Bradford Sue: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBradford Sue: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 October 2007. Volume:642;Page:12329. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SUE BRADFORD (Green): It is somewhat unusual for the Green Party to care passionately—Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did indicate to Madam Assistant Speaker previously that the Green Party would be splitting its speech.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Absolutely. I accept that thank you. That is the intention. The Green Party is splitting its speech. The bell will go at 4 minutes.SUE BRADFORD: It is somewhat unusual for the Green Party to care passionately about a bill like this a subordinate legislation bill but today is a bit different. This time there are two elements of the bill that we care about. My colleague Nandor Tanczos is going to speak in a moment about commodity levies but first I would like to say a few words about clause 11 which confirms the problem-gambling levy as set earlier this year.The Green Party has had concerns for some time about the way the levy has been set and we were very reluctant to simply rubber stamp its confirmation in the bill in front of us today. There are a few reasons for this. First of all the rate of payment expected from New Zealand’s six casinos is half that of pubs and clubs with no real justification. When working out the levy the number of people presenting to problem-gambling services with issues around harm caused by casino gaming is used as a basis for working out the levy calculation. However that does not take into account the fact that casinos cause a disproportionate severity of harm in the amount of money lost by individual problem gamblers the quantity of money ripped off from employers and so on. The harm done through problem gambling associated with casino play should be calculated differently and at a higher rate and casinos should be expected to pay their fair share of the levy.Secondly the rate of levy for clubs is unfair and too high. Clubs are levied for their pokie machines at exactly the same rate as pubs yet they have much better host responsibility policies and practices and for example operate substantially more comprehensive training for staff in relation to dealing effectively with problem gamblers on their premises. It is difficult to work out what the right rate for pubs and clubs should be at present because the figures of those presenting with harm from pubs and clubs are not disaggregated. The Government should move immediately to start separating out the statistics on presentations on harm being done by pokie machines in pubs and clubs so that next time the problem-gambling levy is set it can be done on a fair and transparent basis.Thirdly when the problem-gambling levy was struck this time around it was done on erroneous data. At the time the Government chose to believe the industry’s figures about the so-called decline in gambling spend. In fact once the first of the new electronic monitoring system reports came out a couple of months ago the figures showed that losses on non-casino gaming machines were in fact up by 5 percent not down. The basis of the calculation was simply wrong.Fourthly further incorrect information was provided in that the Gambling Commission said that treatment providers had no complaints with an effective cut in the amount allocated for treatment when in fact a number of organisations objected strongly—as one might expect. Although we are really unhappy about approving a levy struck on this basis at all the Green Party realised that we could not really expect the Government to backtrack completely at this stage. It is too late for that.However we did make our concerns known and it was with great relief that I heard the Government say through Maryan Street this afternoon that it is committed to reviewing the problem-gambling levy and how it is set within 18 months instead of the usual 3 years. This gives the Government time to do the necessary work on getting the levy calculations on to a better and more accurate footing without the affected groups and those they serve having to wait for the full 3 years. The Green Party is grateful to Dr Cullen and the Government for their commitment to cutting the review period in half and we will be watching developments over the next 18 months very closely.Because of the Government’s willingness to move on this issue we will be abstaining in our vote on this bill rather than voting against it as we would have done otherwise.