Bradford Sue: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8476] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has three fairly substantial amendments in this part of the bill and I hope that if it is possible I might be allowed a second call later on but I will try to cover all our amendments briefly. The first amendment deals with the role of local government in determining what happens with pokie venue licensing in its districts. At the time that this bill was formed we had hoped it would mean that local government would be able to have a real say and be able to create real gambling policies for a whole district about where pokie venues would be situated how many would be situated in the area and how many machines would be in each venue but unfortunately that is not how the bill has transpired. 
We have an amendment on the floor that is supported by Local Government New Zealand and by many of the mayors and councils all over this country who believe as the Green Party does that councils should have a say over all the pokie venues in their district. At the moment only those venues that were licensed after October 2001 will be under council control; others will not be. We believe that communities do need the strength to have it in their own hands to combat the hugely increasing problem of gambling addictions in places all over this country but most particularly in some of the most low-income districts like Manukau City and many others. 
No one territorial authority in this country will have the ability to control more than 30 percent of the pokie machines in its area after this bill is passed. As many councils and community groups that deal with gambling addiction problems would agree that is totally unacceptable. At the moment of the nearly 20000 gambling machines in around 1800 venues in this country only 16 percent will be able to be regulated by councils. A total of 15 territorial local authorities will have no control over the pokies in their district. That will affect a huge range of districts ranging from Carterton Clutha and Gore through to Kaikoura Kaipara Kapiti Kawerau Matamata Opotiki Otorohanga south Waikato Waimate Waitomo and Whakatane. In those districts local councils and local people will have no say over the numbers of pokies. The purpose of our first amendment is to try to reverse that so that councils will have control. 
The second major amendment we have on the floor today deals with the distribution system for the proceeds of the pokie machines. Again that is a huge problem that is not dealt with in the bill. We believe that the distribution of around $200 million a year of proceeds from non-casino gaming machines should be distributed through publicly accountable systems. Unlike some of the misconceptions that have been spread around this House about what the Green Party is putting up we are not promoting some kind of centralised bureaucratic totally governmental system; what we are proposing is a carefully planned and thought-out range of ways in which the money will be distributed. 
First of all a portion of it would be distributed through the Lotteries Commission nationally but only a third. That would go to national bodies including sports and recreation bodies. One-third of all proceeds would go to the Department of Internal Affairs to go out to the territorial authorities to distribute to arts culture and sports and recreation. The final third of all the proceeds of pokies would go to the Community Organisations Grants Scheme to be distributed through local committees. That is not about some kind of centralised system. Two-thirds of the proceeds would be going through local groupings but they would be publicly accountable bodies; the proceeds would not be in public hands. The fact that we now have around $200 million a year going out through the private pub charities is totally unacceptable to us. 
There is a third area in which we are seeking a change in the bill. We would like to see a requirement for a report to be supplied to the Minister each year on all the income that the Government has received from gambling sources in the previous financial year. We believe that the public should be entitled to be informed about the Government’s total income from and potential dependence on the gambling industry. We feel that MPs and indeed everyone in this country should be able to clearly understand in a transparent way what exactly the Government’s reliance on the proceeds of gambling is in the same way that we should be able to see how much the Government depends on the proceeds of things like tobacco and alcohol so that we can determine the extent to which the Government really is dependent on the gambling industry.