Peters Winston: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:2143. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 In the long history of this party New Zealand First we have never promoted gambling in this country. At all levels of reforms and changes we have never taken that position. But the law of New Zealand does allow for gambling and for certain types of gambling the Government is a significant beneficiary of such activity. But I want to say right now that I am hearing from certain members just how out of touch they are with the facts of this country and how biased they are about certain industries.  
Mr Flavell’s Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill purports to reduce harm caused by class 4 gambling for example. It is New Zealand First’s submission that the bill is completely ineffective to achieve that purpose. There are many alternative forms of gambling available all of which can have a negative impact on the problem gambler. There is an ever-increasing number of internet-based gambling sites which though not necessarily legal are easily accessed by anyone with a home computer. These sites look to replicate casino and pokie gambling in the comfort of the home. It is all happening under the member’s very eyes now. They have the same potential to take money from the weak-willed but give absolutely no benefit whatsoever back to the Government or the community and this bill will do nothing to save people from themselves.  
This bill is not about the proliferation of pokies. Let us comment on some specific provisions of the bill which some members here need to acquaint themselves with particularly since they say that the local communities to which they belong are where so much of it happens but when they evince their views in this House they seem to understand very little. Clause 5 of the bill would remove racing from the authorised purposes that can benefit from pokie funds. This is a 32000 people industry. Thousands more have an interest in all manner of trades from the person who fixes up the horses’ hooves to the animal dentist to the transporters and to the people who go offshore to promote the industry. It is a $1.8 billion industry to the economy it brings in $160 million of exports and here is a group of members of Parliament with so little understanding of this darn economy and how it works and of some people’s livelihood as participants in a world-leading nation when it comes to the racing industry that all they want to do is smash it. 
What percentage of pokie money was racing taking? Was it 4 percent or 6 percent? What was it? 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Tell us. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well it was 6 percent. All the rest is going into the “Underpants-wearing Society of Remuera” which does not support the racing industry and all manner of other people whom the last speaker Denise Roche and the promoter of the bill are wanting to help somehow. But what about the thousands of young Maori who seek an aspiration in this industry from the people who get up at 4 o’clock in the morning to the guy who is a jockey like Michael Walker who in Australia the other day rode a 150:1 outsider and got it home? It is someone’s lifeblood about which we speak. 
The introduction of pokies had and continues to have a significant deleterious effect on TAB betting which is the lifeblood of the racing industry which is a multimillion-dollar export earner for this country. Who cares on the other side the Government side? Racing should continue to be authorised for class 4 gaming purposes because part of the real harm caused by pokies is the attack that they have allowed by silly decisions from Parliament that have reduced the TAB funding stream of racing. This is an industry in crisis because the Government does not seem to understand what it is worth to this country.  
Clauses 6(1) and 89 would require that at least 80 percent of funds be distributed in the area where they were raised. We agree with that but we do not think the smart thing to do here is to go and give it to the local bodies which are accused every day of putting up rates and here comes one more expenditure one more administrative cost that goes to local government. Government members will go back to their clinics and sympathise with the local government politicians about rates but here they are with one more nanny State imposition. Why? Because they are out of touch. They cannot trust the charities cannot trust the Tindall Foundation and cannot trust these industries all over the country that are doing such great work. If there are rorts surely the Department of Internal Affairs has fixed them up by now—if members of Parliament were aware of what was going on in their community. The days of the rorts are long gone and what we heard in that last speech—this is a 10-minute speech is it not? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No 5. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well it should be. I will finish it off. I will conclude by saying this. Have I got 2 minutes to go? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No. I am sorry but the member’s time has expired.