Brown Peter: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8648] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I missed both those speeches in my effort to stand up; they were so quick. I want to acknowledge from the outset that there are elements in this bill that New Zealand First thinks will improve the current situation. Indeed we would have supported them at the Committee stage had the debate been allowed in such a way that we could have voted on individual clauses. But it was a constrained debate on a part-by-part basis and very much rushed through and overall we had to oppose it. 
New Zealand First was not on the select committee so we had to come to terms with the bill by doing what might be termed “the hard yards”. We had to read it in its entirety we had to study the submissions as best we could and we had to listen to the debate in this House. We note that the select committee received 521 submissions the hearing of evidence took 33 hours and 48 minutes and a further 34 hours and 18 minutes were spent in consideration. We were not there—and it is a very difficult job to keep up with that level of work—but what surprises me is neither was United Future. It was not even in the House in any effective manner in the last term of Parliament and it did not have anybody on this select committee at all. I ask the chief whip of United Future: “Did you read the submissions?”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the “member” read the submissions. 
PETER BROWN 
: Did the member read the submissions? Did anybody in United Future read the submissions? He does not know. I think members can take that as being that nobody in United Future has read the submissions. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would it have made any difference if they had? 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not know but we have good reason to believe that nobody in United Future read the submissions and nobody in United Future can address this House now and answer that question in a positive manner. United Future members have come to this Parliament and supported a Supplementary Order Paper that removes clause 217A from the bill as it was reported back from the select committee. Clause 217A banned interactive gambling. United Future has done a deal with the Labour Party to remove that clause. Its members have not listened to anybody read any submissions or done anything in the public arena whatsoever but they know better than anybody else. 
A few weeks ago my Death with Dignity Bill was defeated and a United Future member—I will not name him because I get on very well with him personally and respect his view—came over to me said he respected my sincerity but the Lord had spoken and my bill had been defeated. I ask United Future members whether the Lord spoke when the Prostitution Reform Bill was passed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There has been one reference to your bill but now we will come back to the Gambling Bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: Do they believe that the Lord is speaking to them so that they do not have to ask the public what they think of interactive gambling? 
In Australia the National Office for the Information Economy—whatever that is—has compiled a report for the Australians. I want to read some of the assertions made in that report: “The key social concerns that have emerged in the debate on interactive gambling are as follows: 1. Internet gambling will greatly increase the accessibility of gambling. Research shows a significant relationship between accessibility and the prevalence of problem gambling. 2. The special attributes of interactive gambling such as its ease of use and the type of products available may exacerbate the prevalence of problem gambling. 3. Interactive gambling will expose new audiences such as young people to gambling thereby increasing the potential for an overall increase in problem gambling. 4. Early intervention and support to problem gamblers may be more difficult to provide by the Internet than in current gambling venues. 5. Interactive gambling may have a further negative impact on the community through the narrowing of leisure choices and an increased gambling mentality with wider acceptance of gambling and the potential for increased isolation of individuals.” 
The report goes on to state in a bullet-point form—which I will read to this House—key points why the Commonwealth of Australia is concerned about interactive gambling: “1. Interactive technology provides an unprecedented level of access to gambling bringing gambling into the homes of Australian families. 2. Young people may be directly affected by increased accessibility to gambling. 3. Accessibility to gambling is the single largest factor contributing to problem gambling. 4. Australia already has one of the largest gambling industries in the world. 5. As a nation of early adopters of new technology and conducting transactions on-line Australia is a prime location for a rapid expansion of interactive gambling. 6. New interactive technology could attract new cohorts of gamblers and result in new problem gamblers and forms of problem gambling.” 
The Australians have seen fit to examine this issue in detail. What are we doing here? We are having little meetings behind the scenes in non – smoke-filled rooms with a Government that opposed interactive gambling when the bill was sent back from the select committee. I say that United Future members should be ashamed of themselves. They should be absolutely hanging their heads in shame. 
I know that Larry Baldock—he winks at me across the House—is going to address a church on Sunday. I want him to stand up and tell them—I will come along; the member invites me to come along and so I will. I think that what United Future is doing in this country is not only shameful but not even democratic. This is the party that stands for common sense. Its members say that they are the common-sense party. Matt Robson nods his head. Is it common sense to deny the public any representations on this sort of legislation? I know that Mr Robson is concerned about problem gambling in this country and I say to him that this is not the way to go. We should not do a back-room deal after all the select committee’s deliberations and considerations said no to interactive gambling. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Is he voting for this bill? 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not know; we will hear that at the end though I cannot imagine he will. When Marc Alexander spoke in this House he said he had not had anybody appeal to him over the phone not to vote for this bill. I have tried to ring him in the House and could not but I have spoken to him personally and appealed to him and to other United Future members not to vote for this bill—not with the clause in it that provides for interactive gambling. If they vote for it they will be doing a disservice to young people and a huge disservice to the families in this country. They will never be able to stand up on a public platform—and certainly not with me alongside them—and say that they are the family party in this country because they sure ain’t.