Logie Jan: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11911. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I have examined my conscience as have my colleagues and it is with significant disappointment that we find ourselves unable to support this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill and in fact we find ourselves asking the member to withdraw it. Te UruroaFlavell’s intent was honourable and we were all significantly and really encouraged at how directly this bill sought to address the actual harms associated with pokies in this country and the very corrupt industry that has thrived around pokie machines in this country.The original bill set out to do five key things. First it sought to give councils and communities the power to cut the number of pokie machines in their area or eliminate them altogether. That intent is gone. Secondly it sought to ensure that at least 80 percent of the distributable funds would be returned to the area where the gambling took place. That intent is gone. Thirdly it sought to replace the trusts that currently distribute the funds from gambling with more accountable organisations set up by local authorities. That intent is gone. Fourthly it sought to remove horse racing from the list of charitable purposes that may receive gambling proceeds. That intent is gone. Lastly it sought to introduce harm minimisation mechanisms like player tracking and mandatory pre-commitment cards to put controls on the amount of time and money that could be lost by gamblers. That intent is gone. Of the five core purposes in this bill that so encouraged us and that sought to address the real harm created by the pokie industry in this country we are left with nothing.The Green Party’s view is that this bill as it is reported back to the House does not achieve any of the aims listed above and in one part it will actually restrict the right of councils wanting to reduce the number of pokies through their own transfer policies. Yes that is right. It will actually hinder initiatives to reduce the harm. This bill does not do anything that it sought to do and it undermines some of the very few current initiatives we have to address harm.This is not just our own opinion either. It has been echoed by the Salvation Army the Problem Gambling Foundation and Associate Professor Peter Adams from the school of population health at Auckland University who have also taken the very significant step of asking the member to withdraw this bill. They made a very clearstatement on how they see it now: “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this bill on balance will make matters worse.”Along with my colleagues I have examined my conscience. I have considered the harm that pokies do to this country. I have looked at this bill and I have asked myself: “Will this help?” and the answer is a very clear no. This bill will in fact—against all the wishes I am sure of the member who introduced it—create more harm than it does good.Finally I do want to remind this House and those members who are considering voting for this bill that New Zealand loses $2.3 million every single day from non-casino pokies in this country. That comes right out of the pockets and takes the food off the table of some of the people in the country who most need it and it is going into corrupt businesses. It is something we have a duty to stop.