Mallard Trevor: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13262. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want to make a couple of preliminary points and the first is to express my thanks to the member Te Ururoa Flavell who introduced the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I think it is a bill that was introduced with good intentions. It has caused an enormous debate as he has indicated and an awareness of gambling issues around the country. I think that all of us in our electorate offices have had people come in and talk to us about the harm that gambling causes to individuals and to families. There are families who have lost their houses lost their loved ones and in some cases their loved ones have lost their lives. I want to thank the member for having good intentions. But there is the old expression that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and this bill has been absolutely gutted in the select committee process by a Government majority to the point where in the opinion of the experts it is likely to cause more harm rather than less harm. Therefore the bill is badly named—very badly named—and it is a bill that should not be supported.I found it hard to believe my ears as Jonathan Young was speaking about the reduction in the number of pokie machines around the country. He was claiming credit for it. He was saying that it was a good thing. That is the result of one piece of legislation and that was the legislation that provided for local authorities to bring in sinking lids. John Key voted against it—John Key voted against that legislation. Jonathan Young’s leader and for that matter his deputy leader were adamantly opposed to having a sinking lid on the number of gaming machines. They are the people who have been amongst the most pro-gambling people in the country and we see that with the other legislation that is currently before the Commerce Committee.I do want to refer as is proper at the third reading to the Committee stage of this bill and in particular to some of the ideas that were put up and were rejected. The member Te Ururoa Flavell made it clear that licences can be transferred as a result of this legislation. What he did not say was that the only time a licence will be transferred will be when the holder of that licence thinks they can make more money by shifting it and they can make more money only if the people who are addicted to these machines lose more. So I just do not understand why the member thinks it is a good thing to transfer machines from where a relatively small amount has been lost to where a relatively large amount will be lost. It is wrong and to exempt those places from this sinking-lid arrangement is wrong.There were amendments moved that would have subjected these transfers to the sinking-lid arrangement. They were rejected by National. There were amendments moved that would have limited to 75 percent the number of licences that could be transferred. They were rejected by National. There were amendments moved that said that you could move only from an area of high deprivation to an area of lower deprivation which is what the member said he wanted but it was rejected by the Māori Party and by the Committee. There were suggestions as to having a long-term vision to drop the number of pokie machines. That was rejected by National. There was a clause that would limit the remuneration that is paid to trustees. Some of these people are getting $200000—not for their job but for just going to a few meetings and beingtrustees. We would have taken trustees and directors down to a maximum of $100000 each just for sitting on the board. That was rejected by National.We also which I think is most important and most telling moved an amendment that would restrict the hours of gambling to those of on-licence drinking so there would be a compulsory closure between the hours of 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. That is something that was very very serious and very important: to break the cycle and to get the people out who sometimes spend 48 hours even 72 hours in these dens of iniquity—to break their cycles and to stop them gambling. National rejected that to a person on a conscience vote.That is the next point that I would like to make. For the Labour Party this bill like similar bills is a conscience vote and we will be voting with our consciences. We do not in the Labour Party hand over to our whips our conscience at the point that we enter the House.Hon Chester Borrows: Smacking bill.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh Chester Borrows says he leaves his conscience at the door when he comes into the House—he leaves his conscience at the door when he comes into the House. That is something that is completely wrong.I now want to refer to the other gambling matter that is currently before the House and to say that sometimes as a member of Parliament I am ashamed. Monday was one of those days when I was ashamed. I found out that the National Government through the Ministry of Health has stopped those people who know the most about addiction to gambling those people who work directly with the gamblers from appearing at the select committee. The National Government said that if a contract is held between the Ministry of Health and an organisation then the employees of that organisation are forbidden—are forbidden—from making comment on this legislation. I just ask when the Parliament of New Zealand has ever been in such an undemocratic phase as when the most informed are not allowed to give their views. The people who work with the problems the people who see people losing a whole year’s wages the people who see people losing their houses the people who see people losing their loved ones losing their families and sometimes losing their lives—they are the experts. They are the experts and the National Government did not let them go to the select committee.The other point that we heard in the House today—and I do not want to refer too much to my friend and my constituent ChrisMoller who is overall a very nice guy. But it is clear thatSkycity was advised by the Minister for Economic Development to not attend the select committee. TheSkycity submission frankly is a pile of rubbish. It is a cut-and-paste. The types are even different within the submission. It is clearly cut-and-paste.Skycity is treating this Parliament with contempt and it is encouraged to do so by John Key and Steven Joyce. Shame on them.