Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2)

Thank you for the opportunity to continue my call to speak on the third reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). I was saying that the amendments in the bill are consistent with the intent of the Act, which is to minimise harm from gambling. The number of pokie machines has actually decreased significantly since 2003. The National Government is aware of issues that arise due to gambling, and it is always making sure that it is putting provisions in place to reduce the harm that can be caused by gambling. I also acknowledged that the behaviour of some class 4 gambling societies has not been as it should be. The Government recently announced a range of reforms to class 4 gambling. Other improvements to the regulation of class 4 gambling will be made through a new amendment bill, which was introduced in May 2014. The changes will give the public better information on grant-making decisions and reduce the opportunities for personal gain from conflicts of interest.

Supplementary Order Paper 454 adds value, but we do not support Supplementary Order Paper 478, which amends clause 5, and we do not support Supplementary Order Paper 84 as this Supplementary Order Paper has similarities to the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill—a member’s bill, the Flavell bill—which sought to amend the Gambling Act 2003, the parent Act. The Flavell bill was passed with some amendments in December 2013. The amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 84 to clauses 22, 22AA, 40, 41, new 41A, and 42 are now already in effect. The select committee’s report on the bill did not support the change in clause 5, and the amendment was deleted from the bill. The amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 84 to clause 28 appears to be targeted at an issue that arose around the time when the Supplementary Order Paper was tabled. Some gaming machines were being placed in open areas of venues so that gamblers could smoke while playing the machines, but this is not relevant any more. The amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 84 to clauses 47 and 52 are about increasing the penalties for not using gaming funds for community purposes and, for those managing venues, for breaching conflict of interest provisions. There is no justification for these increases. The definition of the words “gaming machine” is amended, and this is to clarify items that do not need the same level of regulation as a gaming machine.

The amendments to the Act will make sure that gambling operators know their obligations. The venue manager rather than the holder of the venue licence will be required to display a notice in the gambling area advising customers that the venue has a policy of identifying problem gamblers. All these measures are important as most of these cases of a problem with addiction to gambling do not recognise it themselves. There are multiple steps to inhibit the action of gambling if it is found to be a problem for someone. One of the main actions in place is that operators are required to keep records of every single person prohibited from their venues, as well as having to provide the Secretary for Internal Affairs with any information on a person, if it is required. This information is to be provided in such a way that the privacy of the individual is not breached, yet, there is sufficient information to track down or locate this person. The good thing about this is that the exclusion of problem gamblers restricts them from accessing the gambling area only rather than the entire venue, so this also allows the person not to be restricted as such for other activities.

For gambling licensees and applicants, the conflict of interest safeguards will be for all persons making decisions regarding gaming machine grants, rather than just a select few key people in management. The suitability criteria for those applying for a licence to operate non-casino gaming machines will include relevant and serious crimes and any other offences under other legislation. Currently, they are restricted only to crimes involving dishonesty. This will make sure that the operators have credibility and understand the importance of enforcement of the legislation. Given this bill is about making sure we look after those who can get into the trap of gambling addiction, I support the bill and commend the bill to the House. Again, as I am not a part of the Government Administration Committee, which considered this bill, it has been a great privilege to be able to make a contribution to this bill. Thank you.

The next call is a split call. I call Denise Roche—5 minutes.

I rise to take a call on this bill, the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). While I was looking at this bill in preparation for today’s speech, I decided to go back to look at why it was first introduced. If we recall, this bill was introduced in August 2007. Essentially, the reason for it was to make some amendments to tighten up some technical parts of the 2003 Gambling Act, which was enacted only a few years before that in 2004. This bill came to the House in August 2007. The Government Administration Committee reported back to the House in May 2008. The second reading was in May 2009, and it was introduced back to this House last year, in 2014. This Parliament, the 51st Parliament, picked it up again in December for the Committee of the whole House, and here we are in its final reading. That is a gestation of approximately 7 years. You have to ask yourself why it has taken so long. I am assuming that it is because circumstances have overtaken many parts of this bill. There have been other bills that have been introduced that have tinkered with the Gambling Act and there have also been quite a lot of different applications of the original Act, which still need to be tightened up and are still about to be addressed with the next bill, the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3), which is currently in front of the select committee.

The reason this was enacted in the first place was to tighten up some of the controls around gambling machines and regulations for casinos. I went back and looked at the Hansard speeches of the second reading in 2009. I was interested to note in Sue Bradford’s speech at that time that she said that $2 billion was gambled in that previous financial year. So in 2008-09, $2 billion was gambled and was lost from people’s pockets. Despite a reduction in pokie machines between that time and now and despite the efforts of councils and sinking-lid policies, this year and the last financial year the Department of Internal Affairs reported that $2.09 billion was spent. That is $19 million more than what was spent on gambling in the previous year. In the last financial year, $808 million was spent on class 4 pokie machines—that is the pubs and clubs gambling—and $509 million was spent at casinos. This is despite a gradual reduction in the number of venues, the number of licence holders, and the number of non-casino gambling machines that have gradually decreased. So what we are seeing is that despite those efforts by communities, people are gambling more.

Without a doubt we support this bill. It has mostly technical amendments. It includes the definition of a “gaming machine” and that is great because it actually starts to take into account some of the changes to gaming machines that are being introduced—specifically, the multi-seat automated gaming machines that Skycity will be introducing to its casino as part of its deal for the convention centre, which allows an extra 20 automated machines that will have up to 12 persons at each site. We see this bill as a lost opportunity, essentially. We had Supplementary Order Papers to this bill through the Committee of the whole House to look at player tracking and pre-commit cards, which would essentially make gambling on pokie machines a lot safer than it is currently. We have had attempts in other bills—specifically, in the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that went through in this House 2 years ago in the name of the Māori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell—and yet we still have not addressed problem gambling as an issue.

We will be supporting this bill as it comes through; however, we do want to say that there is a lot more that we could be doing to sort out some of the rorts in this industry and to keep people safe.

I am very happy to take a call on this bill. It says much about the current Government’s priorities when it comes to problem gambling that this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper or slowly making its way through the House for 8 years. It was introduced by the last Labour Government and it is not the slightest priority for the current National Government. Actually, the Government pays only lip service to reducing problem gambling, because when an opportunity comes to increase problem gambling so that it can get a convention centre in Auckland, it does not hesitate to take that up with its dodgy deal with Skycity.

I was particularly interested in Part 2, where the bill talks about what an increase in casino gambling actually is. It gives clear responsibility for making those decisions to the Gambling Commission. Why does it do that? It is because it believes that those decisions should be made independently of political considerations and that decisions around increasing casino-related gambling should be made independently of Government. What the Government has not put in this bill is the little rider that says “except when it comes to a deal with Skycity”.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! This is not just about casinos; this is about—

I raise a point of order, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, we have followed this one through. I ask the member to come back to the bill. It is not about deals with Skycity and convention centres; it is about class 3 licences. If you are referring to Part 2, it refers to the Gambling Commission. I ask the member to come back to those specific points.

I will read the clause. The clause that I am referring to says: “Decisions on what constitutes an increase in the opportunities for casino gambling are a function of the Gambling Commission.” They are not a function for Government. So if the Government decided to increase casino gambling in order to get a free convention centre—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I will warn the member. We are not talking about anything to do with casinos and convention centres. The member will come back specifically to problem gambling and the Gambling Commission. Those are the points that I want the member to concentrate on.

The Gambling Commission is tasked with reducing problem gambling. One of the ways it does that is it is given the authority to determine what constitutes an increase in casino gambling. The Skycity convention centre deal—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Order! If the member mentions the convention centre again, I will terminate his speech. Come back to the content of the debate.

You’re wrong—you’re wrong. You are absolutely wrong. That is an abuse of your position.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member will stand and apologise for those comments.

No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If the member does not apologise for those comments, I will ask him to leave.

Chris Hipkins withdrew from the Chamber.

It is my pleasure to take a call on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). The Gambling Act 2003 took effect on 1 July 2004. The Act brought major reforms to the gambling sector and a significant shift in focus towards the minimisation of harm associated with gambling. After the Act came into effect, it emerged that an amendment bill was needed to tidy up the errors and clarify provisions to ensure that they operated as originally intended. I actually sat on the Government Administration Committee, which heard the original submissions last term. I think we were all motivated—everyone in this House and especially this National Government—in terms of making sure that we got a firm focus on harm minimisation.

However, the pokies are actually quite important. The revenue that is generated each year that goes back into our sports clubs and our community groups is significant: $637 million. I know that as someone who is actively involved in the Ōrewa Surf Lifesaving Club back in my own electorate. Some of the money that is generated through pokie gambling has been used to buy equipment like defibrillators and equipment that relates directly to surf lifesaving, and what is required and needed by the patrols on the beach each summer. We are supporting Supplementary Order Paper 454 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne. What this Supplementary Order Paper does is it clarifies the Secretary for Internal Affairs’ suspension and cancellation powers for licences and class 3 and class 4 operators and venues, so it is clear that the power is available for past one-off breaches.

I think this is really important, and a couple of the other points also relate to this. It is important that the Department of Internal Affairs has got the power to go in there and sanction and act against operators that are in breach, and it has to be able to do that retrospectively as well. It clarifies the Gambling Commission’s power to suspend or cancel a casino licence. To make it clear, it is also available for past breaches—very similar in vein to the first point.

The Supplementary Order Paper specifies ongoing obligations and duties on societies after licensing—for example, to minimise costs, maximise returns, and minimise risks of problem gambling. Minimising costs is critically important because the first thing that struck me with an organisation that is responsible for the distribution of funds that are coming from pokies and class 4 gambling is the fact that if you look around the world—and I am not going to single anyone out in particular; I would not do that—there are organisations, NGOs, that are designed and developed to deliver aid into areas like, say, Africa. But when you actually have a look and you actually break down or if you were to audit where the money is going, many of them are often running at 70 or 80 percent of the money raised—being used on admin. I do not think that the people making donations or the people supporting those types of organisations are doing that in anticipation that the 70 or 80 percent of the funds is going to administration. Of course, the same situation could very quickly arise here if there were not very strict rules and regulations in place to prevent that from happening, and there are.

The Supplementary Order Paper specifies that societies must incur only actual, reasonable, and necessary costs, which is a big part of what I have just been talking about and obviously is a big part of the Department of Internal Affairs’ responsibility in terms of auditing. There is also a part there—I am just struggling to see it at the moment—that relates to the treatment of depreciation. I see that the Hon Michael Woodhouse is in the House tonight, and I am sure that he could relate to and understand, having run a fairly big organisation himself, the importance of being able to get depreciation right. It may sound easy; it is not actually that easy. There are always gaps that are wide open in terms of abuse around the way you handle and deal with depreciation, so it is very important that this bill clearly spells out exactly how depreciation is going to be handled.

In terms of harm minimisation, we actually heard a submission the other day on the committee that I found fascinating, and certainly the committee is looking into it more and seeing how viable the option is. It is facial recognition. The group that made the submission had just gone through a trial where it had used facial recognition as a way of monitoring and managing problem gamblers. The trial had been very successful, and to me it seems like a pretty good solution, actually.

💬 Brett Hudson: Sensible—very sensible.

A sensible solution, exactly. But, of course, there is a whole lot of work now to be done in terms of what the practicalities are in terms of actually being able to roll this out. I know one of the issues that was raised is that there are costs associated with it—I think anything up to about $30,000 for a unit to actually attach to one of the gambling machines. Then, of course, there are the issues around having to make modifications to a gambling machine and how you do that whilst still remaining compliant. So those issues are going to have to be worked out and ironed out, but they do not seem insurmountable to me. The facial recognition system seems like a very good system that will actually remove a lot of the stress that probably employees who are working in licensed premises where there are pokies have to deal with now, in terms of trying to identify someone who is a problem gambler or who may be starting to develop a problem-gambling habit. They have to use an intervention to try to work out how to manage that. It would actually remove a lot of that—

💬 Brett Hudson: Much easier on the staff.

Yes, it would make the whole environment for the staff, in terms of management, much more effective and much easier for them. So I think that that is something that is going to be interesting and we will definitely keep a close look in terms of how that develops and where it goes.

The behaviour of some class 4 gaming societies has been disappointing. There is no doubt about that. The audit that the Department of Internal Affairs carried out recently showed that there are definitely some areas that need to be focused on. But the positive thing about that is that we have got the audits happening and they are identifying the problems, which means that remedial action can be taken to fix them. It also sends a very clear message to the sector that it is being watched, it will be audited, and the Department of Internal Affairs is across the issue. So to me that was a very positive thing—not positive in terms of that it could have been a far better result, but positive in terms of that the sector is on notice and that with an ongoing audit programme we will definitely see an improvement in behaviour.

💬 Brett Hudson: That’s right—you’ve got to measure it to manage it, Mr Mitchell.

That is dead right—absolutely.

So, finally, I would just like to say that the bill is very important. It does take positive steps in terms of tightening up the loopholes that were there and making it far clearer in terms of what can be done. I recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I stand to support the third reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). We support this bill because it was first introduced by Labour in 2007. I just listened to the speech from the member who has resumed his seat, Mark Mitchell—a good member. He said the bill was very important. Member, it has been very important for a very long time—since 2007. So I am glad that the Government has finally caught up with how important it is and has decided to move it along the agenda of this House. It was first introduced by the Hon Rick Barker. If he is listening today, he will be delighted to know that a bill that was once in his name is finally being passed today.

There is quite a number of bills like this on the Order Paper. I am looking forward to what we do with the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill, which is in my name, has been there since about 2007 as well, and keeps being put back on the Order Paper with little or no action. Or what about the Public Health Bill? That goes right back into the early 2000s, and we are still waiting for some action on that. So we are pleased that we are getting to the end of the process of this bill.

I have to say, just in brief and in passing, that there is an irony that we are debating a gambling bill at the same time that we are talking about more gambling in the Skycity Casino. As you know, the deal was for a convention centre—yes, I know, but this is about gambling, and gambling is around pokie machines, the most evil sort of gambling you can have. I see a member over there nodding and agreeing with me. He knows that it is true. So there is an irony or a syllogism—a word like that—that we are debating this Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) at the same time that there is discussion about putting money into more gambling through a deal done on the convention centre.

We passed some very important major reforms to gambling back in 2003. I noticed that some of the members in the discussion on this bill talked about how they had put a lid on pokie machines, casinos, and so on. I need to remind them that, actually, it was not the National Government that did that at all. That, in fact, was done by the previous Labour Government.

💬 Brett Hudson: Well, they didn’t pass this bill.

We did bring in those major reforms, Mr Hudson. We brought them in by putting a moratorium on casinos.

We do not want a casino in Wellington. For anybody out there thinking we should have a casino in Wellington, there are those of us who will fight it tooth and nail. We want to be the cultural capital of New Zealand, the cafe capital, the coffee capital—certainly not the casino capital. We will leave that to the Aucklanders. They can have their casino; we will have all the other good things in life.

We brought in a moratorium on casinos, we brought in a reduction in the number of class 4 gambling machines and new venues, and we had a significant shift in the focus towards minimisation of gambling-associated harm. As a former Minister of Health, and as a person who has an interest in the harm of gambling, I thought that was a very important measure. I thought it was a long time until we actually acknowledged that gambling is an addiction. As we know, addictions can destroy people’s lives. In fact, a gambling addiction, as many of us have learnt from constituents and from knowing people who have addictions, can mean that people can lose their homes, their houses, and their families because they are addicted to gambling. Those big changes we made were, I think, very important indeed.

This bill makes some more small policy amendments, and some technical amendments, but it aims to allow the Gambling Act to operate as it was originally intended. We do, in fact, support this bill. I think that Peter Dunne’s Supplementary Order Paper 454 strengthens the bill to some extent, and we believe that whatever we can do to improve the gambling environment we have in New Zealand will be better.

We are a nation of gamblers. There is nothing wrong with a flutter now and then. Mr Assistant Speaker, as a member from up Waikato way, you would be interested to know I went to the Trentham cup this year. Of course, once a year some of us go to the races. I know that Mr Bishop was there, enjoying a flutter. I did too. I lost my purse of money, which was not very much, being miserable in terms of the dollar each way I put on, but I enjoyed it. I did get some tips from Sue Moroney. None of them was any good. But I did enjoy the flutter that I had, and I think that New Zealanders do. They like the opportunity to take a Lotto ticket or to have a bet on the horses. No one is denying that.

What we are concerned about are those gambling operations that are addictive to New Zealanders. We know that it is not easy to get addicted to Lotto every Saturday night, because it does not reinforce you often enough. In fact, as you know, you are not reinforced at all unless you are one in 10 million or something. But we do know that pokie machines, gambling casinos, and so on have intermittent reinforcement for the person who is involved in them. So legislation coming out of this Parliament that helps around those issues and allows people to still enjoy a gamble now and then but puts in protections is, we think, very important indeed.

Just in conclusion, I have never forgotten that before we put in restrictions on pokie machines under the last Labour Government, there was a hotel that had opened up in the poorest part of my electorate. What shocked me was that it was not going to be the beer that was poured at the bar that was going to keep it going; it was the pokie machines that were being put in where the poorest people of my electorate live. They were encouraged to have a go on the pokie machines for some hope. So I have to say that at that moment I knew that if that was the only way the hotel was going to make money—encouraging people to gamble more on pokie machines—we had things wrong, which is why I am glad that we have restricted the numbers.

We have involved local government much more in gambling than we had in the past. I would like to see us do that with alcohol. We have got a way to go, because we have not addressed that issue properly yet. I look forward to when we do address the alcohol issues in terms of local government’s ability to have alcohol plans and so on. So we do support the bill. It is long overdue. We are pleased that it is finally coming to its third reading. I say to Mr Barker, who will definitely be glued to his crystal set, that this bill is finally going to be passed.

I call Jonathan Young—5 minutes.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Can I say what an excellent mayoral bid speech that came from Mrs King, talking about the great city of Wellington: the cultural centre, cafes, and galleries. Actually, that is what New Plymouth has been called—the emerging cultural centre of heartland New Zealand—so I know what you are talking about.

💬 Stuart Nash: By who?

Oh, by Auckland travel writers, of course, Mr Nash. Nobody from the East Coast would say that about the west coast, I know, but only because they have a bias that is misinformed.

This is a very important bill to speak about, and the Government does realise that there are issues around harm minimisation, regarding class 4 gambling, that need to be attended to. One of the things that we do understand in this country is that if the Government were not involved in the management of such areas, there could be even greater harm. One of the concerns there, of course, is the online gambling that happens, which is unrestricted. So when the Government can look at what happens with pokies right throughout the country and can have appropriate legislation to ensure that there is minimum harm, then that is a good thing.

The problem gambling levy currently raises $55 million over 3 years to fund services and to minimise the harm caused in communities. This is used on front-line counselling, including dedicated services for Māori, Pacific, and Asian communities. Gambling policy is always a balancing act for the Government. It is worth remembering that many people gamble and do have fun responsibly, and the money raised for the community from all types of gambling is also significant. I think my colleague Mark Mitchell mentioned surf life-saving clubs, which, throughout this country, work very hard over the summer seasons. In fact, they go to remote beaches where there is hardly any community except during the summer time, and they have no ability to fund-raise locally. Yet, they are able to receive some sort of benefit from different societies to enable them to continue to serve the New Zealand community on those beaches.

We have to say that the behaviour of some of the class 4 gambling societies has been less than the best and has been very disappointing. But there are signs of progress, and what this amendment bill does is brings far more attention to the remiss behaviour that has happened, and that is good. As time progresses, of course, technology improves and there are new ways in which somebody can be identified as a problem gambler, and there are ways in which mitigation can be put in place. It is very important that there is a very strong and robust process by which the proceeds of gambling are handled. So this amendment bill covers many of those facets to ensure that the benefit that comes from gambling—33 percent of the proceeds—is returned back to the community and that there is not some rorting of the system where the community does not receive that level of benefit.

Gambling is with us in our communities and our societies. As I said before, online gambling is unmonitored and unmoderated, and there is some real concern about that. So it is important that amendment bills, such as this, make progress to make the potential harm minimised and the benefits to our communities maximised. Thank you.

I call Barbara Kuriger—5 minutes.

It is great to be given the opportunity today to stand here and speak on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2), set down here for its third reading. I would like to thank the Government Administration Committee for its work. I too am in a position to endorse the member for New Plymouth’s comments about the culture and cafe centre of the world—I endorse that, Jonathan.

Gambling is one of the industries within New Zealand that has the potential to cause harm and devastation to many families, to many individuals, and to many communities. Previously, the Gambling Act 2003, as it stood, was in itself very large and complex, and there were a number of issues that were identified, which meant a review was needed. The Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2), which I am speaking on today, contains various amendments alongside technical policy developments to clarify the original legislation and remove any vague confusion. The bill has been through the select committee process and has received a number of recommendations, and it is clear that the main amendments here are to minimise the harm resulting from gambling in our communities. This falls in line with the priority of this National Government, whose purpose is to control the growth of gambling and minimise the harm that is caused.

The Gambling Act 2003 brought about major reform to the gambling sector with a shift in focus that highlighted the need for a minimisation of the harm associated with it. The Government recognises and appreciates that harm, and it is not an issue to be taken lightly. Gambling is a destructive form of addiction that affects many New Zealanders. The Gambling Act, therefore, imposes a levy on the proceeds of gambling to deal with that. Currently, over $55 million in 3 years has been raised to fund the front-line counselling services that are necessary and essential for mitigating the harm and damage that problem gambling can cause in communities. This is a significant and commendable effort, and the dedicated professional services that exist for those diverse and affected groups in our communities are a reflection of the motivation and intent of this Government to alleviate the harm caused.

The amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee will make sure that the regulatory framework operates as it is supposed to, and that gambling operators know their obligations to both themselves and the communities they represent. This Government’s policy is focused on minimising the harm caused by gambling while at the same time maximising the returns to the community. The amendments to the Act, as implied by the select committee, will tighten the regulations around the monitoring of gambling. Those organisations and people who receive grants from those gambling societies are, therefore, able to be kept accountable as to how they distribute their finances.

Gambling is a moneymaking business; there is no doubt about that. However, the amendments in this bill are consistent with the aims of the Act and with minimising harm. Gambling policy is, and always has been, a balancing act. Many individuals gamble in a responsible manner and have fun while doing so. Of note is the fact that gambling societies raised over $637 million for their respective communities in the year 2013. Again, this is a significant and commendable effort, and it cannot be ignored that this money is going back into the community. However, one of the major focuses of the Government is to ensure that the Gambling Act can be accurately and rightly enforced.

In summary, yes, gambling does damage families and communities. These amendments to the Act will tighten the regulations around the monitoring of gambling and will minimise the hard resulting from it. These changes to the Act are intended to resolve any confusion about its meaning and reinforce to the industry how important aspects of the Act work and exactly whom it is accountable to. Thank you.