere, and in Ōtara they are far more prevalent. Currently there are in excess of 18,000 pokies in pubs and clubs in New Zealand, and every single one of them creates at least one problem gambler, and for every problem gambler there are between six and 12 others, mostly children, who are affected.

We support the provisions in this bill that give more control to communities to reduce the number of pokies in their areas. In places like Nelson, Christchurch, Waitakere, and Manukau communities have successfully lobbied their councils for a sinking-lid policy to gradually reduce the number of pokies in their areas. Whenever communities have been asked about this, they have said they do not want pokies proliferating throughout their neighbourhood. I guess that is why in Auckland it is incredibly insulting that the huge effort that communities have put into reducing pokies has been undermined by the Government, which wants to increase the number of pokies overall by selling our law so that the casino can have more pokies, in exchange for the convention centre. Pokies in pubs, pokies in casinos—they are both harmful and they are both dirty industries.

We will also be supporting the provisions in this bill to reduce gambling harm with player tracking and pre-commit cards. We definitely support the measures to call for 80 percent of the money from pokies to be distributed to the community and within the community from where the pokie money has been extracted. We certainly agree that spending some of that money on horse racing stakes is not a community purpose and should be stopped.

We are pleased to see an attempt to address the many rorts and frauds that have occurred over the distribution of funds from pokie trusts. Every week there is another dodgy deal outlined in the news, and it is obvious that the Department of Internal Affairs has difficulty in investigating and prosecuting them. When even Francis Wevers, who headed the Community Gaming Association, says—as he did last year—that the entire industry cannot be trusted and is engaged in suspect activities, then it is time to rein in the rorts and find a better way of controlling the flow of funds.

We will be supporting this bill. However, a word of warning. I have heard submissions on gambling policy at council level, and I predict that the select committee will be confronted with an organised campaign from the gambling industry to water down the provisions of the bill. There is a lot of money at stake here. Over the last year $867 million was spent on machines in our communities. We look forward to this bill cleaning up the sector. We have done it around tobacco sponsorship. We have proven that we can do it. We can have healthy communities where our people are not addicted to pokies and our communities are not addicted to pokie money. Thank you.

In the long history of this party, New Zealand First, we have never promoted gambling in this country. At all levels of reforms and changes, we have never taken that position. But the law of New Zealand does allow for gambling, and for certain types of gambling the Government is a significant beneficiary of such activity. But I want to say right now that I am hearing from certain members just how out of touch they are with the facts of this country, and how biased they are about certain industries.

Mr Flavell’s Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill purports to reduce harm caused by class 4 gambling, for example. It is New Zealand First’s submission that the bill is completely ineffective to achieve that purpose. There are many alternative forms of gambling available, all of which can have a negative impact on the problem gambler. There is an ever-increasing number of internet-based gambling sites, which though not necessarily legal are easily accessed by anyone with a home computer. These sites look to replicate casino and pokie gambling in the comfort of the home. It is all happening under the member’s very eyes now. They have the same potential to take money from the weak-willed, but give absolutely no benefit whatsoever back to the Government or the community, and this bill will do nothing to save people from themselves.

This bill is not about the proliferation of pokies. Let us comment on some specific provisions of the bill, which some members here need to acquaint themselves with, particularly since they say that the local communities to which they belong are where so much of it happens, but when they evince their views in this House they seem to understand very little. Clause 5 of the bill would remove racing from the authorised purposes that can benefit from pokie funds. This is a 32,000 people industry. Thousands more have an interest, in all manner of trades, from the person who fixes up the horses’ hooves, to the animal dentist, to the transporters, and to the people who go offshore to promote the industry. It is a $1.8 billion industry to the economy, it brings in $160 million of exports, and here is a group of members of Parliament with so little understanding of this darn economy and how it works and of some people’s livelihood as participants in a world-leading nation when it comes to the racing industry that all they want to do is smash it.

What percentage of pokie money was racing taking? Was it 4 percent or 6 percent? What was it?

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Tell us.

Well, it was 6 percent. All the rest is going into the “Underpants-wearing Society of Remuera”, which does not support the racing industry, and all manner of other people whom the last speaker, Denise Roche, and the promoter of the bill are wanting to help somehow. But what about the thousands of young Māori who seek an aspiration in this industry, from the people who get up at 4 o’clock in the morning to the guy who is a jockey, like Michael Walker, who in Australia the other day rode a 150:1 outsider and got it home? It is someone’s lifeblood about which we speak.

The introduction of pokies had, and continues to have, a significant deleterious effect on TAB betting, which is the lifeblood of the racing industry, which is a multimillion-dollar export earner for this country. Who cares on the other side, the Government side? Racing should continue to be authorised for class 4 gaming purposes, because part of the real harm caused by pokies is the attack that they have allowed by silly decisions from Parliament that have reduced the TAB funding stream of racing. This is an industry in crisis, because the Government does not seem to understand what it is worth to this country.

Clauses 6(1) and 89 would require that at least 80 percent of funds be distributed in the area where they were raised. We agree with that, but we do not think the smart thing to do here is to go and give it to the local bodies, which are accused every day of putting up rates, and here comes one more expenditure, one more administrative cost, that goes to local government. Government members will go back to their clinics and sympathise with the local government politicians about rates, but here they are with one more nanny State imposition. Why? Because they are out of touch. They cannot trust the charities, cannot trust the Tindall Foundation, and cannot trust these industries all over the country that are doing such great work. If there are rorts, surely the Department of Internal Affairs has fixed them up by now—if members of Parliament were aware of what was going on in their community. The days of the rorts are long gone, and what we heard in that last speech—this is a 10-minute speech, is it not?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, 5.

Well, it should be. I will finish it off. I will conclude by saying this. Have I got 2 minutes to go?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. I am sorry, but the member’s time has expired.

Can I seek leave for the member’s speech to be extended for a couple of minutes.

Leave is sought for the Hon Winston Peters to have 1 more minute. Is there any objection? There is objection.

That objection shows the level of charity from Nick Smith. I actually happen to disagree with a number of things that the Rt Hon Winston Peters said. I have a view that it is not appropriate to subsidise the racing industry out of the pokie machines. We have differed on that in the past, but I think what we can say about the member is that he has been consistent in his support of the racing industry, not only from this source but in a number of different ways as well, including the taxation approach to it.

I say to the member in charge of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that I certainly support its referral to the Commerce Committee. I think there are a lot of discussions to be had there. I predict that there will be a lot of submissions and a lot of discussion. But the question that the member has to answer at the end of this process when he is speaking in reply is why he has left out of this the people who do the biggest pokie rip-offs in the country, the people who take the most money out, the people who take the money out and give it to John Banks, which he does not declare. I want to know why he has excluded from this legislation the massive amount that the casinos take out of our community, not only in the pokies but in the rest of it. I want to know why that member is not making people like John Banks, who receive that money and do not declare it, front up and be transparent.

I would expect in a bill that is really promoting transparency about the expenditure of gaming funding that instead of a massive amount of the money going offshore, as it does with the profits of Skycity, it would provide for it to be spent in New Zealand in the way and with the methods that are set out in this bill—or actually in ways that could be quite a lot better, which I think other people have thought about over some time. What should also happen is that when people receive money from those organisations, that should be transparent as well, rather than sticking it in their pocket and pretending, as John Banks did, that he did not know about the donation, when clearly people like Len Brown were honest and straightforward and made declarations to that effect.

There are lots of ways that we could improve this area, and I agree with Winston Peters that people who are in touch with the community will know that things are a lot cleaner than they used to be. I think all of us who have been around for some time and in touch with the community know some pretty rough stories: the rugby club that used to get grants from the charity associated with one pub only. It got a massive grant and generally half of it went back under the table to the publican, and there was also an obligation to buy beer at non-discounted rates from that particular pub. So although on the surface things looked like they were right—the money was being paid out; the audit trail went that way—what happened was that we did not see the kickbacks that were occurring either directly or as a result of pricing for alcohol that was not at the level that it should have been.

A lot of that has been tidied up with some of the larger gaming trusts that have now put together more thorough audit processes. And there is, I think, a willingness for people to blow the whistle on that sort of arrangement when publicans, who used to be the main beneficiaries, do that.

But we still have in New Zealand a lot of hotels that are more or less reliant on the pokie machines in order to survive rather than the food and liquor that they sell. They effectively use the pokies as a subsidy for keeping an institution open that could not survive otherwise. My view is that that is, just as I think it is for racing, an inappropriate subsidy for an organisation, because it comes from the poorest. In the end I am going to listen to John Banks and see what he says about that—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member.

I am pleased to stand to speak on the first reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by congratulating Mr Flavell on bringing this very good piece of legislation to the House. National is supporting this bill going through to the Commerce Committee and I look forward to seeing the submissions process.

Gambling can do a great harm to our society, but we cannot blame those people who gamble sensibly for entertainment. As I understand, the bill helps local authorities to create rules to control gambling. They will have tools and powers to decide what types of rules they want and up to what degree they want to go. The purpose of the bill is to provide additional measures to prevent and minimise the harm caused by the gambling, and ensure that money from the gambling benefits the community, and to assist the community’s involvement in decisions regarding gambling.

We are concerned about the gambling problem and our policy is to minimise the harm caused by gambling. There is not enough money in the world to keep someone on the gambling table. Gambling makes a mockery of hard work. Gambling machine venues tend to be overly represented in lower-income communities and town centres. In South Auckland the lower-income population, especially Māori and Pacific Islanders, are effectively being targeted and often severely harmed by them. It is very important that we address this problem.

This bill seeks to overcome these areas of harm in locations with excessive numbers of pokies by enabling authorities, in consultation with their communities, to reduce the number of, or even eliminate, pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm. It especially requires all pokie-machine trusts, corporate societies, and other distributors of the proceeds of the gambling machines to return at least 80 percent of these funds generated by the gamblers’ losses on local pokie machines back to the charitable organisations that are meeting priority needs in the same local authority area as the venue.

However, this would mean that groups in the poorer areas, including rural areas, might miss out on the funding if there are limited machines in these areas. Only a small proportion of pokie gamblers’ losses distributed in grants for community benefit goes into the same communities that generate them. This is because the majority of the gamblers’ losses go to pay machine site rentals, machine maintenance, trust fees for pokie trust members, and other administration costs. Gambling losses occasionally go into grants made to organisations based in other local authorities altogether—sometimes even in the other island or areas.

Gamblers who are having problems with their behaviour when using pokie machines have problems keeping track of the amount of their losses. Gamblers could more often be able to manage their gambling if pokie-machine venue operators were obliged to keep track of each gambler’s overall losses and time spent on gambling machines through using common technological devices like player tracking systems. This bill proposes making such player tracking devices and pre-commit cards a required condition for a pokie machine venue operator’s licence, as issued by the Department of Internal Affairs. I know Mr Flavell has worked hard to draft this bill, and I congratulate him once again and commend this bill to the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just realised that there has not yet been, at least amongst the Labour Party members, a circulation of proxy forms for the personal vote. Casting my mind back to the Business Committee, I cannot remember discussion at the Business Committee on this particular question. I thought it might be a good idea—because I have warned our whip that the nature of gambling matters, casino matters, and pokie matters have always been conscience votes—to make it clear that there will certainly be a call for a personal vote on this.

I thank the member. I am just getting some advice. We will carry on.

I am happy to take the call while you consider that matter. I very happily speak in favour of this piece of legislation, the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. The lack of progress the House has made, in the time that I have been here, on dealing with gambling harm reduction measures has been of concern to me for some time. We had a debate fairly early on in my time as a parliamentarian when we discussed the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2), which was, at the time, in the name of the then Minister, Richard Worth. It has not made any progress at all, I do not think, since Mr Worth left Parliament, but we had a useful exchange of ideas around some of the issues that should be addressed. We should not be blind to the fact that gambling causes significant harm in our local communities. I think the House does need to reflect on where we have got to over the course of several decades since pokie machines were introduced into New Zealand.

We do have a situation now where a number of community groups rely on the proceeds of gambling in order to fund themselves. We are talking about sports clubs, charities, and a number of groups whose contributions we value that are now relying on the proceeds of gambling in order to function. I actually think there is a very salient comment made by the Methodist Church in an opinion piece in the Christchurch Press recently. I want to quote directly from it: “No decent society should fund its sports, recreation and commercial activities from the pockets of its poorest citizens.” I think that that is quite a legitimate thing for it to say. It is a sentiment I strongly agree with. Of course, there is no instant solution that we can reach here. I think this bill is a useful contribution to the debate that we should be having, but we can certainly make sure we do not make the situation any worse.

I think it is incumbent on all of us here as parliamentarians to accept the fact that we do have a problem with gambling in New Zealand at the moment, and we have a problem with the system that we have set up for gambling at the moment. We can, at least, not make it any worse. That is why I am very concerned that although the National Government sheds crocodile tears around problem gambling today and votes in favour of this bill, it is about to go out there and do a deal with the biggest gambling company in this country—the biggest gambling outfit in this country—Skycity, to build a convention centre that will be funded by the poorest citizens in our country. This will be funded by the poorest citizens in our country.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: This is the man who spent a week at Skycity! Talk about hypocrisy.

That is right, I did spend a week at Skycity, because I wanted to find out firsthand exactly what was going on there, and I did find out by spending the time there. I can say that having seen what goes on there, I do not think that the decision that National is taking to expand the gambling opportunities at Skycity, in exchange for its sweetheart deal for a convention centre, is the right thing to do. In fact, there are other options on the table there. John Key stopped officials working on other options to fund the convention centre because of the dodgy deal he reached with Skycity Casino. I think that is fundamentally wrong. It is morally corrupt. I think it is a disgrace that National, whilst shedding crocodile tears in favour of this legislation—which is good legislation—is then going to go ahead, on the other hand, and expand gambling opportunities at Skycity Casino. I do not think that is right. I think that is fundamentally wrong, and I think that the Government should be ashamed of itself for that.

The Labour Party stands behind our track record when it comes to gambling. In 2002 we did take steps to reduce the harm from gambling in New Zealand, including introducing the sinking lid on pokie machines that John Key now says is going to reduce the number of pokie machines we have overall, even though National is increasing them at Skycity. Well, actually, I reckon that is the wrong position for him to take, because we should have fewer pokie machines around the country. That does not mean that we should reduce them in one area so that he can prop up his mates at Skycity by putting in more pokie machines at Skycity. I think that is fundamentally wrong and I think the Government should be ashamed of itself.

Problem gambling causes huge social harm. It causes huge social harm. I do not believe that we should be expanding gambling opportunities and expanding the opportunities for that harm to take place so that the Government can get a convention centre, which it could get in other ways. In fact, there was work going on, commissioned by John Key, until he got a better offer from Skycity. And then he cancelled consideration of any other option for a convention centre in Auckland—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The Hon Trevor Mallard brought up [Interruption]—I am ruling—the matter of a conscience vote. I have sought advice. The practice that has been adopted is for members to raise the matter of a conscience vote in the Business Committee in order that the Speaker may consider whether a conscience vote should be held and advise the whips accordingly. As this practice has not been followed in this case, I do not believe that a personal vote should be held on this occasion. I am very mindful of Standing Order 141, which talks about how “A personal vote may be held following a party vote if a member requests one and the Speaker considers that the decision on a party vote is so close that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result.” So that is the ruling.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to contest not your decision, because I think in respect of Standing Order 141 there is going to be no doubt about the closeness of it, but I think it is important that we do not yet accept the rationale that you have used—that is, the practice of bringing matters to the Business Committee. The Business Committee is written into the Standing Orders in a number of ways, and there are some rights and obligations of members with regard to the Business Committee and there have also been some customs that have developed. But the right of a member to indicate that for them a matter is a conscience matter, to address that to the Speaker in this House around the time of a vote and after the party vote—Standing Order 140—and to ask for a personal vote appears, in the Standing Orders, to be untrammelled. I accept it is a two-part thing: the Speaker has to decide it is a conscience issue, and then it has to be close. I think the Standing Orders are clear on this, and I think it would be unfortunate if there was a ruling that stood that said that, effectively, because the matter had not been raised with the Speaker or it had not gone to the Business Committee, the rights of members under Standing Orders, which are very clear on the face of them, were not going to be upheld.

Just in considering the points that the member Mr Mallard has made, I wonder whether you would also consider Speaker’s ruling 69(6) from a former Speaker, Mr Kidd, who said the fact that the House on a party vote might divide rather closely does not in and of itself constitute sufficient reason for there to be a personal vote. It is clearly not intended by the Standing Orders that there should be one just because it is close.

I might be getting my time wrong, but I think Mr Kidd might have pre-dated the Standing Orders that we are talking about. I think I can almost remember the circumstance, and it was not an area of conscience. It was not one of the traditional conscience areas. It was a debate where it was felt that there might have been a few members of the National Government who, at that time, did not support the particular line of the Government. It was probably a little bit before the member’s time, but in those days people had to line up and actually say what they said.

I stand by the ruling I made before. But I just bring to members’ attention Standing Order 139, which clearly states: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue, the Speaker will permit a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.” That is Standing Order 139. It makes it very clear that the Speaker makes the decision. But the member is correct—we do not want to override that through the Business Committee, so that it takes precedence over what is in the Standing Orders. I accept what the member has brought to our attention, and, of course, it is always open for a member to call for a personal vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just seeking clarification around that. Does it stand, then, according to that ruling, that once a determination has been made, say, for the first reading, that that determination is then deemed to continue through all phases, or is there an opportunity to check in with the Business Committee at the second and third readings, if it gets to that?

The ruling that I am making now is not binding the House to a further position when we come to the Committee stage, or to the second and third readings.

I stand to support the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I would like to thank Te Ururoa Flavell and the Māori Party for the work they have done on this bill.

The National Party is well aware of the harm from gambling for individuals, for families, and for communities. We are particularly interested to hear the submissions on this bill, because part of our election promise was to revise the 2003 Gambling Act. But the problem is that it is difficult to find an effective way to minimise the harm from gambling, because gambling, like prostitution, drinking, and maybe even smoking, has had a long history. Archaeological evidence tells us that the cavemen were keen gamblers, and that they used astragali, bones from animals, to play games of dice. You can even see pictures, in the cave paintings, of cavemen enjoying gambling. Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, China, Japan, India, and even New World Native Americans enjoyed a game of dice. In fact, they thought the gods created those games of chance. When you look at Polynesia, gambling came from the sailing ships, with the explorers, the adventurers, the sailors, and the whalers. In fact, the missionaries had a pretty hard time trying to keep people in line, and focused on gambling, prostitution, and drinking. However, I believe that Te Ururoa Flavell says that Māori, before the European influence, had no interest in gambling and even had no words to describe it.

This bill focuses on one form of gambling, and that is electronic gambling, or the pokies. The pokies are already under strict control. So this bill is looking at further measures to protect individuals from problem gambling, reduce the number of pokies, extract bigger revenues from the ones that exist, better target where the money is spent, and find ways to help individuals control their gambling. I am keen to support any measures that would minimise harm from gambling, and will follow the comments of the submitters to the Commerce Committee with interest.

However, we do need to be aware that legalised gambling, the revenue from pokie machines, does good in our community. The money supports sports events, arts festivals, educational opportunities, and many more community events and services. So we need to look to find solutions to the problem. But I would hate to see us throw the baby out with the bathwater, and end up with a lose-lose situation where communities lose the revenue from the pokies, and the problem gamblers just end up spending on gambling somewhere else. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, this has always been a conscience issue for New Zealand First—for almost two decades now—and we see it as a conscience vote on this occasion.

I think we are getting ourselves into the possibility of some trouble here. I totally agree with the member. There have been gambling bills after gambling bills, and there have been lots of gambling bills where the House has been united, there has been agreement, and we have worked forward together. But where there have been divisions, there have been conscience votes and parties have split, because people do have different views. On this bill I gather that, other than New Zealand First, there is actually pretty broad agreement among most members of the House. I think it would be unfortunate if, without due consideration of that issue—and I accept that you made a suggestion earlier that it should have gone to the Business Committee, which is the practice, but it is not the Standing Order. What I am going to do—and I apologise to the Greens and to Mr Flavell—is seek the leave of the House—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): We’ve still got another speaker yet.

Yes. After the last speaker I will seek the leave of the House for the vote to be deferred in order for that matter to be considered in a considered way by the Speaker and to come back to the vote on this bill on the next members’ day. I am just giving notice of the fact so that members know that that is what I am going to do. Otherwise, frankly, we end up with confidence issues in the way the House is being run.

I thank the member for that, and we will look at that question following the right of reply. I call Te Ururoa Flavell.

I raise a point of order—if I could, Mr Speaker. So, trying to pick up on Mr Mallard’s point, will we be having an opportunity to discuss the question he has just raised after the closing speech?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Just to finish the debate, you have 5 minutes in reply, and my understanding is that the Hon Trevor Mallard is going to seek leave for the vote to be postponed. That is a decision for the House at that time, but before we get to that point, I invite the member to exercise his 5-minute right of reply.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, Mr Speaker—I understand that that question will be considered by way of a request from Mr Mallard. The question I am asking is whether there will be debate on that question at that time, or—[Interruption]

No. I thought I made it clear. My understanding is that Mr Mallard will seek leave for that purpose. So it is not debatable. If the member wishes to exercise his right of reply, I call Te Ururoa Flavell.

Kia ora tātau katoa e hoa mā, tātau ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata i tēnei pō. Ā, i te tuatahi, ka mihi rā ki tēnā, ki tēnā mō te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia i te roanga o ngā whā wiki pea kua hipa. He pai ngā kōrero ahakoa kai reira tonu ētahi paku rerekētanga, he pai tonu. Ko te mea nui kia kōrerohia ngā take, nō reira, me hoki au ki aua kōrero rā mō te wā poto.

[Greetings to us all this evening, fellow colleagues and members of Parliament. In the first instance, I gratefully acknowledge the point of view that each and every one contributed over the length of the past 4 weeks or so. Despite the fact that differences exist still, it is good and fine. The important thing is that issues are aired, so I will revisit those comments for a brief moment.]

Thanks, firstly, to all members who have contributed tonight. It is not as if I agree with all of the statements, but that is fine—that is the way it goes. I am pleased to reflect, firstly, very quickly on some of the statements made. Michael Woodhouse referred to the relationship accord that the Māori Party has with National. This bill, the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, has been on the agenda for some time, and so we are happy that through our relationship accord it comes to the House and, hopefully, will be able to pass its first reading. The second thing refers, then, to Ruth Dyson, who talked about acknowledging, I suppose, that the issue of pokie machines and gambling at that level is very much an issue. That is well known. It has very much been a part of the statements that I have made in opening the debate.

Todd McClay talked about surveying his own people and our own people in Rotorua, and accepting that there is a desire on the part of many to have this particular debate, because it does open up wide-ranging views in respect of a number of issues. Although the bill is very much looking at reduction of harm from pokie machines, the connotations and the wording that have been picked up by members tonight are obviously far reaching.

I acknowledge my colleague Denise Roche, and in particular her statements about how some of these machines are placed only in certain communities and not others. There is an element of support and there is technology, I am told, around the player tracking and pre-commit cards, so that is helpful to know. Also, I acknowledge the issues she raised around 80 percent of the money going back to the community, which was also acknowledged by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I acknowledge the effects in terms of racing. The comments by Mr Peters on racing, I suppose, are understandable, bearing in mind that he is a former Minister of Racing, so I would expect that he does raise some of those issues. The other point that was raised by Denise Roche was the issue of some of the pokie trusts possibly being involved in some fraudulent activities.

I do want to reflect on one statement that Mr Peters made, and that is in respect of internet gambling. I agree with him wholeheartedly. The issue of internet gambling has certainly come to the fore, and we have to remember, however, that this bill was drafted up some 2½ years ago. The progress in respect of internet gambling has really taken off, I would suggest, over the last 2 years, because I did not hear about it even when we were drafting up this bill. I acknowledge that is an issue that hopefully will be raised through the select committee process. Mr Mallard talked about the big players, and I cannot give too much of a response. Suffice it to say that I would expect that through the select committee process, again, people will raise some of those issues.

There is not too much else to add, other than to thank all those for their contributions. I can say that I have had a number of lobby groups come to me in respect of their positions, from racing, through to the big trusts, through to the smaller trusts, and generally the feedback has been positive. Strangely enough, although they have a particular view about this bill, the views have been wide ranging, and I might say that there have been offers to provide some input into the developing of the bill. I am fairly clear that it does not solve every problem, but there is a way forward here, where it might be possible to deal with some of the issues that have been discussed behind closed doors in respect of the behaviour of some of the trusts. The transparency of some of the trusts is certainly an issue that has been raised, as is, for example, the involvement of the racing industry and money going off to the racing industry. So from a Māori Party perspective I am really pleased that we have had that tonight.

I am hoping that the bill is supported across the House, as it seems like the indications are. I am sure that we can find a way forward. I appreciate also my discussions that I have had with the Minister Chris Tremain around working together, following the select committee process, to look at trying to find some compromises, deal with the issues that have been raised through the select committee process, and hopefully come out at the end of it, before the end of the second reading, with a bill that matches up and deals with many of the issues raised not only tonight but simply by having them as a part of the bill. So with that regard, I commend this bill to the House. I am looking forward to the support of the whole House, and I look forward also to hearing the debate through the select committee process.

Nō reira, ka nui te mihi ki tēnā, ki tēnā o tātau ngā kaikōrero, otirā, tātau i whakaputa kōrero i te pō nei, me te tūmanako ia, ka eke ki te taumata e wawatatia ana, i roto i ngā marama kai mua i te aroaro.

[Therefore, I am really grateful to each of us who contributed, particularly those this evening, in the hope that what each is seeking is achieved in the months ahead.]

Also, finally I say thank you to all of those who have lobbied me—

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but his time has expired.

I seek the leave of the House for this vote to be deferred until the next members’ day and to be set down as an order of the day on that day in order for there to be a considered ruling on whether this is a conscience vote or not.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is the motion that I sought before—when I sought leave for this because of the position that we have taken over a long, long time on this issue—for it to be a conscience vote.

Speaking to that point—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, you brought up a point of order, Mr Peters, and the member is responding. I have invited the member to respond to your point of order.

Although it is not very common, it is not unusual for members within a party to vote with their consciences and split their votes. It happened quite a number of times in the 49th Parliament with members of the ACT Party. I do suggest to the New Zealand First Party, as a way through this impasse, that if its members are prepared to vote with their consciences—and I presume their leader is well aware, having canvassed those views in advance of the debate—they are absolutely free to split their vote and cast it accordingly.

The member is absolutely right—other than the application of Standing Order 141, where there is a requirement for the Speaker to make a ruling as to whether an issue is a conscience vote or not. I am trying to do some rapid research on contested votes on gambling issues—and there have been a lot of votes on gambling issues that have not been contested, because the House has been unanimous on them—but I am unaware of contested votes on gambling issues that have not been treated that way. That is for pretty obvious reasons, and that is that members do have points of view that go to their conscience rather than being ideological views, which were what divided ACT in what the member referred to before.

I just want to briefly point out that I may have misheard you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but I am quite sure you have made a considered ruling under Standing Order 141.

I have. The matter is at an end. However, in dealing with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, if his party wishes to have a split vote, I refer him to—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s a conscience vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, I have actually ruled and you sought leave, and that leave was denied. So at this stage the way forward, if there is a way forward, is if the member wishes, under Standing Order 140(1)(b), “a party’s votes may be cast for the Ayes or for the Noes or recorded as an abstention, and a party may cast some of its votes in one of these categories and some in another or others (a split-party vote):”. So if the member wishes to have a split vote, or any member wishes to have a split vote, that can be accommodated.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In respect of the submission Mr Woodhouse made, which may have found favour with you, this is not a matter of whether we disagree on a policy. This is a different matter, to do with a conscience vote, and you usually find them on issues like this and on alcohol, which have been the two longstanding—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The sin thing.

Well, the last six sins—the particular ones that Parliament has tended to focus on. They are not to be likened to the dispute over ideology such as the ACT one that Mr Woodhouse raised. With respect, there is also, if you look at Standing Order 141, a personal vote being held following a party vote. But we do not want to get up and say that there are, say, six for and two against, with those people who happen to be against not having their names recorded, demonstrating their conscience. There is something that is being diminished here, if you find in favour of that sort of ruling.

Well, the split vote provision in this Parliament now is that those who vote for and against in a split vote have their names recorded. So that is a very clear provision, which is—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s not the point, at all.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, you said that—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Treat it like a conscience vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am on my feet. The provision now is quite clear. Under a split vote our members are recorded for and against, and the public knows which way they voted. So we now move to the vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you tell me how you get past these words in Standing Order 141, with respect to your consideration? It reads, at one point: “and the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote is so close that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result.” That is the only matter that you have to concern yourself with—that is right there in the Standing Orders—rather than ruling it out before we start. That is my point.

Well, we have not got to that point yet, because I have not put the vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard your ruling before as to process. What I did not hear is you rule that gambling is not a conscience issue. My view is that the precedent has always been in this House where there is division on a gambling issue, on a liquor issue, on a sex issue—and there is another one as well, but I cannot remember what it is. But it is the “sins”, anyway, or that group of issues. They are conscience issues. That is what Standing Order 138 refers to. I think I am pleading with you not to upset the precedent of this Parliament and the rights of members to have conscience votes.

You ruled as to the current Speaker’s practice, as far as dealing with these matters, and the development of the Business Committee, and all of us think it is a good thing that if members do take it to the Business Committee, there is a proper discussion and there is notice. What came out of this was when I said to our whip that I had seen a party vote on a matter of shop trading—that is another of those issues—and it came out of Sunday trading and Easter trading. That is the issue I was trying to think of before. It is not quite a sin, although some people would regard it as a sin to trade on Easter Sunday. The point I am making is that gambling has always been a conscience issue. I accept that the process that has been developed is a good process, but my plea to you is that you do not let a lack of a non-Standing Order process override the Standing Orders of the House.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

No, I am going to deal with this. The member asked whether I had ruled on whether this was a conscience vote. I have not ruled in that way. I have not actually mentioned that at all. What I have been guided by very much is Standing Order 139: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue, the Speaker will permit a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.” So that is one of the considerations I have taken into account. Although it may have been a convention, as the member says, that gambling and other matters have in the past been treated as conscience votes, I have not determined in my deliberations that, in fact, this is to be treated as a conscience vote. So I am guided very much by Standing Order 139. Of course, I mentioned that if a party wishes to split its vote, it can do so under Standing Order 140(1)(b). The member sought leave for this to be postponed. It is very clear that we cannot postpone it, because leave was not granted. From here on in I am required now to put the vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 139 actually does not leave you an option. If a matter is a conscience vote, you must permit a personal vote to be held and not a party vote. There is not an option. It is not something for you, Mr Speaker, to choose to do. If it is a conscience vote, then the procedures for split votes, in Standing Order 140, do not apply, because they are for split votes; they are procedures for party votes and not for personal votes. I know that my colleague Charles Chauvel has been studying this question, as well as Mr Hipkins. I put it to you that you do not have an option on this. If it is a conscience issue, you cannot choose to have a party vote on it. My submission to you is this has always been a conscience issue where there is a division. I accept there have been lots of times when there has not been a division, and therefore it does not apply. But this is a conscience issue. You cannot get more of a conscience issue than gambling-type stuff, in my opinion. But I know that my colleagues have views as well.

I just want to make a very brief contribution to this discussion, because I have had the chance to have a read of some of the relevant sections of McGee while this interchange has been taking place, and I think it is important.

One of the distinctions made in McGee is that when parties are casting split votes, it is because a member wishes to take a different position to that of their party. In the issue of a conscience vote, it is because a party has not taken a position on an issue and, therefore, it is free for individual members to take a position. Therefore, in the historical context of gambling, along with a number of moral issues around drinking, sex, and so on, it has been a conscience issue because members have taken that view, not the parties having taken the view. So the split voting by parties is designed—according to McGee—for situations where members wish to take a different position to a party position, whereas this issue here, by the precedent of the House, has typically not been treated as a party issue but has been treated as an issue for individual members’ conscience. Therefore, the provisions around split voting, to me, do not seem to apply here, because this is not a situation where members are wanting to take a different position from an agreed party position, where there is a set of processes that parties have in place in order to allow that to happen, and to record that and to give consent for members to vote differently to their party.

This is a case where members are indicating that parties should not be taking a position that individual members should be taking a position on. It seems to me, from a quick read of McGee—and there are several thousand pages, so I have not read every part of it, but from the parts that I have been able to read, it would seem to me—that there is quite a clear distinction there.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

I will hear Michael Woodhouse.

💬 MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I think the member has a point, albeit there do appear to me to be some inconsistencies with a rigid principle of voting with a conscience on those issues. We are considering soon the second reading and Committee stage of a sale of liquor amendment bill, which is the sort of legislation that, as members more experienced than I know, has often been a conscience vote, and there are long stories of that turning into a bit of a dog’s breakfast in 1989, and in 1998 or 1999. In fact, the former Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power made it very clear that there was one area where there would be a conscience vote, and that is on the purchase age, and there has not been a single word of challenge to that being the method by which that bill should be progressed. So although I accept the point the member is making, I do not believe it is an absolutely consistently rigidly followed rule.

Can I just contribute back to that point, because I think it is an important one. I think it is fair to say that the Hon Simon Power indicated the approach that the National Party, or possibly the Government, would be taking on the sale of liquor legislation. He was not indicating the method that the House would take on it, because, of course, as the Minister in charge of the bill, he could not take from the Speaker and take from the House the right to have votes on conscience issues.

I do agree with the member, but I am someone who moved an amendment to the Sale of Liquor Act in 1989, I think, in order to keep the royal charters, including the Petone Working Men’s Club. The Minister voted against it, but I convinced the House that he was wrong and the Petone Working Men’s Club was right. I am not sure that the legislation was better for it, but certainly the will of the House was established in that way.

I can understand why Ministers who want things tidy do not like conscience votes, because sometimes you can even get things that are not entirely internally consistent within bills. But, having said all of that, there has been a group of areas that have been established for having them. Although the National caucus can make a decision, if it wanted to, to exercise a collective conscience, if you like, as opposed to individuals having to vote—and parties have done it in the past; my party has on occasions on conscience votes done that—they were still clearly conscience votes and not party votes.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—

We are not—I am going to rule now.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One last point, and I want to assure the Assistant Speaker that if you want an extension of time to cast a vote after making the decision, then we will certainly vote for it, so we are not trying to ruin the time of the House tonight. But this is not a Government bill; it comes from a private member. That is pretty important. It is not a Minister bringing a bill here, but a private member.

The second thing is that there has been a long tradition over a long period of time, and I would be absolutely quite shocked to think that there is anybody actually—in any way like a majority—who thinks that the issue of gambling is not a conscience issue. It always has been, and across the party divide it always has been, for a long time, and this goes back decades. So what you are required to do, with respect, is not a great thing to do: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue,”. That is the issue for you. Then something else automatically follows—it will be a conscience issue.

I am putting it to you personally, and as a leader of a political party and somebody who has been here a long time, that if you are going to get up in this House and say, with respect—you are entitled to say it, but with respect—that this is not a conscience issue, then I would, frankly, think that this Parliament has lost something tonight.

I thank the member. I thank all members for their contributions. This has certainly exercised my mind. Advice from the Clerks is that the decision about whether a matter is a conscience issue is for the Speaker to determine in each instance. The practice that has been adopted in this instance has not been followed, and that is the issue that I mentioned earlier about—[Interruption] no, I know; this is an overview—actually seeking from the Business Committee agreement that we would be having a conscience vote on this bill.

This bill deals with gambling harm and its reduction, and I agree that traditionally these bills have been a conscience vote. So I am prepared to do this. Do the whips have the process where they can cast a personal vote? I am asking the whips of each party, if we were to go ahead with the personal vote, can they vote in respect of their own members?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can certainly say on behalf of the Labour Opposition that we are not prepared at this point for a vote. There is actually a discrepancy. I was looking at this in relation to Easter trading this morning, and there is an issue around some inconsistency around the casting of proxy votes in the Standing Orders that actually needs to be dealt with separately. I will raise that at another, appropriate moment, because it does require a proxy vote to be in writing and signed by a member. Therefore an email or a text message or a phone call is not sufficient, so for us to do that, it would be very difficult. So I am going to seek leave again. I know it has been put before, but I think, given the discussion we have now had, I will seek leave again for the vote on this matter to be deferred until the next members’ day, so that it can be discussed at the next Business Committee meeting.

I just note that there are some strongly held views here that have been expressed by members, and I would be very uncomfortable now, as a whip, casting votes on behalf of the whole party, if it is declared by the Speaker to be a party vote.

One thing here: we are in a position to actually oblige, and I do recognise that you have made a personal attempt here, but I have to say that under Standing Order 142, which is “Procedure for personal vote”, there is no such mechanism. That is the problem with your suggestion, although we do appreciate that you have made it.

In terms of trying to assist this point of the discussion, I guess it is a first reading. Therefore any final decisions on this bill—I am assuming a change in the vote, whether it is a conscience or a party vote, could be done at a third reading, which is possibly, as the time when the bill is in its final stages, the more critical of the votes.

Having listened to the debate, I have grown increasingly concerned about the position of a member of tender conscience on an issue like this. If the scenario is that the member feels a particular way on an issue that is traditionally subject to a conscience vote, yet the whips and the party leadership in his or her party feel another way, and if the Business Committee is therefore not alerted to the prospect of it being a conscience vote, so that the Speaker does not have the opportunity to consider the issue in that forum, then there is no remedy for that member to express their conscience in the House. Presumably, if they have not been able to get that done by their whips or their party leaders, they are not going to be able to get it done by way of a split vote, signalled later.

I ask you to make a ruling under Standing Order 139 as to whether this ought to be a conscience vote, and I hope you will rule that it is one. I know—well, I think from the debate it is clear—that members are willing to participate in a personal vote tonight, if that can be held.

I do appreciate the spirit in which the member Mr Chauvel has raised that point and also the issues that have been raised by Mr Mallard. I say this respectfully. The first reading of this bill started on 4 April, 5 weeks ago, and, as a matter of process, there has been plenty of opportunity for respective caucuses to consider their position and advise the Business Committee accordingly. It is simply not appropriate to be raising it—I say this respectfully—on the eighth call of the first reading, 5 weeks after we started.

Mr Speaker, speaking as the co-leader of the party that brought this bill to the House, I heard your call for the vote, and I heard Mr Mallard ask for the leave of the House and the leave of the House was declined. I feel that the vote now has to be put.

Sorry, very briefly, Mr Speaker. I apologise; I will do this very briefly. I heard your indication as to asking whether whips are ready for a personal vote. I have spoken to our whip. If you grant the conscience vote we are not in a position to do proxies, but there are members in the House and actually they are present, so they can vote. I have no doubt that the bill will pass its first reading on a personal vote, so we are not going to the result, but I think we are establishing the principle.

This is my final ruling. I am going to put the vote, and if the member calls for a personal vote, I will allow it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I call for a personal vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): A personal vote has been—I have to put the question first.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just clarify what you have just ruled, and that it is your considered decision that if a personal vote was called for, you will agree to it. Is that what I heard you say?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): That is what I have said.

So I will come back to Standing Order 141, which are the grounds and the circumstances for bringing—

No, I have already ruled.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have already ruled and we intend to put the vote, and after I have put the vote, if a member then calls for a personal vote, a personal vote will be held. That is my ruling. End of matter. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it?

💬 Hon Members: The Ayes have it.

💬 Hon Members: The Noes have it.

💬 Hon Members: Personal vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): A personal vote has been called for. I will ask for a personal vote.