Dyson Ruth: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading[Sitting date: 06 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:711. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Can I commend the Minister of Internal Affairs for his contribution to the House and also for the legislation that he is presenting to us. Labour is very happy to support this legislation’s referral to a select committee and we will see how we go after that. But certainly the intention of the legislation is admirable and it is something that is necessary. Should the bill be shown at the select committee to be able to deliver those objectives we will certainly support the further progress of it.I want to just take a step back in terms of the gambling regulation and regime that we have got in place before us. When we were in Government in the 2002 to 2005 period—Labour led the Government then—we introduced a major piece of gambling legislation that really set for the first time in over 29 years some fundamental objectives for the regulatory regime and that also recognised the changes that have taken place over the years in terms of gambling. This legislation does not really confront that. I have not got the answers to that actually and I would be happy to admit that but I would certainly be very happy to be part of the solution. I think there are challenges in terms of access to worldwide gambling institutions that we have not been able to regulate satisfactorily. I suppose that before we do that though we might want to consider what harm is being done and then we would have a better idea of the scale of the problem that we might need to face if indeed we do have a problem.The legislation that was introduced in 2003 introduced major reforms. We had a moratorium on casinos—of course that has been in debate over the last couple of years in relation to Skycity—we had a reduction in the number of class 4 gaming machines in new venues and we had a significant shift in focus. The debates in this House on the gambling regulatory regime were much more about the minimisation of gambling-associated harm so the public health recognition of gambling finally came to fruition in the debates in Parliament. When those changes became fully operational in July 2004 that really was a huge step for the New Zealand Parliament and I want to commend the people behind that consideration and also those who contributed to the debate at that time. It is very interesting to read the debate in the 2003-04 period and see how much things have advanced over just a decade and probably that would alert our Parliament as to how we need to keep on our toes in this regard.I think the Minister probably is ensuring that Parliament keeps on its toes given that we have got two gambling bills before Parliament at the moment. We had been debating the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) earlier in this session of the House and now we have got the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3). It does puzzle me as to why we could not have waited until the No. 2 bill was concluded. It was only a matter of another few hours to go before the third amendment bill came through and it does raise the question I guess about whether there is consistency in the portfolio in terms of taking a strategic look at the entire industry. It has been a little ad hoc.I know that some of the changes that have come about were the result of the National Government slashing Te Ururoa Flavell’s member’s bill. He had a very comprehensive member’s bill the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill which he had introduced. Unfortunately it got hijacked by National which refused to support it unless he made substantial changes to it and I think that we lost an opportunity really to stand up to some of the lack of transparency in the industry. It was not entirely of my making—in terms of the bill I would not have supported every piece of it—but I was certainly disappointed that it was watered down to the extent it was.The aim of this bill is to provide greater transparency and that is certainly needed. The Minister gave one example of cost—but retaining transparency or perhaps even enhancing it—by using the example of the full-page ad in the paper that we have seen. All of us would have seen it; probably very few of us would have read it. Electorate MPs tend to read those things with a little more care than perhaps other members of the public because we are interested in what organisations in our electorates have received funding. Then we are able to link in with what activity they are going to use it for. The Minister noted that that information could now for example be available on a website. I will just raise a note of caution. I think the theory sounds great but actually how many people would think to look at a website unless they were triggered by a particular occurrence? Whereas when we look through the newspaper we see a full-page ad. We do not think to look for it; we just turn the page and there it is. So sometimes having a change in the way that information is made available does not always mean having the same sort of transparency. I am not opposed to it; I am just raising that as one of the cautions that I would like the select committee to consider.We would certainly support the point—improving transparency. This is particularly around grant-making which I just referred to in terms of the full-page ad; the grants from the class 4 gaming machines which are the non-casino gaming machines so the pokies that are in clubs or pubs or bars not the casino ones. This is about transparency and the grants where the pokie machine money is given to the community. We have also got in the legislation the purpose of trying to reduce the potential conflict of interest situations. It was a big concern when we were debating Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill at the Commerce Committee. I do not think that there is enough recognition of potential conflict of interest and declarations in the industry. So improving that in the legislation is certainly something we would support.Another purpose is that of improving transparency surrounding the management companies that provide the societies with service and the contract negotiation with venues is one such example. I am not aware of any particular issue that has been raised that has caused this to be addressed in the legislation but I am sure the officials or submitters will give us a bit more clarity around why the lack of transparency or apparent lack of transparency has caused any concern. As for simplifying compliance costs and reducing costs for society and venue owners how could you argue—how could anyone argue; not you Mr Deputy Speaker; I am sure you would not argue—against reducing compliance costs or complexities? We have to make sure that the accountability for those organisations is not reduced by any reduction in compliance costs but that the principle certainly will be strongly supported. As the Minister mentioned there is also the purpose of ensuring the efficiency of the appeals process is not undermined.So those are some of the key points of the legislation. As I said we have two gambling bills going through Parliament at the moment both of which I think would be quite widely supported by the community who are increasingly recognising that gambling is a public health issue and is one that you do not clamp down on to try to stop but that you have a regulatory regime that protects our citizens from harm. That is the importance of it. It is also to make sure that a significant amount of money is not used or abused. That is the responsibility of this Parliament as well.Having a debate as open as this and obviously having the bill go through a proper select committee process soon does bring it into sharp contrast with the way the Skycity legislation was rammed through Parliament where basically John Key and probably Steven Joyce did a dirty deal with Skycity and enabled it to break the agreement with the Auckland City Council in terms of reducing the number of pokies—a huge increase in the number of pokies in Skycity in Auckland in a convention centre that would be able to be used by the public. The deal was sold to New Zealand by the Prime Minister as us getting a convention centre for free. There was no regard for the democratic process that Auckland City Council went through in terms of determining the limit of pokies in its community—and that is something that is its right and it was undermined by the deal that John Key did—let alone the actual harm that is done by pokies. That is why we had a commitment by this Parliament in the earlier gambling legislation to reduce the number of pokie machines. So the deal that John Key did went straight against that.I notice that the Minister who has got his name on this bill did not comment on that but I have seen his writings on this subject. He seemed to be singularly unimpressed at the time with the deal that had been done by John Key with Skycity. He wrote some unfavourable comments about it but I am pretty sure that when he came into the House he was supportive of the deal. So I was puzzled by what happened between one statement and another. The Minister is looking puzzled now. Did he not support the Skycity deal? Yes he did—that is right. He did say that it was not a great deal; it was a dodgy deal. I could probably table the comments he made if he wants. But there was an inconsistency there. It is always a puzzle to me and to others on this side of the House when members of Parliament make a comment about an issue and say one thing and then when it comes to voting do another.I am pleased that we are debating this legislation. I think it is a step in the right direction. Again I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House and I look forward to the debate at the select committee.