Roy Eric: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoy Eric: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11406. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I too take a call on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). As our first speaker Lindsay Tisch said National will be supporting this legislation going to a select committee.It is important that we get the rules right on issues like gambling. This bill is largely a complex and prescriptive piece of legislation. It is rather difficult to make headway through it unless one has the principal Act in one hand because lots of snippets are inserted here and there to clarify and help the understanding of the principal Act. So the bill in itself does not make sense without applying it to the principal Act. I mentioned that it is a complex and prescriptive bill; I am always a bit mystified when a bill is tabled in the House and the explanatory note exceeds the bill itself and that is very much the case here. There are some 33 pages of explanation and a similar number of pages to the actual bill.Gambling is an issue that we have to legislate for. It is certainly a significant part of the New Zealand psyche. It is not unique to New Zealanders and it is not unique to Anglo-Saxons. At this time I think that various members might confess their involvement or participation. I have to say that I am not a gambler. Only once or twice in my life have I been encouraged or tempted to have a bet; it is just not something I do. But I have an interest in observing what happens. I am so perplexed as to why people should want to use their time on gambling as entertainment that I get some enjoyment out of watching them even though I am kind of mystified by it.About 18 months ago I was at a convention in Reno—it was in January the year prior to last—and in the evening in winter in Reno there are really only two activities. One is the strip club and the other is the gambling machines and the casinos. It should be recorded that I went to watch what happened in the casino. I was fascinated to watch Texas hold’em which is a game that has currently got quite a bit of media attention. The dealer was setting up the table and I wandered over to see how it all worked. She said: “Are you going to join the table?” and I said: “No I don’t think so.” and she asked: “What’s with you mister are you religious or something?”. I was trying to figure out what sort of response to give to that kind of question when she said to me: “What’s the difference between someone praying in church and someone praying at my table?”. I said: “Well it beats me.” and she said: “Well here they really mean it.” I think that says quite a bit and there is real truth in it and I can see that members appreciate the sentiment behind it.But as I mentioned this is not just an Anglo-Saxon pastime. I have been in casinos in West Africa in the Gulf and in Europe. Certainly there is something in the make-up of people that makes them want to get involved in gambling and so it is that we need to control that.I want to relate to the House a conversation I overheard on talkback radio about 3 or 4 weeks ago when there was quite some discussion about pokie machines. It showed why we need to have some very prescriptive and precise rules on them. There was some debate about how they operate and where they work. A gentleman called FrancisWevers came on air. I cannot recall his association but he was chief executive of some sort of gaming-machine association—and no doubt he is probably listening and will correct me in his submission to the select committee. He commented that in New Zealand pokie machines alone if I recall correctly have a throughput of $9.5 billion.Peter Brown: How much?ERIC ROY: It is $9.5 billion. About $7.5 billion of that goes back to be recycled at different stages in winnings about half of the remainder of $2 billion goes to the owner of the machines and the rest goes on tax and various other administrative costs. That is just pokie machines. If we look at Lotto at dogs at racehorses and at casinos per se we see that the money spent is huge. That is what actually happens in New Zealand. We need to get our heads around that.This bill does not lower the bar on any of the controls. What it does is clarify them. I believe that it is essential to clarify them and that they need to be tidied and that is why we are supporting this bill going to a select committee. We need some discussion about the accuracy and the intent of the principal Act. That is what this bill does. It actually clears up these issues.This bill is very much about definitions and about how the various entities work. It includes definitions about venues. For example what is a gambling venue and how should it work? It is about licensees. It is about who should be a licensee of a gambling establishment—who those people are what they should do and how they should conduct themselves. It is about classes of gamblers. I do not know what the relevance of that is because I have not had time to go right through the principal Act. It also talks about prizes and what they can be used for. It talks about the banking that is associated with gambling. There are a whole lot of definitions in the bill that help clarify all these issues. As I say one needs to read the principal Act.I have been reading this bill for about half an hour and I am perhaps a little surprised that given that there have recently been some issues about inappropriate behaviour around casinos with loan sharking with a range of people making a living out of what we would all agree was extortion—living off rorting interest rates—I cannot see where in this bill that area has been tidied up. Clearly there is a problem. It has been identified and has had a lot of media attention. I hope it is in here—sometimes one misses things on a cursory glance—but going through the headings and the explanatory note I cannot see where it tightens up those provisions. I believe that that is an area this bill should actually address.We acknowledge that gambling happens. We are not going to change that. Essentially what we need in gambling is fairness and integrity in the process. There also need to be some very clear provisions on harm minimisation and addressing the issue of problem gamblers. Part 3 of the bill tightens up those provisions a little bit more. I certainly hope they are able to deliver in situations where there is a problem with gamblers.This is a bill that is complex it is quite prescriptive and it needs to be read in conjunction with the principal Act. I just hope that New Zealand has a close look at this and that the submission process is well contributed to. One sees that the significance of gambling in New Zealand is simply huge when one looks at the amount of money involved and the number of people who participate in it. That is not to say it is something we should eliminate. That is simply not practical. But it is something that we need to control and manage. We certainly need to have a focus on problem gamblers and those areas where there are elements of extortion or inappropriate behaviour. I trust this bill will do that—if not in its original draft then after it has gone through the submission process. I commend the bill to the select committee and I look forward to its report back and to seeing its deliberations.