Dyson Ruth: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee[Sitting date: 28 October 2014. Volume:701;Page:330. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you particularly for that clarification because when you earlier outlined the parts and the clauses I think there was a little bit of confusion so that is very clear—the whole thing as one debate and everyone seems agreed on that.Can I just back up a little bit and go back to the original point of this legislation which as other members have referred to was actually introduced 7 years ago. Seven years ago the Hon Rick Barker introduced this legislation and I recall the debates at the time. They were not as heated as some of the gambling debates that we have had around the behaviour of the Government for example with Skycity. There was a lot of cross-party agreement on the need for the legislation. The issue of problem gambling was becoming more and more known to members of Parliament and I think there was a genuine desire to address that but there was some concern at the time that the legislation was very prescriptive and therefore would soon become dated and we would have a need for amendments to update it.I want to ask a question of the Minister in the chair Peter Dunne who despite our political differences I think shares with me an understanding of how the other works and I think the Minister would have considered it. What I want to know is what the tipping point is—in terms of definitions that we know will become dated but we do not know how—with regard to having them in primary legislation as opposed to schedules. I would be very interested to know—not that it is going to make a difference in terms of support or otherwise of the legislation but in terms of the best way of either redrafting or amending legislation such as this in the future where we know that practices will develop practices will change and the current definitions will become redundant—what the best way is to ensure that they are kept relevant.So I would like the Minister’s answer if he has an opportunity—it may be this evening. Peak listener time is just about to come upon us as the Minister is well aware. He knows that between 8 minutes to 10 p.m. and 5 minutes to 10 p.m. is when most people like to tune in to listen to what is happening in Parliament. But quite seriously I would like it if he could just say what he thinks is the tipping point in that because throughout this legislation you can see things that may well disappear in the very near future but the intent to try to minimise harm is obviously still relevant regardless of what the cause is.So that was the reason that we had this legislation as an amendment in the first place—because the very concerns that were raised were shown to be correct in that respect—but I do not think we are getting it right in this legislation because we have still got so many definitions in the primary legislation.I want to have a look at Part 1 and the definitional issues that I think Stuart Nash and perhaps Chris Hipkins as well referred to. That is a very relevant example of the areas where the technology changes will in fact make the very sections that we are debating now become irrelevant to Parliaments of the future. So that is my primary question—what is the tipping point for definitions such as this which are at the heart of the legislation? They are not minor; they are at the fundamental heart because they describe the triggers for either offences or other regulatory regimes or controls that are put on. So the very heart and soul of this legislation is included in the definitions.I am hoping that the Minister is about take a call in which case I am very keen to hear the answer to that question. What is the tipping point? What can we safely leave in the primary legislation and not have to come back in the future and spend the time of the House making amendments to when we all agree on the primary purpose of the legislation? And what can more usefully be put in a schedule which can then of course be updated by Order in Council particularly given that the Minister is well aware of the fact that there is widespread agreement in this area?