Tremain Chris: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTremain Chris: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13263. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I rise to speak in support of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill so ably steered through this House by our coalition partner the Māori Party and Te Ururoa Flavell.Today in this House Opposition parties will be voting against this bill. We have just heard Mr Trevor Mallard speak with much rhetoric about the problems and the issues that are faced by problem gamblers in this country yet people need to understand clearly what the Opposition parties today through their conscience votes—each and every one of them—are voting against. The first is that they will vote against the ability to allow for venues in low socio-economic communities to move. That is what they are going to vote against. That is the first thing. The second thing they will vote against is the ability to provide harm minimisation devices by regulation. That is the second thing. I want to say that again because they have stood on their high horse throughout this bill and they have accused Te Ururoa Flavell of having his bill gutted but today Oppositionparties will vote against the ability for harm minimisation devices to be brought in by regulation. The people of New Zealand need to understand that because that side of the House is voting against it.The third thing that they will be voting against is the ability for a Government Minister or for the Government to bring in by regulation distribution of funds to regional communities with a specific percentage. They will vote against that as well. So let us be clear. Although they stand on their high horses and talk with much vim and vigour about harm minimisation about regional distribution and most important about moving venues from low socio-economic communities that side of the House will vote against these measures today in this House.I want to talk not only about this bill but also about the wider package of initiatives that we have announced as part of building a raft of initiatives to move the discussion and the debate forward in this to give more protection to minimise harm to allow regional distribution to improve the compliance around this industry and to bring in a raft of changes which I think are important. My five priorities and the five priorities of the Government here were to increase the proportion of gaming proceeds going back to the community. We want to simplify compliance and red tape. We want to generally distribute funding in the area where it was raised in support of Te Ururoa Flavell. We want to protect problem gamblers and we definitely want to increase transparency because we are concerned about the rorts that have existed in this industry.As I have said the bill forms part of a wider package of reforms. Also it is important that New Zealanders understand that earlier this year just a few months ago we announced a $55 million package—a problem gambling strategy of $55 million—and we have renewed that for another 3 years. It is not as though we are sitting back here and doing nothing about that. It is really important. Some of the more controversial elements of this bill were actually removed at the select committee consideration and I believe it is a stronger piece of legislation as a result. The other side of the House wanted to vote for two things in that original bill which the public also needs to understand. The first is that those members supported the distribution of funds by territorial authorities. If you listened and actually were on the Commerce Committee you would have heard hundreds of submitters who came in and said: “We don’t want that politicised at a local level.” The Opposition was in support of that. That is really important.The other thing that the Opposition was in support of was actually an attack on the racing industry. On that side of the House we are hearing as part of this leadership debate around the country that it believes in regional jobs. That is what it is saying: “We believe in regional jobs.” Yet it was going to vote through this piece of legislation to actually have a huge impact on regional racing. If Labour does not think that the members of its party are involved in the racing industry well think again. It was going to vote against that. It would have had a huge impact on the racing industry. On this side of the House we genuinely care about regional jobs so we support it and we changed the bill to ensure that the racing industry was able to look after those jobs.I want to touch on a couple of key points. The first is returning the proceeds to the communities that generated them. The first thing that this bill does is it ensures that proceeds will be returned to the communities that generated them. As a general rule gamblers should not lose money inKaikōura in order to fund community projects in Taranaki. This goes against the purpose of the Gambling Act which is to balance the harm caused in communities with the benefits of grants and funding. The Government did support this element of the bill from the outset. However the original bill sets this out as a blunt mechanism that could be introduced through individual gaming society licences.The select committee has wisely in my belief changed the bill to enable the Government to issue nationwide regulations requiring a minimum percentage to be returned to the local communities. I in conjunction with Te Ururoa Flavell will be issuing a discussion document very shortly to make use of this new regulation-making power. The discussion document is a necessary part of the regulation-making process. So when Opposition members vote against this regulation-making power they will be directly voting against a measure that will ensure that proceeds go back to the communities affected by gambling. When Opposition members are thinking about their conscience vote they may want to think about that.I look forward to the support of Iain Lees-Galloway Ruth Dyson and Rajen Prasad for these regulations when they are promulgated and here is why. Each of those members put in Supplementary Order Papers—Nos 293 294 and 295—where they also acknowledged the importance of distributing proceeds within a local or a regional area. This is exactly what the Government is doing—Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did you vote against them?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: —so I cannot understand why they are voting against this part of the bill now and I look forward to their support Ms Dyson. That would be fantastic—thank you.The second thing hand in hand with these new regulations is I intend to increase the minimum overall amount that gaming societies are required to give back to the community. The minimum percentage at the moment is 37.12 percent. The current average is around 42 percent but some societies are lagging. I believe that we can lift the bar here and increase the total amount going back into communities as well as the proportion that is returned to the same local areas. This will also be part of the discussion document that I have just talked about. Once again I look forward to the support of the Labour Party for this measure when it comes through the House.Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper 296 proposed to increase the minimum rate of return to 40 percent from 2014-15. It is great to see him supporting this initiative that the Government will be rolling out but we believe it requires some consultation through a proper regulatory process not a last-minute change by a Supplementary Order Paper which is what was proposed by Mr Mallard. However I will be pleased that the Government is progressing the idea—in fact we had announced these plans long before Mr Mallard’s Supplementary Order Paper came into the House.Another thing this bill will do is enable councils to encourage venues to transfer out of low socio-demographic areas. I have discussed that in some detail and I look forward to the support from the Opposition on this key part of the bill. Most important this bill will enable us to introduce harm minimisation devices on a mandatory nationwide basis. It is quite different from the bill but it empowers us to do this. This is a huge improvement on the original bill which said only that harm minimisation devices may—harm minimisation devices may—be introduced through societies’ licence conditions. The select committee recommended a regulation-making power instead and I think this is a very good suggestion and one that the Government supports. Regulations will enable us to introduce new devices into venues and are flexible enough to update as new technology emerges. I fully intend to use this provision in the bill to investigate opportunities to use harm minimisation devices. Clearly we need to understand the costs of these devices and the actual benefits they deliver to problem gamblers in that process before we finally decide whether a technology should be implemented by regulation.Just lastly as I close the wider initiatives that we are proposing in this reform process are greater transparency around grants so that people understand where those grants are being made. We propose to amend the venue payment system to reduce thecomplexity in the system and encourage more compliance. So I am proud of having been able to work with Te Ururoa Flavell through this process. I think he has been able to deliver an excellent result through this bill and combined with a wider package of announcements that I made to take this problem gambling issue forward I think it will make great progress. Thank you.