Brownlee Gerry: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
Brownlee Gerry: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7869] 
Gerry Brownlee 
: And the member has! 
DIANNE YATES 
: I am glad the member is laughing. There is a huge variety of opinion. I am sure that member has listened to one or two people in his electorate but he has not had a considered review of the legislation. 
I will answer the member’s question about this legislation being a long time coming. An inquiry was held many years ago which Peter Dunne was in charge of. We had 9 years of a National Government during which time I sat on a committee that had one or two bits of legislation that as Mr Tisch will remember never even came back to the House. Then we had a very good Minister George Hawkins appointed and an inquiry was held relatively quickly. Next we had a comprehensive bill—and the Speaker will note that it is at least an inch thick. It deals with everything from racing to housie to pokie machines to lotteries. 
The legislation that came before the select committee was very comprehensive. We heard the submissions. We received many reasoned submissions ranging from people who agree with Mr Brownlee to those who have very strong religious convictions and very strong social opinions about what should happen not only in relation to gambling but also in terms of the distribution of profits. I say to Mr Brownlee that I think it would help if he were to read some of those submissions or even read the report of the select committee before sounding off too loudly in this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I’ve done that. Don’t be so offensive. 
DIANNE YATES 
: Well it was not evident from the member’s speech. That was all I could go on as the member did not refer to the report. 
There are a number of really controversial issues including those relating to the moratorium and casinos. The most controversial issue as we have heard from the speeches so far related to pokie machines which have proliferated in this country tremendously. Today I looked at a graph showing that the numbers have increased dramatically in New Zealand. That has been of concern to very many people. Lotto money is going down and there is an increase in gambling on pokie machines and that is of concern to those people and even to people who are receiving profits from those machines. 
The bill is about the number of pokie machines the control of pokie machines the advertising of pokie machines and the types of pokie machines—whether they take notes or coins. It is also about electronic monitoring so that we can tell where those machines are and what is going through them. If Mr Brownlee thinks there has been no problem in the past then he has been living in another world. Mr Tisch has done a good deal of research for the National Party which I am sure we will hear about when he speaks. He understands many of the problems and was supportive throughout the bill on a number of issues. The major issue that Mr Brownlee talks about is the distribution of the money from pokie machines. Many many submissions were received on that issue. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DIANNE YATES 
: The select committee recommended that we change the title of this bill to the “Gambling Bill” largely because it covers a wide range of gambling—everything from housie through to casinos. One or two people felt that not all gambling was responsible and thought it would perhaps be better if we called the bill the “Gambling Bill” to be sure. 
The bill is large and very comprehensive being at least 1 inch thick. As I said before the break for dinner it contains issues about the problem gambling levy that has been chosen. It abolishes the Casino Control Authority and sets up a Gambling Commission that has a degree of independence. However as many speakers have said so far the biggest issue is about the distribution of the profits from the pokie trusts. A number of issues around that were looked at. There were submissions that said the distribution from the trust should be done by the Lottery Board. Other submissions said it should be done by local government and territorial authorities while others said the Community Organisations Grants Scheme should do it. It does seem that nobody trusted any organisation absolutely to do the distribution. 
However in staying with the trusts the committee did recommend two major themes: that the trusts should be corporate societies and should be transparent in their structure; and that there be greater transparency around the distribution. That goes even from the filling in of the application forms because as Mr Brownlee has said the situation now is that people will go along to a publican and get a form to fill out. That form does not necessarily need to go any further; we heard rumours about the fact that some of those forms ended up in rubbish bins—they did not get sent to the trusts people were applying to. It was also felt that some organisations would not want to go into a pub. There are some women’s organisations under-age girls marching teams and so on that would not or could not go into a pub to pick up the application forms. So the committee suggested that the application forms should be available generally as with community trusts. 
The committee also recommended that when there is a requirement for the distribution to be published the trust should publish not only who gets it but also who does not. It would then be much more transparent as to what was happening to the money and to whom it was going so that if people missed out in any year they would be able to see whether they would be eligible the next year. There would also be community pressure on the trust because despite what Mr Brownlee said previously the select committee heard plenty of evidence that showed that rugby tended to get a higher proportion of the trust funding and that sports engaged in largely by men were more likely to get funding than sports engaged in by women. We heard that in the distribution process sports were likely to get more money than the arts education or social organisations such as women’s refuges and so on. Somebody said: “If you’re a Somali soccer team and you don’t drink you’re not likely to get a great deal of funding out of the present system.” So we have built greater transparency into the bill. Although we have stayed with the distribution process and we know that the division of the money remains the same—one-third going to Government one-third getting distributed and the other third being used for administration—we have built greater transparency into the bill. 
The other thing is that local government was very concerned about where pokie machines and gambling venues would be. Clause 91 requires local government to have a plan about where the machines will go and where the venues will be. We have also built into clause 91 the type of consultation there has to be around that plan and stated that there has to be public consultation. Some of the information that has been given already in this debate has been misinformation. Various sports clubs and so on will not miss out on money. The proportion of the money to be distributed remains the same. As I said a third will go to Government a third will get distributed and a third will be used for administration. What we will perhaps see is a wider range of distribution. Some of the organisations that were not getting funding before will now be eligible for funding and that funding will be more transparent. 
I thank those who were involved in the committee. The people who were involved when the bill was reported back to the House were Pansy Wong Steve Chadwick Russell Fairbrother and Sandra Goudie. I also thank people from the previous committee which included Grant Gillon Arthur Anae Tim Barnett Luamanuvao Winnie Laban the Hon John Luxton Tony Steele and Lindsay Tisch for the very good job they did. I am looking at Mr Tisch at the moment and I thank him because he did do a good deal of research. He bothered to go out of his way to find out exactly what was happening and who was involved which is more than Gerry Brownlee did. I know that Mr Tisch will have read the report and I know he read the submissions.