Dyson Ruth: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1721. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Can I acknowledge the member who has just resumed his seat Michael Woodhouse and say that I think that he canvassed the wide spectrum of tensions within this bill the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill in a very considered way and I think that is the sort of debate that is going to happen at the Commerce Committee. I do not think there is a single person in this House who does not share the concern of the member who has introduced the bill in relation to the impact of problem gambling that we have in New Zealand. We have seen some moves in our Parliament to try to reduce that social harm and this is a further one in that direction. 
I am a little surprised that the National Party did agree to the legislation which is clearly only going as far as the select committee with the support of the National Party. It does for me indicate a bit of a conflict when National is going to be supporting Te Ururoa Flavell’s member’s bill’s referral to the select committee. We will hear from the problem-gambling groups around the country that are trying to deal with the huge distress and dysfunction caused by people who have problem gambling. The devastation that it causes to families is something that all New Zealanders would seek to avoid. But at the same time the National Party is going to be whipped—whipped; not even a conscience vote—into supporting the dodgy deal that gives Skycity a further 500 pokie machines as if they are not related. I think there is a small amount of tension there and I think the rest of the country will find it very puzzling to try to reconcile those two conflicting points of view. 
The other puzzle that I have is that when you look at the Order Paper that we have got before us today there is at No. 49 the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). That was reported back from the Government Administration Committee according to the parliamentary records on 12 May 2009— 
Sue Moroney 
: 2009? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It was 2009 and now it is 2012. It is nearly the third anniversary. It is just weeks away from the third anniversary of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) being reported back to Parliament. It is in the name of the Hon Chris Tremain. Why is it not up on the Order Paper? If there is such a major concern about the social hazard as was described by the member whose name is on this legislation why is the Government not doing something about it? We have a bill it has been to select committee it is back before the House and we could be progressing it. I am sure it would get a huge amount of support. Perhaps that would be too blindingly obvious in the face of the dodgy deal with Skycity as opposed to supporting a member’s bill through to the select committee. 
I think the other point that Michael Woodhouse raised in his contribution was the issue of the racing industry and racing stake money and he clearly had the briefing very well rehearsed because that is the same briefing that has been given around the country and it is the right and proper process for the industry to do that. I do not actually think that the only issue to be considered—but I do think it is one to be considered—is the differences in the various racing organisations around the country because that is a big issue to be considered and the racing industry has made that point. But the concern that is addressed in the bill is the fact that racing and racing stake money are regarded as having a charitable purpose and I think that disconnect between them being recognised as having a charitable purpose and the clear outcome of racing is the point that the member is making in his bill but no doubt we will have that. I think we will have a lot of tension around that. 
It does for me raise a much more important issue and it is a further tension that is outlined in the bill and I think it is one that this Parliament has to come to terms with sooner or later. The member himself mentioned it. He asked why we should be giving money to racing and pokie money to racing stake money when we have got community and iwi organisations who are desperately short of funding. The bigger question from my point of view is how do we fund social-good activity in our community how do we resource that activity without being dependent on pokie machines? That is the nub of the question. Let us not divide our communities particularly between racing and other activities because it gets us off the primary purpose of the debate which is about what we want in our society what we want in our communities and how we ensure that the organisations we entrust to perform or support those activities are able to do so without resorting to gambling money. We as a society have moved to a high level of dependency and we must have the strength to break that dependency if we are going to move at the same time away from the harm that problem gambling causes to our communities. They are connected actions and I would urge the member who introduced the bill to try to expand the debate at the select committee so that we do not end up just with racing versus the rest.