Lees-Galloway Iain: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12503. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):It is a pleasure to follow Sam Lotu-Iiga whose contribution this evening was full of weasel words and full of fluff and nonsense to be honest. It sounded to me like a member who knows how out of touch he is with his electorate on this issue. He is a man who is desperately trying to perhaps I do not know—it is not quite dog whistling but trying to send the message to his electorate that he does not toe the party line on this position on this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. But of course he has been whipped—he has been whipped. He would like the people of Maungakiekie to believe that somehow or other Sam Lotu-Iiga is on their side and that he might be lobbying the Government for the soft regulations that he referred to that might be the way to get the changes they really want through because he is not supporting what the people of Maungakiekie want to see happen with this legislation.I say to Sam Lotu-Iiga that he should turn back to his party and say: “Allow me to use my conscience National Party. Allow me to vote the way I want to. Allow me to vote the way the people of Maungakiekie want me to.” The Labour Party is giving its members the chance to do that. The Labour Party is saying that gambling is a conscience issue and so the Labour Party will have members express a range of views on the Supplementary Order Papers that have been offered up but it sure will not happen from the National Party.What has really happened here is that we have seen how the National Party views democracy. It certainly does not want to give its own members the democratic right to express their views on this bill and it certainly did not want to give its coalition partner Te Ururoa Flavell his democratic right to pass the legislation that he wanted to pass.Te Ururoa Flavell is looking at me. He is glaring at me as though he does not know what I mean. I say to Te Ururoa Flavell that if that member is glaring at me and wondering what I mean I mean the fact that everything after clause 4 of the original bill that that member took to the Commerce Committee has been crossed out by the National Party and it has all been changed to something that does the complete opposite of what that member originally intended. That is the way the National Party views democracy. That is its view on democracy—to cross out anything it does not agree with and like the Borg just expect all its members to toe the party line on a piece of legislation that now increases the harm caused by gambling.Te Ururoa Flavell—that member knows it. The member in the chair knows that as a result of what the National Party has done to his bill it now increases the harm causedby gambling. I do not understand why that member has not withdrawn this bill from the Order Paper because it now does the exact opposite of what he originally intended. As other members have said a lot of us who voted for the bill to go to the select committee wanted to see some changes but we did not expect to see the National Party change it to the extent that it has.Just referring to some of the Supplementary Order Papers I hope that members will support my Supplementary Order Paper 293 which I think is the balanced approach to keeping—Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Trevor doesn’t agree.Hon Trevor Mallard: I don’t.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Look Trevor Mallard disagrees with me and on this side of the Chamber we are allowed to do that. It is called democracy Sam Lotu-Iiga. You might want to try it sometime. But I hope that some members will support this because this is the balanced approach to keeping funds within the region from which they were raised.Coming back to my home town I am sure there are plenty of people from Ian McKelvie’s electorate who come into Palmerston North do their gambling there and then go back home. It would be wrong for those people not to be able to access the funds from that gambling if they were distributed out to community organisations say in Feilding Marton Ashhurst or up in Taihape. So what my Supplementary Order Paper does is that it allows those funds to be distributed not just in the territorial authority area in which they were raised but also to the wider region because there is no doubt that people from the wider region will be moving around and doing their gambling in different parts of that region—