Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1799. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2)Third ReadingHon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs):I move That the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. This is a momentous day. This bill was introduced some three Parliaments ago by the Hon Rick Barker. It had its second reading in 2009 under the Hon Dr Richard Worth. Since then Minister Guy Minister Adams Minister Tremain and—now—I have had responsibility for this bill. I can claim that under my stewardship the bill has at least gone through the Committee of the whole House and today we begin the third reading. So nearly 7 years after its introduction this bill stands on the verge of being passed by this House.Hon David Parker: Why don’t you take a short call and we could get it finished?Hon PETER DUNNE: It is going to be a short call. I am not going to traverse the history of the last 7 years. I simply want to make these points about the legislation because some may conclude from that passage of time that it is not actually a significant piece of law. In fact it is because it deals with a lot of the community support that arises from gaming machines and ensuring that as far as possible the funds so derived go to the point where they are meant to go. I think that the amendments contained in the Supplementary Order Paper I introduced during the course of the bill made some important additional changes in that regard.Some changes had to take account of the fact that time had moved on from the time of the introduction of the bill. In particular we have put specified obligations on gambling operators after they are licensed. We now emphasise to gambling operators their responsibilities in having the community at the forefront of their operations and help ensure that operators are part of a clean well-run sector. It is also clear that operators can be held to account if they lose sight of that focus.Gambling always contains a high harm potential so it is important that the Act’s harm prevention and minimisation measures work well and there are a number of useful steps contained within it to achieve those objectives. For example the current requirements for the banking of community money generated by non-casino gaming machines have been strengthened. That has been a problem area for this sector for some time.The bill also enables us to collect better information to publish on grants made to the community by gaming-machine operators. Again this is a move towards greater transparency in an area where there is a lot of public interest and often fascination. There are fresh obligations on grant recipients about how they use the funds that they have been advanced in accordance with the terms of those particular grants.The bill also contains a number of other reforms. I think it is fair to say however that it became clear during the latter stages of the debate that given the rapid changes in the gambling space some of the provisions that this bill contains and some that the companion measure the No. 3 bill which is currently before the select committee also contains may well in short order be overtaken by a move to much greater non-terrestrial gambling. I have indicated that that is an area the Government is looking at in terms of whether there is a requirement for a much broader review of law to take account of that particular area of change.I am not going to name all of the members who sat on the Government Administration Committee. I suspect many of them have gone on to do other things since the bill was first introduced. But I do want to acknowledge the contribution that the committee made. I want to acknowledge the contribution that members during the debates over the years have made. I recall Mr Hipkins’ pining comments at one stage that at the rate of progress he has seen so far he has got three more elections before this bill will finally come into law. I can assure him that that will not be the case. I think he will have to find some other causes to worry about over that time.I do not want to delay the House unduly. I do not want to trivialise what is a very important issue. Despite the delays this bill does bring some forward some worthwhile changes. It has been widely supported. I am delighted to be the Minister who finally commends the third reading of this bill to the House.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru):I have to agree with the Minister. This is a momentous day to get to the third reading after such a long time. I congratulate the Minister Peter Dunne and the Government Administration Committee on finally getting it to this stage.Can I say that it is difficult to find the right balance between two very contrasting parts of the sector. It is difficult to find the balance between the people who are harmed or who participate in gambling and also within the industry itself. This particular bill goes some way to addressing some of the issues that have been raised since the original Gambling Act was enacted in 2003. We on this side of the House are very proud that it was the Labour Government that put this legislation on the statute book in the first instance. There are some really important and major changes that were brought about by this particular Act.As the Minister has said there are some minor and technical amendments in this bill. As I mentioned in the Committee stage raising the minimum percentage of funds returning to the community is a very good one and I want to acknowledge that again in this third reading. If there is one redeeming feature of gambling in this way it is that it does return some funds to the community. But on the other hand there are also some issues and they are really serious ones around the harm caused by gambling. I want to talk a little bit about that. I want to commend the Department of Internal Affairs and the Minister as well for their strong words over the last few days to the industry—that it needs to as I would put it up its game or feel the full force of the law. In the mystery shopper sting if you like 102 venues were visited and only one out of those actually helped the person who was in trouble with their gambling and that is not good enough. The message that we need to be sending from this House to the industry is: “Up your game.” With the third amendment and after 11 years one would think that the industry would have got themselves to a point of being able to operate within the framework that was put down.I think also that the Government’s dealing with Skycity has not helped things. I think it has sent the wrong kind of message to the industry—that gambling is OK in a way that it is not. I think we need to find a balance. Last year we our Labour Party campaigned on having a full review of the gambling legislation. I think we still need to think about doing that in the future unless there are serious changes of attitude from the industry itself. I think it is inevitable that Kiwis are going to ask that that happens.The gambling industry must become better corporate citizens and act more considerately towards the people who are most vulnerable. I take my hat off and mihi out to those providers that provide very good services in helping people affected and harmed by gambling—in particular those families who bear the burden of one of their family members being harmed by gambling. Inevitably it is their families who suffer the most. I want to acknowledge all of the good work that has been done out there. Even those within the industry that have done well—and by the looks of it they are few and far between but there are some and I want to acknowledge them in this third reading.I think a review in the future may find a way forward to strengthening the powers of communities and local authorities. I think therein lies the real nub of the solution moving forward. When communities have control over their destiny in terms of gambling that is a good thing. I heard at our select committee that there are some good models out there and one of them is in the Deep South. The member across the House there Sarah Dowie has informed us about that. So there are some opportunities out there not only through this bill but also through some cooperation between the parties. I would encourage at this stage also both the gambling sector and those providing services to minimise harm caused by gambling to get together too and have real discussions—mutually respectful discussions.A couple of other clauses within the bill itself provide as the Minister said the power for licences to be suspended in certain circumstances in respect of breaches in the past. It also provides that societies must ensure that they continue to meet certain criteria that enabled them to get a licence in the first place. So they cannot stop doing what they agreed to do to get the licence in the first place. I think that those two along with a number of other clauses within this bill are very helpful in moving forward to a place where there are better operations within the gambling industry.As I have said it has been 11 years since this law has come into force. I think that it is important that we reflect on those 11 years and see how far we have come in the operation of gambling within this industry. I want to reiterate that we need to do better. If in fact we do not do better by those families who bear the burden of harm caused by gambling then we would need to make further changes and I would advocate for that. That is all I have to contribute. Nō reira tēnā tātou.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill):I appreciate the opportunity as the deputy chair of the Government Administration Committee to talk to the third reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). Echoing the sentiment of the Hon Peter Dunne—this is a momentous occasion.Before I decided to get into this game I was probably like you Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard a political tragic who would spend many hours watching Parliament TV. When you are watching Parliament TV and some of these technical bills come up that make minor wording changes I guess there is a bit of risk that you think they are not momentous and they do not matter. If I have learnt anything in my short time here in the House it is that this is definitely an important bill. It goes to making changes to the parent Act the Gambling Act 2003 to make it work better and more important to make the framework work better so that we can enforce it in a better way. In my address tonight I am obviously going to highlight what the greater intent of the bill is move into a few of the clauses that I think add value and then talk about a few examples that I think are relevant to the way things are working well which we can perhaps use as a model going forward.As I said before this bill makes changes to the Gambling Act 2003. That Act was a step change in the way we look at gambling. It is acknowledging that gambling—as well as other activities out there such as having alcohol or simply getting into a car—can present some danger. There are people who undertake these activities and they are unaffected. But in the same breath there are people who suffer dreadfully from those activities. They become addicted and it is devastating for them and their families. This Government is definitely supportive of minimising harm. We support this bill going through with the main thrust of it being that the funds generated from class 4 gambling which is pokies and non-casino venues are filtered back into the community—into the communities where that money can be lost and into communities of need.The progress of this bill has been 7 years in length. Of course I did not sit on the original Government Administration Committee that heard the submissions but I have been privileged as a member of the current committee to hear submitters submitting on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) and I would like to take the time to thank those submitters because they certainly have educated me as to the risks of gambling and some of the issues we have in our system. I want to say again that even though this is a technical bill we have taken our role seriously and I am looking forward to seeing it passed and to the industry being tidied up.As has been alluded to by the member opposite Adrian Rurawhe it is no secret that the Department of Internal Affairs has undertaken some monitoring and some mystery shopping exercises and that it has undertaken some prosecutions. There are some class 4 operators out there whose behaviour has been disappointing to say the least. Again this bill cleans it up. We want to make things more transparent we want to prevent rorting and we want to make sure that the funds generated from profits are shifted back into the community. But we also want to put the onus on organisations to account back to that community as to how the money is spent.I am going to talk about two ways in which that is done in this bill. The first is very practical—I had no idea that it was actually going on but the Hon Peter Dunne mentioned it—in that there is an obligation in the bill for venues to bank gaming machine profits directly into the society’s bank account. I had no idea that normal accounting processes were not being adhered to. This practical prohibition is going to mean that there will be an obligation for societies to deal with the funds appropriately and not filter them off for unsecured and unauthorised loans so to speak.The other thing in the bill that I like is that when the grant is made those societies actually apply the money to the purpose for which it was allocated. Again you would have thought that this was happening as a matter of course but apparently it is not. So these are technical and minor changes but in the grand scheme they will make a big difference to the gambling sector.In respect of harm minimisation again there are some practical changes that the bill makes. There is the prohibiting of eftpos machines being in the proximity of pokies meaning that if those playing need further funds they have to get up from the pokie machines walk away and have some time out to think. The other change is to put an obligation on venues to advertise about problem gambling and to provide a duty on venues to assist those whom they identify as problem gamblers to give them help to give them advice and support them to get further qualified help and advice. I am definitely supportive of this. I think that these sorts of changes will assist the industry and will hopefully have a beneficial effect on problem gambling.As the member opposite Adrian Rurawhe has alluded to I have been busy as the member for Invercargill educating people about fantastic Southland. We all know that you Mr Assistant Speaker are an honorary Southlander as you have attended many Southland parties over the years. One thing that we do well is that we have a trust called the Invercargill Licensing Trust with an associated foundation. It is a very very popular trust and I believe it is popular because it is accountable to the public and it is—Dr David Clark: They build good velodromes.SARAH DOWIE: It does build very good velodromes. In fact one of the projects that it has supported is of course the ILT Stadium which it has put quite significant funds into. It is a fantastic venue. I do not want to go on too much about Invercargill—the weather is good at times—but the Southland stadium is needed. It is needed for the community. Those trustees are integrated into the community they are well in touch and they are elected people. They have skills second to none across the board and they can look at projects with a good eye and know where to put the funds for the best benefit of the community.I just want to take the time—it is not just about venues; there is another programme that I really like and that is the Invercargill Licensing Trust schools swimming programme. During 2013 there were 37161 entries for school swimming lessons funded by the Invercargill Licensing Trust and that learn to swim programme is recognised nationwide. So as you can see when a trust is doing something well it is putting those profits from pokies into community projects that make a difference where it is needed and it is extremely commendable.Just finishing with a few statistics about Southland in actual fact the number of pokie machines is sinking and despite the funds decreasing from pokie machines and pokies sinking in number the trust is still making a profit. As part of that it is investing in pilot schemes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call the honourable David Clark I just want to give him a health warning. Of the nine members who spoke on the introduction of this bill eight have since lost their seat or gone into retirement.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):I shall consider my retirement options carefully as I rise to speak. I do rise with some concern about this bill. We on this side of the House will support it because of the more practical application of the law and the rules around it that it brings. The original law had some gaps in it which became obvious when it was implemented and this bill goes some way towards addressing them. But we support it—well I support it with something of a heavy heart because I know that at the same time there are a number of things happening that will affect the sinking-lid policy which is designed to reduce problem gambling in New Zealand.Just today I have learnt that Dunedin’s last two gambling inspectors are to leave town. Those inspectors who look out for many issues in the gambling sector including the harms of gambling are to pack up their bags and leave town.Chris Hipkins: Is there a casino in Dunedin?Dr DAVID CLARK: There is a casino in Dunedin—there is a casino in Dunedin. Of course the harms of problem gambling cover the pub sector class 4 gambling and casinos where pokies are also found. That will leave a real gap and I have fears for the—Grant Robertson: The region’s being neglected again.Dr DAVID CLARK: —implications for our region. As my colleague says there is a regional neglect aspect of that.I want to address also in respect of the sinking lid a point that was made by the previous speaker Sarah Dowie about the Invercargill Licensing Trust. She rightly praised some of its good investments. The velodrome is one that I particularly admire and think that it is a fabulous structure. But I would also like to note that this Government has received comment and concerns from the licensing trust about some of the treatment of pokie machines and recommendations that have been ignored—recommendations that were made to the Department of Internal Affairs that have been ignored by this Government. That trust is a responsible trust. It does seek to reduce the harm of gambling. It is very well to crow about the good things it does but it is also important to listen to its experience of the harms that can be created as gambling continues in New Zealand.The original legislation which we are amending here was brought in to address the issues of problem gambling and the intention of the law changes around the sinking-lid policy likewise were all about minimisation of harm. Right now we are seeing changes across society that are actually going to lead to increased harm from problem gambling. So in supporting this bill it is hard not to do it with a heavy heart when we know that the numbers of pokie machines are going to skyrocket with the Skycity deal for example. We know that 230 more pokies are going to be introduced with the Skycity deal and Treasury says that 8000 more people will be affected as a consequence of problem gambling. So it is very hard to accept all of the positive messages coming from members on the other side of the House as they seem to be looking at the benefits without really examining the balanced case about that particular deal.Obviously it has got political egg on its face. The Auditor-General called that casino deal neither transparent nor even-handed and Treasury expressed some really grave concerns and said it was worried that private benefit was going to come from public investment and that it was not a good deal for the taxpayer. So Treasury and the Auditor-General both expressed huge reservations about the Skycity deal. Of course now we are learning we have been told that that centre which was built on the premise of having a 3500 capacity as a minimum to attract international visitors is now being downgraded to 3000 capacity and likely up to 10 percent lower. Already we are being softened up. The original feasibility study said it needed to be big to attract the international conferences. What we are now being presented with looks more and more like a white elephant—a taxpayer-subsidised competitor to other domestic convention centres like those in Hamilton Rotorua and Taupō.That is very worrying because we on this side of the House are not sure that it is the job of Government to subsidise domestic competition for one city against another. There is a proper role for Government to consider whether there is benefit in attracting offshore business to New Zealand and whether there is an issue of scale to be overcome for a convention centre. But encouraging business to shift from Hamilton or Rotorua or Taupō to Auckland is not core Government business.Hon David Parker: Subsidise Auckland but not Queenstown.Dr DAVID CLARK: And subsidising Auckland rather than Queenstown is another point my colleague makes. I was coming to that too Mr Parker because there are other bids that this Government has considered in respect of gambling facilities. The other day in the select committee we heard of a $10 million bid for a Queenstown casino. I assume it was an extension Mr Parker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I will get the member to come slightly—it is coming into the select committee now. It could hardly be relevant to this bill.Dr DAVID CLARK: That is true Mr Assistant Speaker. What I am coming back to is the sinking-lid policy the reduction of harms that is promoted in this bill and the fact that the Government is making calls all the time about what will reduce harm which is how we have ended up in this bill with these particular measures. They are designed to reduce harm—the ones we are passing today in this bill. They are designed to build on the original changes put forward by Labour in 2003 I think it was. Mr Robertson will correct me if I am wrong.Grant Robertson: They were.Dr DAVID CLARK: They were put forward in 2003. My memory is right although my notes say that the bill was introduced by Labour in 2007.Grant Robertson: No.Dr DAVID CLARK: That is not correct Mr Robertson tells me. It has been around a long time; that is certain. The changes that are being made in this bill tighten up the Gambling Act 2003 and that bill represented a shift in focus towards the minimisation of gambling harm. We are tightening it up where it has become clear that there were implementation issues.These other things that are going on at the same time and that appear to expand gambling are what give me a heavy heart. These other measures the Government is undertaking will increase problem gambling in Auckland. It seems to be making calls to take gambling inspectors out of my home city—I learnt of that today—thereby running the risk of more problem gambling across the country where it is considering other bids but is unclear what the criteria are. It does not seem to be focused on harm minimisation in every aspect of Government business. It seems to be doing one thing on one hand and on the other hand it is just introducing more gambling measures at the expense of problem gamblers in Auckland seemingly with no eye to the harms that that will cause as a result of the Skycity deal.The bill itself of course provides the power to suspend certain licences if there are retrospective breaches whether or not they have been prescribed as to what should be done. Failures to comply can result in the cancellation of licences and so on. These are sensible and good measures and we support them. We will support them as we vote this bill through its final readings. But I do that as I said with a heavy heart knowing that gambling harm is going to be on the increase with the Skycity deal. Gambling harm is on the increase with gambling inspectors being done away with. Gambling harm is on the increase and at the same time taxpayers are not getting a good deal on the Skycity deal. We know that it was promised by Mr Joyce to be free. It was promised by Mr Key to be free. Now taxpayers look like they are facing a white elephant that will just be about domestic competition subsidised in Auckland rather than about reducing gambling harm or something else that would be good for New Zealand as a whole. Thank you.BRETT HUDSON (National):It is very much a pleasure to stand here and speak to the third reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). I would have to say having listened to a number of other speakers give their pieces in this debate that it does appear you can say with some degree of confidence that there is a very good chance this bill will receive a successful third reading at the conclusion of the debate. That is very very good to know because it is in fact a very important bill. It is one of three—one of multiple amendments. The first fortunately was passed some time ago and the third amendment currently sits in front of the Government Administration Committee and that will give it full attention in due course.The Government’s focus particularly in the area of class 4 gambling is to minimise harm within our communities while maximising returns to those communities. Before I get into the substance of that I will hark back. This bill of course as has been acknowledged was introduced in 2007 under the previous Labour Government by I believe the Hon Rick Barker. I think he was mentioned as the member who introduced it. Of course it was not passed by that Government prior to its some might say richly deserved ousting by the public in late 2008. So Government members had well over a year to deal with it. The public might draw its own deductions from that on just what the priority of that bill was to that Government back then. I have heard members complain about how long this Government might be taking to deal with it. Certainly the previous Labour Government had all the time it needed and treated the matter with the importance it obviously placed on it.I turn to the bill and what I hope will be a successful third reading. As I have said we wish to maximise returns to the community while minimising harm. If we look at this class of gambling in the year 2013 it contributed around $637 million to the community. So it is a source of much-needed very welcome funds within our communities. Of course we need to strike a balance to make sure that we minimise harm and find ways to help those who have issues with gambling. We currently require around 37 percent of funds as a minimum to be returned to the communities but that will be lifting over time to 40 percent or more. Really importantly actually this bill requires that 80 percent—80 percent—of those proceeds go back to the areas where the funds came from. So if we have areas for instance where problem gambling appears to be a greater issue then we have certainty that in fact more of the funds going to communities will go to those specific areas which is a very positive thing indeed.I would like to talk a bit on harm minimisation. It starts in fact with ongoing obligations and duties for the gaming societies after having received their licences and they are around obligations to minimise costs maximise community returns and minimise the risks of problem gambling. Alongside that the Government raises a problem gambling levy which raises approximately $55 million over 3 years to fund services and minimise gambling harm in communities. A point I would like to note because I have heard Skycity mentioned a lot is that local councils already have the power to impose sinking-lid policies on pokie machines. In fact the total number of machines has dropped from approximately 25000 in 2003 to around 17000 now. Despite what the Opposition members are trying to say it has been well established that the total number of pokie machines will reduce even after we get our $400 million conference centre for no cash outlay from the taxpayer. It tries to pretend that that is not the case but it is a well-established fact that it is.On top of that through the Department of Internal Affairs we continue to investigate further harm minimisation actions particularly the use of technology within machines to help prevent problem gamblers getting into greater difficulties such as facial recognition technology. The department has investigated areas such as this. At the present it has concluded it still has further work to do and it still wishes to do further monitoring of evidence particularly in other countries just to ascertain that that will be an effective use of technology should it be mandated particularly as part of a standard that societies and venues may have to adopt.Along with that I think another good practical measure that this bill allows is that it allows operators the ability to prohibit mobile eftpos machines from being taken near gambling machines in their venues. That is a very sound pragmatic and practical idea. It would mean that players would be forced to take a break. They would have to walk away from machines if they were in fact going to seek additional funds to continue gambling. I think everyone can agree that that break would help most many certainly some to actually question whether or not they want to and whether or not it would be the right thing for them to continue gambling at that time. It is a very good idea indeed.Other parts of this bill that I think are very important and that really add some protection and some value are around transparency and accounting. I think there has been a public perception that there is rorting for want of a better term that does go or has gone on around this form of gambling and I think venue fees is one rort that has been canvassed as something that the public or many in the public at least feel is something that is manufactured and a bit distorted. This bill basically specifies that venue fees will be limited to actual reasonable and necessary costs. It puts some very clear limitations around what societies and the venues can try to do to prevent distortion of returns through manufactured costs.The bill also requires that profits be paid directly into the society’s account and not used for instance—as has been suggested may have been the case in the past—to manage cash-flow pressures either on the society or potentially also on the venue. It also sets out circumstances in which a society may apply gaming machine profits to its own authorised purposes—i.e. instead of making grants to the wider community. It also mandates a requirement that community grant recipients must use the grants for the specific authorised purposes the grants were issued for. I think that will all help to give the public far greater confidence that the system is not being rorted that the profit distributions are being fairly applied and that in actual fact those receiving the moneys are actually using them for authorised purposes and the purposes they were stipulated for in the first place.Another area that I think is particularly important—and in fact it strikes me as a bit surprising that it was not originally in there—is the area of information gathering. It appears that there have been some gaps. We have expected that the Department of Internal Affairs would record information around gambling and it would monitor it but it appears that we have not actually given it the proper authority to collect the sort of information that would help it to do its job most effectively. This does seek to repair or ameliorate that. So it will now have a better defined authority around the information it can collect what it can collect how often it can collect it and the manner and the form in which it can be collected and in fact used.It also now—now but not previously—permits including details of how the gambling profits are distributed. That struck me upon going through this as a very odd situation—that it is an amendment that must be made now and was not there already. But another very good thing in terms of transparency is that the bill requires any resulting statistical information that comes from that monitoring and compliance activity to be published in electronic format at a minimum on the Department of Internal Affairs website. Any interested party any member of the public or any particular group can satisfy themselves through the data that the monitoring functions are being delivered well but also that the information is available for all—all—to access.But there is another thing that struck me if I may say as just absolutely bizarre—absolutely bizarre. I will not sing from the old song.Tim Macindoe: Oh!BRETT HUDSON: How bizarre how bizarre how bizarre! The change in this amendment now actually permits the Department of Internal Affairs to test new technologies new ideas and new models in gaming and gambling venues. It was never able to previously take a new piece of technology and determine how it would work in real life. That is a substantial and really positive change. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to it receiving a successful third reading. Thank you.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. This bill has been around for many years—8 years. I do not think it needs to have any more delay with a massive contribution from myself except to say the Green Party supports this bill which mostly contains technical amendments to the original Act dating back from 2004. Denise Roche our gambling spokesperson has spoken on it frequently articulately and cogently. She would point out that although this bill has some measures to address problem gambling we are still not addressing those root causes.It is important that New Zealand the Government and this Parliament acknowledge that New Zealand does have a problem-gambling problem. I know the Department of Internal Affairs has been raised many times in this debate. One figure I would like to draw members’ attention to is an estimate that there was $209 billion lost—$209 billion lost—in gambling over the financial year 2013-14. That is a huge amount of money coming out of New Zealanders’ wallets. What we have seen is that around 40 percent of that comes from class 4 gambling venues or say pubs with a dedicated room with pokie machines. Forty percent of that—so 40 percent of 40 percent—came from pokie machines where we know players for want of a better word have limited control over gambling behaviour when it comes to those machines.We have talked about some of the work that the Department of Internal Affairs is doing but we have not heard about the work the media has done to raise this very important issue. I know that Television One last year actually sent a pensioner into Skycity Casino to stay there and gamble for as long as they could. It took 14 hours before that person left without an intervention. There was no intervention whatsoever over those 14 hours. My colleague Denise Roche actually laid a complaint. It took 6 months as I understand and basically what Skycity Casino received was a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket giving a pledge that it would work with the Department of Internal Affairs to develop its host responsibility policy.When we know the scale of the harm—not only the $209 billion but the cost in human lives on families and on businesses whose employees take the money to gamble with and to feed their addiction—we need to get more serious than just wet bus tickets. We have heard of the mystery shopping which is fantastic but I still have not heard a member point out that of the 102 venues that were mystery-shopped only one intervention was found—one out of 102. That is not exactly great odds. I welcome the mystery shopping but let us also focus on the other side. Let us make sure that those interventions are happening and those people with gambling problems are getting the support they need.Lastly Skycity is a topic that has been raised in this debate. It is important because the Government through its example and through its policies plays an important role. It is sending New Zealanders a signal that it is OK to see more pokie machines in exchange for law. We have seen a deal criticised by the Auditor-General for its process. At its core when you look at the ethics our laws should not be sold to feed something like problem gambling which brings so much harm to so many New Zealand families. The Greens are strongly on the record with our position on that and I just point out before we rise the irony that we are passing some small albeit welcome changes to reduce problem gambling while at the same time massively increasing pokies in Auckland in a dodgy dirty deal.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. It is great to see the time—I am actually going to squeeze in my presentation today which I am very excited about all the more so because I have put so much time into this so I am pleased that I get to do it in one go.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Peak listening time too.CLAYTON MITCHELL: Peak listening time—hello viewers back home.I rise on behalf of New Zealand First for the third and final reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) which is a large multifaceted and inflexible piece of legislation that has been around for debate since 2007. New Zealand First opposes this legislation as it forms part of an overall perfect storm for small class 4 gaming operators and it will ultimately go towards creating a monopoly for the large casinos around New Zealand such as Skycity Casino. You can see the National Government members squirm every time Skycity Casino is brought up as so much legislation seems to be directed at looking after this multimillion-dollar gambling corporation whether it be with zero-hour work contracts which 66 percent of their staff are employed under sweet convention centre deals with consents for 500 extra gaming machines being given and of course who can forget the images of the pre-election fund-raiser at Skycity Casino where contributors paid $15000 per ticket to attend the event? This definitely raises questions for New Zealand.I would like to put it in the strongest of terms that New Zealand First does not condone excessive gambling or in any way suggest that gambling should be taken up recreationally. New Zealand First supports sensible legislation that will further minimise harm to problem gamblers and give better support and help to those gamblers who need help or ask for support.It is important to point out that New Zealand is in a harm-minimisation period particularly when you compare the statistics from 2002 with now. In fact the state of the nation report that was released last Tuesday by the Salvation Army’s social policy and parliamentary unit says that pokie machine numbers have sunk to a 14-year low dropping from 27000 machines to fewer than 1700 machines today. And unsurprisingly this decline in gaming machine numbers has translated into declining losses by gamblers. In normal terms this is 2.4 percent less than in the previous year and 5 percent lower than in 2010.Unfortunately this is good news only on one hand as for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Although class 4 gaming spending is on the decline other forms of gambling are on the incline and what is of particular interest and worry is the steady increase of online gambling which is very difficult to legislate against as it is established offshore and outside our legislative jurisdiction. It is like the Alcohol Advisory Council advertisement—it is not what we are drinking; it is how we are drinking. The same thing applies to those people with gambling addictions—it is not that they are gambling; it is how they are gambling. The only difference is that there is far more help available for those people with drinking problems than there is for those people with gambling problems.I am talking about the gambling levy that is collected from all legitimate gambling outlets including Lotto Keno casinos pokies horse racing and sports betting. I am talking about the fact that a large amount of this collected money is not being put towards assisting those people suffering from gambling addiction.To put that statement into context the latest Ministry of Health Preventing and Minimising Gambling Harm report clearly outlines this problem. It says that $6.8 million is being collected and put aside for public health initiatives of which $4.7 million is being spent on primary prevention. When those experiencing harm from gambling are identifying themselves the access and availability to support is found lacking. The Government needs to be seriously looking at the allocation of funds and consider increasing support to front-line service providers. We must back up public campaigns with the support we profess is available and is not.There was an article released in the Southland Times in March 2014 outlining this problem with the headline “Gambling addiction services lacking”. It goes on to say: “Accessing pokie machines in Central Otago and Queenstown is easy—finding help when gambling becomes a problem is not”. It went on further to say that “Counsellors say a lack of services for problem gamblers and people who need addiction-related help in Queenstown Lakes and Central Otago is ‘outrageous’.”This is not an issue of how much money public health is collecting for problem gambling; it is about how the money is being spent. More needs to be done for the people who need it the most and the latest report also outlines the steady decline in the numbers of people using the Gambling Helpline. This service has now amalgamated with Lifeline Aotearoa because of the lack of requirement. However perhaps the $1 million that it cost to run this service could be put towards rehabilitating those people seeking help.There is not a person among us who would not agree that gambling addiction is an insidious sickness one that has the destructive power to destroy lives and families. Currently in New Zealand we have around 0.03 percent of our people suffering from gambling addiction which is on the decline. I am concerned that the legislation that is being put forward today combined with the legislation that was supported in the House last December will create a perfect storm and become the death knell for class 4 gambling or pokies as we know them.I can hear some of the members over there cheering gleefully with regard to my last comment but it does come with a warning and that warning is that the increase in harm minimisation initiatives put forward in this bill and the last one will be the death knell for community funding from grant applications. Applying for financial support for societies and foundations for sports clubs surf clubs community centres arts and culture groups schools hospitals and emergency service providers will vanish like magic under these proposed cumulative conditions. We are not talking here about tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars and we are not even talking about tens of millions of dollars. We are talking about $300 million of community funding that is being put at risk. That will be taken away from our community groups which so heavily rely on that funding to survive. Is this Government in a financial position to be able to make up that funding shortfall in our communities? I would suggest not.Legislation has been passed—despite strong opposition from New Zealand First—that could force small businesses to introduce real-time player tracking technology and facial recognition software to reduce gambling harm. This is combined with new legislation being put forward in the bill currently before the House today allowing problem gamblers who have excluded themselves from licensed premises to go back on to the premises providing that they do not enter the gambling room. What? That is ridiculous. Talk about being led into temptation—Matthew 6:13.The excessive costs associated with upgrading gaming room technology and extra security costs required to manage gaming areas will force many small businesses to close their operation which will have a catastrophic effect on money not being made available for the community by way of grant applications. Potential harm is around us wherever we go. Whether we are crossing the road eating fast foods climbing trees or walking down the beach we need to be careful and conscious of harm and we need to do what we can as individuals and as a society to mitigate as much risk as feasibly possible.However I along with so many other New Zealanders feel concerned about the nanny State that New Zealand is finding itself rapidly becoming. We need to be doing far more to offer support and help for people who need it but it does not need to be at the expense of the community and it certainly should not involve creating more wealth for the likes of the large casino corporations who will be the big winners under this latest piece of legislation. Thank you.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National):Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) in its third reading. I am not on the Government Administration Committee so it is a real privilege to be able to speak on this bill. As we have heard the Gambling Act 2003 took effect on 1 July 2004. As it happens with time we learn observe and bring reforms. This has happened time and time again and it is happening to this Act which brought major reforms to the gambling sector. It is very important that the intent of the Act is maintained. The amendments in the bill are consistent with the intent of the Act which is to minimise harm from gambling.Before I get into any technical aspects I would like to highlight that National is aware of issues around gambling and our interest is to reduce the harm that can be caused by gambling. We also keep in mind that we work on making sure that returns to the community are taken full advantage of for the betterment of our communities. The problem gambling levy is currently raising $55 million over 3 years to fund services and minimise the harm caused in communities. Various organisations use this money as a source of funding for their services which are provided to the wider community. They are required to be accountable according to this bill for the grant or funding that is awarded to them from gambling societies. The amendments to the Act will make sure that the regulatory framework operates as it is supposed to and that gambling operators know their obligations. The behaviour of some class 4 gambling societies has been disappointing. There have been efforts put in place to make progress in this area. There has been a number of prosecutions and a clear message has been sent to the sector.I believe in personal responsibility and realise that the gambling policy is always a balancing act for the Government because there are some people who know how to engage in activities that are kept strictly at a social and leisurely level but then there is a group that can be prone to become addicted and some who just get into gambling with the hope—or shall we say false hope—of winning something big. It depends very much on the individual. I have seen families who gamble on occasion and understand the separation that it means in their lives while other families have struggled with addiction hence leading to rifts in families and financial situations. Once again the situation is very subjective to the individual.Overall if we look at the number of pokie machines their number has actually decreased significantly since 2003. This number should continue to drop because as per local councils venues with gambling machines that close down cannot be replaced. A major focus for the Government is on ensuring that the Gambling Act 2003 can be properly enforced. These changes are intended to resolve any confusion about meaning and reinforce to the sector how important aspects of the Act work. For example Supplementary Order Paper 454 clarifies the ongoing obligations of gambling societies after they are licensed. With regard to the additional provisions in the Act relating to class 4 gambling which includes all non-casino pokie machines from this at least 37 percent of all net proceeds must be returned to the community.The Government takes problem gambling seriously and our policy on class 4 gambling is to minimise the harm caused while maximising the returns to the community. Harm minimisation is a priority for this Government. The bill has additional harm minimisation regulation-making powers that may offer the opportunity to introduce additional well-targeted interventions in the future—for example regulations could be made to specify minimum standards of content for problem-gambling awareness training for venue staff.Debate interrupted.