Clark David: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 19 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1803. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.