Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 09 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11771. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South)to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What actions is he taking to minimise the harm from gambling?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs):I have recently acted together with the Associate Minister of Health to put in place a $55.3 million 3-year gambling harm strategy. The 3-year package includes $25.3 million for front-line intervention services and $20.5 million for public health services. These services help families with members who have gambling addictions. The Government also supported the Māori Party’s Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill this week at its second reading. I have supported the Commerce Committee’s improvements to the bill which will enable the transfer of gambling venues out of low socio-economic areas. The bill will also enable regulations to make sensible harm-minimisation technologies mandatory in class 4 gambling venues nationwide.Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did he suppress for over a year the advice that there would be over 8000 extra problem gamblers as a result of the deal of the size of the Skycity one?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: I did not suppress that advice. The advice was part of a negotiation that was being undertaken by the Government which had commercial sensitivities. That was the reason.Hon Trevor Mallard: Which aspects of the regulatory concessions raise the risk of money-laundering through Skycity as outlined in paragraph 97 of the regulatory impact statement?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: The aspects of the harm-minimisation package that deal with certainly harm minimisation and anti - money-laundering include the ticket-in ticket-out provisions in there which actually limit the amount of money that someone can put through a machine without identification.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very straight question. It asked: “Which aspects”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! There was quite a lot of noise at the time the question was asked. To be fair to the Minister would the member please repeat the question.Hon Trevor Mallard: Which aspects of the regulatory concessions raise the risk of money-laundering through Skycity as outlined in paragraph 97 of the regulatory impact statement?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: The aspects of the package that we have put together particularly including the ticket-in ticket-out initiatives actually reduce the risk of money-laundering.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very straight question. Paragraph 97 of the regulatory impact statement indicates that there is risk of extra money-laundering as a result of the concessions. All I asked is which aspects of the concessions. They are this Minister’s responsibility.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has answered it not by talking about the ways the risks were raised but the way the risks will be lessened. I think on that particular case—Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The primary question talks about harm minimisation; it does not talk about anti - money-laundering. So in terms of a specific part of the regulatory impact statement I do not have that particular detail in front of me today.Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister addressed the question in the first place. He has now certainly answered it through a point of order which is an odd way of doing things. The member has further supplementary questions if he wants use them.Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the regulatory impact statement reject the option of amending the Gambling Act because it would “… involve wider consultation increased scrutiny and therefore more public input.”; if so why does he believe that this proposal could not withstand wider consultation increased scrutiny and more public input?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: The bill proposed by the Minister for Economic Development will go through a full hearing at the select committee which will enable submissions to be heard and it will enable wide scrutiny of the Act.Hon Trevor Mallard: Does he agree with the regulatory impact statement that the impact is that the bill “is inconsistent with the fundamental common law principle of equality before the law”; if not why not?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: I am more than confident that when the bill goes before the select committee it will have the opportunity for submitters to be heard in terms of any concerns that they have about the bill and for any changes from the select committee.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question—Mr SPEAKER: Could the member just repeat the question please.Hon Trevor Mallard: Does he agree with the regulatory impact statement that the bill “is inconsistent with the fundamental common law principle of equality before the law”; if not why not?Hon Annette King: Yes or no?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: No.Hon Trevor Mallard: Will he rule out using similar amendments to the Gambling Act to develop convention centres in Christchurch and Queenstown?Hon Steven Joyce: It’s a hypothetical.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: It is a hypothetical question—[Interruption]Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon Trevor Mallard: It was a very direct question about the area that that Minister has responsibility for asking him whether he would rule something out. Saying that it is hypothetical is not an answer.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister then added further to his answer but because of the noise coming from around the member asking the question I am not sure what the Minister added subsequently. Would the Minister just like to repeat his answer?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is worth pointing out that a decision like that would rest with the whole Cabinet not necessarily with the Minister of Internal Affairs.Hon Trevor Mallard: This is the Minister responsible for the Gambling Act. The question was about the Gambling Act.Mr SPEAKER: The easiest way to resolve this is for me to ask the Minister to repeat his answer to the question.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: I can extend the answer. There are no proposals in front of me for those hypothetical situations that you have put. We will deal with that situation at the time.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question Te Ururoa Flavell. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I have called a supplementary question from Te Ururoa Flavell.Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Does he agree with the Māori Party that it is important to minimise the harm done to communities by gambling; if so how will he ensure that the provisions around local distribution and harm-minimisation technology introduced in the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill are taken up?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: I agree that minimising harm is important. Once Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill has passed it will be possible to introduce regulations to introduce mandatory harm-minimisation devices in class 4 gambling venues nationwide. The original bill said that these requirements may be introduced only through individual licence conditions. I believe that our changes to the bill actually enhance the situation.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wanted to check there had not been any changes to the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings to do with the transfer of questions. I think that seven times during my question to the Minister of Internal Affairs Minister Joyce said that the question should go to him and that he wanted to answer it. If the Government wanted that to be the case could it have transferred the question?Mr SPEAKER: In this particular case there was no doubt in my mind that the question was addressed to the correct Minister and there was no attempt by the Government to transfer it.