Clark David: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1512. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):Labour will support this bill which was first introduced in 2007 by Rick Barker who has now retired as a member of Parliament. I think as previous speakers have noted it is in many ways shocking that it has taken so long to get this legislation moving properly through the House.The bill was first introduced in 2004 and was solid legislation to make sure that the harms of problem gambling were reduced. Of course immediately when a new bill is introduced it is tested in the real world and it is shown that there are corners that need to be sanded there are holes that need to be plugged and so on. I do not want to stretch the metaphor too far you will understand but a bill needs to be road-tested. Then this bill has come back to the House to make some improvements upon the original bill to make sure that it is roadworthy to make sure that it is fit for purpose and to make sure that it achieves the goals it sets out to achieve.So I say for those watching at home who have been following the debate that it is not a huge bill nor is it just a couple of pages. We have got about 48 sides of text that we as parliamentarians can look through to make sure as best as we can judge that it is going to achieve the purposes of the original bill and to make sure that it does not need to come back yet again. It may well do as the situation changes. So here we find ourselves arguing the case for a bill across the Committee where it enjoys wide support because it is trying to achieve the purposes of the bill.I want to refer to some things in Part 2 that relate to the increase in casino gambling. Specifically at the start of Part 2 we have clause 8—subclauses (1) and (2)—which talks about how the bill decides that it is going to ensure that problem gambling does not increase. My colleague Chris Hipkins indicated earlier that the effect of this is to put the judgments about casino gambling in the hands of the Gambling Commission an independent body that will ensure over time that problem gambling is reduced and that society as a whole does not bear more costs than it should when gambling takes place. You know basically it is seeking to make sure that the bill operates as it is intended and that there are not unforeseen costs unintended consequences and a broader societal cost.It would be deeply ironic if we were passing this bill which reduces problem gambling through the House at the same time as legislation was being put through that would increase the harm from problem gambling and yet that is what we find has been the case through this Parliament with another bill that is set down to increase the number of pokie machines at Skycity. I do not want to talk specifically about that—the Chair has made it clear that that will not be tolerated—but I want to go through some of the clauses and just acknowledge that they have been put there so that there are more powers in the hands of the Chief Gambling Commissioner to reduce problem gambling.So we see in the description around “Renewal of class 4 operator’s licence” in clause 22A and in the application for a licence on the following page how words are changed to make sure that everything is covered off. Likewise we see a clause slipping in there that gives more powers to the Secretary of Internal Affairs to categorise gambling. We can be sure that those things that are harmful such as if the nature of gambling changes or if there are technical changes in the nature of gambling machines and so on that might not otherwise be captured by the legislation as I read this—and the Minister in the chair can correct me if I am wrong—it gives the Secretary of Internal Affairs powers to classify what is and what is not likely to be captured as problem gambling under the different types of gambling described in this bill. So it would be indeed deeply ironic if at the same time we were proposing to pass a bill through Parliament that facilitated 8000 more people to be affected by problem gambling that put 230 more pokie machines in the hands of a casino we were extending the powers in the other direction in a bill.This is what the bill does. This bill does restrict problem gambling. It does close those loopholes where we might hope that it would. We see that elsewhere the Government is looking at perhaps doing completely the opposite and that does pain us on this side of the House where we do believe that it is important to curb the harms to society as laid out in this bill. It is important to restrict the category of who can hold a gambling licence and even to have retrospective clauses that we find in here that give increased powers to restrict gambling licences for those who may not currently be in breach but who may have historically been in breach. So there are all of these specifics in this bill that we commend and we support. It would be fairly meaningless were we to be introducing measures to restrict problem gambling only to find that elsewhere indeed it was being increased.I have already mentioned the licences that are exercised in respect of a past breach. The bill provides also as I have mentioned in passing the express obligation to incur only actual reasonable and necessary costs of gambling. That is about in my reading avoiding unnecessary and unintended consequences where the law is not quite sharp enough giving those additional powers and also making sure that there are no problem-gambling situations that go unchallenged or unpunished.The bill also provides that returns to the Crown in terms of tax deductions and so on and depreciation charges are not offset against profits in gambling situations so that the bodies using gambling pay their fair share as I read this. I am sure the Chair will correct me if I have got that part wrong. And it provides that the problem gambling levy may be calculated by a specific formula that really covers the costs that are necessary to address problem gambling.I commend members to the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward—to give them full and worthy consideration. It is good that this bill is going through the House. I congratulate the Minister on making some progress in this regard and I challenge members opposite to consider very closely and very carefully the other legislation that might be before the House that would increase problem gambling and the harm to our society. I invite them to consider whether it is conscionable to do that at the same time as we hear past legislation that restricts problem gambling.Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I congratulate again Rick Barker on introducing it. I congratulate the Minister on progressing it after its first introduction in 2004. It is good to see it moving again finally and I hope it does get through the House. Labour will certainly be supporting it because we do support the reduction of harm and the reduction of problem gambling in New Zealand.