Robson Matt: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Robson Matt: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8458] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I speak on the title with a sense of pride but also I must admit a feeling of regret and disappointment. The disappointment is symbolised by the fact that the bill is now called the Gambling Bill not the Responsible Gambling Bill. The Progressive party supports people having fun. I have been known to bet myself—with very little success but I have been known to bet. But we are also deeply concerned to protect families and especially the children of those people afflicted with gambling problems. Unlike United Future and it seems its potential partner in the next Government the ACT party we are serious about protecting the liberty freedom and future of the children of problem gamblers. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind the member that this debate is a very narrow debate. It concerns whether the title adequately describes the bill. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: Of course Mr Chairman. The centre-left coalition Government in its first term was able to introduce the Responsible Gambling Bill. That would not have been possible without the support of our then supporting party the Green party. We live in an MMP world. Neither the first Clark-Anderton coalition nor the current Labour-Progressive Government has ever held a majority in this House. The reality of MMP dictates that to make any progress at all in making the gambling industry more family-friendly and less potentially harmful to our society the minority centre-left Labour-Progressive coalition requires the support of at least one Opposition party and that is no different from the situation in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament I was confident we would get strong legislation that would please anti-poverty campaigners because the Greens were lined up with us. The Greens like the Progressives knew the importance of cutting then capping the number of pokie machines in New Zealand. We on the progressive left knew the importance of not making it any easier for addicted gamblers to throw their families’ $1 notes into pokie machines and not having an open-slather Internet gambling regime. 
As we have 63 seats in Parliament we should have had more to celebrate today. The truth is that the Progressives and the Greens were making progress with Labour on this issue then sometime earlier this year the Greens walked away. They were not getting everything they wanted so they walked out the door. There is emotional satisfaction perhaps in walking away from issues when the negotiating gets tough but we did not get everything we wanted either in the Responsible Gambling Bill. If we had walked away the improvements to gambling regulations that are undoubtedly contained in this bill would have been lost and we would not have made any progress at all. I urge the Green Party members with all comradely respect from an ally on many issues to consider the effect of their collective decision. The lesson of what they have done on this bill has ramifications for every other bill of relevance to the centre-left as a whole. The vacuum in numbers created by their walking away has been filled by United Future—a party that says it is pro-family but will vote against 4 weeks’ annual leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that I know that the title debate is a difficult one and Parliament often has trouble with it but we are supposed to be debating whether the title is the right one—something along those sorts of lines—rather than giving a general speech which can be part of the debate on Part 1. This is a very narrow debate. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: I take your guidance Mr Chairman and all I ask regarding the title of this bill is that the Green Party please learn from the position we find ourselves in today.