Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Malo e lelei. I move, That the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I stand today to speak to the third reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. This bill has some history that has got us to this point, so let me outline very quickly how we got here.

It is exactly 3 years ago that this bill was introduced. By the time of the general election in 2011, however, there was still no sign of the first reading in sight. It was for that reason that the Māori Party specifically negotiated in its relationship accord agreement with National that the bill would enjoy the support of the Government through at least to the select committee. Five months into the new term of Government, the first reading occurred.

I said at the time that the bill marks a step towards advancing our kaupapa of empowering communities to have a greater say about what happens in this area. Today that statement remains true for me. This bill was always motivated by our campaign against social hazards. I want to acknowledge two women in particular who have influenced my thinking in this regard. The first is the late Maureen Te Rere i Waho Waaka, of Tūwharetoa and Te Arawa descent, who passed away just 3 months ago. Maureen was a champion of the problem gambling kaupapa and was instrumental in speaking out about access to casinos, gaming machines, and liquor outlets. The second wahine toa is Dr Lorna Dyall, who has led our thinking in reframing gambling from being considered a normal recreational activity to one that is a social hazard. Just as noxious weeds or pests create havoc in our natural environment, gambling creates harm within families, whānau, and communities, and can cause significant health and social problems.

For the record, here is the state of the nation: between 10,000 and 60,000 adults, or 0.3 percent to 1.8 percent, have a gambling problem in Aotearoa. The New Zealand Health Survey showed that 3 percent of adults—that is about 130,000 people—have experienced problems in the previous 12 months due to someone gambling, and 10,000 New Zealanders have engaged in illegal activities because of their gambling. Every day $5.2 million is lost to gambling—$5.2 million every day. This is far more serious than a chance win in a lottery.

Interestingly, the whole way in which we talk about gambling activities is so often falsely painted as a story of prosperity. “Lady Luck is smiling on you.”, some would say, or “It is your lucky day.” If things are going well, we are tempted to buy a Lotto ticket to capitalise on our good fortune, but in doing so we willingly place emphasis on the whim of the wheel of fortune to determine our future, rather than taking control and shaping our future based on hard work and perseverance.

And yet the reality of problem gambling harm in our families is significant. The Child Poverty Action Group summed this up by saying: “Sadly, it is usually the most vulnerable children who pay the price of the recent proliferation of these hazards in low-income communities. If children are to be protected from their effects, the government must make greater efforts to support families and communities, and reduce access to legal and illegal social hazards, including gambling, tobacco, alcohol, and high-priced debt.”

So let me come back to the purpose of my bill, and what I think we have achieved. I want to be clear that the bill was never about being anti-gambling—its focus was on gambling harm. In that respect, I am conscious that pokie machines are six times more likely to be in poor areas than in wealthy areas, and within that about a third of moderate-risk gamblers are Māori. In effect, we are talking about a system in which there is a wealth transfer from poor communities to well-off communities. It was for that reason that I sought to phase out the corporate societies that distribute pokie earnings, and ensure that 80 percent of gambling proceeds return to the communities where the money was lost. My basic premise was that the system incentivises the exploitation of gambling addiction.

During the passage of this bill, submissions and public releases alike revealed that the system is rife with corruption and the misuse of public money. The Department of Internal Affairs confirmed that in its 2012 review of venue cost schedules, which revealed that approximately 750 venue submissions could not yet be approved because societies had not provided explanations or evidence in support of claims that costs appeared high.

How does this revised bill address these issues? I truly believe that the bill takes steps towards minimising the harm done to communities by gambling. The provisions around local distribution and harm minimisation technology are still in the bill, only the mechanism is a little bit different. I am absolutely determined to keep pushing for the use of the regulation-making power to introduce harm minimisation devices. A regulation-making power is easier to use, easier to update, and enables a consistent policy to be introduced nationwide.

The bill will also enable gambling venues to transfer out of low socio-economic areas and into areas where communities want them to move. Councils, as a result of my bill, will now have more tools to enable the transfer of gaming venues into other areas, and I am confident that this will enable councils to further reduce the number of gaming venues. More than anything else, however, my focus is on eliminating and ridding our communities of gambling-related harm, and so my approach in this bill was on the basis that other more wide-ranging reform would be announced. One of my ancestors Thomas A Edison once said: “Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.” That has been the approach with this particular bill.

The bill has been an enormous journey. It has attracted a massive 29,438 form submissions and 4,944 unique submissions and supplementary information. The Commerce Committee heard 159 submissions. The bill, it is fair to say, has generated a fair bit of furious debate at hui, in the council chambers, in homes, and, indeed, in this House. Does it do what I set out to do from the very beginning? Well, we were utterly unsuccessful in our bid to remove the special status of the racing industry as a recipient for the purpose of racing stakes, but was the conversation an important one to initiate? I believe so. Did we achieve the magic 80 percent return? No. But the Government does support the idea of a minimum percentage of proceeds being returned to the area where they were raised, and that is an important philosophical discussion to have it inspire.

There is plenty more work to do. We are pleased that this member’s bill, the first Māori Party member’s bill to be passed into law, has generated a comprehensive package of law reform. This includes increasing the percentage of funding that goes back to the community, introducing harm minimisation devices through regulation, and giving councils more tools to shift venues out of low socio-economic areas. It has been a long struggle to achieve what we have, but we have never taken the focus off the best interests of the people. We have appreciated the cooperation of the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Chris Tremain, and the efforts of the members of the Commerce Committee, who all gave up so much time and commitment towards giving this bill their full consideration. I thank them all. Ka nui te mihi.

But most of all I want to thank those who wrote in, those who appeared before the select committee, those who went on talkback radio, those who initiated the “People Before Pokies” campaign, and those who cared. Can I also thank Graeme Ramsey of the Problem Gambling Foundation for his advice. We might not have got to the place where he wanted, but their work must be acknowledged. I also thank Māori Party staff—in particular, Haimona Gardiner—for the work that they all did to give support to me.

We will not give up on the vital mission that we have before us to continue to do all that we can to prevent problem gambling harm from infesting our families and our whānau and destroying our communities. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the—hang on, I have just got to make sure we go according to this. Where are we? I call the honourable member Jonathan Young.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You’re going to have two in support of it straight off. That’s just outrageous.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! This is a conscience issue.

I want to just pay tribute to the previous speaker, the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell, and the hard work that he has done in this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. We know that this bill came through the Commerce Committee with a number of alterations and thank him for his willingness to work very pragmatically. You will no doubt hear from the other side of the House that their view is that the bill was gutted, but we believe that we have made some very positive and pragmatic alterations to it that actually give some real teeth to some of the issues—for example, the harm minimisation technologies.

The original bill said that harm minimisation devices only may be introduced through societies’ licence conditions. The Commerce 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. So we see that it was a very positive move to put the change into the bill.

We know that there was a tremendous amount of interest up and down this country. As the previous speaker said, there were over 33,000 submissions. Not all of those were for or against. There was quite a divided opinion out there regarding the measures. So it was important to actually look very constructively, I think, at what was proposed, look at what people out there in the community were saying, look at what harms there are that need to be reduced, and look at the benefit to the community groups that the proceeds of gambling contribute to.

So we came through all of this with a number of measures. One of the measures was, of course, in this area of harm minimisation technologies. There are a number of trials around the world that we looked at and received information about, particularly around pre-commitment schemes. Essentially, pre-commitment schemes are where players are typically issued with smart cards and smart-card readers are installed in gaming machines. Players can set limits on the amount of time or money that they can spend on gaming machines before they commence gambling. Typically, a player will be locked out of all machines that are part of the pre-commitment scheme for a designated period of time. It could be for the rest of the day.

We note that Skycity has committed to issue facial recognition technology to identify problem gamblers, and that is another technology that I think we look on with interest in regard to problem gambling. Professor Abbott from the Auckland University of Technology made the comment that this is the first introduction of this technology in the world, and so we do look with keenness at its effect. With these changes to the bill, we will now have regulations that enable a new technology to be rolled out on a mandatory basis if the Government sees fit to do that.

So we also know that in New Zealand gaming-machine expenditure in the country’s 1,367 pubs and clubs is dropping. In fact, in the first 3 months of 2013 compared with the last 3 months of 2012, it has dropped by 10 percent. That is a significant drop. The number of licence holders fell from 359 to 353, the number of venues declined from 1,403 to 1,367, and the number of gaming machines decreased from just over 18,000 to nearly 17,500. So what we see is that there is a downward trend of gambling venues and opportunities and machines in the country. I understand from reading the Ministry of Health figures that the harm, or the people who are affected by gambling, has also decreased. It is good to see that. None of us wants to see anybody harmed in these ways.

A number of pre-commitment trials have been run in Australia, and we look to its example. These trials have generally involved a small number of venues introducing a voluntary pre-commitment scheme. We know that though the Department of Internal Affairs has not undertaken work to assess the cost of introducing pre-commitment technology in New Zealand, it has keenly watched this. The cost of converting a machine to a pre-commitment scheme or a smart-card system is around about $1,600 to $1,700 per machine, so there is obviously a significant cost in this. There may be ways in which, if this technology proves to be effective, it could be adopted in New Zealand.

One of the areas that the previous speaker spoke on was that the original bill was seeking to have 80 percent of gaming proceeds distributed to the local area where they were raised. This was, again, another area where we have sought to bring in some regulation-making power instead. Essentially, that is because we believe that the same outcome can be achieved through regulation, and that creates more flexibility and enables us to consider issues such as national or regional groups that receive funding from gaming societies. These are groups such as St John Ambulance, or other groups such as the groups that man the beaches in summertime, perhaps at a beach where there is not a facility or there are not any gaming proceeds that have been earned.

I think that the previous speaker was right in mentioning that there are some areas that are low decile that have a larger presence of gaming machines. In fact, the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Health indicated back in 2012 that 55 percent of gaming proceeds come from those areas in the lowest two deciles. That is of concern, and that is why we believe that it was important to create a mechanism by which pokies can be moved out of these low-decile areas to, for example, central business districts and places like that where they would not be so effective as in those low-decile areas.

I believe that this is a substantial bill that the member has presented. We have worked through it as a select committee. Congratulations to him. I believe that he has got some real gains. I believe that there are some very pragmatic measures that will begin to roll out once this becomes law, and we do expect to see a further reduction in harm from gambling. Thank you.

I want to make a couple of preliminary points, and the first is to express my thanks to the member Te Ururoa Flavell, who introduced the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I think it is a bill that was introduced with good intentions. It has caused an enormous debate, as he has indicated, and an awareness of gambling issues around the country. I think that all of us in our electorate offices have had people come in and talk to us about the harm that gambling causes to individuals and to families. There are families who have lost their houses, lost their loved ones, and, in some cases, their loved ones have lost their lives. I want to thank the member for having good intentions. But there is the old expression that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this bill has been absolutely gutted in the select committee process by a Government majority to the point where, in the opinion of the experts, it is likely to cause more harm, rather than less harm. Therefore, the bill is badly named—very badly named—and it is a bill that should not be supported.

I found it hard to believe my ears as Jonathan Young was speaking about the reduction in the number of pokie machines around the country. He was claiming credit for it. He was saying that it was a good thing. That is the result of one piece of legislation, and that was the legislation that provided for local authorities to bring in sinking lids. John Key voted against it—John Key voted against that legislation. Jonathan Young’s leader and, for that matter, his deputy leader were adamantly opposed to having a sinking lid on the number of gaming machines. They are the people who have been amongst the most pro-gambling people in the country, and we see that with the other legislation that is currently before the Commerce Committee.

I do want to refer, as is proper at the third reading, to the Committee stage of this bill and, in particular, to some of the ideas that were put up and were rejected. The member Te Ururoa Flavell made it clear that licences can be transferred as a result of this legislation. What he did not say was that the only time a licence will be transferred will be when the holder of that licence thinks they can make more money by shifting it, and they can make more money only if the people who are addicted to these machines lose more. So I just do not understand why the member thinks it is a good thing to transfer machines from where a relatively small amount has been lost to where a relatively large amount will be lost. It is wrong, and to exempt those places from this sinking-lid arrangement is wrong.

There were amendments moved that would have subjected these transfers to the sinking-lid arrangement. They were rejected by National. There were amendments moved that would have limited to 75 percent the number of licences that could be transferred. They were rejected by National. There were amendments moved that said that you could move only from an area of high deprivation to an area of lower deprivation, which is what the member said he wanted, but it was rejected by the Māori Party and by the Committee. There were suggestions as to having a long-term vision to drop the number of pokie machines. That was rejected by National. There was a clause that would limit the remuneration that is paid to trustees. Some of these people are getting $200,000—not for their job but for just going to a few meetings and being trustees. We would have taken trustees and directors down to a maximum of $100,000 each, just for sitting on the board. That was rejected by National.

We also, which I think is most important and most telling, moved an amendment that would restrict the hours of gambling to those of on-licence drinking, so there would be a compulsory closure between the hours of 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. That is something that was very, very serious and very important: to break the cycle and to get the people out who sometimes spend 48 hours, even 72 hours, in these dens of iniquity—to break their cycles and to stop them gambling. National rejected that to a person on a conscience vote.

That is the next point that I would like to make. For the Labour Party, this bill, like similar bills, is a conscience vote, and we will be voting with our consciences. We do not, in the Labour Party, hand over to our whips our conscience at the point that we enter the House.

💬 Hon Chester Borrows: Smacking bill.

Oh, Chester Borrows says he leaves his conscience at the door when he comes into the House—he leaves his conscience at the door when he comes into the House. That is something that is completely wrong.

I now want to refer to the other gambling matter that is currently before the House, and to say that sometimes as a member of Parliament I am ashamed. Monday was one of those days when I was ashamed. I found out that the National Government, through the Ministry of Health, has stopped those people who know the most about addiction to gambling, those people who work directly with the gamblers, from appearing at the select committee. The National Government said that if a contract is held between the Ministry of Health and an organisation, then the employees of that organisation are forbidden—are forbidden—from making comment on this legislation. I just ask when the Parliament of New Zealand has ever been in such an undemocratic phase as when the most informed are not allowed to give their views. The people who work with the problems, the people who see people losing a whole year’s wages, the people who see people losing their houses, the people who see people losing their loved ones, losing their families, and sometimes losing their lives—they are the experts. They are the experts, and the National Government did not let them go to the select committee.

The other point that we heard in the House today—and I do not want to refer too much to my friend and my constituent Chris Moller, who is, overall, a very nice guy. But it is clear that Skycity was advised by the Minister for Economic Development to not attend the select committee. The Skycity submission, frankly, is a pile of rubbish. It is a cut-and-paste. The types are even different within the submission. It is clearly cut-and-paste. Skycity is treating this Parliament with contempt, and it is encouraged to do so by John Key and Steven Joyce. Shame on them.

I rise to speak in support of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, so ably steered through this House by our coalition partner the Māori Party and Te Ururoa Flavell.

Today in this House Opposition parties will be voting against this bill. We have just heard Mr Trevor Mallard speak with much rhetoric about the problems and the issues that are faced by problem gamblers in this country, yet people need to understand clearly what the Opposition parties today, through their conscience votes—each and every one of them—are voting against. The first is that they will vote against the ability to allow for venues in low socio-economic communities to move. That is what they are going to vote against. That is the first thing. The second thing they will vote against is the ability to provide harm minimisation devices by regulation. That is the second thing. I want to say that again because they have stood on their high horse throughout this bill and they have accused Te Ururoa Flavell of having his bill gutted, but today Opposition parties will vote against the ability for harm minimisation devices to be brought in by regulation. The people of New Zealand need to understand that, because that side of the House is voting against it.

The third thing that they will be voting against is the ability for a Government Minister or for the Government to bring in by regulation distribution of funds to regional communities with a specific percentage. They will vote against that as well. So let us be clear. Although they stand on their high horses and talk with much vim and vigour about harm minimisation, about regional distribution, and, most important, about moving venues from low socio-economic communities, that side of the House will vote against these measures today in this House.

I want to talk not only about this bill but also about the wider package of initiatives that we have announced as part of building a raft of initiatives to move the discussion and the debate forward in this to give more protection, to minimise harm, to allow regional distribution, to improve the compliance around this industry, and to bring in a raft of changes, which I think are important. My five priorities and the five priorities of the Government here were to increase the proportion of gaming proceeds going back to the community. We want to simplify compliance and red tape. We want to generally distribute funding in the area where it was raised, in support of Te Ururoa Flavell. We want to protect problem gamblers, and we definitely want to increase transparency, because we are concerned about the rorts that have existed in this industry.

As I have said, the bill forms part of a wider package of reforms. Also, it is important that New Zealanders understand that earlier this year, just a few months ago, we announced a $55 million package—a problem gambling strategy of $55 million—and we have renewed that for another 3 years. It is not as though we are sitting back here and doing nothing about that. It is really important. Some of the more controversial elements of this bill were actually removed at the select committee consideration, and I believe it is a stronger piece of legislation as a result. The other side of the House wanted to vote for two things in that original bill, which the public also needs to understand. The first is that those members supported the distribution of funds by territorial authorities. If you listened and actually were on the Commerce Committee, you would have heard hundreds of submitters who came in and said: “We don’t want that politicised at a local level.” The Opposition was in support of that. That is really important.

The other thing that the Opposition was in support of was actually an attack on the racing industry. On that side of the House we are hearing, as part of this leadership debate around the country, that it believes in regional jobs. That is what it is saying: “We believe in regional jobs.” Yet it was going to vote through this piece of legislation to actually have a huge impact on regional racing. If Labour does not think that the members of its party are involved in the racing industry, well, think again. It was going to vote against that. It would have had a huge impact on the racing industry. On this side of the House, we genuinely care about regional jobs, so we support it and we changed the bill to ensure that the racing industry was able to look after those jobs.

I want to touch on a couple of key points. The first is returning the proceeds to the communities that generated them. The first thing that this bill does is it ensures that proceeds will be returned to the communities that generated them. As a general rule, gamblers should not lose money in Kaikōura in order to fund community projects in Taranaki. This goes against the purpose of the Gambling Act, which is to balance the harm caused in communities with the benefits of grants and funding. The Government did support this element of the bill from the outset. However, the original bill sets this out as a blunt mechanism that could be introduced through individual gaming society licences.

The select committee has wisely, in my belief, changed the bill to enable the Government to issue nationwide regulations requiring a minimum percentage to be returned to the local communities. I, in conjunction with Te Ururoa Flavell, will be issuing a discussion document very shortly to make use of this new regulation-making power. The discussion document is a necessary part of the regulation-making process. So when Opposition members vote against this regulation-making power, they will be directly voting against a measure that will ensure that proceeds go back to the communities affected by gambling. When Opposition members are thinking about their conscience vote, they may want to think about that.

I look forward to the support of Iain Lees-Galloway, Ruth Dyson, and Rajen Prasad for these regulations when they are promulgated, and here is why. Each of those members put in Supplementary Order Papers—Nos 293, 294, and 295—where they also acknowledged the importance of distributing proceeds within a local or a regional area. This is exactly what the Government is doing—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did you vote against them?

—so I cannot understand why they are voting against this part of the bill now, and I look forward to their support, Ms Dyson. That would be fantastic—thank you.

The second thing, hand in hand with these new regulations, is I intend to increase the minimum overall amount that gaming societies are required to give back to the community. The minimum percentage at the moment is 37.12 percent. The current average is around 42 percent, but some societies are lagging. I believe that we can lift the bar here and increase the total amount going back into communities, as well as the proportion that is returned to the same local areas. This will also be part of the discussion document that I have just talked about. Once again, I look forward to the support of the Labour Party for this measure when it comes through the House.

Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 296 proposed to increase the minimum rate of return to 40 percent from 2014-15. It is great to see him supporting this initiative that the Government will be rolling out, but we believe it requires some consultation through a proper regulatory process, not a last-minute change by a Supplementary Order Paper, which is what was proposed by Mr Mallard. However, I will be pleased that the Government is progressing the idea—in fact, we had announced these plans long before Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper came into the House.

Another thing this bill will do is enable councils to encourage venues to transfer out of low socio-demographic areas. I have discussed that in some detail, and I look forward to the support from the Opposition on this key part of the bill. Most important, this bill will enable us to introduce harm minimisation devices on a mandatory nationwide basis. It is quite different from the bill, but it empowers us to do this. This is a huge improvement on the original bill, which said only that harm minimisation devices may—harm minimisation devices may—be introduced through societies’ licence conditions. The select committee recommended a regulation-making power instead, and I think this is a very good suggestion and one that the Government supports. Regulations will enable us to introduce new devices into venues and are flexible enough to update as new technology emerges. I fully intend to use this provision in the bill to investigate opportunities to use harm minimisation devices. Clearly, we need to understand the costs of these devices and the actual benefits they deliver to problem gamblers in that process before we finally decide whether a technology should be implemented by regulation.

Just lastly, as I close, the wider initiatives that we are proposing in this reform process are greater transparency around grants so that people understand where those grants are being made. We propose to amend the venue payment system to reduce the complexity in the system and encourage more compliance. So I am proud of having been able to work with Te Ururoa Flavell through this process. I think he has been able to deliver an excellent result through this bill, and, combined with a wider package of announcements that I made to take this problem gambling issue forward, I think it will make great progress. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou ki te Whare. Gamble-free Day was on Sunday just past. It is an opportunity to raise awareness about problem gambling and the harm that gambling can do to families and communities. Under ordinary, other circumstances, it would have fitted well with the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. But those circumstances have changed because this bill has changed. It is no longer focused on gambling harm reduction.

Let us review what this bill set out to achieve. It was to give councils and communities the power to cut the number of pokies in their area or eliminate them altogether. It was to ensure that at least 80 percent of the 37.12 percent of the funds that are currently distributed as grants from gambling machine losses be returned to the communities where the gambling took place. It was to phase out the pokie trusts, which distribute the gambling money from pokies, and replace them with more accountable committees that have been through a territorial authority or another mechanism. It was to remove horse racing from the list of charitable purposes that can use the gambling funds, and it was to introduce player tracking and pre-commitment cards, enabling gamblers to put controls on the amount of time they spend and money they lose while playing pokies.

Has this bill before the House done any of those things? I have to say the answer is no. It has not given communities and councils more power to reduce the number of pokies in their communities. In fact, this bill has made it harder for them to do so by introducing an amendment to the original legislation that will allow the transfer of pokies to other venues without losing any of their machines. This cuts across councils’ ability to use transferral as a way to implement sinking-lid policies and reduce the number of pokies in their communities overall. It makes a mockery of the sinking-lid policies that so many councils have introduced so far, and I note that according to the Department of Internal Affairs, in the last year councils have been doing a really good job. The number of venues and pokies has declined. The number of gaming machines, for example, decreased from 17,943 to 17,534.

The second aim of the bill was to ensure that 80 percent of the distributable funds went back to the communities where they came from. But even a casual look at the spread of pokies across this country will show that of the current 17,534 pokie machines in pubs and clubs, most of them are concentrated in poor areas. The latest gambling figures also show that at the end of June this year, $826.3 million was lost on those pokies. The distributable funds from this—37 percent—is around $275 million or so, and 80 percent of that money could have gone back to Ōtāhuhu, Manurewa, and Kawerau. But this bill will not allow that to happen. The reason given was that national organisations would be disadvantaged, because they would not be able to apply for funds. But, heavens, there would still be 20 percent of that $275 million or so, which is around $55 million. That is a hell of a big pool that national organisations could still apply to. We have to remember that not only does this money come from poor communities but 40 percent of this money comes from gamblers who have no control over their gambling behaviour.

We should look more closely at who is getting that money. The numerous rorts every year associated with dodgy grants being allocated carry on. The latest one this year was the prosecution of a couple of people involved with the Manurewa High School Rugby Academy and Counties Manukau Youth Development Trust. They basically gave themselves grants that were supposed to be going to local rugby. Actually, it is interesting to count up how much pokie money has gone to rugby. For a non-professional sport, rugby soaks up an enormous amount of cash. In March last year the Otago Daily Times revealed that between 2006 and 2011 the Otago Rugby Football Union received $5.8 million. That did not come from Otago. I have done some calculations of how much sport overall benefits from pokie money, and this is what I have discovered.

Over the last 7 years there have been 143,000 netball players, and netball in New Zealand has received nearly $44 million during that period. That works out to $307.60 per player. Let us compare that with rugby for the same time period, which had 141,000 players—2,000 fewer than netball. Over that period their grants came to $178,602,000. That works out to $1,260 per rugby player. I cannot figure out what that money was spent on, and I can only assume that the New Zealand Rugby Union likes to allocate each player a pair of gold-plated rugby boots. For all that money that was allocated to rugby, my local rugby club still holds sausage sizzles and goes for local sponsorship because it is not seeing 1,260 bucks per player or gold-plated rugby boots, and we have got 18 pokies in our neighbourhood. It is interesting to see that gender gap, too, still playing out with pokies.

I guess the concentration of funds also highlights one of the other failed aspects of this bill, and that was the aim of replacing the existing pokie trusts that distribute the money with something that would be more accountable to communities, and it is not going to happen, basically because we experienced an all-out campaign from the pokie trusts to ensure their survival. As soon as the bill passed its first reading, we had the two big pokie trusts—the Lion Foundation and Pub Charity—use the community money, which supports their existence, to encourage their grant recipients to oppose the bill. It was implied to community organisations that with the demise of the existing pokie trusts, they were probably not going to get any money.

Pokie trusts have only one purpose, and that is to distribute the pokie money for community good. That they should take it upon themselves to meddle with the democratic processes of the country by attempting to skew the results of the bill, when that is completely outside their purpose, is reprehensible. Pub Charity especially has had a good go at using its financial power to stifle dissent.

This bill has failed to address the dodgy distribution of grants, and I have to say that, after 30,000 submissions, the pokie trusts have won. This bill also fails to remove horse racing from the list of purposes that can use the money generated from pokie gambling. That means that racehorse owners can still receive stake money from pokie gambling, like some of the other worthy charities that receive money from pokie gambling. It is an anomaly, but it remains.

Finally, this bill has failed in harm minimisation. This bill will not introduce pre-commitment cards or real-time player tracking. These are the only measures that can identify and control gambling behaviour before the gamblers lose everything they have got. The Minister of Internal Affairs has talked about regulation, and putting some of these measures into the regulations as an alternative to having them in the bill. Regulation means that it is at the whim of the Minister. I guess he is suggesting we can trust him. But it is also through consultation with the industry. We have already lost that battle. We have lost that battle, Mr Flavell. The industry won. This industry is insatiable.

The last thing I want to say about this bill—and I agree with the Problem Gambling Foundation and the Salvation Army, which say that this bill will make matters worse—is that it does not do what Mr Flavell really, really wanted it to do when he spoke in the House at its introduction last year, and that is address the terrible statistics that show that Māori are most harmed by these machines or, as he said, that they were colonised by these machines and this industry. I maintain that the member should have pulled this bill. It is a sad end to a hopeful start.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: OK, you do something next time.

I will.

Can I begin by acknowledging the member Te Ururoa Flavell, who introduced this bill, the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. It was my assessment, when he spoke at its introduction, that he understood the issues, and that he had passion and real commitment to make a difference in the gambling space—and actually that is not something that has happened very frequently in this Parliament. I regret that it is my view that this bill has been gutted to such an extent that it cannot be supported any more. There would be very few things I would have preferred to do in this House than support a bill that was very courageous, to start with, and although some of it was not the best, it was done with the best of intentions. Nothing would have given me more pleasure than for this Parliament to be able to back that bill and make a real difference to what has been an absolute scourge in many people’s lives. We have too many people who lose their earnings, who lose their house, and often who lose their family as a result of their problem gambling. This was an opportunity to make a real difference to that. As it is with so many things that go wrong in people’s lives, it is particularly the case in those parts of our country where the majority of residents are low-income earners. So for those people, perhaps, it is the drive of the attraction for a better life that gambling offers—that you will be a winner and be able to get out of the situation you are in. That could be a primary driver. I am not an expert in this area at all. For whatever reason, I think that Parliament has lost that opportunity, but I do want to acknowledge the member because I think it was his best intention, actually, at the start of this process.

When the bill was referred to the Commerce Committee it was subject to gross misrepresentation by the pokie trusts and I resent, more than anything, a debate that is had on the basis of misinformation. That is certainly what the good people in our communities were fed by the pokie trusts. It was an organised campaign. Good community groups were told a lie. They were told that if Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill went ahead and was passed, they would get no money. I know that is what they were told. I saw the emails. I heard those people at the select committee, because I was privileged to be on the select committee for much of this hearing. I saw those good community people come along and heard them say they were from the Raglan Surf Life Saving Club or the Taranaki rugby league clubs or whatever. All these good community people, running amazing sports activities, other activities—not just for children but a lot of them are for children—came along and said: “If we don’t get the pokie money, we can’t survive, so please vote against the bill.” That was never the intention of the bill. It would never have been the outcome of the bill. I know that those submissions went to local MPs as well. I had people in my office in Christchurch saying: “Don’t back the bill. We’ll lose our money and then we’ll have to close our sports facilities.” That was a lie. Neither was it the intention nor would it have been the outcome had this bill passed with the trust alteration, in the way that it was introduced. As I say, I resent people being lied to in order to gain their opposition.

The proposal in the original bill, as Minister of Internal Affairs, Chris Tremain, mentioned in his contribution, was to have the distribution of funds through local authorities. But Te Ururoa Flavell, from day one, and I heard him, made it very clear that he was not wedded to that as the only option. His principle was to have the distribution of funds done in a transparent and accountable manner. Why would National members want anything other than that? The member, on introducing the bill, came to the select committee and said: “This is an option. But if there is a better one that delivers transparency and accountability, let’s have it. I’m not wedded to this as an option.” All the National Party members on the Commerce Committee should have heard that because it was a very clear statement that he made, as, in fact, he did on other specifics in the legislation. He outlined the principle: this is what I am trying to achieve. Sorry, I am not quoting the member literally, but his point was that it was the principles that he was trying to achieve, and the mechanisms could be debated. He was accepting of the option that the select committee could come up with better ways for doing things. So I cannot understand how members would say that they do not want their pokie funds distributed in an accountable and transparent way. Why would a member of Parliament vote against that principle? I do not understand it. I listened carefully to Chris Tremain and I could not gather anything from him either.

When the bill came back from the select committee, it was my view that the bill had been gutted to such a point that it could not be supported. As I say, I regret that. Labour members then tried very hard to have changes made to the bill as reported back that would reinstate some of the fundamental points that had been taken out—at the direction of the Minister, I guess—through the select committee process. I think those Supplementary Order Papers deserve support. There were variations in some of them. Some of them had different percentages. So if people thought that one percentage was too high, they were certainly given options. I think it was a sensible way to look at things that had been taken out that clearly removed the harm reduction part of this bill—which was really the primary point—and those Supplementary Order Papers were a good opportunity to put them back in.

We had Supplementary Order Papers on the transfer of licences, and we had Supplementary Order Papers providing for different percentages on the net proceeds. More specifically, we had Supplementary Order Paper 292, which was the Hon Trevor Mallard’s proposal that if a licence was transferred, it could be only from a low-income area to a high-income area. I think that is smart. That was voted down and I do not understand it. We know that the concern about these pokie machines is where there is a proliferation of them in low-income areas. Frankly, if they wanted to move a bunch of pokie machines from Manurewa or Māngere into Epsom, then I do not think there would be much objection to that. But the National Party members and the Māori Party, actually, voted against that Supplementary Order Paper as well.

There was a further Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 297, to have a maximum number of gaming machines, and, again, I think that was consistent with the original intention of the bill to ensure that we had proper mechanisms for gambling controls. What the Minister has outlined does not, unfortunately, involve such a strong measure. It does go a little bit of the way, but actually it is nothing like the strength of gambling controls that were in the original legislation and that were proposed by the Hon Trevor Mallard in his Supplementary Order Paper. Again, I do not understand the logic of voting against measures that reduce harm in our communities—and I mean serious harm. Other Supplementary Order Papers covered remuneration to authorities, and really looking at having an integrated problem gambling strategy. That is the opportunity that has been missed by this bill.

I want to make just one other comment. We have got people in our communities whom we are very fortunate to have. We have got people in our communities who devote huge parts of their lives to caring for other people. We have them in the health sector—public health practitioners—we have them in the social services agencies, and we have them generally in a voluntary capacity in the community as well. Many of those people work specifically with people who are problem gamblers. Those people, including organisations like the Salvation Army, have been denied the right to speak to the Commerce Committee, which is looking at the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. Why would those organisations, which not only have the expertise but actually have the passion and the commitment, and give so much to our communities, and could teach us so much, be denied the right to come to a select committee?

💬 Jonathan Young: You were there.

I know it is a contentious issue. I understand that, Mr Young. But, actually, the integrity of our democratic process should ensure that when people have expertise and are concerned about an issue—an issue as big as selling our laws to Skycity—they should be heard. I want to put on record that I think that was a mistake of the select committee. We have also had the extraordinary circumstance where Skycity itself, having put in a rather pathetic—as I understand it; I have not had the opportunity to read it—submission, had been advised by the Minister for Economic Development and the Prime Minister not to go to the select committee and speak. That shows—

Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—laumalie, in acknowledgment of Tongan Language Week. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the third and final reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill.

First of all, in his opening statement Mr Flavell said that the bill has been an enormous journey. Well, of course it has been through an enormous journey—it has been defeated of its original good intentions. The proposed changes to the Gambling Act that were originally contained in this bill had good intentions. Sadly, those good intentions quickly changed due to pressure from the Government in order to accommodate its selfish Skycity Casino deal. It is a deal that ignores all ordinary New Zealanders while favouring the Government’s election campaign sponsors.

The bill lacks a sense of direction in terms of implementation. The author of the bill, Te Ururoa Flavell, is selling an idea. Originally, it was a good idea, but it is now an idea that has failed to recognise the current situation and the current environment. The sponsor of this bill is out of touch with the implications that his bill will be confronted with.

New Zealand did not become one of the greatest countries in the world by just rewarding greed and recklessness. We did not come this far by letting special interests run wild. We did not do it by just gambling and chasing paper profits on Skycity deals or with China Southern Airlines. This country of ours was built by making things. This country of ours was built by producing goods that we could sell.

New Zealand First takes seriously problems with gambling, and it does not want to downplay the serious harm it could cause. Of course, New Zealand First is pleased to see the removal of clause 5, which would have unfairly penalised the racing industry—a $1.8 billion industry to the economy. Can I say to Denise Roche that she needs to know that it brings in $160 million of exports, and members of Parliament would do well to improve their understanding of this economy and how it works. The Rt Hon Winston Peters was right in saying that only 6 percent of pokie money was racing takings, while the rest goes into the “Underpants-wearing Society of Remuera” that does not support the racing industry.

Gambling, including pokies, is a social hazard that disrupts people’s lives. It is also a contributing factor to some fraud cases, poverty, unemployment, domestic violence, serious crime—and the list goes on, because I get to see it a lot in South Auckland. The prisons are also filling up with many of those with gambling addictions, and this bill does nothing to address those issues. Gambling addiction is the sure way of getting nothing for something. Get the picture? After all, it used to be about doing something, but nowadays, on that side of the House, it is about being somebody.

New Zealand First is not insinuating that gambling should not be addressed or that it is not a serious issue—no. Its concerns lie in the potentially problematic way in which this bill will be implemented. There are unrealistic expectations put on local bodies and communities and an impractical attempt to be able to manage the distribution of wealth generated from pokies. There is also a question about the operation of pokies, as we all know. The bill’s primary function is to reduce harm caused by gambling, but it underestimates the hurdles that it will be presented with along the way. There have been a couple of significant changes to the bill to ensure that if it does pass, it will be easier to implement. Such changes include the regulation-making power to monitor and regulate licence conditions and the distribution of gaming proceeds.

Why is it that Mr Flavell cannot see through it? The general public are being brainwashed with mixed messages from this Government and its alliance. On the one hand the Government wants to reduce the harm of pokies and enforce measures that will minimise the potential harm associated with gambling, and on the other hand the Government is attempting to increase the number of pokies through the Skycity agreement. So the Government is, essentially, sitting on the fence about the issues concerning gambling. It is not possible to agree that gambling is a social hazard and then increase the number of pokies popping up in Auckland through the guise of the Skycity deal.

It was revealed this week that the Ministry of Health has given a directive to organisations holding health contracts to not give evidence to the Commerce Committee regarding the Skycity convention centre deal. This lack of transparency is harmful and highlights the unfair nature in which this Government operates. Mr Flavell should make that clear to all Māori and Pasifika people out there. That should be made clear to the people of South Auckland.

This is turning into dirty politics, where persuasive sources are being silenced to ensure that this Government is not confronted with any hurdles or delays to its Skycity deal. Indeed, that is the case with gambling right now under the National Government. The only way it can ensure that China Southern Airlines can make the connection sooner is by using the Skycity deal as a despicable excuse.

Problems with gambling are an issue, and New Zealand First has raised severe concerns over this. There is no doubt that gambling disproportionately affects Māori, Pasifika, and low socio-economic areas. There is no doubt that gambling ruins relationships and fosters criminal activity. There is doubt this bill will have any serious or significant impacts on problems associated with gambling in New Zealand. The Government wants more pokies through the Skycity deal. The proposed changes to the principal Act will create only more bureaucracy and more conflicting interests.

If the member—and I will say this once again—wants to reduce the harm caused by problem gambling, then he should listen to what the Salvation Army and community groups are saying, instead of misguided directions from the National Government. We know that some would say that there is no gambling like politics—there is no gambling like politics. But I believe that William Cobbett put it perfectly when he said: “Another great evil arising from this desire to be thought rich; or rather, from the desire not to be thought poor, is the destructive thing which has been honoured by the name of ‘speculation’; but which ought to be called Gambling.” This bill achieves nothing better, and that is why we are unable to support it in its final, third reading. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the member Te Ururoa Flavell for the hard work he has done to bring this bill to the House. I would like to touch, first of all, on the Indian history aspects of the harm of gambling. Many members might have heard of the War of Kurukshetra, which is mentioned in the Epic of Mahabharata. About 100,000 people lost their lives at that time, about 5,000 years ago, and the cause of that war, the starting point, was gambling. We see that, historically, gambling has been causing harm to our society. National is committed seriously to addressing the issue of problem gambling. This bill enables that commitment to harm minimisation in society.

In addition, the Government has committed about $55 million to problem gambling strategies that focus on giving people the assistance they need. Gambling machine venues tend to be over-represented in lower-income communities and town centre areas with a high population of Māori and Pacific Islanders. They are effectively being targeted and often severely harmed by that. The communities in South Auckland especially have been very vocal in their representation against the number of pokie machines in that area. The class 4 gambling pokie machine venue policy is being developed by Auckland Council to replace the policies of seven former territorial local authorities. The Government is concerned by the harm caused by gambling, and therefore imposes various levies on the proceeds of gambling, in order to deal with this.

The bill seeks to overcome these vulnerable locations, and it reviews or transfers the majority of pokie machines, or even eliminates 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 pokies in their area, 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 these funds generated by the gamblers’ losses on local pokie machines back into the charitable organisations, which are meeting a variety of needs in the same local area. The original bill would have required 80 percent of the gambling proceeds to be distributed in the local area where they were raised. The Commerce Committee recommended the introduction of regulation-making powers instead. We can achieve the same outcome through regulation, which is more flexible and will enable us to consider issues such as national or regional groups that receive funding from the gambling societies.

Gamblers who experience problems with their behaviour when using pokie machines will benefit from the $55 million 3-year strategy for problem gambling. The provisions will include front-line assistance and support in terms of safe gambling practice and raising awareness of the dangers of gambling; $25.3 million for a front-line intervention service to assist people with their gambling problems; $20.5 million allocated for public health services, particularly prevention activities, to encourage safe gambling practice and awareness of the dangers represented by gambling; and $6.6 million is allocated for research and evaluation.

The original bill would have allowed councils to shut down venues and ban gambling. This method would have been too extreme. Many councils have a sinking-lid policy that requires that no new licences can be granted for pokie venues and machines, and that the licences cannot be transferred if the venue closes. This also means that over time the number of venues and pokie machines will be reduced. However, the select committee supports the transfer of venues from low socio-economic neighbourhoods into other areas like central business districts.

The original bill also recommended that councils, rather than gaming societies, should distribute funding. We support the continued role of gaming societies. The select committee is addressing these issues through a wider package of reforms that will be introduced later this year, as the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Chris Tremain, mentioned in his speech. Many community groups, like charitable organisations and sports clubs, rely on funding from gaming societies to provide important services to their communities. These reforms will also look at the amount gaming societies are required to return to the communities. Every additional 1 percent means $8.5 million more for the communities and sports groups. We are also looking at simplifying the way societies pay bars and pubs to host gaming machines. One way is perhaps to extend licensing and renew their licences as an incentive for the venues to meet these criteria.

Regarding racing, the original bill recommended that racing be removed as an authorised purpose for gaming funding. We do not support this, due to the impact it would have on the racing industry. The select committee’s changes make parts of the bill easier to implement, while removing some parts that were not supported by the submitters. The select committee’s improvements enable a smoother way to introduce harm minimisation devices and a more flexible model for ensuring that the gaming proceeds go back to the communities where they are raised.

We know that the Green Party has been against everything that we have been proposing, like economic growth, more jobs, and other things, but today the Green member Denise Roche has proven that it is also anti-rugby. With this, I recommend that we support this bill in the third reading.

Malo e lelei. I want to acknowledge, as others have, Tongan Language Week. The community in which I am based has a very strong Tongan community, and I wish well all of those who are working so hard to keep our Pacific languages alive in this country. Unfortunately, based on the select committee I was at this morning, there does not seem to be a lot of commitment by the Government to that issue. But that is not why I am standing up here to speak. I am here to outline why I will be voting against the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. As others have, I too want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell. I think the original bill was actually a very brave bill, because there are massive vested interests in this area. There is no question that the gambling industry has huge vested interests, and, unfortunately, it appears to be the winner under this National Government.

The Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is a bill that actually does not live up to its initial promise and does not reduce gambling harm. I think that those people who have been following this whole debate and maybe listened to the honourable Minister Chris Tremain will by now have heard a number of very compelling speeches that outline the real story behind this, unlike the Minister’s speech, which seemed to indicate, in fact, that the bill had been strengthened through the select committee process. Well, I do not think that even the member whose bill it is would argue that that was the case. When this bill was introduced, organisations like the Salvation Army and the Problem Gambling Foundation—organisations that I respect enormously and that work day in, day out on issues related to problem gambling—were very positive about this bill. They could see that it would make a difference. Well, they are no longer positive, and I will come back to that.

What is the purpose of the bill? The purpose of this bill has been set out as “to prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling, including problem gambling … to ensure that money from gambling benefits the community … to facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling …”. Is that the bill that we now have before us at the third reading? I do not think so. This bill, through the select committee process, as others have said, has been gutted. It barely does anything to reduce problem gambling, and the changes put forward by Government MPs—particularly in light of the other bit of legislation that we all know is coming, the Skycity bill—clearly will only, in fact, increase gambling harm.

The Salvation Army, which I mentioned before, has come out criticising the changes that were made by the Government, saying that they do nothing for problem gamblers, those at risk, or communities wishing to manage the impact of gambling and that “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this Bill on balance will make matters worse”. That was Campbell Roberts. That does not sound like what the Minister Chris Tremain was describing. And what did the Problem Gambling Foundation Chief Executive, Graeme Ramsey, say? He said that the amendments to the bill meant that it was effectively now misnamed, because it would have little, if any, effect on problem gambling. He said: “I think what we are seeing is a proposed radical rewrite of the bill, and I don’t think it will do a great deal for harm minimisation at all.”

So, in fact, from being strong supporters of the bill as introduced, two very important organisations that deal with problem gambling are quite clear that this bill is not going to do what it set out to do, which was harm reduction. They have said why the first of the three purposes of the bill, harm minimisation, has not—I mean, I believe what they are saying. I think that Green MP Denise Roche has outlined very clearly why the other two purposes, the purpose around ensuring that money from gambling benefits the community—she had very clear examples about netball and rugby—and the third purpose, around facilitating community involvement in decisions, have actually been undermined as well. The bill will leave gaming trusts in control of the distribution of funds and will not require them to return 80 percent of the funds to the district where the gambling occurs. And, actually, as others have noted, the Government members of the Commerce Committee replaced the provision for councils to reduce and eliminate pokies in some areas by allowing those operators to simply move elsewhere while retaining the same number of pokie machines. I will come back to sinking-lid policies later in the speech.

In the Committee stage of this bill, a number of us, particularly my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard, tried very hard to improve through the use of Supplementary Order Papers a number of provisions in order to try to reinstate some of the issues that had been in the original bill and to try to deal with the concerns. I had Supplementary Order Paper 290 during the Committee stage. It was around the transfer of licences and, basically, providing that a territorial authority’s class 4 venue policy would have to include a relocation policy, which “must specify the maximum percentage of gaming machines permitted to operate at the new venue and that this percentage must be no more than 100% of the gaming machines that were permitted to operate at the old venue …”, and also that if the class 4 venue licence is to be transferred, the maximum number of gaming machines permitted at the new venue shall be no more than the percentage specified. Certainly, there were other colleagues who looked at a lower percentage, but what we were trying to ensure was that we were actually in a situation where it was possible to continue to see the reduction of pokie machines. So we did try during that stage, but, of course, no Government members were willing to do the right thing and to support any of those very sensible amendments.

💬 Darien Fenton: Not Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga?

No, no, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga certainly did not, and he is seeming to be quite a great advocate of gambling. But I might talk a little more about him shortly. We did try.

I just want to ask the question, and it might seem obvious, but for those listening who maybe have not heard the debates on this before, why are we so concerned about this? Why does it matter? Well, gambling harm is a significant problem in our communities. In the part of Auckland that I live and work in, it is a significant problem. As MPs we are responsible for trying to deal with harm in our communities when we can. We are certainly not here to encourage harm. This Government, unfortunately, does not seem to understand that, because the Skycity bill will, in fact, be increasing the number of pokie machines. But, look, what is that harm? Well, at any given time in this country, between 0.3 and 1.8 percent of adults living in the community are likely to score as problem gamblers. That is between 10,000 and 60,000 people. They obviously influence a great deal more people—the people directly in their families, for starters—and the harm from their gambling can include poor parenting, family violence, other crime, and suicide. This is a huge, huge problem, and it is a problem particularly among Māori and Pacific peoples and low-income peoples. So it is something we should be doing something about.

It will get worse. This Government is now promoting legislation in the Skycity bill that will increase the number of pokies. I just find it unbelievable that that would be what the Government is trying to do when, in fact, we should be trying to manage harm. Supposedly, that is going to be a conscience vote. Well, we are certainly looking for the MPs who will do the right thing, who will be the wild card, if you like, and do the right thing. My colleague Darien Fenton mentioned Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. What does he say? He certainly talked about gambling being a scourge in the community. He has particularly noted how he sees so many people in his electorate office who are suffering from harm from gambling. Yet that member, at the moment, despite having heard so many stories directly as a member of Parliament, is still intending to support legislation that will bring in more pokie machines. Well, I ask those listening, and I will be asking the community, as will my colleagues, what should he do? What should that member of Parliament do? Well, he certainly should do the right thing.

I happened to sit in the other day on the Commerce Committee, which was listening to submissions on the Skycity legislation, and certainly the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel from the Auckland Council was quite clear that the legislation was going to exponentially increase harm on the Pacific community. In conclusion, I say to members opposite: do the right thing, and particularly Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell for putting forward this bill, and I would also like to acknowledge the Hon Chris Tremain, Minister of Internal Affairs, and also Jonathan Young, chair of the Commerce Committee, for doing an excellent job in overseeing the public submissions process and changes to the original bill. Annual expenditure on pokie machines has fallen from $912 million in 2008 to $840 million last year. The number of machines has also fallen from 25,000 in 2003 to around 17,500 now. But, still, much needs to be done. This is particularly important to the Asian communities, because they are more vulnerable to gambling harm.

The bill’s purpose is to provide additional measures to prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling, to ensure that money from gambling benefits the community, and to enable community involvement in decisions about the provisions of gambling. National takes problem gambling seriously and we fully recognise that it can bring harm to some people and communities. Changes made to the bill by the Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, will help combat this. The original bill, for example, said that harm-minimisation devices may be introduced through a society’s licence conditions. The select committee recommended a regulation-making power instead. Regulations enable us to introduce new technologies on a nationwide mandatory basis rather than through each individual licence. Regulations are also more flexible as new technology develops. Many community groups, organisations, and sports clubs rely on gaming funding to provide important services to their community. This bill will ensure that a minimum percentage of gambling proceeds will go to community groups in the area where they were raised, while maintaining some flexibility.

Some communities are disproportionately affected by problem gambling—for example, lower-income communities and Māori and Pasifika populations. This bill will give more flexibility to councils to allow venues to move out of lower socio-economic neighbourhoods and into areas like central business districts, where it is supported by the local council. The original bill would have required 80 percent of gaming proceeds to be distributed in the local area where the proceeds were raised. The select committee recommended the introduction of a regulation-making power instead. We can achieve the same outcomes through regulation, which is more flexible and will enable us to consider issues such as national or regional groups that receive funding from gaming societies. The original bill recommended that councils, rather than gaming societies, should distribute funding. There was no support for this at the select committee, and we support a continued role of gaming societies.

The original bill expressed a concern about the roles and conflicts of interest in gaming societies. We are addressing these issues through a wider package of reforms that will be introduced later this year. I will elaborate on that later on. These improvements to the bill will enable a smoother way to introduce harm-minimisation devices and a more flexible model for ensuring that gaming proceeds go back to the communities where they were raised. Earlier this year the Government announced a $55.3 million 3-year strategy for problem gambling, which focuses on giving people the assistance they need. This includes $25.3 million for front-line intervention services to help people with gambling problems and others affected by these problems. It also includes $20.5 million for public health services, particularly prevention activities encouraging safe gambling practices and raising awareness of the potential dangers of gambling, and it also includes $6.6 million for research and evaluation.

Our full package of changes is much broader in scope than this bill and improves a number of other measures such as increasing the level of funding that goes back to the community. Along with the $55.3 million 3-year strategy for problem gambling, which I talked about, we will be introducing reforms this year that include more funding for the community, lower compliance costs, and increased transparency and compliance. More specifically, these reforms will increase the minimum amount that gaming societies are required to return to the community. Every additional 1 percent means $8.5 million more for community and sporting groups. Also, the reforms will simplify the way societies pay bars and pubs to host gaming machines, issue longer licences as an incentive for compliant societies and venues, and enable grant information to be published online rather than in a newsletter. Also, the reforms will enable the auditing of management companies, strengthen the ability to address conflicts of interest, improve transparency of grant decisions, and clarify the law to enable the Department of Internal Affairs to suspend or cancel a licence in response to non-compliance. The National-led Government takes problem gambling seriously, and we believe that we are moving in the right direction. Thank you.

I understand the next call is a split call.

I do not know whether I heard correctly, but the member Jian Yang seemed to have said earlier that by gambling, poor people living in poor communities will be able to improve themselves and move into the wealthier parts of Auckland City. If that is what he believes, what an appalling state of Government we have. To then say also that the Government takes seriously the problems that gambling causes in our community is appalling, when you consider that in Manukau alone, after taking into consideration the money that goes into gambling and pokie machines and then out to the sports clubs, the community is left with a $90 million deficit on an annual basis. We know from the problem-gambling organisations that gamblers gamble away $5.5 million a week—it is in the billions of dollars a year. So I do not know where that Government and that particular member get their information from, but they are plainly wrong. I do not want to use the other word, but I will say simply that they are wrong. This is why we continue to have this debate. This is why up and down this country there are organisations that believe strongly that the direction this Government is taking this country in is the wrong direction and is taking this country backwards. It does not favour the benefit of all New Zealanders. It is looking after only its mates—in this case, Skycity Casino.

I want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell and the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill he has brought forward. I know that when I first saw the bill I acknowledged the fact that he picked up on issues that this country needs to deal with. I know that his intentions were right. I know that he personally also knows the harm that gambling does to Māori and Pasifika and a range of other sectors of our community. It is not his fault that the bill is the way it is now. That clearly falls on the shoulders of this particular Government, because it is not its intention to solve the problem gambling that harms our community. It is its intention to ensure that its friends and its mates make millions—if not billions—of dollars by causing harm to others. It is not its intention to support communities in poor areas so that the people of Māngere end up living in Remuera. That is not its intention whatsoever. Its intention is to milk as much as possible off those who are in low-income situations. In fact, it has been noted that we now have a society, created largely—but not solely—by this Government, where it seems for poor communities that they have got to gamble just in the belief that that is going to make ends meet. That is the kind of society that we now live in.

For 5 years this Government has contributed strongly to ensuring that the poor continue to be poor. If you look at the evidence that has been found today, since this Government has been in power the gap of inequality has certainly widened. But the community are not blind to that. About 2 weeks ago I held a meeting in my electorate of Māngere where people were very much concerned, as reflected by their submissions on this bill and on subsequent legislation that this Government has put forward. People are opposed to the increase in pokies. They are opposed to it because of the harm. Until that Government recognises that there is significant harm caused by the way that it has manipulated this legislation and the way that it has dealt to Skycity in the secret—well, not so secret now—deal, I do not think that this is the kind of country that in the end is going to benefit the significant populations that are wanting support, that are wanting jobs, that are wanting incomes, and that are wanting genuine jobs that they can get ahead in. This Government, when it manipulates bills such as this and interferes with the clear intentions that were at the beginning so that there is no longer protection for problem gamblers, is, again, the kind of Government that ought to be kicked out come 2014.

Malo e lelei, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is an interesting thing, is it not, that in this House we tend not to recognise the backgrounds that each of us has had before we came to the House and the expertise that sits in this Chamber day after day. Some of my expertise is in the fields of public health and harm minimisation—fields in which I worked for a number of decades before coming to this House. In that context and because of that expertise I was engaged in the late 1990s—a time when services for the treatment of problem gamblers were being shifted into the health sector and becoming a health responsibility—to do qualitative research to determine what health services would be required to treat the problem-gambling phenomenon that we would expect to observe. In that project I spoke with service providers, people like the Salvation Army, I spoke with many problem gamblers themselves, and I spoke to their families, and in each case the story that I got from that whole set of people was a story of misery and of loss of hope—of people who had lost their jobs, lost their houses, lost their families, lost their happiness and hope, and, in some cases, lost their lives.

In that project I also spoke to the companies that made their livings from gambling. I spoke with casinos. I spoke with the TAB. The pokies sector at that time actually hardly existed in New Zealand. Strangely enough, those organisations did not see the problem as being as big as did those who actually lived with it. That was a problem, because at that time the services for problem gambling were being funded by levies from the industry itself—in other words, being paid for by the problem gamblers on a voluntary basis by the industry. My recommendations about the services that were required to effectively deal with that problem actually fell on stony ground, because the industry was unhappy about paying for the extent of the services that would prove to be necessary. It is a failure once again of voluntary regulation.

The public health approach is one that recognises the limited point of working with individuals and focuses instead on creating public policy and social and economic environments around communities that support change. It focuses also on empowering communities. What we know from community views about problem gambling is that they want this industry out of their communities. The gambling industry has the reverse motivation. It achieves a vastly disproportionate share of its profits from the misery caused by problem gambling. Its commercial interest is served by encouraging problem gambling. For that reason, I give this prediction in the House today: the player tracking and pre-commit cards that could result from regulation will not be seen for regulation under this Government because they are not in the interests of the gambling industry.

Like other speakers in the House today, I acknowledge the bill as introduced by Te Ururoa Flavell, and I sympathise with the terrible dilemma that he faced in relation to this bill. But the bill that we vote on here today is a victory for the gambling industry, a loss for communities, and a loss for all of those who seek to limit the harm from this terrible, terrible industry. It is a sad day for New Zealand.

I want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell as well, like everyone else in the House has done, because if he had not brought this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill to the House, then the conversation would never have got started. There is obviously a clear need for reform and he has highlighted that. I congratulate him on that and acknowledge him. The other thing that has happened, of course, is that he has started working with the Hon Chris Tremain. So this is just the beginning of more reforms that we will see rolled out in the next year. Congratulations to Te Ururoa—well done.

It is only a short call but I would also like to mention the fact that Denise Roche raised the issue around funding and sports funding, which is actually a really important upside of the revenue generated through class 4 pokies. I do not think that funding is gender based. I mean, I look around the House and I see one of our top Black Ferns sitting in the House tonight. She played rugby. We have a lot of men who play netball. So to attribute that funding to being gender based I do not think is very true. You have also solved a bit of a mystery for me, and that is the reason why Gareth Hughes has not turned out for the parliamentary rugby team this year. I see that Denise had his rugby boots. So it is good to see that that has been solved.

It is a very good bill. Again I want to acknowledge and congratulate Te Ururoa Flavell, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Members, this debate has concluded. Just to explain the procedure, I understand that there are members who wish to have a personal vote on this matter. I will be putting the question in the normal manner. Once I have determined the result, any member can challenge the result that I have given and request a personal vote. That is the procedure that we are going to follow.