Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I cannot come to this debate without remembering the passionate advocacy of the late Maureen Waaka, who inspired me to focus on the issue of problem gambling as one of the greatest social hazards impacting on our communities. Maureen, moe mai rā koe.

The Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill was born out of a desire to minimise the harm of gambling on vulnerable communities as well as ensuring the returns from gambling remained in the communities from which the money was generated. First and foremost, gambling-related harm is detrimental to the well-being, the economic outlook, and the community health of far too many New Zealanders. The Māori Party stepped up to that challenge and this bill is the result. We do not have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for a better day. We know that problem gambling severely compromises the potential of whānau and that we must act now. When gambling gets out of control, it is not just an individual who loses. Whole whānau and communities suffer. Problem gambling has devastating consequences on individuals and whānau. Those consequences can be demonstrated in relationship breakdown, financial ruin, psychological distress, criminal offending, imprisonment, and suicide.

Why then did the Māori Party take up this call? Over 20 years ago the very first gambling prevalence study in New Zealand identified that Māori had at least three times more risk of problem gambling than non-Māori. In the early 1990s, through the provision of the Gambling Helpline and gambling counselling services, it was identified that Māori, particularly Māori women, were increasingly seeking help with problems of gambling. Our rangatahi are also not spared the impact of this addiction. Māori youth are six times more likely to develop gambling problems than non-Māori youth. All in all, the glaring reality of these statistics prompted us to commit to a goal, which is shared widely in the problem-gambling sector, and that is to prevent and minimise gambling harm. So I make these preliminary comments because I want to make it quite clear where our motivation for addressing problem gambling comes from: He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

When this bill was introduced in September 2010, its purpose was very clear: to provide local communities with more power to determine where pokie machines may be sited and how the proceeds can be distributed. Almost 3 years down the track, I believe that that vision of a gambling-free future will be strengthened by the initiatives advanced in this bill, including the intention to, one, cut rorts and conflicts of interest out of the gambling sector; two, to introduce harm minimisation devices, which can now be done through regulations; three, to have a minimum amount returned to the community where the gambling occurred, which can now be done, again, through regulations; and, four, to get pokies out of low socio-economic communities. Now venues will be able to transfer out of these areas, where that is supported by the community and the council.

The original bill wanted to cut out racing and racing stake money as an authorised charitable purpose. The Government disagreed, saying that it would have too much of a negative impact on the racing industry. That is a fight that will continue at another time. The original bill had a condition that at least 80 percent of the funds derived from class 4 gambling would be distributed to the community from which it came. The Government supported the idea of making sure funds from pokies went back into their communities of origin and the bill now enables this to happen through regulation. The original bill required territorial authorities to take control of distributing proceeds from gambling. The Government agreed that there needs to be greater transparency of the current grant system, taking away the risk of rorts and dodgy dealings. This will be part of a future work programme.

The original bill allowed for public sentiment and evidence of harm to be a specific criterion when territorial authorities are developing their venue policies and for that to be a reason for reducing the number of pokie machines in that area. The Government disagreed with this approach, but it wanted to instead allow venues with the permission from territorial authorities to move their pokie machines out of harm’s way. The original bill wanted harm minimisation devices to be put into gambling machines, like pre-commit cards, and player-tracking systems. The Government has now supported the development of regulations to support the implementation of harm minimisation technology.

Let me be the first in this second reading debate to state the obvious. The bill that we are debating here today is far less impressive than my original intent. That is right. There is no denying that. Hands are up—guilty. I do, however, want to acknowledge my thanks to Graeme Ramsey and the Problem Gambling Foundation and, indeed, the mighty advocacy of the “People Before Pokies” campaign, which has championed the cause of reducing gambling harm so clearly and in such a compelling way. In doing so, I want to also recognise the incredible impact of the experience, the advice, and the wisdom from right across the motu. The Commerce Committee apparently considered 5,000 submissions from interest groups and individuals and considered another 30,000 form submissions. It also heard around 159 or 160 submissions at hearings in Wellington, Christchurch, and Auckland. If nothing else, the level of public participation has truly been awesome and this Parliament is better for their contribution.

I know that this bill does not live up to the ideal that we all had. But I have chosen not to walk away. My approach to political reform is to chisel away bit by bit, to persevere, to do the work necessary to achieve change, no matter how incremental. Tērā pea he pakupaku, he pakupaku noa te namu ēngari, ko tōna wero, ē, kāore. As we say, the smallest mosquito can have an impact. I was not about to pull out of those communities who desperately need change and turn my back on the whānau who have come to me in need. So I started working with the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Chris Tremain, on how to advance the many issues that my bill sought to address, and I mihi to him today for his genuine commitment to working together to reform the legislation.

What is the result? Well, it is a broad package of class 4 gambling reforms, which are given further strength within the regulatory and legislative reforms proposed by the Government. The changes announced by Minister Tremain are a direct result of my bill, which was the catalyst for change. We placed the issue on the agenda and this wider package is the result of our hard work. Where we had achieved broad agreement, we made changes, and I am pleased that we have. I have been able to negotiate a series of changes that lift the percentage returned to the community, that address conflicts of interest and rorts, and that will ensure gambling proceeds are distributed in the areas raised. These changes are important reforms that were not on the radar until my bill came along. Perhaps one of the most significant impacts of this bill is that it has created the public climate for urgency in addressing problem gambling. In this sense, a new bill to be introduced later in the year by the Minister, and the regulatory changes that have arisen out of my bill are important signals of an appetite for change.

If I had the right to reply to all of those who have chosen to publicly withdraw their support from the bill, I would urge, first, that they look at the wider package and the eight new measures that have arisen, provoked by the impact of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. The key drivers of my bill were to address rorts and conflicts of interests and concerns around gambling-related harm, both of which have been addressed. But we were always clear that a wider strategy was required, including broader legislative reform and a public education programme.

Just to bring us back to the context of this bill—every day New Zealanders lose $5.5 million on gambling. That is around $2 billion every year. Should we ignore that reality? Should we walk away from this bill, on principle? The Māori Party says no. More than 18,000 New Zealanders are problem gamblers and, of course, none of these individuals operate in isolation. Almost 3 percent of New Zealand adults, close to 90,000 people, have experienced problems due to someone’s gambling in a previous year. Should we gamble on their future, wish them good luck, and walk away because we were not able to achieve what we wanted with this bill? The Māori Party says no. We are in this for our whānau and our communities. We are not bowing out. We are continuing the tough fight. We have gained some ground. That is what you achieve when you sit down at the table. Tēnā koutou. Kia ora tātou katoa.

I am pleased to stand and speak on this bill, the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I want to give credit to my parliamentary colleague Te Ururoa Flavell for a number of things—firstly, his passion to see people, particularly people who are close to him in his electorate, free from the problems of gambling addiction and to bring some answers to those whānau and families. I also want to give him credit for being pragmatic and working through solutions with the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Chris Tremain. I certainly would not consider Te Ururoa Flavell a mosquito by any means or in any regard, and I think that we on our side of the House would regard him as a colleague with whom we have been very happy to work towards his aims.

Going through the public submissions was very enlightening, I think, for all members of the Commerce Committee who were part of that and for some who came on as members of the committee during the process. We have heard from thousands of New Zealanders and we have heard from both sides of the argument, and I do not think there would be one person out there who would disagree with the aim of harm reduction for gambling. But there is a variety of opinion on how that ought to be achieved, and I would have to say there were a number of comments to say that people did not feel that some of the measures that were proposed were going to work as hoped. So that is why some of the amendments came through from the committee.

Also, it would be true to say that quite a large number of people who came through said that we needed to have a wider review of the gambling laws. That is another reason why I believe that the Minister has been working with Te Ururoa Flavell, to look at a wider working programme around this.

There were a number of concerns regarding having local authorities as the entities that disburse the proceeds from gambling. There was not agreement that they would do it any better, perhaps at more expense and with less funding available for community groups, than what is currently happening. At the same time I believe that, as the member has mentioned, there was concern about what have been called rorts in the system. The Minister is well aware of the member’s concerns about that and no doubt there will be measures put in place to better bring transparency to the matters concerned.

One of the areas that attracted some concern was this matter of where racing is considered to be an approved cause or authorised purpose. That was one particular area that the committee did not accept in terms of the member’s bill as it was originally presented to the committee. Essentially, we saw that the racing industry is very much contributing to the economy of the country, with 17,000 fulltime-equivalent employees, with a $1.6 billion annual contribution to the economy, and with the export industry of thoroughbreds out of this country to other countries of the world. We considered in the balance of things that the harm to that industry was also something to be considered, if they found that it became a retrenching industry because of these measures.

You know, those are all difficult decisions and difficult things to weigh up. I guess politics is full of trying to find an acceptable compromise, and, obviously, there are people on one side who agree, and people on the other side who disagree, on these sorts of measures.

All I can say is that this was an incredibly thorough process. There were 5,020 substantive submissions and 28,000 form submissions, with a total of 33,000 New Zealanders making their viewpoint known by one means or another. There was a tremendous amount of debate and discussion around the pros and cons of the money that is lost and the money that is utilised for community effort and concern. I found it quite a fascinating process to go through. I feel in the end that we—along with what the Minister and Te Ururoa Flavell, my respected colleague, are working on towards the future—hopefully, have a comprehensive package that is going to address some of the concerns that the member put through in his original bill.

In terms of just a wrap-up to what I am saying this afternoon, one of the particular areas that the committee brought into the bill, which was not actually in the original member’s bill, was this ability now for licences in low socio-economic areas in particular to be transferred out. There were grandfather provisions that kept them locked into those areas, which we felt was a real problem, and so we have added an amendment that would enable councils, with the agreement of the licence holders’ venue owners, to transfer them out of those particular areas where there is some concern that in the past they may have been targeting people of low income.

I am very pleased to be part of the process and I do trust that we can work together going forward for a good solution. Thank you.

I am very pleased to take a call at this stage of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I begin my just commending the member who has just resumed his seat, Jonathan Young. I attended not as a regular member of the Commerce Committee but for the purposes of this bill for most of the deliberation, and I thought that his competency in chairing was very, very commendable. We had some pretty heated debates, we had some pretty upset submitters—and I will get back to them—but I thought that the manner in which they were received and the order that was maintained on the committee was the way that other committees should operate in this House. I want to just note that to begin with.

I also want to commend the member who introduced the bill, Te Ururoa Flavell. I agree with Jonathan Young that Te Ururoa Flavell’s motivation in bringing this bill about was absolutely exemplary, actually. He understands—and many in this House now understand better because of the process of the bill—the harm that is done in our society, which is caused not by the fact that people have a gambling problem but by the ability of people who have a gambling problem to access machines that take advantage of that addiction, and the problem those people have.

So the responsibility that we have, as a Parliament, is to support those people so that they have less opportunity to spend their family budget in a way that if they did not have that problem they would not do, and to support them to spend their money responsibly. Our role is not to interfere in every person’s life to make them live a life of blamelessness in total; it is to support people who have addictions that do harm and to ensure that the opportunities for those addictions to be abused by profit motives are reduced or eradicated. I think that was the intention behind this gambling harm reduction legislation.

I really regret what the committee did with this bill in the end. I regret the deal that was done and I do not think that it is a good deal. I understand the dilemma that Te Ururoa Flavell—I am assuming I do; it is bit presumptuous, but I would like to assume that I understand the dilemma that the member faced. He is really in a no-win situation unless he takes up an offer from the Government, because it was clear that National was not going to support the progress of this legislation.

So the member can either stand on his high horse and say: “No, if I’m not getting what I wanted, or at least if I am not going a long way towards that, I am going to withdraw my bill.” That is actually what I would have done, given the deal that was reached in the end. Or he can choose to go down a different path and say: “Well, I think I am making some progress and that is better than nothing.” I do not think this is progress and I really regret that, because I think this was an opportunity for us—though not to go to the lengths that the original bill proposed. I would have voted for it, but a lot of people were disturbed by it, and I do not think that it had been worked through quite hard enough despite the best efforts of the committee.

I think this bill ends up doing the opposite of what was intended. I think this bill could do more harm than was intended, and certainly people who are experts in this area and who deal with the social consequences of problem gambling say that this bill should not progress. The Problem Gambling Foundation is the obvious organisation, but we also have the Salvation Army, an organisation that must be one of the most highly respected in terms of the work it does in the hardest area in our communities in supporting people, and we have Auckland University’s school of population health. Those three organisations have taken a big step and gone public in opposition to this bill.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I am very happy to pick up the conversation that I started just before the dinner break when I was talking about the fact that I believe that the member whose name is attached to this bill, Te Ururoa Flavell, introduced it with the very best intentions, and that his aim was to introduce and have passed legislation that would genuinely reduce the harm that is done in our communities through gambling. It is my view and the view of other experts in this area that because of the deal that had to be done between the Minister of Local Government, Chris Tremain, and the member Te Ururoa Flavell, and because of the instructions the Commerce Committee got to alter the bill, this bill actually does not just not reduce harm but actually has the potential to cause more harm in the community. It is with deep regret that I will, therefore, be voting against it.

I have looked through the media response to the bill as was reported back from the select committee. Andrée Froude of the Problem Gambling Foundation had this to say: “The bill is not going to live up to its name. It was put forward as a harm minimisation bill, effectively that’s all been stripped away.” This is one of the groups that supported the introduction of this legislation most strongly. The Associate Professor at the school of population health from Auckland University went so far as to say that he wanted the bill scrapped because of the changes that were put forward at the select committee.

The director of the social policy research and parliamentary affairs unit from the Salvation Army, Major Campbell Roberts, has been a regular contributor to important debates of social justice and social policy in this Parliament over many years. He said that the proposed changes did nothing for problem gamblers, those at risk, or communities wishing to minimise the impact of gambling: “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this bill, on balance, will make matters worse.” That is from Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army.

I really think that it is the responsibility of this Parliament not to listen to the rhetoric, not to listen to the slogans, but to listen to the people who deal with the impact of problem gambling in our homes, in our families, and in our communities. Those three experts whom I quoted, who have had very close involvement with the bill right from its introduction, said to vote against it; scrap it.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Is there any explanation why?

There is more in the media, and perhaps at later stages of the bill I will be able to provide the member with more information in that regard. I do not have it right here, but I am happy to pick up that challenge; it is a good one, actually.

I just want to make a couple of brief comments in relation to the comments that were made in earlier contributions about the large number of submitters who submitted on this bill and the overwhelming number of submitters who were opposed to the bill. It is my view that the bill was misrepresented to those organisations. They were told by the pokie trusts that the passing of Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill would mean that their organisation—be it the local rugby club, bowling club, yacht club, or whatever—would get no money in future.

I do not believe that that was the intention of the bill, and I do not believe at all that had the bill been passed as it was introduced, that would have happened. It was not the intention of the legislation to deprive any of those community organisations of any funding. I resent the fact that our great community and voluntary organisations have been misled about the intention and the outcome of the bill. The intention, actually, was to stop the slicing of the profits from the pokies to the trusts, which stopped the profits going back into the community. The intention was to make sure that where the money was taken from, it was put back. So where there were large numbers of pokies in the lowest-income areas and all that money was coming out of those communities through the pokie machines, the intention was that the money went back into those communities, into those voluntary organisations, into those sports clubs, and into those social service organisations that do so much good.

I regret not being able to vote for this legislation. I would have loved to have had a bill I could have supported. I resent the fact that I believe that our great community and voluntary organisations were misled by the trusts in an effort to get them to oppose the legislation. I do not think that they have had that rectified in the interim, since then.

I hope that at some time in the future this Parliament has the ability, through the force of numbers, to take a more courageous step than what is going to be obvious in this legislation. And I hope that, in fact, perhaps in the debate tomorrow we can further our opposition to the proliferation of gambling, given the shonky deal that this Parliament will be voting on tomorrow when we look at the Skycity convention centre being traded off for a huge increase in pokie machines. The very day after Te Ururoa Flavell tries to reduce the harm of problem gambling in our society—unsuccessfully, I believe, but I know the intention was genuine—we will be voting on that shonky Skycity deal.

It is a pleasure for me to take a call on this, the second reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I also want to thank Te Ururoa Flavell for his leadership on this issue. It is an important issue not just in my communities in Maungakiekie and South Auckland and Auckland but across this country. This is a scourge—this gambling scourge—that certainly needs to be addressed, and we are doing it with this bill. I want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell for his leadership, and for his soon to be leadership of the Māori Party. He has been a great backbencher, and he will make a fine leader going forward in this Parliament, and with the Māori Party going forward. It is a pleasure for me to support this bill.

Across this House we have always accepted that gambling is a legal activity, and what this bill does is it regulates the access to gambling facilities. It attempts to minimise the harm around that activity. But gambling is not just the scourge of my communities. We all know that there are teachers, there are lawyers, and there are even politicians who gamble. So let us not say that this is a problem defined to one area, but across the country. It is also personal because I have had numerous constituents come into my electorate office in Onehunga in Maungakiekie, and I have seen the broken relationships. I have seen kids who have gone without the essentials, the broken families, and the broken relationships. It affects our communities right across this country.

We just heard Ruth Dyson talk about “her and other experts”. I do not know how she can claim to be an expert alongside these other supposed experts who have made submissions on this bill. She named an academic. She named the Problem Gambling Foundation, which I acknowledge, and the Salvation Army, which does good work, but what this bill does is that it enables the introduction of harm minimisation devices through regulation. That is one thing. It will enable us to update regulations as these new technologies are advanced—as they are developed. We have seen how in Australia they have had difficulties introducing some forms of these technologies, and so we have given within this bill greater flexibility through regulations to allow us to introduce those technologies when it becomes clear that they have an effect on problem gambling.

Secondly, this bill will enable us to ensure a minimum percentage of gambling proceeds will generally go to community groups in the area where they are raised. That allows for flexibility. I know the last member who spoke talked about how there were concerns that people were benefiting outside the areas of where the funds were generated, but we had some strong submissions from national organisations and regional organisations that would be impacted adversely should the corralling of funds be taken to the extreme in respect of local organisations.

The third point I want to raise is that the bill also gives more flexibilities to councils to allow venues to move outside of low socio-economic neighbourhoods where that is supported by the venue and that local community. We saw in one of the submissions, where maps were shown of high-deprivation areas, where there were high concentrations of these machines. Certainly, our Government—this National Government—supports the movement of those machines away from those communities where they have been known to damage local people who have gambling problems.

We made some changes at the Commerce Committee. The original bill did talk about harm minimisation devices that may be introduced through licensing conditions. Well, we thought that introducing them on an ad hoc, case by case basis through licensing conditions was not the appropriate way to go in terms of progressing the bill. We thought that regulations would enable us to introduce new technologies on a mandatory basis nationwide rather than through those individual licences, and I think that this provision will work going forward. Although I am not entirely happy about how regulations are delegated to officials, to Ministers, and to future Parliaments—personally, I think measures should be in the primary legislation and should be debated in this Chamber—in my view, this particular clause will establish better technologies and more flexibility going forward, and it will go towards minimising harm.

In terms of venue transfers, the original bill would have allowed councils to shut down venues and ban gambling. In our view, as I have said earlier in my contribution tonight, gambling is a permitted activity, it is a legal activity, and this goes a step too far. So what we have said is that we will support the transfer of venues out of low socio-economic neighbourhoods and into areas like the central business districts of various cities and provinces. We support that. I think it is a good measure. It supports the sinking-lid policies that many councils already have in place—

💬 Denise Roche: It’s not what you’re saying.

It may interest the House—I know that Denise Roche there is a former councillor in Auckland—that the number of pokie machines in this country has actually declined since this National Government has come into power. In the last 4 years it has declined, on average, by 550 machines a year.

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How much?

550 machines a year, Mr Bakshi. What that translates to is an 11.2 percent reduction in the number of pokie machines under this National Government. That is something we should be proud of as a National Government. That is something that the Opposition parties do not want to talk about—that the amount of pokie machines in this country has come down. So when you translate the 230 machines that are under the New Zealand International Convention Centre deal—just over 1 percent of the total pokies in this country, a quite insignificant number of machines—

💬 Andrew Little: Defensive—here comes the guilt.

You think that the sky is falling. Andrew Little, or Chicken Little, thinks that the sky is falling when we are doing the convention centre deal tomorrow—the legislation is having its first reading tomorrow—when it is only 1 percent of total pokies in this country. It is only 1 percent of total pokies in the country.

Furthermore, annual expenditure on pokie machines is falling. In 2008, when this National Government took over, it was $912 million—$912 million. Today I can happily say that it has gone down to $840 million. So there is less money going into pokie machines today than under the Labour Government. The people opposite were responsible for $912 million, and it is now $840 million. That is 8 percent less money going into pokies, and 8 percent less damage in our communities. So that is something we can be proud of.

We will debate that issue tomorrow night, but what I am saying about the local distribution of proceeds is that the original bill had 80 percent of gaming proceeds to be distributed in the local area. As I have already said, it really is about having the flexibility in the legislation, through regulations, because what sports clubs and other social service organisations that rely on gaming trust funding said to us inside of the select committee was that they did not want the adverse consequences of us messing around with the funding. It was not represented as the last member Ruth Dyson—the so-called expert in gambling—said. It was not about them saying that the money would go; it was about them saying that they were concerned that the risks were that they would not get the same amounts of money under another distribution mechanism. I think that is really important.

I just want to say that this Government has already announced earlier this year $55 million with a 3-year strategy for problem gambling, $25 million for front-line intervention, $20 million for public health services, and $6.6 million for research evaluation. This Government is doing more than any other Government to minimise harm around gambling. This Government has reduced the number of pokies in our communities. This Government, by building the convention centre in 3 years, will produce jobs and opportunities to feed the kids of the families that need those jobs and opportunities. This Government stands for harm minimisation, jobs, and opportunities, and that is why the people of New Zealand support our Government. Thank you very much.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I would like to rise to take this call for the Greens on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I will start my speech by also acknowledging the death of Maureen Waaka, who was on the board of the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand, and was a stalwart defender of Māori and a support for Māori with gambling problems. She worked tirelessly to raise this as an issue in Māori communities and to try to address the harm caused by gambling.

This bill has come back to the House with its good intentions completely gutted, and it should be withdrawn by the member who has the bill in his name, Te Ururoa Flavell. It is a real shame, because the original intentions of the bill were sound. Those intentions were to give councils and communities the power to cut the number of pokies in the area or eliminate them altogether; ensure that at least 80 percent of the 37 percent of the funds that were distributed as grants from gambling machine losses be returned to the communities where the gambling took place; phase out the pokies trusts that distribute the gambling money from pokies, and replace them with more accountable committees under the control of local authorities; remove horse racing from the list of charitable purposes that can use the gambling funds; and introduce harm minimisation, player tracking, and pre-commit cards, enabling gamblers to put controls on the amount of time they spend and the money they lose while playing pokies.

What does this bill do? None of that. Why? Because the pokie trusts won. There were over 35,000 submissions on this bill. The majority of them came from community organisations that are the recipients of the money from class 4 gambling—that is, the pokie gambling. Many of these organisations received letters from pokie trusts that have previously given them grants, encouraging them to put in submissions opposing the bill. One pokie trust, Pub Charity, went so far as to offer workshops to organisations that had received funding from it in the past. I know this because I asked submitters while they were giving their submissions. They were encouraged to write submissions to oppose the bill. These workshops also ensured that there was a lot of misinformation promulgated, and Ruth Dyson has already spoken about that. There were simply so many non-truths told that it was a big beat-up by the industry.

Let us step back a minute and just remember what pokies are for and what pokie trusts are for. The Gambling Act says that the only reason—the only reason—pokies exist is to provide benefits through funding to the community. And it says that the money from pokies can be used only for authorised purposes, which are charitable purposes; non-commercial purposes that have community benefits; and promoting, controlling, and conducting race meetings. The only reason that pokie trusts exist is to distribute that money. I am not sure what others think of this, but I think pokie trusts using the money that should go to communities to wrangle community groups together to get them to oppose a bill that will make them go out of existence is absolutely wrong.

We have also recently seen an example of, again, Pub Charity’s Chief Executive Officer, Martin Cheer, deciding to punish Canterbury Cathedral by denying it funding because one member of the Anglican Church made a submission supporting the Flavell bill. And how did Martin Cheer know? He knew because he was in the room when the submission was given. He really could not have missed the submitter saying that he did not represent the Anglican Church, and that some people in the Anglican Church were worried that if they submitted, they would not be able to access funding in the future. And, lo and behold, that is exactly what has happened. So what we have here is a pokie trust that interferes in the democratic processes of the legislative system by using threats and rewards to get its own way. That is bullying.

This bill was attempting to deal to the pokie trusts and the rorts they get up to. An example—and there are many—from this year is that the Department of Internal Affairs is currently conducting a $30 million investigation into the racing industry in the South Island. That is $30 million of community funding going to racing, from three different trusts. This bill was an attempt to stop not just the rorts by pokie trusts but also the funnelling of money from pokies that are concentrated in poor areas to other regions, and to also stop the dodgy practice of funding the racing industry. If we think back to the intent of the original legislation, which was to provide funds for charitable, non-commercial purposes with community benefits, I cannot see that providing State money for racehorse owners is a particularly charitable act, particularly when you consider that the New Zealand Racing Board is already taking millions from racehorse betting anyway.

I note that the report from the Commerce Committee recommended including in the regulations the provision for 80 percent of the funds generated to be distributed back to the same area where the gambling took place. That is what it says in the bill. It also recommended that the actual harm minimisation measures—the player tracking and the pre-commit cards—also go into the regulations. But what that means is that they will have to consult further with the industry about these issues, and, as we have seen with this bill, the pokie industry has got ample money to organise opposition. Is it likely that the industry will agree to measures that reduce the amount of money being gambled? I do not think so.

What the industry will do, and what it has done, is sidetrack the deal with the least effective harm minimisation methods. The classic example is facial recognition technology as a harm minimisation tool, which was put forward to the select committee, and, I must say, the select committee became rather enamoured of it. But the thing about facial recognition technology is that it is like a self-imposed ban. It kicks in after the gambler has developed a problem and has already lost a lot of money, after they have already been sucked dry. Player tracking, on the other hand, is a predictive model, and pre-commit cards mean that every gambler has to decide before they start gambling how much they will spend. They are the ambulance at the top of the cliff.

Perhaps one of the saddest aspects of this bill now is that it actually makes things worse. The select committee has recommended that there be a provision for the transfer of pokies from one area to another. There was nothing in the original bill about this. This will enable pokies to shift their machines from poor areas, where they are concentrated, to other areas, without losing any of their machines. This provision will cut across the ability of councils to use a transferral provision to reduce the number of pokies in their communities, and I asked specifically about this. I asked whether councils could still require venues to drop some of their pokies as a condition of their being able to transfer, which was the policy of the last Auckland City Council, and I was told that they would not be able to do that with this provision in the bill.

This is not giving communities a voice. This is not reducing harm. This is a win for the pokie trusts. This bill needs to be withdrawn. If it passes, we are likely to have a worse situation than we have already. There is a clear signal that this bill is dangerous. When the agencies that deal with the fallout and that pick up the pieces in the community from the harm caused by problem gambling—and I quote the Salvation Army and the Problem Gambling Foundation—are calling for this bill to be dropped, then there has to be some serious reasons for that. I have outlined a few of them. I will outline more as we progress this bill through the House. I appeal to the member Te Ururoa Flavell to heed those people and drop this bill. We will be opposing it.

I rise to take a call on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill and say that I acknowledge the member Te Ururoa Flavell and acknowledge the honourable intentions he had in bringing this bill to the House and addressing what is a growing issue and a growing problem for many communities. He was right in his motivations and in his intentions to want to get some sort of meaningful redress for the issues that we are now seeing emerging in our community.

I think, in fairness, however, when we had a look at the original bill, it probably treated the issue too crudely. It probably treated the issue with a one-size-fits-all solution. A more, shall I say, nuanced approach was probably required, because the truth is that many Kiwis enjoy a little flutter. They enjoy a day at the races, they enjoy getting their Lotto tickets, and some, indeed, enjoy going down to the local RSA, to the “cossie club”, or to the workingmen’s club—pardon the sexist name, but I did not call it that. They go down and they enjoy a bit of camaraderie, a bit of fellowship, and the odd flutter on the pokies.

But there is a more insidious end of the industry, too, and it is that part of the industry that jacks up deals with hotels, with other public bars, and makes somewhat dubious arrangements with various sports clubs, which are required to patronise the bar. People are required to do various things in order to win grants or rewards from the pokies that occupy particular licensed premises. So Te Ururoa Flavell was right to want to address that issue and those establishments. He was right to want to make sure that we had a set of regulations and a legal framework that reflected the modern era and reflected the modern problems with gambling—in particular, the extraordinary growth in the number of pokie machines, and the extraordinary growth of the number of those machines outside the more convivial, more, I think, socially aware environments of the “cossie clubs”, the workingmen’s clubs, and the RSAs.

What was clear was that we had a piece of legislation, a member’s bill, that went to the Commerce Committee that was ripe for good quality discussion and some good attention and refining, and it was aiming at those mischiefs that were really crying out for a remedy. What, in fact, we had from the Government members on the select committee was a complete denial of the problem and of the issue, and a failure to face up through this bill to what was needed, and what is needed, to address those issues.

The bill has come back to the House looking the way we are feeling—that is, totally gutted—and it does not deal effectively with the harm minimisation measures that one might expect in the 21st century to see in premises where there are a large number of pokie machines. Really, the only meaningful thing it does now is allow the transfer of large numbers of pokie machines from one set of premises under the licensing control of a local authority to another set of premises, without reduction and without minimisation. To that extent, it simply does not go anywhere near to achieving the original objectives set for it.

So from my point of view, I feel very disappointed. Here was an opportunity we had as a House, albeit through a member’s bill, to deal with this issue. In an ideal world it would have been a Government bill. A Government Minister, probably the Minister of Health, would, in an ideal world, have taken this issue seriously, would have worked with officials and had the benefit of the full power of the bureaucracy to get good advice and good drafting instructions, and would have put together a bill that met the problems that we know exist in the community when it comes to gambling. But that is not what this Government did. It left it to Te Ururoa Flavell, who has acted honourably and nobly in putting this bill together to try to address this particular problem.

This bill still does not address the issue of the pokie trusts, the very powerful organisations that control and manipulate not only the presence of the pokie machines but the distribution of their funds. It does nothing to address some pretty untoward behaviour that we know happens, where, effectively, conditions are put on grants and people are required to behave in certain ways. This bill does not deal with that. It does not go anywhere near it. This bill, rather than trying to manage effectively the existence and the growth of pokie machines, simply lets the existing arrangements continue.

We know that the original bill caused some anxiety amongst those members of the community—the RSA clubs and the others, the charter clubs—who approached the presence of pokies in their premises somewhat differently. The elderly folk who enjoy going down for a quiet sup with their mates down at their local club and who also occasionally enjoy a flutter need not have felt threatened by this piece of legislation, had it been able to be processed properly, carefully, and with a good set of principles and some good information behind it. But that, sadly, did not happen. The bill was entirely derailed.

I have to say I take some umbrage, to be honest. I hear members opposite like Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, who come here crying their crocodile tears, worrying about people in the community. He has no concern about them at all. If he was genuinely concerned about the people in Maungakiekie and in other places that he claims to represent or reflect, he would have ensured that we had a bill that came back to this House that was in good shape, that actually addressed the issues that exist out there, and that genuinely brought some harm minimisation measures. Instead, what we have is a bill that has been entirely sliced, filleted, and gutted, and anything substantial, anything significant, and, indeed, I might add, anything positive has been removed from it. That is not the way we ought to be dealing with these sorts of public health issues.

These issues, we know, are capturing a growing number of people. We have the estimate from the Problem Gambling Foundation that anywhere between 10,000 and 60,000 people in any one year can be affected by problem gambling. That is an issue that cries out for serious attention. It cries out for serious attention from the Government, but, in the absence of a Government Minister taking responsibility for it, it cries out for attention from this House. When we do have opportunities to address issues like that through bills like this that go to the select committee, that is a time for this House to take it seriously. That is a time to come up with, through good discussion and getting good advice, some practical measures that address the real problems, and that leave those who can responsibly enjoy a flutter, those who can responsibly enjoy a day at the races, and those who can responsibly enjoy an afternoon at the local club to get on and enjoy their time, their conviviality, and their camaraderie. But those who enter the realm of addiction and problem gambling are the people who need attention.

We should not baulk, as legislators, at passing legislation that poses obligations on those who benefit financially and those who clearly have a financial stake in peddling these devices and these machines, and imposing upon them obligations to take responsibility for those who are victims of the activities that they peddle and market. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing unethical about that. That is the responsible thing for us, as legislators, to do. Here we had an opportunity to do it, but we have a Government that is timid in the face of interests like the powerful gambling interests and the powerful pokie trusts. Its members’ knees shake at the mere mention of those interests, and they simply do not have it within them to take seriously these particular issues.

It is disappointing that we get to this point. From my point of view, I will be voting against this bill because it is, a bit like the last piece of legislation we considered, completely meaningless.

New Zealand First remains unchanged in its position on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. This bill is intended to reduce harm caused by gambling to communities and families. It aims to achieve this objective by ensuring that the proceeds of gambling are distributed back into the community from which they came, and to give communities greater control over gambling operations. These are laudable goals, of course. However, we have serious reservations about the workability, clarity, and legal efficacy of the bill before the House.

First, let us address some of the changes recommended to the House by the Commerce Committee.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Why is this member emailing Trevor Mallard?

Listen, Simon Bridges, you might learn something. When this bill was debated at its first reading, we raised an objection to clause 5. This clause would have seen racing removed as an authorised purpose in section 4 of the Gambling Act. There are 63 racing clubs throughout New Zealand. These clubs have been recognised by the High Court as non-commercial—non-commercial. They are non-profit organisations that function in much the same way as sports clubs—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Prove it.

Do not get lost in your thoughts, honourable Minister; it is unfamiliar territory. To treat them differently under the law for political purposes would have been a low blow even for the National Government. So it is with great relief that we acknowledge the deletion of clause 5.

The second change that the select committee has recommended to the House is in regard to the distribution of funding within localities. Clause 6(1) of the bill proposed that 80 percent of all funds derived from gambling be mandatorily distributed back into the same territorial authority in which they were raised. We said we were prepared to support such an amendment with the proviso that the responsibility for managing these funds be established within a national framework, rather than left up to individual authorities. At present, 36 percent is given back. Mr Flavell actually wanted 80 percent. He got only up to 40 percent, which is a mere 4 percent increase from the current status. That takes it from 36 percent to 40 percent. This much-watered-down bill now proposes to replace the clause 6 amendment with an instruction to the Department of Internal Affairs to simply take into account the geographical area where proceeds were generated. In other words—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: She’s forming her own party, Denis.

—in other words, honourable Minister, nothing really changes. New Zealand First was prepared to reconsider its position on Mr Flavell’s bill if and when appropriate changes were made.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: They’re the Government that spent a lot of money on travel—changed nothing.

Oh, we have got somebody over there who is very smart. You know, a smart man believes only half of what he hears; a wise man knows which half—a wise man knows which half. Unfortunately, this much-watered-down version does nothing to alleviate our concerns.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: That was pretty good.

I know it is pretty good.

New Zealand First acknowledges that gambling is a serious problem in the community. It is a serious problem in the community. That is why we opposed the Skycity pokies deal. It is also why we were the first party to raise concerns about the sordid relationship between China Southern Airlines and Skycity. However, this bill offers no solution. It offers nothing but more bureaucracy and broken promises from the National - Māori Party alliance. I believe that Mr Flavell’s Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, just like the flailing Māori Party itself, should be consigned to the dustbin of history. Thank you.

It is my pleasure to stand and speak on this part of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. First of all, I would like to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell for his work on this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the officials and the Commerce Committee for their consideration of this bill. To start with, I would like to touch on gambling—the harm of gambling, that we have been taught from our childhood. Dr Rajen Prasad must know the epic of Mahabharata, which is the narrative of the War of Kurukshetra, and that war is based on gambling. The gambling game between Kauravas and Pandavas saw a hundred thousand people lose their lives during that war. That is a lesson that we have been taught from childhood—that gambling is not a good thing.

The Government recognises this and we are working on it. We will see that the Minister will be introducing some more measures before the end of this year. The purpose of this bill is to provide additional measures to prevent and minimise the harms caused by gambling and ensure that money from gambling benefits the community and assists community involvement in the decisions regarding gambling. Gambling-machine venues tend to be overly represented in lower-income communities and town centres. Māori and Pacific Island areas are effectively being targeted and often are severely harmed by the use of these machines. Communities in South Auckland, and especially in my area of South Auckland, have been very vocal in their representation against the number of pokie machines. The National Government takes this problem very seriously. This bill enables the introduction of harm minimisation devices, and in addition to this we have $55 million being invested over 3 years to focus on people getting the assistance they need.

There were a number of submissions received by the select committee, and most of the submissions came from the people who have experienced harm from pokie machines, and they gave their personal accounts of lives that have been torn apart by pokie machines. This bill seeks to overcome the vulnerable locations, and reduce or transfer the majority of the pokies, or even eliminate pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm. In fact, many communities at risk have voiced their feelings concerning the pokie machines in their areas and have been successful in having them removed.

The bill especially requires all pokie-machine trusts, corporate societies, and other distributors of the proceeds of gambling machines to return at least 80 percent of their funds generated by the gambling losses on local pokie machines back into the charitable organisations that are meeting priority needs in the same local authority area as the venue. However, this would mean that the groups in other areas, including rural areas, might miss out on some of the funding if they are limited, and indeed if no machines in these areas are there. For example, the majority of the pokie machines are situated in the central business districts of the large cities, and therefore the provision of 80 percent requirement would mean that the funding is returned to the communities other than those from which the money was raised.

Gamblers who experience problems with their behaviour when using pokie machines will benefit from the $55.3 million, 3-year strategy on problem gambling. The provision will include front-line assistance and support in the form of safe gambling practices and raising the awareness of the dangers of gambling. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a serious issue that I think some members of the Commerce Committee—well, in fairness, I think generally all members of the committee—tried to deal with as we had submission after submission mainly from people, as colleagues have said, who have experienced extreme problems, or represent or attempt to care for those people who have extreme problems, in the community as a result of gambling. Like, I think, Mr Little and others have said about all forms of addiction or forms of recreation or whatever, if one overindulges, these can become problems—whether it be alcohol, gambling, or other issues. That does not mean, of course, that the vast majority in our society, as Mr Little said, cannot enjoy a flutter, whether it be on the horses or on the pokies or on other forms of gambling—internet, or what have you—without the devil grabbing them by the throat and them becoming addicted to that form of gambling, and that then having an insidious, negative impact, both on the lives of the gambler and, obviously, on the lives, generally, of loved ones and family around them.

I recall some years ago a woman constituent coming to my office. She came with her kids. She turned up in tears, very upset, and said that she was in difficulty. She had no money. She needed housing and what have you. You would think that was almost a generic case of somebody who had been booted out of home. Had the landlord thrown them out? Had the home been sold? I said to her: “We’ll get you to Work and Income. What have you got?”. She said to me: “I’ve got nothing.” I said: “What do you mean? Has your husband left you, or whatever?”. She replied: “No. We have no home. The home has gone. The bank has it. We have no assets. The bank accounts have been cleaned out. I have nothing.”, and she meant that all she had was what she and her kids stood up in.

As we got through the conversation, she relayed the simple fact that her husband, unbeknownst to her, had a major gambling problem. I cannot recall exactly what form of gambling it was. It was not racing. It was other forms of gambling—pokies and other things, I believe. But he had basically mown down the family resources. He had sold the house out from under her, or the bank had repossessed it—I think that is how it went. The bank accounts had been cleaned out, and various other chattels and assets had been sold off to try to pay gambling debts. She literally had nothing—zero. She felt, obviously, a degree of ill will towards her husband, but she loved her husband and she realised that he had a problem.

I recall the case of that woman and her family—I think we got them some assistance, but I do not know what the future held for them. But their lives at that point were destroyed. You could cast blame on the bloke, on the relationship, and on all sorts of things, and I was never close enough to it to make a judgment, but for whatever reason that bloke had a problem and it was an addiction to gambling. It had destroyed not only his life but, I suspect—hopefully, not ultimately—the lives, at that time anyway, of his family members.

If you look at the figures, we are advised that at any given time between 0.3 percent and 1.8 percent of adults living in the community in New Zealand are likely to score on standard questionnaires as problem gamblers, which equates to between 10,000 and 60,000 people. It is a problem. It is a hard problem to deal with.

I have got to say that I oppose this legislation, for many of the reasons that other colleagues have said. I think this bill, to be blunt—and no disrespect to Mr Flavell—was ill-conceived in the form that it came in. I think we, generally, across the House tried to come up with some ways of achieving at least some of the objectives in a balanced way to address some of the problems. I think some of the problems that Mr Flavell brought to the committee were valid, and others were less so, but it gave us an opportunity to try to bring a bill out of the committee that had some worth and some value.

I think, putting politics aside, there would not be too many in the House who would disagree with the fact that gambling in its forms is a problem. That does not mean it should be outlawed as a recreational opportunity for people. It means we have got a problem. Some people are addicted. We have got to deal with them. But I have got to say, when you look at this piece of legislation, that there are effectively only four clauses that survive from the original bill. The rest of the bill has been gutted, changed, amended, or whatever. The assessment that we make on this side of the House, and that colleagues who have more knowledge than me of these matters have made, is that this bill is ineffectual.

In fact, there are those like the Salvation Army that have criticised the changes in this bill, saying that they do nothing for problem gamblers—those at risk—or for communities wishing to manage the impact of gambling. They say: “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this Bill on balance will make matters worse.” Again, putting the politics aside, the Salvation Army is not a political organisation. It is a charitable organisation with, you have got to say, a pretty amazing lineage, a pretty amazing history. Those folks in the Salvation Army know about these issues. They work with these folks, they work with the lost and lonely over a wide range of issues, and they do know about this. And I say to the Government that, really, apart from the politics of this, those over the other side who are in charge of this bill should really take heed of organisations like the Salvation Army. If those organisations are saying that this bill will make matters worse in respect of problem gambling, and if they are criticising this bill and saying that it does not have value, then we should really heed that. I would counsel those in Government to maybe look at pulling this bill and doing it properly.

The Government has not listened to organisations like the Salvation Army. I think we would all agree that the Salvation Army is not political. If it criticises something—it criticised things we did in Government—it is generally for the best motives, for very good reasons, and based on evidence, research, and experience. If it is going out and saying quite clearly that on balance it will make matters worse in respect of problem gambling, then you have got to ask yourself whether we have failed as a Parliament, and failed those 10,000 to 60,000 people who, at any given time, have the devil grabbing them by the throat in the form of this addiction.

So I suppose the question for the Government—and I would like an explanation from the Minister as we sort of mow through this piece of legislation—is that, presumably, officials have advised and have counterarguments in respect of the Salvation Army’s criticism, and I think we need to hear those in order to get some understanding as to why the Government is going to force this through.

We had submissions from many organisations. I see, I think, the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is, I suspect, in charge of this, or ultimately responsible for this bill. I am glad he is here. Minister, I was just saying to the House that, given that the Salvation Army has criticised this bill and has said that it will make matters worse for those with problem gambling, I would be grateful if, at the appropriate time, you as Minister would provide us in Parliament with the advice or counter-advice that attempts to negate the criticism of a very venerable organisation made up of specialists who deal every day with folks who have this problem. They do not lightly make judgments like this on pieces of legislation.

I see there are some clauses around mobility of gaming machines. There is not anything in here in respect of communities making and taking decisions about the numbers of machines, or sinking-lid policies, or those sorts of things that are in their jurisdiction. Again, with this bill, Parliament is sort of taking a blanket approach to telling communities what to do.

So I have a plea in respect of this. I am sure that if we all looked at our constituent case files over the years, we would have examples similar to the one that I gave of the woman and her family who lost everything in relation to gambling. We could dredge those files out. They would pull at the heartstrings, because there is no early warning system. That is the problem with this addiction: there is no early warning system. If you are a drunk, say, there are some pretty physical and visible early warning systems that advise people around you, sometimes graphically and violently, that you have an alcohol problem. Often, as with the problem in the example I used, there is no early warning. In the case of this woman, the bank accounts were gone—cleaned out. She had no idea. She was a good person. There was no physicality about the symptoms of addiction in respect of her husband. So I say to the Government as we proceed through that we need to know and we need to see the advice that counters the Salvation Army’s criticism. Organisations like that must indeed be listened to, and we need to take this matter seriously.

I rise to speak on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I would first like to thank Mr Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party for introducing the bill, and I would also like to thank my colleague and chair of the Commerce Committee, Mr Jonathan Young. Jonathan has done an excellent job in chairing the committee over the process of improving this bill.

We all agree that gambling can cause harm to some people and communities. The purpose of the bill was to provide additional measures to prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling, to ensure that the money from gambling benefits the community, and to facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling.

There were some things in the original bill that the Government did not support, but the select committee has made a range of sensible and balanced changes. For instance, the original bill said that the harm minimisation devices may be introduced only through societies’ licence conditions. The select committee recommended a regulation-making power instead. Regulations enable us to introduce new technologies on a mandatory basis nationwide rather than through each individual licence.

Similarly, the bill as originally introduced would have required at least 80 percent of all funds derived from pokie machine gambling to be distributed back into the same territorial authority district. The select committee noted the support for the principle of returning net proceeds to the area where the gambling took place. However, the select committee noted that requiring all pokie machine gaming societies to distribute their net proceeds to locally defined areas would also create other complications.

For example, gaming machines are not evenly spread across electoral districts, and restricting distribution would have resulted in little or no proceeds being distributed in some areas. So, again, the committee recommended the introduction of a regulation-making power instead. The regulation-making power would enable better targeting of the distribution of proceeds and take into account the fact that the gaming machines are used by people from outside the areas in which they are located.

Also, the bill as proposed would have effectively removed racing clubs from the industry. The amended bill reverses this proposal. The Commerce Committee took the view that as non-profit organisations providing facilities to community groups, racing clubs were similar to other sports clubs, and that the removal of funding from this source would have an adverse effect.

The Government appreciates that harm is caused by gambling. It imposes various levies and duties on the proceeds of gambling to deal with this, along with other initiatives to mitigate problem gambling. The select committee’s changes make parts of the bill easier to implement while removing some parts that were not supported by submitters. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I am happy to take a call on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Labour is treating this as a personal vote, a conscience vote, so this is my contribution to it. I do want to say that I believe that Te Ururoa Flavell came in good faith with a bill that had some very good intentions. Certainly, I think, looking at the Commerce Committee process, there were 4,944 submissions, and also 29,438 form submissions. So, clearly, this bill had a great deal of interest. Without knowing the details, I suspect that, actually, the majority of the submissions that were heard and were received were from organisations that are very concerned about the harm that gambling does to our communities.

The sad thing about this bill is that it has been hijacked by the National Party, and it does barely anything to reduce gambling harm. In fact, some organisations, as we have heard tonight—for example, the Salvation Army and the Problem Gambling Foundation—are saying that the changes will do nothing. The changes in this bill that have been made by the select committee will do nothing for problem gamblers and those in the communities who are wishing to manage the impact of gambling.

What is the size of the problem we are talking about here? In New Zealand there are 1,381 gambling venues, six casinos, 17,670 non-casino pokies, 199 tables, and 2,826 casino pokie machines. It is that third figure that gets me, really. There are 17,670 non-casino pokie machines that we now have throughout New Zealand—17,670, which is incredible. In poorer areas the ratio of pokies to people is 1:75, whereas in wealthier areas the ratio is 1:465. That means a young person growing up in a poorer area is going to be exposed to six times more pokie machines than a young person in a well-off community. I really believe, as I said at the beginning, that Te Ururoa Flavell came with very good intentions for this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, and it is very disappointing that we have ended up with a bill that is not going to address any of those problems that I have just been talking about. In fact, as I have said, some organisations are saying that it is going to make it worse.

Some of the changes that have been made by the Commerce Committee effectively gut the bill. When you look at the bill, you can see through the bill page after page of ruled-out clauses—page after page. It just goes on and on and on. The National members on the select committee have marched in and have completely redacted this bill, actually. It bears no resemblance to its former self.

The bill leaves gaming trusts in control of the distribution of funds, and will not require gaming trusts to return 80 percent of the funds to the district where the gambling occurred. We will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to rectify this issue. A few years ago the Manukau City Council conducted an investigation into how much money was being spent from pokie machines in that area, in that poor area, and how much was actually coming back to the community. It turns out that it was $90 million in deficit. It was actually costing that community $90 million to have all those pokie machines. This bill does not do anything about that. It does not do anything about helping councils to reduce and eliminate pokies in some areas, because it allows operators to simply move elsewhere, while retaining the same number of pokie machines. The Problem Gambling Foundation chief executive said the amendments to the bill mean it is effectively now misnamed, because it will have little, if any, effect on problem gambling. It is a great pity. It is a great missed opportunity.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I have examined my conscience, as have my colleagues, and it is with significant disappointment that we find ourselves unable to support this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, and, in fact, we find ourselves asking the member to withdraw it. Te Ururoa Flavell’s intent was honourable, and we were all significantly and really encouraged at how directly this bill sought to address the actual harms associated with pokies in this country and the very corrupt industry that has thrived around pokie machines in this country.

The original bill set out to do five key things. First, it sought to give councils and communities the power to cut the number of pokie machines in their area or eliminate them altogether. That intent is gone. Secondly, it sought to ensure that at least 80 percent of the distributable funds would be returned to the area where the gambling took place. That intent is gone. Thirdly, it sought to replace the trusts that currently distribute the funds from gambling with more accountable organisations set up by local authorities. That intent is gone. Fourthly, it sought to remove horse racing from the list of charitable purposes that may receive gambling proceeds. That intent is gone. Lastly, it sought to introduce harm minimisation mechanisms like player tracking and mandatory pre-commitment cards, to put controls on the amount of time and money that could be lost by gamblers. That intent is gone. Of the five core purposes in this bill that so encouraged us and that sought to address the real harm created by the pokie industry in this country, we are left with nothing.

The Green Party’s view is that this bill as it is reported back to the House does not achieve any of the aims listed above, and in one part it will actually restrict the right of councils wanting to reduce the number of pokies through their own transfer policies. Yes, that is right. It will actually hinder initiatives to reduce the harm. This bill does not do anything that it sought to do, and it undermines some of the very few current initiatives we have to address harm.

This is not just our own opinion, either. It has been echoed by the Salvation Army, the Problem Gambling Foundation, and Associate Professor Peter Adams from the school of population health at Auckland University, who have also taken the very significant step of asking the member to withdraw this bill. They made a very clear statement on how they see it now: “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this bill, on balance, will make matters worse.”

Along with my colleagues, I have examined my conscience. I have considered the harm that pokies do to this country. I have looked at this bill and I have asked myself: “Will this help?”, and the answer is a very clear no. This bill will, in fact—against all the wishes, I am sure, of the member who introduced it—create more harm than it does good.

Finally, I do want to remind this House and those members who are considering voting for this bill that New Zealand loses $2.3 million every single day from non-casino pokies in this country. That comes right out of the pockets and takes the food off the table of some of the people in the country who most need it, and it is going into corrupt businesses. It is something we have a duty to stop.

It gives me great pleasure to speak on Te Ururoa Flavell’s Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill this evening and to counter some of the hyperbole from Opposition members who have decided to vote against this very worthy bill.

I want to just quote Darien Fenton, because Ms Fenton used some statistics that were very pertinent to this debate. Ms Fenton said that poorer communities in New Zealand have present in them one pokie machine to 75 people, compared with wealthier communities in this country, which, she quoted, have a proportion of one pokie machine to 465 people. She went on to say that poorer communities have six times the exposure to pokie machines than that of wealthier communities.

At the very heart of Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill, which is before the House tonight, it allows communities the voluntary choice to actually change that, to take venues from those poorer communities and to put them in different locations. The Opposition, the Greens and Labour, is saying that it is opposed to allowing the movement of pokie venues from poor communities to other communities. Shame on the Opposition! It is appalling—appalling. It is voluntary for councils to be able do this, and we are providing the opportunity.

Here is the situation: if you are a pokie venue with 18 machines in a poor community, guess what? Even with a sinking-lid policy in your community you cannot move, even if the community wants you to go. Why? Because if you move, you lose your business. You cannot go anywhere. So what do they do? They put their roots down and they stay there.

💬 Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: What a lot of nonsense.

She says it is a lot of nonsense. That is the fact. These are the statistics that the Opposition members quoted, and they want to vote against it. Why? The Opposition was looking for a reason to vote against this very good bill. That is the fact.

Another key point in Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill is a regulation-making power to allow the distribution of funds into communities. That allows us to go out and sensibly ask communities how much of the funds that are being distributed in communities are to be distributed on a national basis—not just to take an arbitrary 80:20 rule. There are organisations out there in New Zealand—rescue helicopter trusts, St John Ambulance—who benefit from national contributions. For us to just arbitrarily go out there and deliver 80:20 is not sensible. So we have made a commitment: a regulation-making power that will allow us to distribute those funds throughout New Zealand and to go out and actually consult on a sensible basis. It is my commitment to the House that we will do that.

💬 Hon Member: We don’t believe you.

We will do that. Well, it will be interesting to watch the Opposition vote against that particular thing as well as we look to distribute funds throughout New Zealand.

And the third thing that the Opposition wants to vote against tonight is harm minimisation. We have taken what is a—

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: Where is the harm minimisation?

Yes, they are voting against the opportunity for a Minister in this House to have a regulation-making power that simplifies the process to implement harm-minimisation technology. That is what it does. It simplifies the ability for a Minister to put sensible technology across the industry. That is really interesting—these guys want to vote against harm minimisation. That is what they are doing. The Greens and Labour are voting against harm minimisation. They are voting against taking pokie machines out of poor communities. That is what is happening. Shame on you. And they are doing it for politics. They do not like it, that is a fact.

I just want to back up the truck slightly. This National Government came into this period saying that we would review the policy around class 4 gambling. That is a commitment that we have undertaken. We also said that we would agree to support Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill going to the select committee. We have done that. What we have done is we also set a number of key goals for reform in this sector. The first was to enhance the protections for problem gamblers. The second was to increase transparency and to address conflicts of interest, because there have been rorts in this sector—no one is denying that. We have said we want to develop a way for gambling proceeds to be generally distributed in the area in which they were raised. We also want to simplify compliance for societies, venues, and the Department of Internal Affairs by simplifying the process, making compliance by venues better, and improving transparency. We also want to increase the proportion of proceeds that the community receives.

So what we have tried to do is find a balanced way through this process; find a way where we could support parts of Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill that actually delivered on those core objectives and, at the same time, we announced in conjunction with Te Ururoa Flavell through negotiation some of the other things that would deliver on those core objectives. So we have done that—we announced in conjunction with that a range of initiatives that will deliver on those things, which I am really pleased to do.

The other thing that we have announced just in the last 3 weeks that goes to the heart of problem gambling and looking after those people who do suffer from this addiction is a $55.3 million strategy over 3 years. This is the fourth strategy that actually goes to the heart of trying to help those families who have a problem gambler in them. Everybody in this House wants that to happen. There is $20.5 million for public health services focused on prevention and education awareness, there is $6.6 million in that strategy for research and evaluation, and there is $25.3 million for front-line intervention. That is a significant strategy to help those people who are most at risk of harm. My plea, actually, to people out there who have a member of their family who is addicted to problem gambling is to actually use these services—to refer that member of the family to those services.

In those goals that I set out—increasing the proportion of proceeds the community receives; simplifying compliance for societies, venues, and for the Department of Internal Affairs; for developing a way for gambling proceeds to be generally distributed in the area they were raised; to enhance protections for problem gamblers; to increase transparency; and to address conflicts of interest—we have found a way, through working with Te Ururoa Flavell, to achieve three of those key goals.

I just want to highlight those excellent initiatives in the bill, because I do not believe for a minute that the bill, in those three areas, has been watered down. I think, in fact, we have enhanced the bill, and we are delivering opportunities in those three areas, particularly in harm-minimisation technology, which I talked about before. The regulation-making power actually makes it easier for us to implement harm-minimising technology across the sector—not licence by licence. Labour and the Greens are voting against that.

We have also implemented a way for venues to be transferred out of poor areas. Ms Fenton talked about the statistics and the extra numbers of venues that are in poor areas. They in the Opposition are now going to vote against an opportunity to move venues out of poor areas. Shame on you! Shame on you! We have also got a sensible method of looking seriously at how we can distribute funds back into those communities where they were raised. A regulation-making power and a discussion document will allow us to do that and to land that in a position where, I think, the majority of funds will end up back in those communities.

So I think there are some great opportunities, Te Ururoa, from this bill, in conjunction with the other initiatives that I have also announced at the same time that more funding will be aimed at going back to the community. For every 1 percent that we can lift the funds back into communities, we put another $8.5 million back into communities.

💬 Hon Members: How much?

Another $8.5 million. No doubt the Opposition will vote against that. These are sports clubs, these are all sorts of organisations who benefit from this, and we will be able to help move that on.

We are also looking to lower compliance, increase the transparency, and improve the conflict of interest provisions. This all helps. I am proud to be here tonight supporting Te Ururoa Flavell and working together in partnership to improve class 4 gambling. Thank you.

The debate has now concluded. There are two questions: the first regarding the amendments from the select committee, then the question on the second reading. So I will put the first question, and that question is that the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to. Those of that opinion—

💬 Darien Fenton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you going to call for a personal vote?

We have not got to that stage yet. The question is that the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes—[Interruption] A personal vote will now be called.