Alexander Marc: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8638] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to outline some of the general reasons before I get more specific as to why we are supporting the bill. First of all it is a consolidated approach to gaming in New Zealand rather than the mishmash of the old statutes. The bill provides opportunity for community involvement in the extent of gaming in communities and it limits harm from gaming with the introduction of an integrated problem-gambling strategy paid for by the industry. There are limits on opportunities for under-age gambling by clearly defining the types of venues in which gambling can take place. It will reduce the number of pokie machines around the country by about 3000. It extends the moratorium on casinos which is in line with the public mood on the issue. However it does increase the accountability of the non-casino gaming-machine industry markedly by ensuring clear distinctions between pub operators and donating committees of trusts. It provides for electronic monitoring of all gaming machines allowing anyone to apply for grants not just pub-approved groups increased reporting requirements to the Department of Internal Affairs and extra enforcement powers of licence conditions for the department’s compliance team. It establishes an independent gaming commission to hear disputes and to hear appeals by the industry against Department of Internal Affairs licensing decisions and it ensures the future viability of the New Zealand Lotteries Commission. 
United Future has been assailed from all sides as lacking common sense betraying its supporters and being anti-family because of the role it played in securing the passage through Parliament of the Gambling Bill. I just note the comments of the previous speaker Judith Collins. She on the one hand privately came up to me and said that we had got a good deal and things were improving in the Gambling Bill. She then turned around last night for example and apparently at the eleventh hour wanted to appeal to our sensibilities to change our stand. Having not received one phone call from her all we can conclude is that it is nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt. But that seems to be 99 percent of her warbling. 
Some critics seem to be motivated by a visceral dislike of all forms of gambling and therefore they seem to think that the Gambling Bill is all about banning the activity. Not so! The bill arose from a longstanding review of the whole industry and was designed to regulate gambling not ban it. United Future took a pragmatic common-sense view that we should deal with reality as it is not what it could be. 
Internet gambling which already occurs in New Zealand cannot be prevented without cutting New Zealand off electronically from the rest of the world. We decided that at least some of the money that now goes overseas should be retained in New Zealand and used for the benefit of the New Zealand community. In other words money that currently fills the pockets of overseas providers of Internet gambling will upon enactment of the bill be a source of revenue for the gambling levy and hence be part of a solution to gambling problems and not exacerbate the problems as they currently are. The Greens’ approach to not allow for this—and I gather from Judith Collins that it is also the National approach—would be nothing more than sticking their heads in the sand and believing that the problem does not exist. 
Incidentally it should be noted that the Lotteries Commission not United Future sought originally to run Internet gambling. I have to apologise for my earlier media release. My words were ill-chosen and I accept that. What I really wanted to say was that I was happy with the provision for the Internet simply because we could now redirect some of that money towards problem gambling rather than allowing all that money to fill the pockets of foreigners who set up those Internet provisions. That is really what I should have said. I was not accurate and I do apologise for giving the wrong impression in my media release. 
It may suit the political purposes of the Greens to castigate United Future but it was United Future that moved to ensure New Zealand’s problem-gambling programmes would benefit from Internet gambling. That is exactly what I am talking about. United Future has been berated for supporting the establishment of a Gaming Commission to oversee the industry instead of letting the Ministry of Health set collect and spend a levy on the industry to fund problem-gambling programmes. We see the commission as independent from political interference with transparent accounting practices and support from the industry as well as the health-care providers in order to treat problem gambling. In other words the Ministry of Health will be properly scrutinised with regard to both the level of the levy and the menu of options best suited to effectively treat problem gambling. 
Here I have to make just a couple of points. United Future sought provisions to ensure that the commission not only was independent but was seen to be independent and that there was the insertion of provisions clarifying this in the Supplementary Order Paper that required the Department of Internal Affairs to ensure a clear separation of staff involving gaming and those working for the commission. This is an interesting point that has not been brought out yet but the commission will be able to engage its own experts which ensures that it receives independent advice. 
The Green plan was to see the levy swallowed up by the health bureaucracy and distributed by anonymous Wellington-based committees with no obligation to help the communities from which the money came. For all we know the money would go on liberating gay whales. One has only to look at tobacco taxes which are promoted by the ministry. Only a very small proportion is spent on anti-smoking measures and it is easy to see the danger of letting the Wellington bureaucracy get its hands on the money. 
Regarding community involvement in the new gaming venues our position has been that we provide for all sites to be set up after October 2001 to be subject to territorial authority policy approval. It would have been nice to extend it to all previously existing venues but the fact is that existing operators have legal rights that Parliament should not be willing to legislate retrospectively over the top of and that goes against basic constitutional convention. If one looks at pokie profit-distribution systems our position has been against centralisation. Money raised locally should be distributed locally. Thanks to us the Government is not forced to deal with Greens intent on centralising profits from pokies. 
The fact is love it or hate it many aspects of New Zealand society are supported by fund-raising efforts of the private trusts that operate gaming machines. We are talking about clubs and recreational organisations local sports clubs emergency services lung cancer research arts culture and other philanthropic purposes church-based social services capital works and building projects for the churches themselves community urban rejuvenation projects such as park restoration inner-city beautification and so on. 
I am happy for my colleagues and I to be judged over the term of this Parliament and we proudly stand on our record for our actions in promoting the Families Commission for influencing Labour in a more common-sense direction in its social policies agitating for better tax policies that benefit New Zealand businesses and families battling against the spread of prostitution and drug-taking in our communities promoting victims’ rights and so on and especially for our contribution to a stable Government working with Labour in a constructive and professional manner. 
Finally I express my thanks to the Minister George Hawkins for the reasonableness and openness with which we negotiated this bill and its finer points.