Dyson Ruth: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13268. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin by acknowledging the member Te Ururoa Flavell who introduced this bill the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. It was my assessment when he spoke at its introduction that he understood the issues and that he had passion and real commitment to make a difference in the gambling space—and actually that is not something that has happened very frequently in this Parliament. I regret that it is my view that this bill has been gutted to such an extent that it cannot be supported any more. There would be very few things I would have preferred to do in this House than support a bill that was very courageous to start with and although some of it was not the best it was done with the best of intentions. Nothing would have given me more pleasure than for this Parliament to be able to back that bill and make a real difference to what has been an absolute scourge in many people’s lives. We have too many people who lose their earnings who lose their house and often who lose their family as a result of their problem gambling. This was an opportunity to make a real difference to that. As it is with so many things that go wrong in people’s lives it is particularly the case in those parts of our country where the majority of residents are low-income earners. So for those people perhaps it is the drive of the attraction for a better life that gambling offers—that you will be a winner and be able to get out of the situation you are in. That could be a primary driver. I am not an expert in this area at all. For whatever reason I think that Parliament has lost that opportunity but I do want to acknowledge the member because I think it was his best intention actually at the start of this process.When the bill was referred to the Commerce Committee it was subject to gross misrepresentation by the pokie trusts and I resent more than anything a debate that is had on the basis of misinformation. That is certainly what the good people in our communities were fed by the pokie trusts. It was an organised campaign. Good community groups were told a lie. They were told that if Te UruroaFlavell’s bill went ahead and was passed they would get no money. I know that is what they were told. I saw the emails. I heard those people at the select committee because I was privileged to be on the select committee for much of this hearing. I saw those good community people come along and heard them say they were from the Raglan Surf Life Saving Club or the Taranaki rugby league clubs or whatever. All these good community people running amazing sports activities other activities—not just for children but a lot of them are for children—came along and said: “If we don’t get the pokie money we can’t survive so please vote against the bill.” That was never the intention of the bill. It would never have been the outcome of the bill. I know that those submissions went to local MPs as well. I had people in my office in Christchurch saying: “Don’t back the bill. We’ll lose our money and then we’ll have to close our sports facilities.” That was a lie. Neither was it the intention nor would it have been the outcome had this bill passed with the trust alteration in the way that it was introduced. As I say I resent people being lied to in order to gain their opposition.The proposal in the original bill as Minister of Internal Affairs Chris Tremain mentioned in his contribution was to have the distribution of funds through local authorities. But Te Ururoa Flavell from day one and I heard him made it very clear that he was not wedded to that as the only option. His principle was to have the distribution of funds done in a transparent and accountable manner. Why wouldNational members want anything other than that? The member on introducing the bill came to the select committee and said: “This is an option. But if there is a better one that delivers transparency and accountability let’s have it. I’m not wedded to this as an option.” All the National Party members on the Commerce Committee should have heard that because it was a very clear statement that he made as in fact he did on other specifics in the legislation. He outlined the principle: this is what I am trying to achieve. Sorry I am not quoting the member literally but his point was that it was the principles that he was trying to achieve and the mechanisms could be debated. He was accepting of the option that the select committee could come up with better ways for doing things. So I cannot understand how members would say that they do not want their pokie funds distributed in an accountable and transparent way. Why would a member of Parliament vote against that principle? I do not understand it. I listened carefully to Chris Tremain and I could not gather anything from him either.When the bill came back from the select committee it was my view that the bill had been gutted to such a point that it could not be supported. As I say I regret that. Labour members then tried very hard to have changes made to the bill as reported back that would reinstate some of the fundamental points that had been taken out—at the direction of the Minister I guess—through the select committee process. I think those Supplementary Order Papers deserve support. There were variations in some of them. Some of them had different percentages. So if people thought that one percentage was too high they were certainly given options. I think it was a sensible way to look at things that had been taken out that clearly removed the harm reduction part of this bill—which was really the primary point—and those Supplementary Order Papers were a good opportunity to put them back in.We had Supplementary Order Papers on the transfer of licences and we had Supplementary Order Papers providing for different percentages on the net proceeds. More specifically we had Supplementary Order Paper 292 which was the Hon Trevor Mallard’s proposal that if a licence was transferred it could be only from a low-income area to a high-income area. I think that is smart. That was voted down and I do not understand it. We know that the concern about these pokie machines is where there is a proliferation of them in low-income areas. Frankly if they wanted to move a bunch of pokie machines from Manurewa orMāngere into Epsom then I do not think there would be much objection to that. But the National Party members and the Māori Party actually voted against that Supplementary Order Paper as well.There was a further Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 297 to have a maximum number of gaming machines and again I think that was consistent with the original intention of the bill to ensure that we had proper mechanisms for gambling controls. What the Minister has outlined does not unfortunately involve such a strong measure. It does go a little bit of the way but actually it is nothing like the strength of gambling controls that were in the original legislation and that were proposed by the Hon Trevor Mallard in his Supplementary Order Paper. Again I do not understand the logic of voting against measures that reduce harm in our communities—and I mean serious harm. Other Supplementary Order Papers covered remuneration to authorities and really looking at having an integrated problem gambling strategy. That is the opportunity that has been missed by this bill.I want to make just one other comment. We have got people in our communities whom we are very fortunate to have. We have got people in our communities who devote huge parts of their lives to caring for other people. We have them in the health sector—public health practitioners—we have them in the social services agencies and we have them generally in a voluntary capacity in the community as well. Many of those people work specifically with people who are problem gamblers. Those peopleincluding organisations like the Salvation Army have been denied the right to speak to the Commerce Committee which is looking at the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. Why would those organisations which not only have the expertise but actually have the passion and the commitment and give so much to our communities and could teach us so much be denied the right to come to a select committee?Jonathan Young: You were there.Hon RUTH DYSON: I know it is a contentious issue. I understand that Mr Young. But actually the integrity of our democratic process should ensure that when people have expertise and are concerned about an issue—an issue as big as selling our laws toSkycity—they should be heard. I want to put on record that I think that was a mistake of the select committee. We have also had the extraordinary circumstance whereSkycity itself having put in a rather pathetic—as I understand it; I have not had the opportunity to read it—submission had been advised by the Minister for Economic Development and the Prime Minister not to go to the select committee and speak. That shows—