Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill

We come first to the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, and we begin with the debate on clause 1. This is the debate on the title.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill. I do have some questions for the Minister, and I note that if we are due to take the debate in parts—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We have no instruction otherwise.

RACHEL BOYACK: Yes, I just note that and that some of my contribution—and I don’t intend to make more than one contribution—may be more appropriate for commentary from the Minister in the future stage.

I do note that through the first and seconding readings of this bill there has been unanimous agreement across the House to support the bill, which I think is a good thing, and I just note that it responds to a policy issue that occurred during COVID times and has led us to a point where we’re now putting in place some permanent legislation. I think most members of Parliament will support that. Certainly, I do, and as chair of the select committee that heard submissions, the Governance and Administration Committee, I certainly support that.

One of the questions that has come up, which I’d like the Minister to address—and it may not be in this part; it may be in a future contribution, and I accept that—is around the ongoing policy work to address harm minimisation. One of the suggestions that the Labour Party made during the select committee process was to look at including some harm minimisation clauses. When reading the departmental report, people will see that there is nothing that is absolutely certain in legislation or regulation or the application process for a class 3 licence to have harm minimisation practices in place.

My question to the Minister is a genuine one: has she considered advice relating to harm minimisation for class 3 operators, even though there is a low risk, by making this extension permanent? We do need to acknowledge as a House that it does increase that risk somewhat. My genuine question to the Minister is twofold: what is the ongoing policy work to reflect the need for harm minimisation approaches for gambling generally, specifically related to class 3, but also did she consider the opportunity to put into the bill a clause that would address that? I appreciate that we’re talking about the title so it might be later on that the Minister may be willing to make a response to that, and I’m happy to be patient and wait for that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of this particular bill, when we’re looking at the title of the bill—and, again, understanding that we are debating the title at this stage, but, again, some of these concerns and questions that we have for the Minister may be addressed in clause 4. I think when we’re looking purely at clause 1 in terms of the name of the bill, I feel like “definition of remote interactive gambling” doesn’t actually do justice in terms of the content of the bill or even address some of the issues that we have highlighted up until now in both the first reading and the select committee stage.

I think that in order to address some of the concerns the previous speaker, Rachel Boyack, has mentioned in terms of the ongoing work and policy work around harm minimisation—but I also want to draw Madam Chair’s attention and also the Minister’s attention to the fact that this particular bill has had no regulatory impact statement. What isn’t expressed succinctly in the title of the bill or elucidated in the title of the bill is around the permanence element of the fact that class 3 gambling operators would be allowed to operate using remote internet gambling methods permanently. I think this is sort of a step beyond the temporary permission that was granted under COVID-19 conditions.

From a title perspective, I wondered if the Minister would consider rewording in a way that highlights the key elements of this bill around the permanence and address some of the concerns that we have around the fact that by making it permanent but having no real record or real data or evidence or even regulatory impact statement around this, it’s really hard for us to see the impact of this particular bill on things like harm minimisation, particularly in communities that are traditionally more susceptible to gambling, such as Māori communities, Chinese communities, and other various Asian and Pasifika communities. I think that is a really important element that we want to kind of tie into and would like the Minister to respond at this stage.

Reuben Davidson: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, I forgot—Reuben Davidson. Apologies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve been called far worse than—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I didn’t call you anything, actually, until I mentioned your name.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: In having the opportunity to speak to the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, I think that the approach should always be one of firstly ensuring that we are doing no harm. What this bill gives us is the ability to shift our support for community groups and charities that we’re supporting to make sure that we support stronger communities, ultimately, so I think we do need to acknowledge that the work that these groups do is very important. As a Labour Party member, you’ll be unsurprised to know that I am very familiar with the concept of a raffle, as many political parties and MPs are. They are a mandatory part of participating in democracy.

The groups we’re talking about here, though, are not the kinds of groups like political parties; they’re non-commercial groups. They’re groups like the Heart Foundation and the Coastguard. Just yesterday, I believe, in speaking to this bill, I had the opportunity to acknowledge the remarkable work that happens at the surf lifesaving clubs within the electorate of the mighty Christchurch East that I represent, as well as in many other electorates around New Zealand—and I can see you looking, Madam Chair. I will get to my question regarding the specifics of this.

One of the things that I noticed looking through the notes is some references to the damage and harm that gambling can cause to communities. I think that whilst this is a tiny bill—and it is, really, a very small number of words; a tiny bill—gambling can leave large bills for people who engage and are unable to manage responsibly their engagement with gambling. These bills often put people into debt spirals or into situations where they’re unable to service that level of debt and they’re unable to keep up with other bills in their life, not just those bills associated with the gambling activity.

I think, if we look at page 5 of the parliamentary report on this, we see a note here around the Salvation Army raising some valid points, specifically around the Ministry of Health consulting on the three-year strategy to prevent and minimise gambling harm. There is a lot of work to do in this area, so the question I’m getting to around that specifically is that given the lack of the ability for other parties to submit, given the short time frame, and a small number, and I believe only 15 or 16 members of the public did submit on this amendment—and given the fact that the bill was first amended in 2020, in the period between when the bill was first amended and this point in time from which we are looking to extend it further, there seems to really be no meaningful insights into the impact of the shift of that activity from real-world activity into online activity.

The suggestion and question from me is around whether the Minister had put time or thought into the idea of review clauses or further insights being made available so that the impact of this bill, both up to this point in time but also—if passed—beyond this point in time, can be measured and gauged to ensure that, ultimately, we come back to that first point of ensuring that the activities that we do, do no harm to the communities that we strive to serve. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement