Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I move, That the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill makes permanent the existing temporary exclusion of class 3 lotteries from the definition of remote interactive gambling. In effect, it exempts charities who use lotteries to fund-raise from the prohibition on selling lottery tickets online. This permanent exclusion will ensure that the non-profit organisations delivering services to communities across New Zealand can continue to do so in a modern, fit-for-purpose way.

There are currently 46 registered non-profit organisations that are licensed to offer class 3 lotteries. These range from the well-loved Heart Foundation, who offer a house as their top lottery prize, through to Hospice Southland and the Samoan Catholic community of Newtown. A wide range of charitable organisations throughout New Zealand use these lotteries to fund-raise for their community work, and this bill will make it easier for them to do so.

I give my thanks to the Governance and Administration Committee for their consideration of this bill. They have recommended that this bill pass without amendment. Although the number of submissions was relatively small, I want to acknowledge all who did take the time to submit on this bill, adding their views to the process and detailing the positive impact of these lotteries on the organisations and wider communities.

Support for the bill was broad and generally reflected the view that these lotteries are an important funding mechanism for the non-profit organisations that do good work in their own communities. Submitters noted that it was a necessary modernisation of the Gambling Act to ensure that these organisations can continue to fund-raise and provide for their communities. I also note that the majority of submissions supported the time frame for the bill to pass by the end of October, because the existing exemption expires on 31 October this year.

A small number of submitters expressed concern that this amendment may result in an increase in harm from gambling or that the evidence against this is not currently sufficient. I am confident that the evidence is clear: this will not result in an increase in harm from gambling. I am advised by my officials and by problem gambling services that the temporary exemption has not increased the number of New Zealanders seeking help for harmful gambling. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s actually with pleasure that I rise to take a call on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, but I would just like to start by saying that I picked this bill up in my role as acting spokesperson for internal affairs just after it had had its first reading in the House. At that point in time, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, my colleague, was the spokesperson who was taking this bill on and, due to health, handed this over to me, so I would just like to take this opportunity to sing out to Lemauga and wish her a speedy recovery. We miss her in the House, Madam Speaker, so I just wanted to take—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We all do, thank you.

Hon JAN TINETTI: —that opportunity. Labour supports this bill. It is following on from the work that I was working on in my time as Minister of Internal Affairs, and my predecessor as well, the Hon Tracey Martin, but then also my successor, the Hon Barbara Edmonds, around ensuring that there was a way that the class 3 lotteries could take advantage—I think is probably the best way of putting that—of the fact that the way that we interact with lotteries has changed in a very rapid space of time.

It particularly changed over the COVID period, where we were not being able to interact via paper any more, nor interact via cheque—it was more of a remote interaction in that space. As the Minister of Internal Affairs has pointed out, during COVID times, it moved to remote interaction, and these places, these charities—such as the Heart Foundation, such as the Royal New Zealand Coastguard, but others as well—couldn’t take advantage of that. The law was passed, firstly, for the three charities, and then in my time as Minister of Internal Affairs, we broadened that out for another short time to more class 3 lottery groups.

Now, the reason that it wasn’t made permanent at that point in time was to ensure that there were no unintended consequences that happened as a result of this—to actually see it as a bit of a trial, to see that the wider group could take this on so that we didn’t see a decrease in harm minimisation, because it is incredibly important that we’re keeping people safe from the issues that are caused through remote gambling in all instances. There wasn’t—and I have to say there still isn’t—good data around the class 3 area. While we rise in support of this, that is something that we still have caution around here in Labour. I know, on this full side of the House, there is that caution involved because we don’t have great data.

That is something that officials came to us at the Governance and Administration Committee and said. While they’re pretty confident—and I’ll take that on board—that it’s not a big concern, the intersectional data of those people that are being harmed by pokie machines or through casino gambling or other forms of online gambling is—we have an idea around that and it’s a pretty good idea, but we don’t have that idea whether class 3 intersects with that, because of the way that the data is collected. That is something that the Ministry of Health is very aware of and may be making some changes in that space, although we can’t say definitely that that is happening, but we can say that the there is an acknowledgment that there is not quite that understanding around the harm. It was a bit of a concern.

I know that there were only a small number of submissions. Overall, in this, we only had 15 submissions all up—mostly in favour of the bill. As I said, I really support that. There were those big groups, like the Problem Gambling Foundation and the Salvation Army, who did bring up some issues that they had with the bill as well and were against it at this point because of the fact that we just didn’t know the data. I have to say that I had a little bit of concern there around that because of that but also because we didn’t hear enough from people. That was because of that very short time frame that we were given for this bill. I get that; I get that we needed to have it done by 31 October. That is important because there is no way that we want to see those charities being impacted at all.

I’ve noticed very recently, in advertising that’s coming up on social media feeds, that some of these charities have lotteries that are running at this point in time, and I totally understand that we do not want to see that happening. However, I really just have a lot of anxiety about the fact that we just don’t know enough, in this space, to say categorically that no harm can happen. It didn’t give us enough time as a select committee to do that inquiry, and to work through that. I do think that there is future work that is needed in this area. While I say that we are very much in support of it, I do want to highlight that that data was inconclusive and not of a high quality, and that’s no fault of anybody in this House, but there is more work to do. So, while we are passing this here today, we do have more work to do in this particular area.

We did hear from some of those people, in the select committee, who are in favour of the bill, some of those people that run the lotteries, some of those charities who are already doing some of this work and sort of understanding the harm that might be being caused by those people who are buying their lotteries or wanting to know whether there is any harm in that case. I can see that they’ve already got some solutions that would be easy for this House and for select committees to look into for future changes to this bill.

The Heart Foundation did bring up how they monitor the big spenders that they see. They can actually reach out to those big spenders. If they see someone is spending lots of money on their tickets and on their lottery, they will reach out to them to ascertain whether they are people that are doing it because they are getting that rush from gambling and there’s an issue there, or whether they’re someone that just wants to really support the Heart Foundation. A lot of the places—I’m taking it that many more than just the Heart Foundation—probably do that. The answer was sort of given to us in there, but, unfortunately, as I said, we couldn’t put that within the bill, which was a bit of a shame, because we just didn’t have the time. It was sort of a missed opportunity that we could have had to actually make it a lot stronger at this point in time.

I know that Labour members did move in the select committee stage—and it says this in the work coming through—that they were in favour of including a clause in the bill directly addressing gambling harm minimisation. I know that the majority of the select committee wasn’t in favour of that, but I understand that too, because it’s very important that we do get this through by October 31. I am just signalling that there is more work to do.

I said that this work has to be through by that date, and it does mean that we need to see that those lotteries that are currently happening are happening within the law and legally, and that is incredibly important. Something that I’m not certain that people were aware of until this came up in select committee is that we now have a growing number of these lotteries that are actually happening online or in a remote way. From COVID times, when it was a very small number—or it was illegal at that point in time; so we went from there to COVID. It went from nothing, and now we’ve had an increase to 80 percent of these lotteries happening online. That is a really important statistic to show the importance of this particular piece of legislation to those particular charities and how absolutely important it is to them.

With that, I’ve outlined our concerns and how we see further work being actually needed down the track in this area, but I’ve also outlined the fact that we are very supportive of it because those charities do need certainty around the fact that they can continue to run those lotteries online. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Green Party, too, supports this bill, but we would like to raise a number of issues and concerns, some of which are part of the existing bill but some of which were highlighted as part of the select committee process.

Now, first and foremost, as a vision, the Green Party believes that Aotearoa shouldn’t be a place where in order for people in the communities to get the kind of funding that they need to operate or to support members of those communities, they would need to resort to gambling in order to acquire some of this funding. Broadly speaking, the Green Party would like to see better avenues for these communities to be supported and funded rather than through this mechanism.

Let’s start with the select committee process. Now, the New Zealand public—and we have said this over and over again—was given a very, very short period of time to submit on this bill. One of the reasons and one of the excuses that we heard from the Minister was that the temporary allowance that has been given to the previous iteration was up on 31 October 2024 and that if we did not have a shortened select committee process, then it means that, for these operators, they wouldn’t know what they needed to do past that date.

However, I will once again argue the fact that the Government has known about this deadline for years in advance. In fact, it has stated on all of the websites that this deadline is imminent. It wasn’t a hidden date. This Government had the full ability to allow the New Zealand public the full submission period of six months, had they intended to introduce the bill much earlier. It is not a big bill, and it did not require that much effort; it just required the will of the Government to provide that time for the New Zealand public.

As a result, based on the select committee report, there were only 15 submitters, and out of the 15, the select committee only heard from three of those submitters because of the limited time. This is really concerning because, although it is to provide a permanence to a temporary measure, we have not been able to tease out some of the nuance around this, because the previous iteration was temporary. As a result of that temporary nature, we didn’t have the ability to look into the full extent of allowing remote interactive gambling for class 3 gambling operators.

We have seen in some of the reports, and also heard from the select committee, that there is no data existing around the fact that we don’t know what number of people have increased or the level of harm that could be introduced as part of the permanent feature. We have heard from the previous speaker in terms of the increase in the number of such operators who are now using the remote interactive gambling pathway as a way of engaging with potential people who might be contributing towards their charities.

There are some other technical elements that I think deserve some attention and that I am looking forward to discussing during the committee stage. I think part of that is in terms of what is included as part of the class 3 gambling operators. Now, according to the Gambling Act, section 4, in terms of what is considered to be both corporate society as well as society, it does cast a very broad net in terms of what is currently being captured.

Now, the other thing in terms of the corporate society and some of the things that also deserve some attention in terms of the kind of society and the approaches that we take in general, as part of the societies Act or the Charitable Trusts Act, is whether certain societies and certain charities should be made eligible to use this pathway in the first place. Understandably, there are a lot of charities that do a lot of good things for Aotearoa and specifically for various illnesses for children—to name a few, I think the Heart Foundation was one of the ones that did present at the select committee stage; the Royal New Zealand Coastguard; Countdown Kids Charitable Trust. They are doing what they can for the benefit of the New Zealand public and the New Zealand communities.

However, there are also certain charities that are included as part of the Charities Act. They are registered charities that may not be there, potentially, for the public’s interest. However, it does state that for a charitable trust to be included as part of the class 3 gambling operators, the money that is gained from such charities needs to be for an authorised purpose, and that could be incredibly wide in terms of what some of that can cover. I think some of the things that we have discussed in the House—for example, is a church considered a charitable trust? In all manners, they can now be considered as—if they should gain a licence—class 3 gambling operators and will have access to use this particular tool as well.

These are some of the things that I think deserve additional attention, because, although the bill itself is a tiny amendment to the Gambling Act 2003, in terms of the definition of what is considered “lottery”, the definition when it comes to, like I mentioned, “corporate society”, which covers much more primary legislation, and what is considered “society”, it does cover a much broader conversation that we should be having when we are going through the select committee for this particular bill. That is something that I am looking forward to asking the Minister during the committee stage.

Now, the other thing that I mentioned—let’s just quickly go back to the idea that, at the end of the day, there has been no real data as part of the select committee process that gives us any confidence around the ways in which the allowance for remote internet gambling has been used or can be used, or that there’s any preventions or precautions around the reduction of gambling in general. There has been a lack of evidence around the potentiality of increased risk for people who could potentially be gambling, or around the increase in their prevalence or susceptibility to gambling, as a result of this bill being introduced. I do admit that the temporariness of this bill has been put in place, so a lot of the operators may have some idea or some data around that, but, again, when we were making this bill or making this feature into a permanent feature, we have not had the time to collect those sorts of data and make an evidence-based discussion or an evidence-based decision on whether this particular bill or the permanence is the right approach.

A lot of this, again, in terms of the gambling aspect and the fact that we are looking at charities and also non-profit organisations or incorporated societies—the purpose of this—is on the basis of the need for these organisations to get funding but not in terms of what the society should be having or what our societies should be continuing while looking forward or going into the future.

Now, for the last bit, I just want to also mention that one of the things that we haven’t been able to tease out, as part of the process, is also the ability to collect payment via communication devices, under the definition of “remote interactive gambling”. There’s been no discussion around the privacy that is required around this and its compliance with the Privacy Act 2020. That, again, is something that I will be interested in asking the Minister about during the committee stage.

Overall, the Green Party is in support of this bill, but there are a number of concerns that we would like to tease out.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party is also happy to rise in support of the second reading of this gambling amendment bill. Looking back at the select committee’s report, we note that the Governance and Administration Committee has examined the bill and recommends that it be passed without amendment. I think it’s important today to acknowledge that around the House, while there might be some differing views at the edges, this bill looks set to be passed without amendment across the House. That is something that almost all submitters suggested, and that is something that the Department of Internal Affairs, in its departmental report, also suggested and recommended—that it be passed without amendment.

One of the sticking points was the aspect around gambling harm, but as officials told us and as submitters told us and as the committee examined and scrutinised, any potential gambling harm and risk is well mitigated within the Gambling Act and well catered for. In current legislation, current regulation, according to officials, according to submitters, and according to the majority on the select committee, they believe that it’s taken care of. It’s not hard to imagine why it is taken care of, just because of the nature of this class 3 gambling class. When you think about it, it’s those that are sporting organisations—the licence holders—hospices, religious groups, schools, non-sporting clubs, non-governmental organisations, and charities.

So, yes, we are moving to make that exemption a permanent feature so that they can do their fund-raising online via lotteries, but the nature of it, as far as gambling harm goes, is that it has a long lead. People are putting in $25 for Christmas cash or to win a house in Pāpāmoa or somewhere, and normally it’s not drawn for a month or two or three, so it doesn’t present the risks that can be heightened with the rush of gambling that you might see when it comes to the likes of casinos and horse racing. We need to consider the nature of these lotteries. As one submitter said, and I think a previous speaker alluded to, they have contacted those that might have, they thought, been buying too many tickets, and one answer they got, was that the person said, “Well, I’m actually not so interested in winning a house; I just want to support the Heart Foundation.” They said, “Well, there are other ways—you can do an automatic payment in other ways.”

We are very comfortable, as were the officials from Internal Affairs, as was the scrutiny of the committee, with this bill and the parental Gambling Act mitigating any risk around gambling harm. Without further ado, I commend this bill, the second reading, to the House.

Madam Speaker, thank you. Look, this is a common-sense bill, and it is actually really good that it’s going to be supported across the House, but there are some of the comments which have been made about this which I do want to respond to. This is about allowing class 3 gaming operators to be exempted from the prohibition on online gaming and others to allow them to do online gambling.

I’d just like to remind the House that to be a class 3 gaming organisation, no machines are allowed. There’s the kind of thing that Cameron Brewer was talking about, about there being none of that immediate rush of a return on the gambling. They’ve got to be prizes over $5,000 and they’ve also got to be for authorised charitable purposes or non-commercial purposes.

Now, Lawrence Xu-Nan, when he was speaking, sort of questioned whether all of these organisations should be class 3 operators. Of course, that’s something that can be done from time to time. I note that some charities occasionally are challenged as to whether they are actually charitable or not. But I’d just invite the House to look at the six classes that there already are in the Act at the moment. The first two of them—class 1 and class 2—don’t actually need a licence. Then there’s this class 3, which is as I’ve just set out. Then you’ve got class 4, which is the gaming machines, which obviously is a much higher-risk sort of proposition, and we recognise that. Then you’ve got casinos in class 5, and then you’ve got class 6, which is lotteries. If you’re not going to be in class 3 and you’re in that category, what are you going to say? That you don’t need a licence, because you’re definitely not one of the others, or you’ve got to create an entirely new category. Lawrence, I can see you’re pondering this one now. Dr Xu-Nan is pondering this. You’d have to create an entirely new category for any of those kinds of organisations or simply say they are not allowed to raise funds through any form of gambling, which is maybe where he wants to go. That’s a pretty significant step for any of those kinds of organisations.

I’d also just like to remind the House that this class represents 1 percent of gambling, so it’s not a very large amount. We’ve already heard that the community organisations that are involved in raising funds in this way include sporting organisations, health and welfare organisations, hospices, etc. They are doing good work around our country. What we did hear from them in terms of the submissions is—we had 15 submissions. That’s not very many, but 13 of them were from class 3 operators saying, “Actually, this is really, really important to us. We want to be able to continue to do this.” Just two raised concerns.

Now, until COVID came along, all of that fund-raising was being done in an old-school way—door-to-door, postal, all of those kind of things—in really quite inefficient ways of doing things, I guess. What happened in COVID is that the Government of the day set up a trial of three organisations who were allowed to go online. We’ve already heard about those: Countdown Kids, Royal New Zealand Coastguard, and the Heart Foundation. Then, in 2021, that was extended to all class 3 operators. I guess the question I would ask the House is: has that resulted in a lot of gambling harm?

Now, when we had the submissions, one of the submitters who did appear in front of us was invited—in fact, I said to them, because they were concerned about the impact of gambling generally and online gambling generally and the potential for harm, “Specifically about class 3, is there any evidence that you can give to us as a select committee that it’s caused harm?”, and they weren’t able to do so. I think the key is there’s a significant difference between class 3 gambling and the other sorts of gambling—the machine gambling, the casino gambling—where there is that immediate investment return or loss of money. Those are quite different situations.

We had, as I said, 13 of the 15 submitters who were in favour—they were all class 3 operators. They said that it was essential to their effective fund-raising. I think it’s a recognition that the world has changed in the last four or five years. There is no going back on that. It will cost a lot more and be a lot less efficient for them in terms of raising funds if they were not able to continue. That is the key and that’s the reason.

Dr Xu-Nan again said this could have been done a lot earlier. Well, I’d just say to you that there is a lot of work that the Government is doing across a lot of different areas. I acknowledge that you don’t agree with much of it, but there has been a lot of work being done. The question is: where would you slot a piece of legislation like this in? Dr Xu-Nan did acknowledge that it is not a substantive bill. Maybe it could have been started earlier, but it’s been started now, and I think we’ve seen no evidence that there is a concern that needs to take six months. If we did take six months now, it would disrupt all the fund-raising operations of all those organisations for a very long period of time.

I invite those speakers on the Opposition benches to consider the balance of harm. The Department of Internal Affairs said there is no issue, the submitters were not able to identify any issue in terms of harm, and we haven’t seen any issue in terms of harm over the last four years of the operation of class 3 online. What that suggests to me is that there is very little likelihood of harm, but there is a huge likelihood of significant harm to all of those organisations were we to interrupt their ability to raise funds as they are doing at the moment under the temporary exemption if that was not able to be continued.

I guess what that says is that you either legislate to continue the temporary arrangement, then you have to come back knowing the likelihood is that you’d just want to make it permanent in a period of time when we’ve got some more evidence—whatever that might be—or you legislate now. Then, obviously, there’ll be monitoring over a period of time. If in the very, very, very unlikely circumstance that there was some harm that was found to be done, it is within the power of the House to legislate and say, “Well, maybe we do want to change that.” But I think that is very, very unlikely.

As I said, the Department of Internal Affairs said they had no concerns and that it’s very low risk, and that was around those issues of no instant gratification, no adrenaline rush. I don’t think that the concerns that are being expressed hold a lot of water, but I guess that is what the Opposition is supposed to do, to raise concerns about legislation from the Government. That’s what they’re doing, and good on them for doing that, but I don’t think that those positions hold a lot of water.

The Hon Jan Tinetti talked about the issue around harm, but I would also invite the Opposition to consider that the Gambling Act is not just about minimising harm; it’s also about raising funds for community purposes—so there’s a number of different issues—and also making sure that these things are well regulated so there is no corruption or anything else in the way in which money is raised through gambling. I’d invite the Opposition to consider the balance of the intent of the purposes of the Gambling Act, rather than just that one—important that it is—issue.

Finally, just consider that if we were to say to these organisations who are class 3 operators at the moment, “Look, for a while, we’d like you to go back to the old ways of doing things.”, it’d be a little bit like saying, “Well, for a while, just turn your email off. Turn your social media off.”—actually, that might be quite a good idea—“but turn all of those things off and go back to the old way of doing things for a while. Rely on the good old New Zealand Post and just see how you’d like it.” Now, I don’t think that many members of Parliament would think that that is a particularly reasonable way to go, and that is exactly what, in effect, a delay would do for these organisations.

The bill is common sense, it’s pragmatic, it makes permanent an existing temporary practice, and it’s a temporary practice that in the last three years has really seen no problems caused. New Zealand First is committed to policies that protect and enhance our communities, and I suggest that allowing these great organisations to continue to raise funds in this way in an efficient, practical way is good common sense. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call, and I call Takutai Tarsh Kemp.

Tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Today I stand on behalf of Te Pāti Māori in support of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, a significant and forward-thinking step in ensuring our charities can continue their wider work. This bill will make permanent the exemption of class 3 lotteries from the prohibition on remote interactive gambling, allowing our charitable organisations to thrive in an increasingly digital world and removing barriers to their fund-raising ability.

This legislation will directly benefit many community organisations, especially in Tāmaki Makaurau. Take, for instance, the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, which provides lifesaving services to our whānau; and, similarly, Royal New Zealand Coastguard, another organisation that plays a critical role in keeping our communities safe; additionally, key organisations that are available to support whānau, like those in health, such as the Heart Foundation and the Kidney Society.

Many Māori-led organisations and initiatives rely on lotteries, raffles, and garage sales to support their community-driven projects, particularly the ability for our tamariki to participate in sports and extracurricular activities. 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 our people.

A study from Te Rūnanga o Kirikiriroa does, however, raise issues around equitable access to community funding from the gambling industry, and the adverse effects that Māori suffer from gambling. This is witnessed with whānau still running sausage sizzles and turning up to sell chocolates. This must be a reminder for those charities to commit to honouring Te Tiriti and addressing their inequity.

Although the Minister notes that the temporary exemption did not increase gambling harm and although we support this bill, Te Pāti Māori acknowledges the negative impact this industry has had on our people and commits to monitoring the gambling industry in legislation made by this House to further enable it.

As the world shifts increasingly 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 are fundamentally important to the ongoing operation and feasibility to support those who support us. By passing this bill, we are embracing the future and enabling our charities to continue the incredible mahi in an environment that suits the modern world. Tēnā tātou.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I take this call on behalf of te Rōpū Kākāriki, and we stand to support this bill.

But while we are supporting the bill, I’d like to reiterate concerns shared from this side of the House in terms of the way that the bill was progressed through the House, mindful that the six days that the community were allowed or enabled to provide submissions were short. For this type of issue, it would have been good to allow for more community voice to come into the select committee process, whether we could hear from those who have been impacted by problem gambling harm or those from the sector and community and more of our clubs and community organisations as well. With such a short runway, of course, community voice was limited.

Now, in considering where we’ve moved from beyond the pandemic, times have changed—absolutely—and this is an evolution in terms of the way that people can engage in these lotteries and support valued community organisations and sports clubs. Āe, tautoko, but we can’t get away from the fact that gambling does harm, problem gambling in particular, and I’d like to recognise those of the sector who did come before us to share their ongoing concerns, generally, around the way in which we have valuable community organisations and sports clubs who have to rely on this type of funding, generally gambling funding.

That creates a link between gambling and funding for community organisations. It’s like we can’t just justify that it’s for the moral good of our people when we know that there is still significant harm related to problem gambling and it’s created, actually, in our communities, a pro-gambling constituency who come into select committees and come into spaces to promote the fact that they need to access this gambling funding in order to be sustainable. I mihi to them, whether they’re a sports club or whether they’re a community organisation, because there just isn’t enough funding to sustain them. That’s a fundamental question for us all in terms of how we support our community organisations and sports clubs, such as these groups, to be able to be sustainable, to continue their good work in our communities.

Now, further, there was discussion around how there’s no evidence that the class 3 gambling actually does harm. Well, the officials did acknowledge within the select committee process that they don’t have the relevant data and that, in fact, the way that they gather the data from the problem gambling sector and those who do offer brief advice or counselling services, they’re not really able to differentiate, and that there’s like a section where you can write a narrative. Now, within that narrative, maybe there’s more information, but at a bird’s eye view of what was presented before us—I wouldn’t call it dirty data, but it was data that was not clear. We could not link how many referrals came through from this type of gambling into those organisations who offer problem gambling support services. I need to note that, in terms of some of what our colleagues have shared.

Finally, thinking about some of the submitters and acknowledging those from the sector who came before the Governance and Administration Committee, there is an opportunity for us to reflect as a House in terms of how we can not only look at legislation such as this to provide support to community organisations but also look to maintain the trajectory of reducing potential gambling-related harm. This bill does expand and provide access to online gambling, but remember that the Ministry of Health, right now, is consulting on their three-year strategy to prevent and minimise gambling harm, which is actually looking at the regulation of overseas online casino gambling in Aotearoa, and yet we’re expanding on this form of online gambling. Where is the thinking in terms of the joining-up of these reviews and inputting into ministry strategy right now?

In conclusion, we don’t know the actual impact of lottery-related harm, because the data, the evidence, is not clear and it has not been gathered or the system actually needs to be changed so we can gather the relevant evidence, but the core of the issue is: how do our community organisations, our sports clubs, remain sustainable when it is such a limited funding pool right now for community organisations? Why do they have to rely on lotteries and pokie machine funding in order to put the lights on in the club rooms or to build a playground in their communities? Kia ora tātou.

To be fair, I’m not a big gambling guy—not a huge fan of it in some contexts—so I had a little bit of sympathy for the Salvation Army when they came and spoke to us at the Governance and Administration Committee in opposition to the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill. I asked them about it specifically in the context of class 3 and whether there was something about this that they were specifically opposed to. They said no, it’s just their generic position that they don’t support gambling, because too often it takes from people that can least afford to give and, while some of that profit might go to do good, it’s taking from others. I have some sympathy for this.

Then I reconcile this against going to my local Returned and Services’ Association in Levin or Ōtaki, or Club Vista in Paraparaumu, and putting in a couple of dollars for a meat pack or a packet of Tim Tams or a supermarket voucher, or whatever the prize might be, and I think, like most people, that I’m not really doing it because I think I’m going to win or not—I haven’t ever won, to be fair; maybe that glorious day will come—but because we just want to contribute to a good cause and to the good work I believe they do in the community. Like the example we heard earlier, it’s a fun way to contribute. So there is a spectrum to this.

As I was reading the Kāpiti News last week, I read an article by Grace Odlum—well done, Grace—about Ngā Manu Nature Reserve. Ngā Manu is a great little asset to the Kāpiti Coast, and Anna and the team do a great job. In fact, they just won the tourism and hospitality award last week at the Business Awards—and it would be remiss of me not to take just 10 seconds now to congratulate all the winners from the Horowhenua Kāpiti Business Awards last week, in particular Peter Jackson Plumbing, which took out the top prize—and they have got an auction going on. They’re raffling a prize to win a trip to the Chatham Islands to fund the great work they do for conservation and nature there. They’re selling tickets in two ways: in person—which is not impacted by this, because this bill is about the online aspect, so it’s completely legit—and they’re also selling them online. That’s what this bill addresses. This allows someone like Ngā Manu to sell their tickets online, whereas they may not have been able to otherwise, for a great cause.

As Cameron Brewer pointed out, I think a really important point that may have been lost is that class 3 is about non-continuous gambling. It’s not like ones when you bid, you lose, you have another go, and it sucks people in—“I can win it if I just keep trying”—and people whittle away money that they maybe cannot afford to lose. In this case, you buy a ticket and you wait—in this case, until December. You’ve still got time, so head to the Ngā Manu website and support a great cause. You have to wait a number of months until you find out if you’ve won or not. As the Heart Foundation shared with us, they actually collect all the information they would have if it were done in person. They said they have names and addresses; they can really angle in on people to make sure there are no issues with problem gambling.

That’s what gives me a level of comfort that this is a logical thing to do—this is continuing what has been in place for a period of time—and, while I hear the comments about lack of engagement, actually, we’ve had a number of years to hear from the community what they think while this temporary legislation has been in place. So, because of that, because of the non-continuous aspect to it and the fact that it’s about supporting community groups and agencies that do good—it’s not about encouraging people to gamble in a continuous manner—that’s why I’m supporting this and commending this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill. May I begin, as chair of the Governance and Administration Committee that oversaw the select committee process, by thanking other members of the committee for their hard work, thanking the officials for the advice they provided to us and their engagement, and, in particular, thanking the submitters who submitted on the bill and who spoke to the committee. Your contributions were very helpful in supporting committee members to form the views that they did and to put forward a select committee report and a recommendation that the bill should be passed, so my thanks to all involved.

May I begin my contribution just by acknowledging the former Ministers of Internal Affairs who initially brought this legislation to the House during COVID times. We’ve heard already from the Hon Jan Tinetti, who was the first Minister who brought the legislation to Parliament during COVID, and we’ve heard from other members also, during the first reading of this bill, that it was a solution to a very real problem for some of our large charities operating during COVID who were no longer able to undertake their fund-raising activities using traditional means.

We had organisations like the Heart Foundation, which has been mentioned tonight, like the Royal New Zealand Coastguard, who would often have raffles where they might be outside a mall, outside a supermarket, or at events where people could purchase these tickets and participate in a form of raffle, and often people would advertise in the newspaper. One of the things we heard from submissions was that a big part of it was putting an advertisement in the newspaper so that people were aware that these raffles were available for purchase.

Obviously, during COVID, when we were all in a lockdown period, we had charities that relied on this income in order to do their charitable work in a very difficult position, and the Government initially put in place a temporary exemption in allowing this to happen online for three charities and then a further extension to that which is due to expire on 24 October and which applied to all charities under this particular class under the Gambling Act. If this legislation wasn’t amended or extended in some way, it would put the potential for those charities to undertake those activities at risk. We did hear from some submitters that they’re due to have a raffle go live very, very soon, during that December period, and if this legislation weren’t extended further, it would actually put their revenue-gathering activity at risk right now.

Now, I did want to just pick up on some of the contributions about the lack of time during this process and some concerns that we raised as the Labour Party—and other parties like the Green Party also raised—which I do just want to put on record. These are around the lack of time for submissions in consideration of the bill.

One submitter told the committee that they weren’t able to put together a fulsome written submission to present to the committee. We offered them an opportunity for an oral submission, and they said they didn’t have time to prepare for that. That was very real, because we literally only had a couple of days for submissions to be presented to the committee. It is concerning to me, as the chair of the committee and as a member in this House, that we had so limited a time frame that we weren’t able to hear from people who were really keen to submit, who had something to say to the committee and did not have that opportunity.

Now, I note the comment from Andy Foster, which is that if we didn’t extend this, we would be in a position where we wouldn’t be able to have these operations for these charities. I accept that, but there is actually another option that could have been looked at by the Government. The Government could have said, “While we’re doing the policy work, let’s do a short exemption of a couple of months or so while we’re actually doing that policy work.”

They could have also brought the bill to the House a little bit sooner. They could have brought it a couple of months ago and that would have given the committee a longer period of time to examine it. We can appreciate that it may not have needed the full six-month process—because it is a pretty constrained, pretty tight, small bill—but there are some other things the Government could have looked at that would have allowed the community to have their say. As members, we should always be mindful that if we’re having people—particularly because this was an organisation with expertise in this area—saying that they didn’t have the time and the resources to submit, I think that’s something the House needs to consider when these types of situations arise in the future.

A few members have mentioned the submission from the Heart Foundation—an excellent submission—and they gave one example of where they had identified some potential harm. They were concerned about someone purchasing tickets repeatedly and discovered what hasn’t actually been mentioned—when they did some digging into this, did a little bit of sleuthing, they discovered that the person was a former winner of the prize. The person had won the prize before and obviously felt very lucky to have done so and wanted to continue supporting the Heart Foundation, so they did, as people have mentioned, come up with another method for that person to be able to contribute.

As a member of the committee, I was concerned, when I was asking questions of officials, that there hadn’t been enough time given to examining whether there is potential for harm, but I also don’t think the laws in place acknowledge that enough. I want to just read specifically from pages six and seven of the departmental report where, off the back of some questions we asked, we asked the department what current laws and regulations apply to class 3 lotteries to prevent and minimise harm.

I’m just going to read from the departmental report, which did bring up some concern: “There are currently no laws or regulations explicitly requiring specific harm prevention and minimisation practices of Class 3 lottery operators. There are specific sections of the Gambling Act which apply to the licensing of the Class 3 lotteries … which the Secretary of the Department could use to investigate an applicant’s approach to preventing harm. However, these do not explicitly outline harm prevention and minimisation approaches, and licence applications do not currently require such information. Additionally, section 313 of the Gambling Act … allow for the making of regulations for a range of harm prevention and minimisation purposes that could be applied to Class 3 lotteries. These are not currently utilised for this mode of gambling.”

It did go further to say that “Officials have not identified a need to exercise additional scrutiny”, and I do accept that that is the submission from officials, and officials have also made a number of other comments throughout the departmental report, which I did want to note as well because I think it is important to put this in context and not to, I think, make it appear that we have a concern so great that we wouldn’t support the bill.

The department did go on to say that their “examination of the licensing data held by the Department as regulator, and consultation on harm services client data held by the Ministry of Health … both demonstrate that there is no evidence for concerning industry growth or operations. We also do not find any evidence that Class 3 … is contributing to people seeking help for their gambling any more than prior to the temporary amendment.”, so that does give me some comfort, but as a legislator who has looked at this bill over what is a very short period of time, I think it is fair for us on the Opposition benches and for all members to be able to identify that this is an area where we think there needs to be some more work done.

I want to put on record today that I do support this bill going forward, because I think when you weigh up the benefits against the risks, I think the benefits far outweigh the risks that are there. That is our job as legislators sometimes, to make that line call, but I do still think there is still some potential for harm, and I don’t think it would be unreasonable for class 3 operators under the regulations to have to outline what is a basic harm minimisation approach. I don’t think that’s onerous. The Heart Foundation already do it. They told us, and other submitters told us, that part of this form of fund-raising does require them to collect the names and addresses of those who purchase a ticket. It actually would probably only be a one-page document on how to prevent harm. I don’t think it’s an onerous request for some of these large charities to have to do this, and I do think it’s something the Government should consider including in the regulations and the criteria for the applications for these types of activity.

On that, I’m pleased that the House is supporting this unanimously, because it will give that certainty to the likes of our charities who use this as a form of revenue gathering for their very, very important work. On that, I will finish my contribution and commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee that’s been considering this, this second reading is a really good opportunity to reflect on the submissions that we received during the period of time that we were open for consultation. There were two in particular that stood out for me. The first is from The Operating Theatre Trust. I just wanted to read their brief submission to the House so that we could understand, whilst we here may talk about this legislation, what it actually tangibly means to businesses such as The Operating Theatre Trust.

Their submission says, “We are The Operating Theatre Trust trading as Tim Bray Theatre Company. Auckland’s leading theatre for children. We are the longest running professional theatre company for children and have been making theatre accessible to all children and young people across Auckland for over 30 years. Being able to operate online is vital for us and many other charities to raise much needed funds. We ran a crisis campaign during covid and raised $100,000 by running an online raffle—which literally saved our theatre company. As we continue to navigate the current financial climate and funding landscape, it’s important to have this … option for fundraising.” That’s a really great submission from a local business that says these sorts of changes in the bill will have a real defining change for them in how they operate and will make a really key difference.

The other was from the Heart Foundation, who look after over 180,000 people who are living in New Zealand with heart disease every day. To do their lifesaving work, they said, “we [need to] fundraise and rely on the generosity and goodwill of people to donate and to buy tickets in our lotteries.” They also went on to say that when a supporter purchases a ticket—as the previous speaker, Rachel Boyack, alluded to—the Heart Foundation require the people providing the support to provide their name and contact details. “Unlike other forms of gambling, supporters are unable to play anonymously, and we know the details of everyone who plays.” And they said, “Since the temporary modifications that allow online ticket sales have been in place, we have had processes and measures in place to monitor lottery ticket purchases and minimise harm … Our research and the feedback we receive tell us lotteries run by charities attract participants who intend to participate for the purposes of donation. We are privileged to see and hear many stories of people who have themselves or have a family member or friend affected by heart disease. Many of our lottery supporters have this connection and their views speak to the support for our purpose, support for our charitable work and their support for change.”

This is a really pragmatic change to legislation to allow organisations like the Heart Foundation and The Operating Theatre Trust to increase their revenue and to continue to support the work they do. I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Kei te tū hoki au ki te tautoko i tēnei pire kei mua i a mātou i tēnei ahiahi. Heoi anō i mua rā, tēnei te mihi ki ngā mea o tātou kua eke ki te kotahi tau inanahi.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also stand to support this bill that is before us this afternoon. But before I do, I would like to congratulate those of us who turned one year old yesterday.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Kia ora.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to also make a contribution on this bill, and before I do, I just want to say happy anniversary to those of us who turned one yesterday. Let’s not behave as one-year-olds, eh? Though, everyone is behaving very politely because we are all in support of this bill today.

Heoi anō rā [In any event], while a house in the Coromandel Peninsula has eluded me, of course the Heart Foundation lottery is something I continue to support, as my father did. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to be able to do it virtually, because Dad used to send a cheque religiously in the mail. I don’t think any of us have any aversion to supporting these causes.

Another great cause, of course, is the Royal New Zealand Coastguard. That takes me back to the food festival in Whakatāne, where I was going diving for some kina in a marquee at one of the stalls there and came across the boat. I thought, “There you go, Russell; there’s your boat.” Did I want a boat? Of course I did. Did I win the boat? No, I didn’t, so that’s why I’ve got to go diving in the supermarket. But, of course, I’m happy to support the cause.

Everyone here has talked about this being about evolution, and that’s all we’re doing here today. We’re just continuing to allow us to move with the times, as we did with COVID, and allow these charities to continue. Everyone here today—especially the Hon Jan Tinetti, who gave a very fulsome background of this bill—has talked about what this means. That may go some way to allaying the fears of some of our whānau—i.e., there are no machines involved, this must be for a non-commercial activity, and, of course, the prize pool must be over $5,000.

That said, I do support everyone in the House today who has acknowledged the concerns of whānau. We know the damage that gambling has done to several of our families across Aotearoa, so I hope that the guarantees we’ve heard today and, of course, the steps that charities themselves are taking to keep our whānau safe from harm will go some way to once again allaying the concerns of our whānau and allowing charities to continue the good work that they do. I’m sure there’ll always be a place for the smaller organisations who rely on housing, etc., and they’ll be glad to hear they’ve still got a place, but it’s really good to hear that our major charities can go ahead and do their mahi.

Aside from the concerns that have been raised about the short time allowed for submissions, another tūpatotanga I want to put here today that I think we need to be prepared for is an influx of applications we’re going to have from charities who want to become eligible to raise funds in this manner. That’s something I think we should be mindful of, but, once again, I support that this is about evolution. It’s about continuing something that’s already been put in place successfully to allow great mahi to continue in Aotearoa. I just want to commend the Governance and Administration Committee for their recommendation and for achieving consensus, and we too, with caution, do commend this bill to the House.

Obviously, I was not part of the select committee process, but I do also want to commend the Governance and Administration Committee on their work, and I’m sure it was a very heartening process to hear from some of the organisations that do benefit from this type of work. That’s really what I wanted to speak to in this position, because, ultimately, gambling is not a great thing. I’m not a gambler, and so I always think that the dollar is better in your pocket and being put to better use, but this is an occasion where this is a good use. This is a way for these charities to make some money.

We all know how hard it is to get money and raise money in these community organisations—and sometimes in these national organisations—and sometimes you’ve got to give a little incentive. To have a programme like this, these organisations have seen how successful this can be. We really need to be here to enable this, because the more these organisations can raise within their communities—and, hey, a little incentive of a house, if they can make it happen, or a boat, a bike, or whatever it might be—how good it is that we can raise funds for these amazing organisations. So, look, I just wanted to say that, of course, in this particular situation, yes, it’s technically remote and interactive gambling, but it is a lottery and what we’d consider to be a different thing in some cases. Like my colleague has said, it’s not a sugar-hit rush of the signs and figures coming up when you think you might win. You’re putting your money to a good cause, you know you’re doing that, and, hey, you might get something out of it, and someone has got to win, somewhere along the line.

I’d just like to acknowledge the Heart Foundation and one of the submissions made from the organisation at the very core of this, an organisation standing to benefit from making this a permanent arrangement for them. Look, they do amazing, lifesaving work and this fund-raising helps them hugely, and it helps them raise that goodwill of the people and raise awareness of what it is that they’re doing. These things serve two purposes: one, it’s raising money, and, two, it’s raising awareness. If they can use some of these exciting things that help people pay $1, $20, or however much it is to raise awareness for what it is that they’re doing, I think that’s a wonderful by-product.

Yes, it’s important for us to do this right and to make sure that there are strong parameters in place to ensure that this doesn’t take on a different life. I think that this is something really important for the charitable organisations in New Zealand and it is a way for them to sustainably raise money within their communities at a national level, so I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand to speak to the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill.

I think the essence of this bill is that it’s a balance between backing groups to do good but ensuring that they don’t cause harm. If we just revisit the definition—and I know several speakers have, but I think it’s very important that we get the context of the definition for the bill—class 3 gambling is defined under section 27 of the Gambling Act. It is conducted without a gambling machine—and many speakers have acknowledged that—with the purpose of raising money for authorised charitable or non-commercial purposes, and with prize values over $5,000. Lotteries are the example that many people have used of class 3 gambling. Operators of class 3 gambling are required to have a licence, and the majority of class 3 operator licence holders are sporting organisations, hospices, religious groups, schools, non-sporting clubs, non-governmental organisations, and charities.

Now, many people have spoken about specific examples of organisations or charities that they’ve supported, and the good news is that I like long walks on the beach, and one of the great things about being the MP for the mighty Christchurch East is that it has a beautiful long beach.

Arena Williams: Stunning.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: It is a stunning beach; it is a stunning beach, to confirm the assertion of that member. When you walk along that beach, at regular intervals along the beach, you come across surf-lifesaving clubs—bastions of hope in amongst the surf and the sand. Now, as you walk along the beach of Christchurch East, the first that you come to is the South Brighton Surf Life Saving Club, a fantastic club. Walk a little further, within eyesight, you will come to the New Brighton Surf Life Saving Club. A little further, again within eyesight, the North Beach Surf Lifesaving Club, followed by the Waimairi Surf Lifesaving Club, and then the Spencer Park Surf Life Saving Club.

Andy Foster: It’s a long beach.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: It is a long beach. It’s a big electorate, a mighty electorate, in fact, Mr Foster. What these clubs do is very, very important work. These clubs literally save lives every summer with the people they have on duty on the beach. Not only are they saving lives and providing safe access to the ocean and the sea for not just the people of Christchurch East, but for anyone who comes to Christchurch or anyone who lives in Christchurch who wants to enjoy that long beach, but they are also teaching our rangatahi, our young people, amazing life skills and amazing leadership skills, youth leadership.

At the end of the season, I visited these surf lifesaving clubs and caught up with members, and some of these clubs are being run almost entirely by high school and university students, who are learning amazing life skills and who are showing great, great community leadership. These clubs are real assets to our community—we are very, very lucky to have them—but to come back to the point of this bill, which is to strike that balance between backing groups to do good but ensuring that we don’t cause harm, it’s ultimately about supporting and protecting community.

Now, if we look back, we saw that when we had COVID and we had to take the steps that we took, we did see changes to what we could do and how we could do it. One of those areas where we saw those changes was in fund-raising and gambling, and that was the point at which there were amendments made so that the organisations that do the amazing work that we’ve heard so much about from today from so many members in the House, and that I just talked about running along the long beach of Christchurch East, could move their fund-raising activities into an online format and could continue to get the funding that they needed to do these activities.

What this bill is about is the continuity of that ability, so we do need to see the continuity of that. We do need to see the ability for these groups and these clubs to continue to get the financing and the funding that they need. Although, I would note that three of those five amazing clubs that I talked about running along the beautiful beach of Christchurch East have had full rebuilds as a result of shovel-ready money from COVID, as well, so these are incredible facilities. For the ongoing costs associated with managing those clubs and with ensuring they’re supported, fund-raising exactly like this is really, really important.

I do understand the need for the continuation of these amendments and for the purpose of this bill, but I do raise the question: are we being careful enough? By doing good, do we in fact risk also causing further harm? We’ve heard a bit about the select committee process, and some members who’ve spoken in the House this afternoon were part of that select committee process, and they’ll be aware that Labour members at that select committee called for a specific clause to be considered or added to the bill to directly address harm minimisation. I think that would have been a responsible approach. In any bill or in any legislation that we’re shaping to manage gambling, to manage lotteries, and to manage the damage and the negative impacts that this can cause on communities, it would be good for us to ensure that we do directly address harm minimisation in these bills.

It’s disappointing to see that that’s not here in this case. It’s disappointing to hear that that call from the Labour Party members of that select committee fell on deaf ears and was not supported, but, ultimately, when we’re striking a balance between backing groups who can do good, without causing harm on the balance, I will support this bill. We do support this bill, but we have reservations about the process and the fact that harm minimisation couldn’t be included. We know that we need to manage the ongoing risks associated with gambling and with lotteries. Ultimately, Mr Speaker, I can commend this bill to the House, and I do commend the work of the amazing volunteers and clubs across the beaches of all electorates in New Zealand.

It’s a pleasure to rise and close out the second reading of this bill, a bill I didn’t know too much about until I was offered the opportunity to speak on it. It’s been a delight to hear the contributions on this. What particularly delights me about it is the innovation that it guarantees to the sector that I care so deeply about, which is the charitable sector of New Zealand. COVID was a disruptive event that took much away, but it also gave us a couple of things, and one of them was innovation. We have seen the efficacy that it has brought to this particular area of fund-raising for that vital charitable sector. I’m delighted to see this House on the verge of keeping that innovation in place.

A couple of notes: two of the charities that have been mentioned throughout the discussion of the bill—the Heart Foundation, first of all, in the mighty electorate of Maungakiekie, that’s my electorate, which, therefore, makes this bill a great day for Maungakiekie. I was just opposite the Heart Foundation yesterday, so I gave them a wave while I was at the mighty Ellerslie primary school. I know their work well, and they will benefit enormously from us securing this ability for them to be able to run their lotteries online.

Likewise, I want to put a quick mihi out to the Coastguard Manukau with their new base—since their office out at Titirangi was devastated in the cyclone. But Titirangi’s loss was Onehunga’s gain, and they are setting up a new base there, down at the Onehunga foreshore. I was there, just last week, with our Minister for so many things the Hon Simeon Brown, and we were showing him their intentions there to build a floating wharf that will reduce their response time, in many instances, from the currently 45 minutes, while they get it off the boat trailer, to fewer than five minutes. All of that’s going to need to be fund-raised for, and, once again, this is where this kind of legislation is going to help them save more lives.

That is what this bill is, ultimately, doing. It’s helping the charitable organisations across New Zealand that do so much good work. It’s ensuring that they will be able to continue this excellent piece of innovation. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.