Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2)

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Ka nui te mihi atu ki a koe i tēnei rā. It is a privilege for me to stand and speak to the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). In particular, I want to speak to clause 54, which inserts new section 115A, “Duty on grant recipients”. My overall view is that this bill is a good bill. It addresses a number of issues around minimising gambling harm but it also addresses other issues as well, and this is the one that I wanted to start off with. I think it is important that the Gambling Act is amended by this bill to explicitly state the obligations on grant recipients and the consequences of contravening those obligations. There is a raft of issues like this one that, in each one of these clauses, takes that clause and improves on the Act that was passed in 2004 and subsequently in being amended by this bill.

I speak in support of that particular clause mainly because, from the perspective of a number of providers that provide services for those people who present with gambling problems, one of the good things about this type of gambling—although they would say to me that they were against this type of gambling, but the one ray of hope—is that funds are redistributed to the community. From their and my point of view, it would be far better for those funds to stay in the pockets of those people who have lost them, because to distribute those funds is actually distributing money that has actually been lost. The loss of those funds can in some part be returned to the community but it is really important that when they are returned to those grant recipients they are used in the way that they were intended for. I have heard too many stories about how certain grants to certain recipients have not been used in the way they were intended. This clause is a good thing because it explicitly states that and it states what the consequences of contravening those obligations are.

In clause 82 there is the insertion of the new section 309A, “Duty to assist problem gambler if an ongoing concern exists”. Operators and venue managers must take all reasonable steps to make sure that they are following up with problem gamblers who are presenting on a regular basis. It is not good enough to approach them just once and think that by giving them information about problem gambling they have done their duty. In this instance they have not, because if that person comes back again on a number of occasions and they just sit back and think to themselves “Well, I have done my bit. I have told them about it.”, that it is not good enough. This new section addresses that issue. I think it is important because providers have also told me that the people who present to them as clients are mostly self-referred or referred by family. They have very few clients—problem gamblers—who are referred to them through the venue managers and the operators. I think that this clause here is really important because it potentially addresses that issue, where the responsibility of the venue manager is much more enhanced. As I was saying, it gives the opportunity, I think, for more responsibility to be put on the venue managers and operators to refer and to give ongoing advice to someone who presents often. That is really important.

The other issue that is often raised with me and is addressed by the Minister of Internal Affairs’ Supplementary Order Paper 454 is around increasing the minimum rate of return from 37.12 percent to 42 percent. It is often seen in the community that far too much of the money that is expended on gambling does not come back to the community. That is an issue that has been raised with me on a number of occasions as well. Addressing that is good. I have to say again that it would be fantastic, because that money was lost by someone, if that money actually stayed in the pockets of those people who lost it. Quite often it is the people who can least afford to lose it who actually lose it. Another issue related to this that has often been brought up with me is where exactly in the community that money goes. I think that too often it is lost in one part of the community, as I said earlier, that can least afford to lose it, and then distributed to recipients in an area that maybe does not really need to be the recipient of that kind of money. I will not name names but you can imagine different suburbs where there are lots of these pokies, these machines, this type of gambling, and then you read in the newspaper of who exactly has received the grants through those clubs and foundations, etc., and they bear no resemblance to where the money was lost.

I think my overall impression of this amendment bill is that it is a good one. I am pleased to support this particular bill. There are a number of other clauses as well that are really good for making certain that gambling harm is minimised, but I think there is more work to be done. That is probably why we have got a third amendment coming through the House and further opportunity for providers and others in the community to make their submissions on this particular area—gambling harm. That is my contribution.

It gives me great pleasure to stand up in front of the Committee after a fabulous scheduled meal break to talk about the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). It is not the first time we have spoken about a gambling amendment bill. It is the first time that I have had a chance to talk about the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). The last time was actually the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3), and it created quite a stir in the House, to the point where before I came in this evening I had to check to make sure we had a defibrillator on hand to make sure that there was not going to be anybody passing out through the pressures of this afternoon’s conversation.

I would like to start off by going to Part 3 of the bill and talking about that specifically, and that is clearly harm minimisation. When I talk about harm minimisation—and it is a word that gets used readily—I do not think the essence of where we are actually sitting in this country is being put into consideration. In actual fact, we are sitting in a harm minimisation period when it comes to gaming machines—specifically class 4 gaming machines and the likes of pokie machines. I think if this Government was truly trying to represent the people by saying “Let’s do some good about minimising harm to those people who have got problems with gambling.”, it would not be doing deals with the likes of Skycity Casino, which we have heard—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The member will resume his seat. The debate around this bill is very narrow. Members will confine themselves to the narrow nature of the clauses that we are debating. Other members of the House have done exactly the same, and this is not a place for—[Interruption] I am sorry; I am on my feet. And so I remind the member that he is to stick to the narrow nature of the clauses of this bill.

💬 Denise Roche: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just would like to draw to your attention that Part 3 in the bill does actually refer to casinos and talks about age restriction on gambling in casinos, and presumably also about issues relating to problem gambling with casinos as well.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Thank you. I have the gist of the member’s point of order. My ruling remains exactly the same. The fact that casinos are mentioned and pokies are mentioned is implicit in what this legislation is trying to achieve. Members will remain narrowly focused on the clauses that are under debate.

Mr Chair, I appreciate your response and I was actually hoping to get through today’s conversation without having a point of order and being sat down. I certainly will not make a habit of it. It was not intentional.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Have another go.

I do have to go back to harm minimisation, though, because it is a big focus of what I am here to talk about today. If I look at yesterday’s release of the Salvation Army Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit’s state of the nation report, which came out, in fact, this morning, it was saying that pokie machine numbers have sunk to a 14-year low. It also goes on to say that the decline in gaming machine numbers has translated into the decline in losses by gamblers. This represents to me that we are in a positive decline when it comes to harm minimisation for gambling. And I get back to something simple that we learnt: if you do not want to fix something that is not broken, do not fix it. It does not need to be fixed. We do not need this piece of legislation in here to tighten up on an industry that is currently under siege. When we talk about harm minimisation, we do not factor in the good that we get out of our communities, the money that gets represented for our Government—some near $300 million in taxes, $300 million that goes into our local communities.

I am telling you that when I look around here at the members who are looking up at me who are members of tennis clubs, sports clubs, cultural clubs, schools, and surf lifesaving communities, they rely heavily on the money and the good that class 4 gambling does associate itself with. When I go back to the casinos and the likes, where they have been given 500 more machines, if that was truly about harm minimisation, they would not be allowing that to go ahead. It is actually about making money for an organisation that is much larger than the small pubs and clubs and associated groups that actually do have gaming within their societies, to actually put back directly into their communities. For example, last year Skycity Casino returned $3 million—yes, I am coming back, Mr Chair—to its local community, as opposed to the $300 million that these class 4 gaming machines throughout the country bring in.

You know, over the years we have seen Player Information Displays and pods; we have reduced gaming machine spending from $100 notes and $50 notes down to $20 notes, which has obviously helped control the gambling and the way people are actually spending their money; we have now got timeouts; and we have got staff intervention, where we have taken away the responsibility of the person who is actually gambling and making that choice to put some money in, whether it be for relaxation or whether it be for just enjoyment. We have taken that responsibility away and we have put it in the hands of operators, staff, and managers. And this new legislation goes a long way from giving that responsibility to the people who are making that choice to put that money into that machine, and making it the responsibility of those owners and their operators.

I think this legislation in part we do not support. There are parts, however, that we do support, and I will talk about those parts shortly. We need to get back to the part about self-exclusion orders. That is absolutely vital for our people to be able to say to themselves: “I’ve got a problem. I need help, and in order to get that help, I need to stay away from licensed gambling machine areas.” It is an absolutely fantastic piece of legislation. This new piece of legislation is going to allow those people to come on to licensed premises providing they do not go into those gaming machine areas. What a load of nonsense! We must absolutely uphold their right to stay away from gambling areas and say to them: “No, you can’t enter that licensed premises.” Otherwise, you have got extra costs that will be applied to those small businesses and those pubs and clubs around the country to have security not only at their front door to make sure that there are no intoxicated persons entering the premises and to make sure there are no under-agers entering the premises, but also to make sure that those people who have self-excluded themselves do not secretly sneak themselves in or lead themselves to temptation to go back into those rooms.

The Problem Gambling Foundation has actually put a lot of money in through gambling levies to actually minimise harm to take away some of that risk, and yet when I look at some of these figures that are put forward here, the help is not there. The money that is put in is actually not getting to the people who need it the most. In actual fact—and here is an article from a Queenstown observer—“Counsellors say a lack of services for problem gamblers and people who need addiction-related help in Queenstown Lakes and Central Otago is ‘outrageous’.” They just do not have the on-hand support. In fact, what I am saying here is that the money that is being gathered by the gambling levy for harm minimisation is actually being misspent. That money is actually being spent lobbying against—heavily lobbying against—the organisations that are actually funding them, when in actual fact they should not be standing up placarding the gaming machines.

They should actually be saying that the 0.03 percent of the population who have a gambling problem—and we are talking about gambling problems to do with Lotto and the Daily Keno, we are talking about casinos, we are talking about the TAB, and we are talking about some of the parts of this country where betting is going up on a steady incline. We are not talking about gambling with class 4 machines, which are actually on a decline. In actual fact, if the foundation spent that money in the right place, we would find that we would get that number right down, instead of spending it on lobbying against the groups that are there to support it.

I would like to stand up and speak now again on Part 1 of the bill. This is the part that we do support. Racing in New Zealand has been a huge part of our society for a very, very long time. We cast our minds way back, long before we were born, to one of our greatest exports this country has ever had, and that is Phar Lap. This was a young horse—a thoroughbred—that was sold off to Australia. It created a worldwide storm. In fact, at one point it was the third-largest grossing horse in the world—up there against some of the other greats. They do not come to mind at the moment. I think Man o’ War was one of them. By not allowing class 4 gaming machine proceeds to go into one of our greatest export regions for our country—and let us talk about that for just a second. We are talking about an export group where last year, in 2012-13, there were 1,500 overseas sales of our thoroughbred racing horses, totalling some $130 million in export sales for our country. That comes purely from racing.

Racing is under siege. We need to take a positive, proactive approach. We need to be putting in funds, like what they done with the Melbourne Cup and made it the richest race in the southern hemisphere. We could actually have that at our fingertips. We could actually have the largest race in New Zealand if we were able to put moneys into funding that. That outstrips a conference centre. I mean, this is going to bring in huge amounts of wealth throughout our country, and to cut the hand that has been feeding this country for such a long time is an inappropriate position for the Government and this bill to take.

I want to say, just to finish off, that one of the positive things we have seen the gambling class 4 gaming machines do is—I have just got a CD that I believe every single MP got late last year. Just to cast your eyes—this is 13 to 18-year-olds and this was a national competition that was funded by class 4 gaming machines. This is the 2014 Lion Foundation songwriting competition. This is talking about 13 to 18-year-old children who are in our schools, who have been empowered to stand up, write songs, and sing their songs. I would like to actually take this time to congratulate Talia Dalton from Ōtūmoetai College in Tauranga for getting that award. That is very important when it comes to the opposition to harm minimisation. This is talking about the good that gambling does. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). Can I first of all congratulate the Minister in charge of the bill, who is listed on the top of the bill as the Hon Rick Barker. Of course, Rick Barker has not been a member of the House for about 3½ years now, and it is about 8½ years since he introduced the legislation in the first place. Such is the present Government’s commitment to addressing problem gambling that the bill has sat for that long on the Order Paper without any action to try to address it. Can I congratulate the Minister currently in the chair, the Hon Peter Dunne. I believe he is about the fifth or the sixth Minister to be given responsibility for progressing this legislation, and can I also note that he has had significantly more success in doing so than many of the Ministers who have sat in the chair prior to him. I want to say that I think that that is important because I support the intention of the Gambling Act, as it was passed at the time, which is to reduce problem gambling in New Zealand, to crack down on the abuse of class 4 gambling, and, of course, to put in place a mechanism in the form of the Gambling Commission, which creates an arm’s length relationship from the Government and puts some independence into the decision making that takes place with regard to gambling.

I want to refer in particular to the provisions in Part 2, which members will find on page 10, and to clause 8 in particular, which talks about an increase in casino gambling. It gives the Gambling Commission the absolute authority to determine what constitutes an increase in the opportunities for casino gambling. Why does the bill do that? The bill does that because we believe as a Parliament that it is important that those decisions are made independently of the Government—that decisions around the increase in casino gambling are made independently of the Government.

This Government has no regard for that. It is absolutely ridiculous that this Committee is making changes to those provisions at a time when the Government is unilaterally increasing opportunities for casino gambling, and, therefore, increasing opportunities for gambling harm, in order to get a dodgy deal with the Skycity Casino. This bill specifically gives that responsibility around decisions for increasing casino gambling to the Gambling Commission. It removes it from the Government. It says that the Government should not be involved in those things, and yet we know that this Government has been actively involved in those things because that was the trade-off that it made to get a free—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! Sorry, but the member will sit down. The member may or may not have been in the Chamber at the time when we had an earlier discussion when I sat the previous member down for broadening out the level of this debate. The debate is very narrow. The clauses are very narrow. Other speakers have kept it narrow, and members are expected to maintain that level. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I refer you specifically to Part 2, clause 8, new section 12(1), which says: “Decisions on what constitutes an increase in the opportunities for casino gambling are a function of the Gambling Commission.” That is exactly the clause that I am talking about and it is directly relevant—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Thank you. The reference to such things as “dodgy” dealings between the Government and Skycity that the member made is not appropriate for a debate that is kept this narrow. Please maintain the narrowness of the debate and the clauses under debate.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In my comments I was referring to the need for independence, which is exactly what this clause deals with. It specifically gives the Gambling Commission the authority for those things, and it is perfectly in order to discuss—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The member will regain his seat. I will not be taking any more advice from the member on this matter. I am in the Chair at the moment. The member will respect the ruling that I have given. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It is important that the Gambling Commission has a discretion and an arm’s length independence from the Government when it makes decisions about increasing the opportunities for casino gambling, because if that were not the case, then the rest of the clauses in this bill that are about reducing problem gambling in casinos would simply be redundant because it would mean that the Government would be able to override that at will without any reference back to the Gambling Commission. That would simply be an abuse of the position, and would mean that the provisions that are being passed in this bill are meaningless. It would mean that the Government is paying lip service to reducing problem gambling, but it does not actually walk the talk. It does not walk the talk, and that perhaps is one of the reasons that this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper for nearly a decade. The Government is not actually interested in reducing problem gambling if that gets in the way of other deals that it wants to do.

I want to talk as well about class 4 gambling because I acknowledge that class 4 gambling is where some of the worst problem-gambling takes place. It is also where—if we go back to the history of why the Gambling Act was passed in the first place—some of the biggest rorts in terms of the proceeds of gambling took place.

I was the president of a students association before the passage of the Gambling Act. In that time I was involved in trying to get money out of the pokie trusts for sponsoring different events, including the University Games. One of the deals that the pokie trusts used to do was to say to a student sports team, say, because it was all run out the back of the pub and there was very little accountability: “We will give you money for your new uniforms”—or whatever—“but they will have to have our name on them, and we want half of the money that you are being given coming back across our bar. And if you don’t do that, we’re not going to give you the money.” The reason that the primary legislation for the bill that we are debating was passed in the first place was to try to cut down on some of those things, because that was simply wrong. That was a rorting of the system and it was wrong, and the first legislation was an attempt to eliminate that. What, of course, has become abundantly clear since that time is that it was very successful, but it was not completely successful, and there are still rorts in the system that this bill seeks to address.

I think that these amendments are very welcome because we do not want to have those kinds of arrangements. That is not what the whole intention around this was. You know, if we go back right to the beginning, when pokie machines were introduced in New Zealand in the first place, some would look back on that and say that doing that was a big mistake and that, in fact, if we could turn the clock back, we would not have introduced the pokie machines because of the problems that have gone with them. But they were introduced to be charitable—basically, to generate revenue for charitable activities. That was the purpose of introducing the pokie machines in the first place.

The type of arrangement that I have just mentioned was not really charitable. In fact, it was a rort, and it was designed to increase the profits of the business hosting the pokie machines, rather than to put the proceeds of the pokie machines to the charitable purpose that it was intended for. So I think that cracking down on that and the further refinements that this bill makes to crack down on that are welcome.

I want to refer to the select committee report, which is published at the beginning of the bill. I want to say that I regret that the select committee at the time—and we are going back three or four Parliaments ago now, to when the bill was considered by the Government Administration Committee—was unable to reach an agreement when it came to pokie machines in outdoor areas. That was a direct intention to flout the smoke-free provisions of legislation that was passed by Parliament. It meant that venues could put pokie machines outside. People could sit there and smoke on them when they were outside, and it was one of those things—you know, smoking and gambling are two very addictive things, and it meant that people could meet both of their addictions at the same time.

It is very regrettable that the committee was unable to get a majority to make a recommendation to deal with that practice, because I think that that is wrong. I hope that time has moved on. There is more broad support across Parliament for smoke-free measures now than there was 8 years ago when the matter was discussed by the select committee, and I hope that we can actually get some agreement on that, either in this bill or in a future bill. I think that dealing with problem gambling means breaking the cycle to some extent, and actually forcing someone to go outside to take a cigarette—if they are that addicted to cigarettes that they have to have a break to go out and have a ciggie—at least breaks up their sitting in front of the pokie machine for that continuous period of time. That is a good thing. I hope that the House will at some point—in voting on amendments and so on, either to this bill or to another bill—deal with that issue, because I think that is very important.

Overall the Labour Party is in support of many of the provisions in this legislation because we want to deal with problem gambling and gambling harm. We introduced the legislation when Rick Barker was the Minister of Internal Affairs, and there are very important provisions in this bill. I personally believe that they do not go far enough and there is a lot more work to be done in this area. I acknowledge that there are other bills coming before the House that are also going to be dealing with the issue of problem gambling and I look forward to taking part in the debate on those.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). As we have already heard, this is a bill that follows the Gambling Act 2003, which took effect in 2004. That parent Act brought about major reforms to the gambling sector, and I think this bill following on from that Act is extremely important, even though it makes technical changes. The parent Act was basically an acknowledgment that there are some people who are badly affected by gambling. In other words, they do not have the shut-off gene. But there are some who can gamble appropriately and have fun. This is about technical changes that will refine the parent Act and help to balance the rights of those who want to gamble safely while minimising harm to those who cannot do so. This particular amendment is one of a series of amendments that, like I say, make technical changes that clarify the legislation since the passing of some case law. In particular, this bill, as we have heard, relates to class 4 gambling, which is non-casino gaming machines, or pokies, as they are more commonly known.

There are a couple of things that I want to focus on in this bill that I think particularly make a difference to minimising harm. The first is in clause 80(1AA), where a venue manager, rather than the licensee of a class 4 venue licence, is now liable for any failure to display a notice in the gambling area advertising to customers that the venue has a policy for identifying problem gamblers. Immediately, the manager, the person who is in charge of the operation on the ground, is on notice, and there is a compulsion to display that information is readily available to gamblers. It basically puts that venue and those people gambling on notice that the venue is a responsible venue and that questions will be asked, and that if a problem gambler is identified, that person will be steered in the right direction.

The second thing I want to focus on in this bill, which follows directly on from that, is clause 86(8), which restricts the availability of eftpos machines close to pokies themselves. Although eftpos machines are not prohibited, the clause will require a player, as the member opposite has already alluded to, to step away from the machine and have time out, basically forcing a time of reflection to give them time out and hopefully keep them away from destroying their lives. I think this is an extremely practical measure, a common-sense measure, that has been brought into this bill to help clarify the parent Act and hopefully add to the avoidance of situations where people may experience devastating consequences to their lives.

As the newly elected deputy chair of the Government Administration Committee I was not privy to the process that was heard in respect of the bill, but I want to thank the previous committee for the work that it has done. I think it is important work. Even though they are technical changes, they go towards creating practical solutions to minimise harm. I think that is commendable. As such, I support this bill.

I rise to take a call on Part 2 and possibly Part 3 of this bill in the Committee of the whole House. I think I would like to comment on some of the issues that have already been raised. I am particularly concerned about the tenor of some of the comments from the New Zealand First speaker, Clayton Mitchell, and also from the speaker who has just resumed her seat, Sarah Dowie. These were about the issue of problem gambling and problem gamblers. I do seriously believe that we need to move away from pathologising the person who is gambling and direct our attention to what is essentially a dangerous product.

This bill does talk about minimising gambling harm, and therefore it recognises that gambling machines, particularly in class 4 venues, are dangerous. They are a dangerous product. So when you blame the person who is using the product, you are actually letting the people who reap the benefits of the machine off the hook. I think we need to accept that there are mechanisms that we can put in place, and that we should be putting in place, that can make gambling on pokie machines or electronic gaming machines much safer.

This brings me to Supplementary Order Paper 84, which we are putting forward in the name of Kevin Hague, which talks about introducing real-time player tracking and pre-commit cards to all gamblers. What this would do is give an absolute assurance that anybody who is even starting to display behaviour that looks like it may be getting out of control can be taken aside straight away, which can absolutely minimise the harm that could happen from gambling. It is like having seatbelts and an airbag in a car. It would make the product safe.

However, we need to recognise that this is an industry that is washing in money. There was $2.09 billion lost in gambling in the 2013-14 financial year. The Department of Internal Affairs suggests that around 40 percent of that came from class 4 gambling, which is the gambling and pokies in clubs and pubs. As one of my colleagues in the House who has spoken previously said, that money from class 4 gambling is specifically for community purposes. That is the only reason we can have clubs and pubs with pokie machines in them. That money does have to be distributed in the community, which is one of the issues that I think has been quite problematic since the time that this bill was introduced and one of the underlying reasons the Act was introduced in the first place.

The distribution of those funds is constantly subject to rorts and disgraceful conduct. We saw quite recently a multidisciplinary investigation involving the Serious Fraud Office, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the police. That resulted in the arrest of four people who were associated with the racing industry over what could probably be considered a “money-go-round” in terms of the grants that come from class 4 gambling. I recognise that the bill does talk about racing being a community purpose where money from class 4 gambling can go. However, I think we should recognise that if we allow that to continue—and we have a Supplementary Order Paper that puts a cap on the amount of money that could go to racing purposes—we are essentially allowing one form of gambling to subsidise another form of gambling. I do not recall racing or racehorse owners ever being a registered charity, which is where this money is supposed to go. So we support strengthening transparency around the distribution of funds.

I also just want to touch on the fact that we do need to strengthen our problem-gambling and host responsibility reform in this country. We have still got this situation where, even though there are requirements under the Act—and strengthened, presumably, in this bill—for host responsibility programmes to be in place and notices to be put up in venues where pokie machines are being played, frequently the host responsibility is not being monitored or even adhered to at all.

We can see the evidence of that in the sting that the Department of Internal Affairs operated at the end of last year. Essentially, it set up a mystery shopper type of scenario where mystery shoppers went into class 4 gambling venues and sat at pokie machines. They sat there for considerable time and said things like “I am meant to go home to the kids, but another few minutes won’t hurt.”, or “I can’t really afford it, but I think I’m getting close to a win.”, or “I need to go, but I need to win some money back.” They displayed distress while they were sitting there, and they did this in front of the staff. The department checked and did this in 102 different venues. And do you know what? One hundred and one of them ignored those problem-gambling displays. I think we can say that the industry is not complying voluntarily with problem-gambling harm minimisation. That is why we need regulation and that is why we should actually ask the Minister of Internal Affairs to accept the Supplementary Order Paper that Kevin Hague is putting forward. That would make the machines safe and would eradicate completely the issue of problem gambling because the seatbelts and the air bags would work.

I also want to touch on the issue of problem gambling in casinos and at pokie machines there. In the beginning of the year last year, in 2014, Television One showed an article where it had sent a pensioner into the casino at Skycity in Auckland and said to that person to just stay there and gamble for as long as it takes before someone comes and intervenes and notices that they had been sitting there. That pensioner stayed in front of that pokie machine for 14 hours before they left. There was no intervention whatsoever from any Skycity staff. As a result of that, I wrote to the Department of Internal Affairs’ gambling compliance unit and asked that it investigate. I made an official complaint. In July, 6 months after the original incident, I received a notice from the Department of Internal Affairs—a response saying that basically it was working with Skycity to improve its host responsibility practice. If this is the type of censure a venue is going to get for flouting the law, then we are seriously, seriously irresponsible in the way we are making our laws, because we need to have regulation that brings these organisations, these companies, and these trusts into line.

International evidence suggests that 40 percent of all the money that is lost on pokie machines—so that is 40 percent of the 40 percent of the $2.09 billion that was lost in gambling last year; 40 percent of 40 percent of that—basically comes from people with limited control over their gambling behaviour.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: That’s not class 4 gambling, though.

No, that is actually—

💬 Clayton Mitchell: All gambling.

Yes—no, that is from pokie gaming.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Includes Lotto—that includes everything.

Yes, that is what I said—40 percent of the $2.09 billion that was lost. According to the Department of Internal Affairs today that is what was lost at class 4 gaming venues. So 40 percent of that, Mr Mitchell, is what came from problem gambling and problem gamblers. So, if we consider that that is an awful lot of money going into the coffers of both the trusts and the venues—and, in the case—

Labour will support this bill, which was first introduced in 2007 by Rick Barker, who has now retired as a member of Parliament. I think, as previous speakers have noted, it is in many ways shocking that it has taken so long to get this legislation moving properly through the House.

The bill was first introduced in 2004 and was solid legislation to make sure that the harms of problem gambling were reduced. Of course, immediately when a new bill is introduced, it is tested in the real world, and it is shown that there are corners that need to be sanded, there are holes that need to be plugged, and so on. I do not want to stretch the metaphor too far, you will understand, but a bill needs to be road-tested. Then this bill has come back to the House to make some improvements upon the original bill to make sure that it is roadworthy, to make sure that it is fit for purpose, and to make sure that it achieves the goals it sets out to achieve.

So I say for those watching at home who have been following the debate that it is not a huge bill, nor is it just a couple of pages. We have got about 48 sides of text that we as parliamentarians can look through to make sure as best as we can judge that it is going to achieve the purposes of the original bill and to make sure that it does not need to come back yet again. It may well do as the situation changes. So here we find ourselves arguing the case for a bill across the Committee, where it enjoys wide support, because it is trying to achieve the purposes of the bill.

I want to refer to some things in Part 2 that relate to the increase in casino gambling. Specifically, at the start of Part 2 we have clause 8—subclauses (1) and (2)—which talks about how the bill decides that it is going to ensure that problem gambling does not increase. My colleague Chris Hipkins indicated earlier that the effect of this is to put the judgments about casino gambling in the hands of the Gambling Commission, an independent body that will ensure over time that problem gambling is reduced and that society as a whole does not bear more costs than it should when gambling takes place. You know, basically it is seeking to make sure that the bill operates as it is intended and that there are not unforeseen costs, unintended consequences, and a broader societal cost.

It would be deeply ironic if we were passing this bill, which reduces problem gambling, through the House at the same time as legislation was being put through that would increase the harm from problem gambling, and yet that is what we find has been the case through this Parliament with another bill that is set down to increase the number of pokie machines at Skycity. I do not want to talk specifically about that—the Chair has made it clear that that will not be tolerated—but I want to go through some of the clauses and just acknowledge that they have been put there so that there are more powers in the hands of the Chief Gambling Commissioner to reduce problem gambling.

So we see in the description around “Renewal of class 4 operator’s licence” in clause 22A and in the application for a licence on the following page how words are changed to make sure that everything is covered off. Likewise, we see a clause slipping in there that gives more powers to the Secretary of Internal Affairs to categorise gambling. We can be sure that those things that are harmful, such as if the nature of gambling changes, or if there are technical changes in the nature of gambling machines and so on, that might not otherwise be captured by the legislation, as I read this—and the Minister in the chair can correct me if I am wrong—it gives the Secretary of Internal Affairs powers to classify what is and what is not likely to be captured as problem gambling under the different types of gambling described in this bill. So it would be, indeed, deeply ironic if at the same time we were proposing to pass a bill through Parliament that facilitated 8,000 more people to be affected by problem gambling, that put 230 more pokie machines in the hands of a casino, we were extending the powers in the other direction in a bill.

This is what the bill does. This bill does restrict problem gambling. It does close those loopholes where we might hope that it would. We see that elsewhere the Government is looking at perhaps doing completely the opposite, and that does pain us on this side of the House, where we do believe that it is important to curb the harms to society, as laid out in this bill. It is important to restrict the category of who can hold a gambling licence and even to have retrospective clauses that we find in here that give increased powers to restrict gambling licences for those who may not currently be in breach but who may have historically been in breach. So there are all of these specifics in this bill that we commend and we support. It would be fairly meaningless were we to be introducing measures to restrict problem gambling, only to find that elsewhere, indeed, it was being increased.

I have already mentioned the licences that are exercised in respect of a past breach. The bill provides also, as I have mentioned in passing, the express obligation to incur only actual, reasonable, and necessary costs of gambling. That is about, in my reading, avoiding unnecessary and unintended consequences where the law is not quite sharp enough, giving those additional powers, and also making sure that there are no problem-gambling situations that go unchallenged or unpunished.

The bill also provides that returns to the Crown, in terms of tax deductions and so on, and depreciation charges, are not offset against profits in gambling situations, so that the bodies using gambling pay their fair share, as I read this. I am sure the Chair will correct me if I have got that part wrong. And it provides that the problem gambling levy may be calculated by a specific formula that really covers the costs that are necessary to address problem gambling.

I commend members to the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward—to give them full and worthy consideration. It is good that this bill is going through the House. I congratulate the Minister on making some progress in this regard, and I challenge members opposite to consider very closely and very carefully the other legislation that might be before the House that would increase problem gambling and the harm to our society. I invite them to consider whether it is conscionable to do that at the same time as we hear past legislation that restricts problem gambling.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I congratulate, again, Rick Barker on introducing it. I congratulate the Minister on progressing it after its first introduction in 2004. It is good to see it moving again, finally, and I hope it does get through the House. Labour will certainly be supporting it because we do support the reduction of harm and the reduction of problem gambling in New Zealand.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for my third rise. Listening to the Greens member Denise Roche speak earlier, I sat back and I listened to the whole of New Zealand just sigh with disappointment that we are talking about this “harm minimisation”, and the fact that they use those words, and that this “dangerous product” that we are using needs to be actioned in such a way that we need to take away people’s choice—that we need to take away people’s personal responsibility to be able to decide for themselves what needs to be fixed in their lives, and then we need to make sure that we actually fix that problem. I mean, when we start hearing words like this, we are going to be fencing our whole ocean off. We are going to start putting doilies and soft cushions on everything that might have a sharp edge, and we will cut down our trees at 2 metres so that kids cannot climb trees, fall out, and break their arm, and learn how to fall properly.

The point being that there is only so much we can do. We are not condoning gambling. We are not saying that this is the thing that is going to make your life better. We are not suggesting that at all. But we should not be here to restrict people’s choice—their personal choice—to be able to go there and put some money in the gaming machine and sit back and relax. I get back to the good things that this is doing for our society. It is actually putting money back into our communities—[Interruption] Money that we otherwise would not have, Denise Roche. We would not have our sporting groups. We would not have our culture groups. We would not have the support that we get in our schools, without the good things that nobody seems to be picking up on that we get from class 4 gaming machines. We are not allowed to go into the casinos; that is a different realm.

The reality of the way we live is that we have to give people that choice. When they have made the choice to give up gambling, if they have got a problem with it—many things have got addictions to them. Obesity—food can be bad for us. Sugar is the latest thing on the radar now that everybody has got to be aware of. It is the white devil. But there are things around everywhere that you have to take responsibility for yourself to fix, and this is what we are saying. Once you have made that decision, we need to make sure that you have got the best care that money can buy, because the money is available. The money is actually being captured now to help out people who are in need, but they are not getting the support that they need. They are getting a gambling line, which is now amalgamated with Lifeline Aotearoa because the gambling line has not got enough work coming in. That suggests to me that the 0.03 percent of problem gamblers in this country is on the decline. Gambling machines from 2002 went from 27,000 machines down to 17,000 machines, and that is just in 10 years. We are down 5 percent in gambling totals from the year.

What I am telling people here is that people need to make the choice, and the support needs to be there for them from this Government. And the money that is being paid should not be lobbied—it should not be going against gambling; it should be there to give genuine support to help people through their need, like we have got Weight Watchers for people who have issues with obesity, like we have got other forms of health and recreational things to help people out in their need. We have got swimming classes for people who need to learn to swim. People need to learn to swim. If we fix something, we might not be happy with the outcome, and we have to ask ourselves: what is it that we are going to try to fix?

This will be the death knell for gambling throughout New Zealand and for our community good that comes out of social gambling, because it is a perfect storm. Here we are talking about real-time player tracking. That is cost-prohibitive. Let us get real. These gaming machine sites that have got nine or 18 machines—we are not talking about the big casinos that can afford $66 million of their half-yearly returns. They can afford to put in facial tracking recognition. They can put in real-time tracking situations. The moment you bring in that legislation, 90 percent of all gaming machine areas around the country will close down and that will have a direct impact—a direct impact—on all of our social networking: our sports, our recreation, our social engagement. Think about the good that that does. Think about the good. Take responsibility and we will be there to pick up the pieces to help you through your time of need. But to bring in this legislation in its entirety, as it stands here before me, gives me shudders—to think what New Zealand will look like without that social and financial support that we get for our communities. Thank you.

With all due respect to the last speaker, I think what he needs to do is go and spend about an hour with the Problem Gambling Foundation in his community, and he will understand the level of harm that problem gambling actually causes. In my home town of Napier, which is Mr Mitchell’s home town as well, I have spent a number of visits with people at the Problem Gambling Foundation, and what they tell me—I know we are in the Committee stage but I just need to respond to this, Mr Chair—is that they know that the vast majority of this money comes from those communities that cannot afford it. It goes to the sporting clubs that Mr Mitchell talks about, but it goes to the clubs that are empowered enough to actually fill in the application forms and jump through the hoops to get this money. So it is taken from one—it is like a tax, in essence—group who really cannot afford it and given to another who can.

The problem we have got here is that this is not limiting people’s choice. If people want to go and play the pokies, if people want to go to the casino, they can do that. They can do that. But what we are saying is that there needs to be restrictions around this industry to stop people from harming themselves. This is not aimed necessarily at the responsible gambler. I know that sounds like a little bit of an oxymoron. This is aimed at regulating an industry that will take advantage of people, given an inch.

A number of people have alluded to the fact that Rick Barker introduced this, and this is where part of the problem is with this bill. It was introduced in 2007. Since 2007, 8 years ago, there has been a huge technological revolution in the way people interact, in the way they game. What we have here is a definition of “gaming machine”. This is Part 1, clause 5(5A), and it talks about: “a device, whether totally or partly mechanically or electronically operated, that (i) is adapted or designed and constructed for gambling; and (ii) is played or confers a right to participate, whether totally or partly, by the insertion of money into it or by the direct or indirect payment of money by any other means;”.

What this piece of legislation did pick up is the fact that people can put an eftpos card in, or can put some sort of credit card in. The Minister of Internal Affairs may have the figures; I am not too sure. I suspect that a lot of people are actually gambling at home on their own PCs over the internet. This causes a whole raft of problems in an unregulated industry. It is not just the harm that is caused; it is the fact that these guys do not pay tax or any of that sort of carry-on, and this is where we need to update the law yet again. I suspect during this term there will be a Gambling Amendment Bill No 3, 4, 5, whatever we are up to, to take into account the transition from having to go into a venue to sitting at home over your machine.

One of the things I looked at—and I could not quite understand until I read the Gambling Act itself—was Part 2, clause 9 of the bill: “Advertising overseas gambling prohibited”. It has taken out the words “overseas gambling”. In fact—this is section 16 in the Act itself—the title of that section is: “Advertising overseas gambling prohibited”. It outlines the reasons why or the methods by which you cannot advertise overseas gambling. Anyone can go on to a vast number of websites in this country and there are a number of advertisements for overseas gambling. I am not too sure how you regulate that, what we have to do, or what sort of legislation can stop that, but I think this is causing just as much harm, in fact, as the premises that this bill is trying to regulate. This does come back to personal choice and that sort of carry-on, but we are operating in a whole new era that I think perhaps Parliament has not come to grips with, and certainly our legislation is going to have to address that, going forward, as mentioned, not just from the perspective of minimisation or flouting of our laws, but from a tax perspective, which I know the Minister has had a lot to do with in the past.

There are a couple of questions I have got, and I have not had the time to take a good, hard look at the bill. In Part 2, clause 38, we talk about “Ministerial discretion to permit more gaming machines if clubs merge”. I am not too sure whether this means that if club A has 10 machines, club B has 10 machines, and they merge, they have a total of 20 machines or you have to take only the licence operating from one of the clubs. But the fact that we have ministerial discretion—again, we look at clause 39: “… to permit more than 9 machines at certain class 4 venues”. Why is there ministerial discretion when there should be just legislative certainty? My view is that it takes away the certainty that clubs and societies have and actually puts it back in the hands of a Minister to make a decision based on any number of variables that are not necessarily transparent to the general public.

But then when I look at clause 40, it talks about when territorial authority consent is required. It says: “if a corporate society”—which is basically the new venue here—“proposes to increase the number of gaming machines that may be operated at a class 4 venue (whether by way of an application for, or amendment to, a class 4 venue licence, and whether or not in association with an application for ministerial discretion under section 95 or 96):”. Again, I am a little bit confused around whether a venue just needs ministerial discretion full stop versus when ministerial discretion and territorial authority consent is required. It is my personal view that territorial authority consent should always be required because it is often councils and council organisations that are left to pick up the mess when these things go wrong. The social harm caused by problem gambling has been talked about by a number of speakers, but it is not just the social harm; it is the sort of people who are sometimes attracted to these venues. So there is a whole lot of stuff that territorial authorities have to deal with.

There is one other thing as well, and I am not too sure why this is put in here, but maybe the Minister could allude to it. There is a new section 17A inserted, and it talks about how the “Retail value of non-cash prize must be stated” as opposed to the “Cash value of a non-cash prize must be stated”. This just substitutes the word “cash” with “retail value”. Is there a difference? I am not too sure, but there must be a reason why that was inserted. There are a couple of questions, perhaps, for the Minister to answer there. That is all I would like to say.

I would just like to reiterate the point that society is moving and technology is advancing at such a rate that we need to find legislative ways to protect those who need protection and to stop exploitation of those who are open to be exploited by those who operate outside the sort of 20th century jurisdiction. Thank you very much.

Can I just make a couple of points in response to the previous speaker, Stuart Nash. I agree with him about the rate of change that is occurring. This legislation and the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3), which is currently before the Government Administration Committee, deal with terrestrial-based gambling. Online gambling is rapidly increasing, and I have already signalled that there will be a review of the whole class 4 system over the next little while to try to address that. You come at it from two perspectives. There is one set of interests trying to preserve what it has at the moment. Other groups are saying: “This is the way of the future. How do we regulate it?”. So it is going to be the challenge over the next few years.

Can I just also make some comments about Mr Nash’s questions, really, relating to clauses 38 to 40. There is nothing sinister contained here. This is not some new discretionary power given to the Minister of Internal Affairs to increase the number of machines. It is more to do with the situation where clubs merge and become a different entity and the procedures that then kick in for the registration of those entities in terms of getting a licence. If you take what actually happens, once one entity ceases to be and then becomes another entity, the Secretary for Internal Affairs is obliged to cancel the existing licences and then the new entity is required to seek approval through the local authority for its existence and the capacity to take on those additional licences. That process can be lengthy. It can take up to 6 months, so you get a whole change in the pattern, the service, of those entities. And, really, what these clauses are about is giving the Minister the discretion in that situation, upon appropriate application being made by the organisations, to say you can transfer over the number of machines without having to go through the procedure required for the registration of new entities.

I do not know whether the member thought there might be some sinister plot afoot here. I can assure him there is not; it is purely a procedural mechanism to get around the situation, which I think we are going to see more of in the future—clubs and societies merging and then wanting to merge their licences but being confronted with the procedure operated by the local authority that might see objection, might see delay, and might see the thrust of their intent thwarted by other bureaucratic provisions. So, in those circumstances, upon application the Minister will have the authority to say: “Yes, look, this is clearly a merged entity. They’ve got however many machines available to them. We can simply transfer them over and they can carry on with their business in the normal way.”

Mr Chairman, it gave me a huge surprise that you chose to call me at this stage of the debate. I think I will probably be the final contributor in the Committee stage of this bill. I want to begin by just lending a bit of support and sympathy, actually, to the Hon Gerry Brownlee for what has been a pretty bad start to the parliamentary year. Today he called a comment from the Prime Minister “unfortunate”, which is not a career-enhancing move. And he put on the Order Paper the debate on this bill, the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2), at a time when—for reasons, puzzling though it is, we are not allowed to refer to during the debate on gambling legislation. But who would want to challenge the Chairman on that ruling? It will not be me, at the moment, anyway. There could not have been worse timing for the Minister to have chosen to put this debate on the Order Paper, so my sympathy to the Hon Gerry Brownlee for what is a double blow in his first week back in Parliament.

I want to congratulate the Minister in the chair, the Hon Peter Dunne, for being either the fourth or fifth Minister, I think, if you count him twice—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: At least.

At least, yes. I think he has had responsibility for this bill twice, on two separate occasions.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: No, no, no. Earlier life.

OK. In an earlier life. Yes, well, that was still you, though. You may have looked different, but it was still—

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: 20 years ago.

Oh, 20 years ago—no, not that long ago. So I want to congratulate the Minister. However many Ministers have been before him, none of them have succeeded in getting it back to the House in this time. So that is good work.

But, also, I want to acknowledge the Minister’s contribution to the debate. Some Ministers sit in the chair and you would not know whether they were asleep or dead, and, frankly, you would not know whether it would make much difference. The Minister clearly listened, and did not answer every single question that was raised tonight, but I think did give a very good perspective on the bigger picture and the challenges that lie ahead. I want to just note my appreciation and, I think, that of others in the Committee as well.

I want to acknowledge the Minister whose name is on the bill, the Hon Rick Barker, who is not a Minister any more—he is a member of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council—and say that at the time of this bill’s being introduced in 2007, it was clearly needed. There had been quite a short time, only 4 years, between the first ever major gambling reform legislation of 2003, when New Zealand as a society said: “Gambling in some parts of our society is getting out of control, we need some regulation, and we need to recognise that there has to be transparency for the distribution of funds. There has to be recognition of harm, and there has to be accountability to the public from those who administer it.” This bill—the second attempt at that regime of harm minimisation but also at ensuring there is honesty and accountability in the sector—was, I think, a really good move forward.

As the Minister and others have noted, there is a Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) before the Government Administration Committee now. There are a couple of puzzling things in that bill. I will not refer to them in this debate, because, of course, it is outside the scope and I will be sat down before I have concluded the contribution that I want to make. I am keen to ensure that we stay on a path where our gambling legislation is evidence-driven and has recognition of the public health impacts. I think that is important. There are parts of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) that go outside that.

The Minister might be thinking “This is the eighth year of this blimmin bill—let’s just get it over with.”, but I am a little disappointed that some of the improvements in the Supplementary Order Papers are not, I think, going to be agreed to. Denise Roche from the Green Party referred in passing to what I think is worthy of mention again, in terms of what is actually needed in further amendments to the legislation. One piece of evidence that this bill does not actually go far enough, and evidence of why some of the Supplementary Order Papers should be supported, is in relation to the mystery shopper survey that was done prior to Christmas by the Department of Internal Affairs. Ninety percent of class 4 venues were failing to comply with the regulatory regime that we have currently—90 percent. That is an indication of a major problem. I commend the Department of Internal Affairs. It knows that it has not got enough staff to monitor class 4 venues 24/7, however long the individual venue is open for, so it was quite an innovative approach to get the mystery shopper over so many venues. But to have that level of non-compliance—90 percent—I think is a real indictment on the sector, and I certainly think that the assurances that we have been given by internal affairs officials that the sector is now buying into a high level of compliance is really important.

I know there is an agreement on the time of concluding this debate and I want to honour that agreement, but I just want to conclude with a comment about an issue that I found quite puzzling. That is in relation to two Supplementary Order Papers. It may well be the first time that this has occurred in this Parliament or it may be a clerical error, and I would like the clerks to just review the situation. My reading of Supplementary Order Paper 478, which was introduced on 2 July last year by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and Supplementary Order Paper 84, which was introduced on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 by Kevin Hague, seem to be exactly the same. I just want to check that the amendments moved in the two members’ names, as I noted—Kevin Hague, from October 2009 and the Rt Hon Winston Peters from July 2014—appear to be exactly the same. If it is not a clerical error, then I think it is indeed the first time that that situation may have arisen in this Parliament. If Kevin Hague and the Rt Hon Winston Peters both agree on the amendment in regard to racing, then I certainly think it should be supported.

With those concluding comments I want to again acknowledge the Minister, thank him for getting the bill to this—[Interruption] Sorry?

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Five Ministers.

I was told 8.45 p.m.; I am going to stick to what I agreed to.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: No, five Ministers.

Oh, five Ministers. I congratulate him on being the fifth Minister and the only one who has got it back to the Committee stage. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 84 in the name of Kevin Hague be agreed to.

Previously on the vote on the Minister’s typescript amendments, the result should be Ayes 108, Noes 11. The amendments are agreed to. The record will be corrected accordingly.

Parts 1 to 4 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.