Catchpole Brent: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Responsible Gambling Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7856] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill has many very good aspects that clear up a number of issues relating to methods of gambling across a wide spectrum of gambling in New Zealand. The main purpose of the bill is to tackle the proliferation of gaming machines or as we like to refer to them pokie machines and also the growth in problem gambling. 
However clubs nationwide and particularly sports groups and trusts are convinced that the new law will cut funding to their bodies. Although the Government may be trumpeting other objectives the reality is that this bill involves the centralisation of the distribution of gaming-machine funds and will have serious consequences for sports cultural and service organisations. Centralised distribution systems tangled in red tape will siphon money away. Funds involving such large amounts ought to be distributed by independent community representatives and the process of distribution needs to be open fair and accountable to the community. The bill in its present form does not meet those normal standards of transparency and accountability. The granting allocation process remains non-transparent and unclear with different and sometimes unknown criteria used to make grants decisions. 
New Zealand First cannot support any attempt by this Government to divert funding traditionally used to support local community activities into quasi-political causes sympathetic to the Government cause. The potential for political patronage is a real concern. Distribution to community projects via a centralised quasi-governmental agency subject to political appointments and pressures will not meet community needs. The chances of money raised in provincial New Zealand being returned from the centralised fund back to provincial New Zealand are virtually zero. 
I refer to an example: my next-door neighbour’s little boy plays in a soccer team and the team needs new clothes. It is only a small group and is unknown to the central bodies so it will not receive any funding. It will be put into a huge pool and will end up missing out. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: That’s absolute rubbish. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The Minister is screaming out “Rubbish”. I ask the Minister to think about the way he has laid this bill out. It is set out so that individuals and small community groups will not receive the funding they deserve. The funds will be siphoned off into bigger projects—ones that are sympathetic to the Government’s cause. We have had plenty of examples of that already. This Government has proved itself to be that way inclined. The real cost of gambling is hidden because the effects are often manifested in other ways. 
Community groups and social services are finding it increasingly difficult to access community funding other than that derived from gambling. Successive Governments have given greater emphasis to the role of the community in providing social services yet they have failed to provide the funding which forces local communities to rely on gambling profits. We only have to look at one very classic example—the rescue helicopter. It is not funded by the Government therefore it relies heavily on donations and it is increasingly being required to rely on gambling profits. To provide the funds that are really needed they had to go to extremes and unfortunately it all came unstuck. These are not optional services; they are essential services and they should be funded directly by the Government and not have to rely on gambling profits taken straight out of pubs and clubs. That is not the way to fund those essential services. 
The bill effectively creates two tiers of pokie-machine licences. The Government has capped the numbers of machines in certain areas and reduced the number of pokie machines that can go into new venues. Although the bill caps individual machines it does not cap the overall number in an area covered by a particular local authority because local authorities are expected to put guidelines of their own into place. Those guidelines and the public input into those guidelines can take place only at the time councils and the local authorities formulate them. Once those guidelines are in place this bill prevents public input from that point on. The public cannot provide any further input into decisions to reduce the number of machines in a particular location. The bill provides no time limit on pokie-machine licences so a licence cannot be revoked by the community or local council even when there is a change of ownership or there is evidence that the machines are causing problems in the community. Those machines cannot be removed once they have been issued with a licence. 
Many submitters argued that local authorities will lack the teeth to have a genuine say in the level of gambling in their communities and unfortunately that is a major hole in this bill. If the bill progresses in its current form local communities are the ones that will suffer because they will no longer have any say. They will miss out on funding because of the way that the centralised funding process will take place and they will miss out on having their say on how many pokie machines will be allowed in their communities. 
As the country has seen an increase in gambling so gambling duties have increased but this Government is adding an additional charge in respect of problem gambling over and above those increased levies and duties. One of the methods by which it hopes to reduce problem gambling is to take out banknote machines. Restricting banknote machines is not going to reduce the volume of gambling. People will find other ways of circumventing the lack of banknote machines so there is absolutely no need to limit their numbers. 
 Another issue raised with us was the restriction on gambling via the Internet. There is no means by which gambling can be set up on the Internet but that will not stop people gambling on the Internet. They will just gamble off shore and any revenues gained from that will automatically go off shore. What is the point of that? The Government will not gain any revenue from offshore gambling; therefore it has restricted that form of gambling. 
I want to round up by saying that this bill has some very major flaws. I am disappointed that the Government is centralising the distribution of funds from pokie machines the revenue from which will then go to the people who support the Government. It will go into a central fund and be distributed to those who have the biggest arguments for funding but not to the local communities from which the money was withdrawn and gained from.