Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: I present a legislative statement on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I move, That the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

On behalf of the Minister, I am pleased to be leading this bill through its final stage in the House. This is a short but important bill that will benefit fund-raising efforts across the country. Passing this bill means charitable organisations will be able to continue to operate and self-fund in an increasingly digital world.

This bill amends the Gambling Act 2003 to make permanent the existing temporary exclusion of class 3 lotteries from the definition of “remote interactive gambling”. Under current laws, class 3 lotteries can only operate online until the end of October this year. This legislation will permanently enable class 3 operators to continue selling lottery tickets online or over the phone.

This legislation reflects consumer preferences today, with the majority of people preferring to buy these lottery tickets online rather than in person or by post. One class 3 operator reported that, last year, 85 percent of their ticket sales were done online, which was only possible under the temporary exemption. If this bill were not to pass and the temporary exemption were to expire at the end of this month, I am concerned about what this would mean for non-profit organisations who use these lotteries to self-fundraise. It would require charities to remove payment platforms from their websites, take down any digital advertising, and return to seeking ticket sales in person. This would increase the cost of fund-raising and likely result in a loss of customers, therefore reducing revenue.

I have heard from many well-loved Kiwi charities about the difference this bill will mean for them by allowing them to continue fund-raising in an efficient and effective way. From the Coastguard and the Auckland rescue helicopter through local sports clubs in Dunedin and Whangārei, these non-profit organisations serve our communities and often make a life-changing difference to Kiwis and their families.

I’m honoured to lead this bill through the House to ensure that the charities who fund-raise through these lotteries can continue their vital work in our communities. I would also like to acknowledge the House for its debate in the committee of the whole House and the Governance and Administration Committee for their careful consideration of this bill. I give my thanks, again, to all who submitted on the bill. We heard of the significant community benefits this amendment will have. And this Government is taking action to provide certainty to charities and community organisations today.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the many community organisations in New Zealand for their service to local communities. I look forward to seeing the positive impact made by this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am happy to take a call on behalf of Labour to say that we also support this bill. I was Minister of Internal Affairs when we brought in the temporary aspect of this bill so that charities over COVID could take on their fund-raising and not have to worry about going out in person or accessing the post, which was difficult over those times. We extended that by a short while so that we could assess whether this bill was making a difference without any unintended consequences. We’re at this case today that we’re able to put this bill through the House to make this a permanent change.

We think that it is really important that these charities are able to access this, but I do have a couple of concerns that I do need to signal here and that is around the fact of harm minimisation. We don’t have robust data in the class 3 area; we don’t have that intersectional data in the class 3 area. If we find that someone is at risk of harm in class 4, for example, or in casino gambling, we also don’t have the intersectional data to know whether there’s class 3. I do signal that I think that is further work that is needed.

Also the interaction and intersection with online gambling—and I know that the Minister is doing some work around this. I do want to signal, as that work is progressing, to keep in mind what is happening now that we’re putting this through to make this more accessible for people or continue to make it more accessible for people. The Minister talks about 15 licences in the online space that have come through in the media, and that is just far too many in a country like New Zealand. Where does that intersect with class 3?

Those are questions that I have going forward, but I also want to just signal that we do need to have a really big conversation as a country; that we have critical organisations such as Coastguard and the Heart Foundation who rely upon the proceeds of gambling for their fund-raising. These are organisations that do need to exist and thrive within our country. I can’t imagine what it would be like without the likes of our Coastguard, being a boatie myself. Not having the Coastguard is just unimaginable. Knowing that this is one way of their fund-raising—just on the proceeds of gambling—is something that doesn’t quite sit well with me. Maybe it’s time as a country that we actually have that conversation. As we move forward in the online space, I hope we do have that opportunity to have that conversation. I do think, though, today, this is a good move. I think that it is important that we give surety for these organisations, and we are happy to support it. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I stand to provide a comment and support from Te Rōpū Kākāriki towards this legislation. Like my colleague Jan Tinetti from the Labour Party, I’d like to really explore some of the dependence that our charities do have on gambling. We know that they offer important services to our communities. We know that our clubs also rely on proceeds of gambling. Unfortunately, because of the way that our system is set up, some of us do rely on it, whether it be pokie machine money or lotteries such as this, to keep the lights on, and that’s not OK. So, ultimately, what can we do as a House to look at the system to support these important charities to do good within our community?

On top of that, let’s look at the process. It was a short, truncated time frame. We had a very limited window for submissions, but we received a diverse view of groups, from both those that received the funds as well as those who provide problem gambling services.

There were gaps identified within some of what we considered during deliberations, including the data—we did not have sufficient information or evidence to really show what the effects or the outcomes were since the temporary provision was in place since 2020. That was shared by the officials. What were the amounts, the frequency of gambling, and also maybe potential harm, and referral into problem gambling services?

Now, ultimately, we do support this. We do see the value of those groups that are in communities being able to execute their lotteries in this manner, but also remembering that we have the wider system strategy being developed right now and we are consulting on preventing and minimising problem-gambling harm. What does that look like in terms of an ecosystem of both management of potential harm and services that deliver, importantly, to those who are impacted, but then charities such as this?

Let’s be cautious around online gaming generally. That is something that we need to watch out for as a House and continue to look at what the trends are moving forward. But, ultimately, we do support the bill, and we tautoko good examination, evaluation, and robust monitoring moving forward, so we can understand better what systems and mechanisms we need to put in place to tautoko those who are impacted by problem gambling but also these important community organisations to ensure we’re all compliant but also the services are available to support those who need help. Kia ora.

I rise in support of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill and remind the House that the Governance and Administration Committee examined this bill and recommended that it be passed without amendment.

Some concern has been raised by the Opposition that there seems to be an over-reliance from some of our charities, such as Coastguard, on gambling, but I’d like to take this opportunity to bring some good news, Dan Bidois. That good news is, in Budget 2024, Coastguard and Surf Life Saving received a funding boost from this Government of $63.6 million in May for the next four years. Both parties were really happy. This Government is addressing some of those funding shortfalls. I commend the bill.

Thanks, Madam Speaker. This is a common-sense bill; I don’t think it’s controversial at all. As we’ve just heard, the Governance and Administration Committee recommended the bill without amendment. It’s simply making permanent what’s already been there for three or four years post-COVID. It allows class 3 licence holders to raise money remotely, as opposed to the old-school way of door-to-door selling and all that sort of thing. It’s more effective, it’s more efficient, it’s more modern, and it’s the kind of thing which we would expect in our society.

We just heard a couple of things about dependence on gambling money for community organisations, but that’s really not what tonight is about. This is simply about the way in which these particular organisations raise money at the moment.

I’d just like to remind the House that class 3 are low-risk operators. There’s none of that rush of immediate return that you get from a class 4 machine, because no machines are allowed. The prizes have to be over $5,000, so they are reasonably sizable. It’s got to be for community purposes, and it’s nothing like the class 4, 5, and 6, which is your casinos, your machines, your Lotto, etc.

It’s got to be for fund-raising for good purposes, the kind of purposes that we heard about: sports clubs, hospices, rescue helicopters, the Heart Foundation, Coastguard. This is money being raised for very, very good purposes. This is about making sure that it is able to be done efficiently and effectively. I’d also like to remind the House that only 1 percent of all gambling money invested—if you like—is invested through class 3.

Labour has asked about data on harm caused by this class of gambling. I think the reality is that we heard none of that because the submitters who we asked about that who were concerned about gaming harm weren’t able to provide any, and they are organisations that you might expect to be able to do that. They would have had plenty of time. If they had any evidence, they would know that—they would know that—and the Department of Internal Affairs said this is low risk. We had no evidence that there is any harm, and I think that is simply tilting at windmills.

We had 15 submissions: 13 in favour, two against, and no evidence of problems caused by gambling. It’s a low-risk, sensible bill. It helps those charities to get on with their good work, and I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā tātou, e te Speaker. Kia ora tātou. The psychology of gambling is deeply set in our minds—you know, dollar signs flashing, lots of noise, lots of lights—

Andy Foster: Not with class 3.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —and the temptation of winning, right? I mean, we’re probably all subject to it one way or another—so just settle—but then it becomes a necessary evil. So there it is. I just wanted to open my great kōrero with that kind of opening statement.

Today, I stand for Te Pāti Māori, and on behalf of the party, to support the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, you’ll be pleased to know. It is a significant and forward-thinking step—who wrote this?—in ensuring our charities can continue to do their work, because, again, there it is, isn’t it? It’s another necessary evil. It’s like, yes, all those lights are flashing, the same as we’re all tempted, actually, when we’re actually in there—not that I go there, of course. Then, of course, it goes to all of those providers that are out there and do have to depend seriously and properly, I guess, on the money that’s sought from gambling to undo the harm of gambling. But there we go.

This bill will make permanent the exemption for class 3 lotteries from the prohibition on remote interactive gambling, allowing our charitable organisations to thrive in an increasingly digital world, and removing barriers—and this is from a digital immigrant here, interestingly enough. This legislation will directly benefit many community organisations, especially in Tāmaki Makaurau. Take, for instance, the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, which provides life-saving services to our whānau, and, similarly, the Coastguard Aotearoa, another organisation that plays a critical role in keeping our communities safe and well. Additionally, there are key organisations that are available to support whānau, like those in health. They are the ones that some on the other side of the aisle are getting rid of, but, anyway, that’s another conversation. There are the Heart Foundation and the Kidney Society.

This bill is crucial for Māori communities in the likes of Manurewa and Māngere, and those communities are doing their best to support each other to thrive. Many Māori-led organisations and initiatives rely on lotteries to support their community-driven projects, ranging from healthcare to education, and to preserve tikanga. Enabling these groups to fund-raise online opens up new avenues of support, making it easier for whānau and iwi across the motu to contribute to causes that uplift and empower families.

As the world shifts increasingly to online, we must ensure our legislation reflects these changes. The temporary exemption introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that online lotteries can operate effectively and it is fundamentally important to the ongoing operation and feasibility of those that support us. By passing this bill, we are embracing the future and enabling our charities to continue the incredible mahi in the environment and in the modern world that we live in today. Nō reira, e te Pīka, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. I rise to also, on behalf of the Green Party, support this bill. However, there are definitely, from a process perspective, a couple of points that I would like to raise. Firstly, we heard about the fact that this bill will be taking effect, whichever one is earlier, on 1 November this year. This is on the basis that the existing extension was only going to be till the 31st. However, since that is already a known factor, we have had the truncated select committee process, and when we did ask the Minister of Internal Affairs this during the committee of the whole House stage, there wasn’t a clear explanation from the Minister on some of the detail of this bill, which actually is quite concerning.

Just speaking very briefly on the committee stage, I raised the point that there are a number of concerns in this bill from the primary legislation perspective and whether the Minister has considered a lot of these factors. I think the Minister’s response, which is comparable to some of the governing party’s responses so far, is this is something that’s in place for three years already, there’s only 1 percent of this, it’s class 3, and there’s not a lot of harm caused by this because of delayed gratification. However, we simply do not have enough data on this, because there isn’t any data on this, particularly when we’re looking at some of the class 3 gambling that we mentioned. We did not have sufficient time to hear from the communities who could potentially be harmed as a result—"potentially” being the keyword—by this. We have heard some of the other groups, which others have mentioned, particularly around the Heart Foundation.

For us, although we support this bill, we do find the process of how this bill was introduced lacking, and from an issues perspective, there is the fact that there isn’t enough data. There is the fact that we simply do not know what the harm is when it comes to delayed gratification. Some people have mentioned that this is a low number. If this is a low number or a low percentage, there was no convincing argument being put forward so far on why, then, it is absolutely crucial for us to push this through a truncated process and undermine the legislative process that we have in this House. Surely, in that case, it wouldn’t have been that big a deal, if it’s quite a small percentage of it, as other people have mentioned in this very House. Indeed, I have again asked the Minister if she would consider delaying this by three months or putting in something that’s interim for three months so that we’re able to hear more from the communities themselves on how they feel about the permanence of this particular legislation or this particular method of remote, interactive gambling.

Finally, let us actually be very clear about this: people and charities and all of these organisations in Aotearoa should have the sufficient level of funding that is needed for all of us to be able to thrive. The fact that the Heart Foundation and all of these other organisations have to use this method in order to have sufficient funding to operate or to keep their lights on is simply not good enough. We shouldn’t be using gambling as an excuse or as a reason for us to undertake these worthwhile endeavours that the communities are doing.

Again, these foundations are doing a fantastic job, and I think one of the speakers mentioned before that there seems to be an increase in funding to support some of these areas. However, clearly, that is not enough. For us, we would like to see that when we are looking at these sorts of charities and this sort of funding in the future, there is enough for them to go on, that maybe some of this funding should be available and should be part of the Budget to begin with. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The purpose of this bill—which I support—is to allow lotteries that raise funds for charities or non-commercial purposes under class 3 to continue to do so. We’ve heard a number of examples already. They talk about how coastguards and surf life-saving clubs and the Heart Foundation use this mechanism to raise funds. There was a group here where 85 percent of the gambling that they do is online to raise funds, and it’s their second-biggest source of funding. That’s Coastguard New Zealand. There is an exemption that was due to expire at the end of this month, so asking for it to be delayed by a few months, like the previous speaker, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, did, through committee, obviously would have a very detrimental impact. We are a hard-working Government that is getting on with getting this third reading through today, and I support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, it’s a pleasure to take a call on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill. As chair of the Governance and Administration Committee that considered the bill, can I again thank all those who contributed to the process: the officials who provided us with advice, submitters who engaged in that process, and of course the select committee for the work that they did on the bill.

There have been a good number of contributions already this evening that have talked about the purpose of the bill. This comes about following what was a temporary solution that emerged through COVID, where we had a number of charities that were unable to perform their fundraising activity. Moving their activity online to ensure that they were able to continue with their raffles—it’s usually a raffle type of process that they follow—meant that those charities weren’t going to forego some of the critical funds that they receive in order to run charities that provide services that are essential to New Zealanders.

As the previous speaker, Sam Uffindell, noted, that exemption is due to expire very soon, which is why the Government brought this to the House. I would note, just following the prior speaker Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s comments, that I do agree with him. It was a very truncated process and there were other options that could have been looked at to ensure that those charities didn’t end up in that situation. None of us would want that situation where they weren’t able to continue that activity. I don’t think that’s what speakers tonight are suggesting. There could have been another temporary exemption, or, actually, the Government could have brought this bill to the House earlier. We did, unfortunately, hear from at least one submitter who wasn’t able to submit, and this is a submitter who works in the area of harm minimisation. As the chair of that committee, as a member of that committee, I want to put on record my concern that, if you have a truncated process, it can sometimes mean people with valid information and views aren’t able to give their contribution.

Having said that, I do take the point that Andy Foster has made tonight in his contribution—that even though we have concerns about harm minimisation, I do accept the views of officials, which is that the risk in this case is very, very low. These are the types of activities where the organisations that undertake that fund-raising activity keep a name and a record and contact details of the person who has purchased a raffle ticket. It’s not like the pokies where you have bright lights and noise and flashes and where they’re designed psychologically to actually create an addictive process—very, very different type of activity. The harm minimisation is low, but I also don’t think it’s onerous to require those agencies to have a harm minimisation approach in place.

One of the agencies gave us a good example—that was the Heart Foundation. I would encourage other agencies undertaking these activities to look at what the Heart Foundation do and to, perhaps, make sure they’re doing the same thing themselves. They spotted someone who was purchasing multiple tickets. That caused them some concern. They contacted that person. It turns out the person was a previous winner of the raffle and wanted to support the Heart Foundation—you know, was very grateful for that. The Heart Foundation worked with them to provide another method for them to provide an ongoing contribution. Now, I don’t think it’s onerous for these large charities to have a small harm minimisation process in place.

My colleague Jan Tinetti has noted already that the Minister of Internal Affairs—there’s been commentary in the media about the Minister’s plans around online gambling. It’s certainly something that I have an interest in, both as an MP and an electorate MP but also as the chair of this committee. It is an area where we always have to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to limit that harm that can occur to people, because that harm is devastating. It can destroy lives, it can destroy marriages, it can destroy people’s ability to go to work. I don’t think we can underestimate, actually, that gambling can cause people to go through very, very devastating situations where they end up doing things like committing fraud against their employer. We as parliamentarians do need to take that seriously.

I will repeat again, just echoing the comments from Andy Foster, that the risk in this situation is very, very low. So, on that basis, Labour is really pleased to support this bill. We did actually have a member’s bill in the ballot that would have done the same thing. I want to acknowledge our former Ministers—Jan Tinetti, in particular—who put this exemption in place during COVID to ensure that these charities could continue receiving the revenue that they need so they can deliver very, very crucial services to New Zealanders. Thanks to everyone who has been involved and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Coming from the Bay of Plenty, I think of our Pāpāmoa Surf Life Saving Club. I think of, in Sam Uffindell’s electorate, the Mount Maunganui surf life-saving club, and the Omanu Beach Surf Life Saving Club, which sits on the electoral boundary of the Tauranga and Bay of Plenty electorates, which, under this legislation, will be able to fund-raise to support the incredible work they do to support and keep our communities safe. For us, we are so grateful to them for their ongoing support in protecting our communities, and by enabling this legislation, we are providing them with more opportunities to bring in funds to support the work they do and making it permanent from the end of this month. I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I too want to rise and take a short contribution on this third reading and say, once again, that Labour supports this bill. I’ve listened to a few contributions in this debate, and one thing I just wanted to note is that, even though these are very worthy charities and we do want to see them be able to fund-raise and do the wonderful work that they do, I have heard some important points raised about harm minimisation and ensuring that we are also turning our minds to that, because we have a duty, as members of Parliament, to ensure that we are looking at any of the adverse or potential unintended consequences of changes that we make.

I am a bit disappointed that the select committee did not support the Labour members who asked for a clause in the legislation to directly address harm minimisation. I think that was a missed opportunity and, from listening to the debate tonight, potentially because it was such a rushed process as well. That wasn’t able to be further explored and debated, and evidence and submissions received on that. But I do come back to the point that Labour does support this legislation. It was a modification that was put in place in 2020, during the COVID pandemic. It has proven to have worked and had some positive benefits to it. Many in the House tonight see the merit in continuing that through this bill, so I commend the bill to the House.

It’s great to see the House break out in unison this evening to support—

Hon Member: “Kumbaya”.

DAN BIDOIS: —such a great bill. This bill is about empowering strong communities. It presents the House with a bill that gives a permanent change to class 3 lotteries. It’s going to help some fantastic charities that have been mentioned here this evening.

I don’t think there’s anything else that I can contribute, other than a quote from a Filipino proverb which says, “A man that talks too much accomplishes little”. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, and I think—

Hon Matt Doocey: Build the bridge.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: It’s OK, I can talk about more than one thing—that’s why I’m in this party.

The purpose of this bill is to support those New Zealanders when they need help. It is to support our fellow New Zealanders by supporting these charities. I think, when we look at this bill, it’s a good opportunity for us to look at one of the charities that relies on the activity that this bill allows, and that’s the New Zealand Heart Foundation. It’s a fact that every 90 minutes a New Zealander dies from heart disease. That’s a statistic that I don’t think anyone in this House could or should be happy with, and it’s a statistic that we should make sure that we support organisations like the Heart Foundation to reverse.

A large part of the fund-raising that the Heart Foundation do through the lotteries that they’re able to run thanks to this amended bill is research and specialist training for cardiologists, for support people, and for whānau. This year alone, they are investing $4.2 million into fellowships, scholarships, and project grants across Aotearoa, so it’s less about all singing “Kumbaya” together and more about making sure that at a time when charities and organisations find it harder and harder to find the fiscal support that they need and may be able to expect from central government, there are, luckily, other avenues available to them.

In 2024, the Heart Foundation has funded people like Vaea Ulima Tofi, who is looking at integrative Māori and Pacific culture values in heart health; it’s funded and supported people like Dr Laura Joyce, who’s working on remote monitoring for atrial fibrillation; and it’s funding and supporting people like Dr Nikki Earle to understand the differences by sex of heart attacks—how different the heart attack experience is for men versus women. I think this kind of research is crucial and critical and immensely valuable for all New Zealanders.

What this bill allows is the continuation of the class 3 gambling online to raise money for these authorised purposes, with prizes that are valued at over $5,000. This could be a house, a bach, a car, a holiday, and, coincidentally, all those prizes are part of the Heart Foundation’s current raffle, which you can find online—very, very tempting and a very, very good cause, I think we would all agree, especially given those frightening statistics that every 90 minutes we do lose a New Zealander to heart disease.

However, it is also worth us noting that, because of the speed we have had to move this bill through, there are missed opportunities in the select committee process and in the select committee consideration of this bill, and it would be remiss, as it moves through the House, for us to rely on a Filipino saying and use that as an excuse to not fully take stock of the opportunities that we’ve missed through the expedition of this process. The first of those is literally that—that the time-sensitive nature of the bill limited the time to receive submissions. Previously, a member has mentioned that they had time, but the feedback is that, in fact, they did not. The process was rushed and there was not time to receive full and fulsome submissions. Some of the submissions that were received by the Governance and Administration Committee said just that. They also indicated some of the risks that, potentially, have not been fully explored, and the implications of this bill mean that those risks remain.

One of the others was that, with online platforms, there’s really a need to protect anonymous gambling and engagement with activities like this, and there are currently not sufficient tools to reduce that harm because there was not time to explore that. The Labour members who were on the select committee did call for a clause directly addressing the need for harm minimisation to be included in the bill. It is disappointing to see that because of a lack of will and, potentially, because of a need for speed, that wasn’t able to happen, and I think that needs to be noted, even as we pass this through.

I am standing to speak, ultimately, in support of the organisations who support so many New Zealanders who need that crucial support—organisations like the Heart Foundation—but I do think we need to urge greater caution with process and remember the ramifications of our actions when we move things through this House at such speed. Thank you.

It was my honour to rise and speak in support of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill in this third reading.

Before coming to this House, I was a scientist and I worked for 15 years for different charities, and I have benefited from the proceeds of gambling to actually carry out some very worthwhile medical research. I am very grateful for this bill, which, of course, is going to raise funds for charitable and non-commercial purposes.

We’ve heard a lot in this debate about risks, but I do just want to point out this form of gambling is non-continuous. We’ve heard about flashing lights and noises. This does not count for these class 3 lotteries. During the exemption period where this has been in place, there has not been a notable increase in gambling harm related to these class 3 activities. We do have data, we do know a lot about this, and these class 3 lotteries play a really important part in our charitable sectors. Therefore, I support this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.