Roche Denise: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee[Sitting date: 28 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:325. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENISE ROCHE (Green):I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) and I have to say I do find it a bit intriguing. This bill was first introduced to the House in 2007 and then came back to the House for its second reading in 2009. In fact just looking at the report from the Government Administration Committee the people who were on that committee then were Shane Ardern Darien Fenton Brian Donnelly the Hon Harry Duynhoven Sandra Goudie and the Hon Dover Samuels. Sue Bradford was the Green Party MP who was sitting in as a non-voting member. It strikes me that quite a considerable amount of time has passed since 2009 until now. When I looked through the previous speeches particularly in the first reading of this bill which was like a historical investigation for me those speeches did say that part of the reason for the bill—and particularly for this part as well—was around wanting to tweak the original 2003 Gambling Act. That Act was still fairly new at that time—we were only 4 or 5 years into it—and there were some anomalies that needed to be addressed. I commend the Minister of Internal Affairs the Hon Peter Dunne for bringing this bill back to the House but I do have to say that quite a lot of time has elapsed since that second reading in 2009 and the Committee of the whole House where we are about to address the bill today although I do acknowledge that it first came back to the Committee of the whole House in July this year.We have introduced quite a substantial number of Supplementary Order Papers on the substantive part of the bill. They are in the name of Kevin Hague but I do have to note that because of the amount of time that has elapsed the original submitter of those Supplementary Order Papers was actually Sue Bradford. A lot of those Supplementary Order Papers actually refer to reducing gambling harm. In particular proposed new clause 22 on Supplementary Order Paper 65 talks about increasing gambling harm prevention measures like player tracking and pre-commit cards. I note that in the passage of the last term of the 50th Parliament although there have been other gambling bills that have come through this House none of those bills and the discussions we have had around them have actually yet succeeded in getting this type of gambling harm reduction measure in place. I would hope that the Minister will be considering our Supplementary Order Paper this time around for this bill.Our Supplementary Order Paper 65 also talks about limiting and changing the meaning of “authorised purpose” so that it basically reduces the ability for the proceeds from gambling from class 4 machines to go towards “the maintenance and development of racing club infrastructure and racecourses including the payment of wages and salaries and purchase of goods and services ancillary to this purpose and the promoting controlling and conducting of race meetings under the Racing Act 2003 but not including the payment of racing stakes:”. We do not believe that it is reasonable for one form of betting which is class 4 betting to go to the pockets of those who own racehorses and who are providing the racehorses and who already get paid from the betting from that form of gambling. We do not think it is reasonable and we certainly do not feel that it falls within the strict interpretation of what “charitable purpose” means or funds that should be used for a charitable purpose. I have never really heard of a racehorse owner who was a charity case but perhaps the Minister can define that as well.The basis of our Supplementary Order Papers is really around wanting to ensure that communities are able to choose whether they have gambling outlets in their communities. The Supplementary Order Papers also seek to ensure that the proceeds of gambling and those funds—and let us face it around about 40 percent of the proceeds of class 4 gambling comes from people who have very limited control over their gambling habits—are redistributed fairly. There have been cases and cases and cases well documented in the media and throughout this House as well in other gambling legislation showing that frequently there are rorts and all sorts of dodgy dealings around the distribution of funds. I think actually that that has sometimes occasionally happened in Ōhāriu. The Minister may be able to comment on that as well.We are quite concerned that we should be able to ensure that this legislation enables the fair distribution of funds from gambling and that most of the money that comes from gambling that is to be distributed for charitable purposes should go back to the communities where the money was gambled—for example to ensure that the money from Jokers pub in Manurewa which actually has quite a large take from gambling does not go to the Otago rugby club and actually gets spent in Manurewa. It is the people in that poor community—particularly the people in that poor community with limited control over their gambling behaviour—who contribute the funds that are to be used for a charitable purpose.We are also quite keen through our Supplementary Order Papers to be able to ensure that councils and local communities have more say over where gambling premises can be. We have seen time after time particularly in places like Ōtara Papatoetoe and Ōtāhuhu a prevalence of gambling clubs—pubs really; but they are more like pokie parlours—being positioned right near community facilities and liquor outlets. These are the communities that provide the most money to community funding from gambling proceeds because they are the ones in which there are more problem gamblers per head of population. We would like to see those communities be able to have some say over whether they want these gambling facilities in their midst. We know that this Government in the last term actually took quite a few steps towards restricting the rights of communities to have a say over things like where they can do things. We know that in South Auckland particularly the communities themselves are saying that they want more control. We see this in places like Ōtara with the Ōtara Gambling and Alcohol Action Group a phenomenal group that promotes activities around healthy eating and entertainment options. I have seen group members out and about and I have seen them celebrating pokie-free bars in Manukau for example as a way of trying to highlight the fact that you can have a night out without actually having to be in a place that provides pokies as a form of entertainment when all too often that entertainment is the cause of harm and addiction in many families in those areas.We are not quite sure actually what a lot of the point of this bill is given the period of time that has elapsed since it was introduced in 2007. We have been assured that it has around about 25 technical amendments. To some extent we are not opposed to them but we do want to make the point that we could strengthen this bill by implementing the Supplementary Order Papers in the name of my colleague Kevin Hague. I would urge the Minister to take those on board and maybe even adopt them as his own. Thank you.