Nash Stuart: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1515. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):With all due respect to the last speaker I think what he needs to do is go and spend about an hour with the Problem Gambling Foundation in his community and he will understand the level of harm that problem gambling actually causes. In my home town of Napier which is Mr Mitchell’s home town as well I have spent a number of visits with people at the Problem Gambling Foundation and what they tell me—I know we are in the Committee stage but I just need to respond to this Mr Chair—is that they know that the vast majority of this money comes from those communities that cannot afford it. It goes to the sporting clubs that Mr Mitchell talks about but it goes to the clubs that are empowered enough to actually fill in the application forms and jump through the hoops to get this money. So it is taken from one—it is like a tax in essence—group who really cannot afford it and given to another who can.The problem we have got here is that this is not limiting people’s choice. If people want to go and play the pokies if people want to go to the casino they can do that. They can do that. But what we are saying is that there needs to be restrictions around this industry to stop people from harming themselves. This is not aimed necessarily at the responsible gambler. I know that sounds like a little bit of an oxymoron. This is aimed at regulating an industry that will take advantage of people given an inch.A number of people have alluded to the fact that Rick Barker introduced this and this is where part of the problem is with this bill. It was introduced in 2007. Since 2007 8 years ago there has been a huge technological revolution in the way people interact in the way they game. What we have here is a definition of “gaming machine”. This is Part 1 clause 5(5A) and it talks about: “a device whether totally or partly mechanically or electronically operated that (i) is adapted or designed and constructed for gambling; and (ii) is played or confers a right to participate whether totally or partly by the insertion of money into it or by the direct or indirect payment of money by any other means;”.What this piece of legislation did pick up is the fact that people can put an eftpos card in or can put some sort of credit card in. The Minister of Internal Affairs may have the figures; I am not too sure. I suspect that a lot of people are actually gambling at home on their own PCs over the internet. This causes a whole raft of problems in an unregulated industry. It is not just the harm that is caused; it is the fact that these guys do not pay tax or any of that sort of carry-on and this is where we need to update the law yet again. I suspect during this term there will be a Gambling Amendment Bill No 3 4 5 whatever we are up to to take into account the transition from having to go into a venue to sitting at home over your machine.One of the things I looked at—and I could not quite understand until I read the Gambling Act itself—was Part 2 clause 9 of the bill: “Advertising overseas gambling prohibited”. It has taken out the words “overseas gambling”. In fact—this is section 16 in the Act itself—the title of that section is: “Advertising overseas gambling prohibited”. It outlines the reasons why or the methods by which you cannot advertise overseas gambling. Anyone can go on to a vast number of websites in this country and there are a number of advertisements for overseas gambling. I am not too sure how you regulate that what we have to do or what sort of legislation can stop that but I think this is causing just as much harm in fact as the premises that this bill is trying to regulate. This does come back to personal choice and that sort of carry-on but we are operating in a whole new era that I think perhaps Parliament has not come to grips with and certainly our legislation is going to have to address that going forward as mentioned not just from the perspective of minimisation or flouting of our laws but from a tax perspective which I know the Minister has had a lot to do with in the past.There are a couple of questions I have got and I have not had the time to take a good hard look at the bill. In Part 2 clause 38 we talk about “Ministerial discretion to permit more gaming machines if clubs merge”. I am not too sure whether this means that if club A has 10 machines club B has 10 machines and they merge they have a total of 20 machines or you have to take only the licence operating from one of the clubs. But the fact that we have ministerial discretion—again we look at clause 39: “… to permit more than 9 machines at certain class 4 venues”. Why is there ministerial discretion when there should be just legislative certainty? My view is that it takes away the certainty that clubs and societies have and actually puts it back in the hands of a Minister to make a decision based on any number of variables that are not necessarily transparent to the general public.But then when I look at clause 40 it talks about when territorial authority consent is required. It says: “if a corporate society”—which is basically the new venue here—“proposes to increase the number of gaming machines that may be operated at a class 4 venue (whether by way of an application for or amendment to a class 4 venue licence and whether or not in association with an application for ministerial discretion under section 95 or 96):”. Again I am a little bit confused around whether a venue just needs ministerial discretion full stop versus when ministerial discretion and territorial authority consent is required. It is my personal view that territorial authority consent should always be required because it is often councils and council organisations that are left to pick up the mess when these things go wrong. The social harm caused by problem gambling has been talked about by a number of speakers but it is not just the social harm; it is the sort of people who are sometimes attracted to these venues. So there is a whole lot of stuff that territorial authorities have to deal with.There is one other thing as well and I am not too sure why this is put in here but maybe the Minister could allude to it. There is a new section 17A inserted and it talks about how the “Retail value of non-cash prize must be stated” as opposed to the “Cash value of a non-cash prize must be stated”. This just substitutes the word “cash” with “retail value”. Is there a difference? I am not too sure but there must be a reason why that was inserted. There are a couple of questions perhaps for the Minister to answer there. That is all I would like to say.I would just like to reiterate the point that society is moving and technology is advancing at such a rate that we need to find legislative ways to protect those who need protection and to stop exploitation of those who are open to be exploited by those who operate outside the sort of 20th century jurisdiction. Thank you very much.