Dunne Peter: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDunne Peter: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:4097. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move That the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. At the outset I would like to thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for their efforts in thoroughly considering this bill. It was referred to the committee in November of last year and was reported back to the House on 11 May this year a considerably faster track than its predecessor. The select committee received 126 written submissions on the bill as well as hearing oral submissions in Wellington and Auckland.This bill makes a limited number of amendments to the Gambling Act 2003 but does so in several key areas. The majority of these changes relate to gaming machines or pokies in bars and pubs. This form of gambling generates a significant amount of money. For example in the 2013-14 financial year New Zealanders spent around $700 million on over 13000 pokie machines in commercial venues across the country. The select committee’s report recommends a range of key amendments to the bill which I support. Many are quite specific and traverse a wide variety of aspects of the Act. For example the committee’s report tidies up the important definition of “key person” in the bill to prevent unintended consequences. The regulation-making powers under the Act involving the way societies distribute funds to the community are also improved and this will resolve some gaps and fix some drafting issues.One purpose of the Act is to limit opportunities for crime and dishonesty associated with conducting gambling. People can be involved with conducting gambling either through a society that is licensed to conduct the gambling or as venue personnel where the gaming machines are located. Obviously there are those who receive grant funding as well. The Act looks to prevent conflicts of interest by prohibiting personal benefits being given or taken between those groups. The objective here is to ensure that personal gain is not a prime motivator for people’s actions over and above community benefit. This is a very difficult area because it is hard to define exactly what the unwelcome behaviour is. It is also a problem getting sufficient proof to successfully prosecute offenders. So the committee has recommended a change of approach considering that the bill originally went too far in trying to clamp down on transactions between these groups. Instead it has recommended an amendment to the bill so that the behaviour at issue is more effectively targeted.That will prevent everyday transactions between say the society and venue staff from triggering a potential conflict situation. For example someone from a society buying a meal at a bar where pokie machines happen to be located could well have been caught by the provision in the bill as drafted. I think the committee has arrived at a reasonable outcome. It has also introduced a longer limitation period for bringing prosecution actions for conflict of interest offences and that will more accurately reflect the length of time it takes to uncover the behaviour and gather enough evidence to mount a prosecution.Let me touch on some other improvements to the bill that the committee has made. It has recommended changes to give greater certainty in a few areas. One such change concerns the ability of the secretary in screening licence applicants in terms of their suitability to be involved in providing gambling. It is important that all relevant information can be considered to give a complete picture of a person’s past behaviour. Another change protects the ability of affected parties to seek a judicial review. The Gambling Commission has been given the power to delay the effective date of its decision so that a review can be sought. Another change of note concerns licence periods. The intention is to allow longer licences for highly compliant operators and the committee’s recommendations make it very clear that that will be a decision for the Secretary for Internal Affairs to make which will mean that there will no longer be appeals and arguments about why everyone is not getting a longer licence.I note that the committee’s report includes minority views on the most notable area of change that the bill introduces. This is in the area of payments to venues that actually host the machines. The committee has a couple of minority reports in that regard. New regulations would need to be developed to replace the current system which is agreed by all parties to be very cumbersome and time-consuming. The minority reports from Labour and the Greens describe particular concerns about the favoured option which is a commission-based system. Their concerns essentially are that a commission-based system could incentivise operators to maximise gambling in their venues. It was their perception that venue operators could take advantage therefore of vulnerable patrons rather than carrying out their duty to be responsible hosts. In response to those concerns I note that the design of the system for the regulations is still being developed. The aim here is for a payment scheme to cover the cost of venues. It is not intended to provide profits.Of course no system will be absolutely perfect but I do believe a change is needed. The current system requires a considerable amount of time and effort by the department and the societies. If payments were simplified the department could focus on other areas like harm prevention to ensure greater compliance by the sector. In short I want to give the House an assurance that the potential concerns about a new payment system are being taken seriously. Under the Gambling Act when new regulations are being proposed I am required to be satisfied that consultation has occurred with the people likely to be substantially affected. There is an onus on the department to ensure that all groups are consulted before final proposals are put forward and that their views are considered. Once the new system is in place class 4 operators will be expected to meet their harm prevention responsibilities.One of the purposes of the principal Act is to ensure that money from gambling benefits the community. I believe that this sits at the very heart of what we try to achieve in this country when it comes to the regulation of gambling. We are unique in the world in the way we channel money from gambling back into community purposes. It is a feature that I think we need to keep to the fore when we look at changes to our gambling laws. Gambling is an established legitimate form of entertainment. For the most part it is harmless fun but for a small few it is not fun but extremely destructive. We need to do all we can to make gambling a safe pastime and that is where the Act balances the provision of gambling with the need for harm minimisation measures to be put in place.I am aware that some have advocated the introduction of pre-commitment technology into our gaming machines. Although the Act already includes an ability to do this through regulations the evidence on pre-commitment is still unclear. The overseas experience has been mixed. Much depends on the specific design and features of such a system. In short there are many unknowns. Although I accept that the use of technology in this area has a lot of potential and could be a powerful way of encouraging people to gamble in a way that is appropriate to their circumstances and there are advantages in such a system I do not think we need to be rushing to impose that new technology. It would create a significant cost at the expense of community purposes. A reasonably strong compelling case is needed for features that will work best in the New Zealand context. I expect the Department of Internal Affairs to remain active in monitoring research and developments in this space including having discussions with the Ministry of Health and the Associate Minister of Healthwho has an interest in this issue as well.Finally can I conclude by acknowledging all of those who took time to make submissions to the select committee. It is a well-known fact that gambling issues always prompt a range of strong views from across the community. I think the committee has done a good job in working its way through those and presenting us with a workable piece of legislation. As a consequence of the committee’s work I think that the bill that has now come back to the House responds to the specific concerns raised about pokie operators. It does provide for better transparency in the sector and also some greater controls. That in turn will help ensure that the very important objectives of the Gambling Act are fulfilled. So I have great pleasure in commending the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) to the House.