Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill

We now come to clause 4. This is the debate on clause 4, “Section 4 amended (Interpretation)”. The question is that clause 4 stand part—

Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just in time!

HŪHANA LYNDON: Thank you, kia ora. I’d like to take a call with our Minister of Internal Affairs just to query and follow on from some of what our colleagues from the Labour Party have also raised in terms of the wider impacts that problem gambling does have on our communities, and raise, again, the truncated process that we’ve undertaken with only six days available for community and for the sector to submit on. Further, in terms of the data available on the impact of class 3 gambling, we were told in the select committee very clearly by the officials that from the data available, because of the systems within the ministry, they were unable to tell the story, were unable to dig deep and understand actually how many referrals, how many brief interventions have been captured by the system available.

That’s one of the questions that I’d like to ask directly to the Minister. In terms of this amendment that we see, this ability for these operations to now be permanent within our communities: will the ministry put in place the relevant systems for data capture to be available so that we can critique the progress and, in fact, any potential impact that this form of gaming or gambling could have in our communities? This is something that’s important for the Green Party, for us to be able to really examine and evaluate how this legislation is both applied but then thinking about our community groups and our clubs as they execute their raffles in the communities and take this mode of advertising and engaging with people as a fundraising mechanism. Will we establish a system that will capture data for those presenting with gambling-related harm but also the types of supports available to them?

This is a systems question specific to the way in which all other forms of gambling and presentations are captured. It was shared by officials that there’s a narrative section in the data capture but you have to go in there and flesh it out. In terms of improvements and the way that we can look back on the implementation of this legislation, we ask the Minister: will the officials establish a system that can finally look to provide the relevant data so that we can understand the success, or, actually, the need for us to increase our focus on problem gambling - related harm in relation to remote interactive gambling now and into the future? Kia ora.

While the Minister is taking advice, I just want to take a very short call to add on to what my colleague Hūhana Lyndon has mentioned.

Now, first of all, thank you so much, Minister, for responding to my previous question relating to the principal Act. I think that was very helpful and also very concise and clear. In terms of this, I’m more interested in terms of what is considered class 3 gambling under section 27 of the Gambling Act. When we’re looking at this insertion into section 4(1) when it comes to remote interactive gambling, one of the things we have heard in the second reading is that this is something that is already becoming reasonably prevalent by various charities and societies when it comes to using this sort of format, and we have heard from submitters as well. But, during the second reading, people mentioned that it only captures, potentially, 1 percent of what the class 3 gambling operators are currently working on. I think, further to what my colleague has mentioned in terms of capturing some of the data, that when we are seeing again the level of permanence here, does the Minister anticipate that there will be increasing prevalence of this, which then will be—following from what my colleague Hūhana Lyndon mentioned—the increasing need for us to capture, specifically, class 3 gambling operator data, and in the context of their data for remote interactive gambling?

Again, we’ve heard from various members in this House that this doesn’t provide a potential risk or harm because it’s a delayed effect, but the reason that we think it doesn’t create that harm is because, currently, there is simply no data for it, partially because it was a temporary measure. When we are making something into a permanent feature and with the possibility of increased prevalence, it would be really good to know from the Minister—in addition to the question that my colleague has asked—whether there is anticipated need for that data capture as we are seeing more people and more class 3 operators are going to be using this particular format.

Thank you, and I thank the committee for the range of questions on harm minimisation. I believe the concern is genuine across the committee, but I don’t believe it is accurate in proportion to the level of risk of gambling harm for class 3 lotteries. When consulted on this particular bill, officials from the Ministry of Health didn’t indicate any concern that class 3 lotteries result in harm or that any amendment would change this. When you look at some of the statistics from the Problem Gambling Foundation, a major gambling harm service provider, that they came to the Governance and Administration Committee with, they were very, very, very low statistics in terms of gambling harm. There is data that is collected, and I don’t believe any more data would change that. It would be actually very resource intensive in terms of the effective use of resources.

I’d also just note that the Heart Foundation, when they were submitting in the select committee, actually pointed to a very good use of technology in providing hope to people on the concern of harm minimisation, in that having online technology use with these lotteries actually provides details of the people that are using these lotteries, rather than having in-person raffles. If they’re buying a ticket online, that data is captured and they are able to provide any concern to the Ministry of Health or to Health New Zealand in future.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for the response to that question. I think something that the Minister mentioned in terms of how the data is currently captured also reminded me of something else that I mentioned, which I wanted to ask the Minister about, which is the way that the remote interactive method that is currently being used is done by, for example, phone calling. One of the options is that, when you’re phone calling, they’re able to take payment over the phone. As you mentioned before, from the Heart Foundation’s submission, we’re seeing more and more people are probably finding a level of ease when they’re doing that, and a level of comfort when they’re doing that, because, as the Minister probably would be aware and probably use herself, sometimes we do make that phone call.

However, what I don’t know at this stage—and I’d be keen to hear the Minister’s advice and clarification—is what is the level of privacy precautions that are currently being taken. Again, when it’s something that is temporary, maybe we have given more lenience in terms of this area, but when we are making it into a permanent feature, I’d be keen to know whether there is going to be more collaboration or more work done with those class 3 gaming operators around privacy concerns, particularly when it comes to people’s personal information, as well as payment information.

I thank the member for his question. Look, I personally just want to caution you about my age: I don’t often buy lotteries on my phone. If I ever did, it would be online. My generation don’t tend to pick up phone calls too often. When you look at the statistics, 80 percent of these lotteries are actually being conducted online, which means a minority are actually taking place via phone call, but I’d also just suggest that the collection of information by private entities is the purview of those private entities, and how they capture that information is up to them.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.