Cosgrove Clayton: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7866] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill. I want to pick up from where my colleague Damien O’Connor left off and that is to correct some of the gross misinformation that has been put around by National Party colleagues and also by a colleague from New Zealand First. If he read clause 92—it is not in big print but it is there—he would know that his assertions about centralised funding are not true. National Party members have gone around the country as have other members scaring the living daylights out of good community and sporting groups saying that they will lose their money for the football boots the football jerseys and all the resources that those community and sporting groups rely on. That simply is not true. 
I am pleased that National Party members do that. They did the same with the charities’ proposals and when that was dealt with all those groups that they ran around scaremongering and stirring up realised that they were telling porkies. We know that when this legislation is put through again those groups like the Belfast Rugby Club in my electorate that I am privileged to be an honorary member of will know that Mr Brownlee and his kind told porkies again. They will know that. 
I want to make this very simple point. For the benefit of Mr Catchpole this is how the funding regime used to work in the old days. The applicant would apply through the pub. The pub would then pass on the application to the trust. The trust would then make the decision and in many cases the cheque would go from the trust back to the pub—the pub not having made the decision—and then be handed back to the applicant. There was not a lot of accountability in respect of how much went back to the applicant because many of us know the rorts that some publicans—not all—engaged in. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Name one. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Given Mr Brownlee’s funding sources in the last election he would probably know more about those sorts of things than I do. Under the new system the pub is cut out. The pub was never the decision maker at any time under the legislation. The trust was and it remains so. Therefore the Belfast Rugby Club would make an application directly to the trust. The trust as it did before makes the decision and sends the money straight back to the applicant. What we ask for is more accountability transparency and openness so that we know what applicants apply for and that they get it. I was told of an example where a publican said to an applicant: “I know you want $5000. Why don’t we just fill in the application for $10000.” and they got a backhander through the back door or so I am told by some reputable sporting clubs. 
We are saying that local nepotism has gone but to answer the charges of the Opposition the decision maker under the old legislation—the trust—will be the same decision maker today under the new legislation. With all the scaremongering of Mr Brownlee and all the bluff and bluster to try to scare the heck out of sporting and community groups their bluff has been called. 
I look forward to this legislation being passed. We will introduce things like electronic monitoring so that the so-called rorts cannot happen again. We will ask applicants to provide some evidence of how they spent the money so that if they did apply for money for footy jerseys we can see that it was spent on footy jerseys and not on political campaigns or on a few beers down at the local. Why are we going to clean up those rorts? I would have thought that every member on the opposite side would want that to happen because it means that the more rorts that are cleaned up the more money that can be saved and the more money that can be put back into the community and sporting groups that we as members of Parliament want to support and see enhanced. 
There are other provisions in the bill such as powers to check. I know that some members of the ACT party might object to this but there is a power to check the honesty of people associated with the operation of gaming machines. I would have thought that Mr Catchpole and Mr Brownlee would support a provision like that. Why are they not supporting the bill? The bill has a provision to increase audit powers significantly. I would have thought that this House would support that provision. The bill provides for new offences and stronger penalties. 
I conclude by saying that the erroneous assertion that has scared the living daylights out of many sporting and community groups that somehow the Government will grab the money and it will all go to Wellington is not true. If members read clause 92 concerning the structure of how and who will make the decision they will see that under the old legislation it was the trusts and it is the trusts under the new legislation. The difference is that the nepotism whereby the old publican used to become involved has gone. That means no more rorts. That means more money for community groups. I would have thought that anybody in this House with some community spirit would support that. I support the bill.