Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading[Sitting date: 04 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:559. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3)First ReadingHon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs):I move That the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. Last week when we were debating the Committee stage of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) I made the point that this No. 3 bill was one more in a series of reforms to make the Gambling Act 2003 fit for purpose in an environment where a whole range of external changes are occurring at a rate that often makes it very difficult for us to keep up. If I go back to the main Act the Gambling Act 2003 it makes it very clear that one of its primary purposes is to permit gambling other than in casinos to raise funds for the community which means in turn that the whole system is expected to be operated on a not-for-profit basis.The changes that are contained in this bill tidy up a number of areas of administration. They are not particularly exciting any or all of them in themselves but they are an important set of reforms that make sure as I said earlier that our gambling laws remain fit for purpose in this country. These changes in this bill relate mainly to the class 4 sector which is the gambling operations that rely on electronic gaming machines in pubs and clubs. We have a very complicated regulatory system for these. The tensions between commercial and non-commercial players in this sector over a period of time have been quite high. There is a constant flow of restructuring taking place within the sector as some operators exit and others enter and as some agglomerate and others separate. It is important therefore that our gambling regime tries as best it can to keep reasonable tabs on this situation.What this bill does—it is comparatively short—is introduce five key sets of amendments. The first set of amendments is around reducing red tape because that has been one of the great banes of the operators. A number of the complaints that we have received from people who seek to gain funding from the proceeds are about the amounts available because of the high operational costs which is also important. So these changes will specify venue operators’ payments and they will also lift the prohibition that is currently in place for payments to venue operators for the commission that is paid to them. So there will be a more flexible arrangement in that regard and that is designed to remove a lot of the rigidity and the red tape within the system.One of the other very big cries that comes through any talk about gambling reform is the need to give communities better information on grant-making decisions and to make sure that they can see the greatest level of transparency possible and that is the second of the five changes. The reporting requirements for class 4 operators are being changed so that standardised information about individual recipients will be available. We will also introduce provisions in this bill where grant committee members will have to declare any direct or indirect interests that they may have in successful grants to societies. The publication of class 4 operators’ financial information and key indicators around that can also be prescribed so that the community will get a better sense of the way in which these organisations are operating. They will be able to see more directly the benefit they are likely to derive from the funding that is made available and they can reach the conclusion as to whether or not that funding is a reasonable proportion of the amount being raised by those particular machines.The third set of changes relates to conflict of interest provisions. These changes largely strengthen the current provisions. They ensure that the conflict of interest provisions in the Gambling Act that apply to gambling societies venue operators and grant recipients are pretty much standardised.Debate interrupted.