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: 11 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1517. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):Mr Chairman it gave me a huge surprise that you chose to call me at this stage of the debate. I think I will probably be the final contributor in the Committee stage of this bill. I want to begin by just lending a bit of support and sympathy actually to the Hon Gerry Brownlee for what has been a pretty bad start to the parliamentary year. Today he called a comment from the Prime Minister “unfortunate” which is not a career-enhancing move. And he put on the Order Paper the debate on this bill the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) at a time when—for reasons puzzling though it is we are not allowed to refer to during the debate on gambling legislation. But who would want to challenge the Chairman on that ruling? It will not be me at the moment anyway. There could not have been worse timing for the Minister to have chosen to put this debate on the Order Paper so my sympathy to the Hon Gerry Brownlee for what is a double blow in his first week back in Parliament.I want to congratulate the Minister in the chair the Hon Peter Dunne for being either the fourth or fifth Minister I think if you count him twice—Hon Peter Dunne: At least.Hon RUTH DYSON: At least yes. I think he has had responsibility for this bill twice on two separate occasions.Hon Peter Dunne: No no no. Earlier life.Hon RUTH DYSON: OK. In an earlier life. Yes well that was still you though. You may have looked different but it was still—Hon Peter Dunne: 20 years ago.Hon RUTH DYSON: Oh 20 years ago—no not that long ago. So I want to congratulate the Minister. However many Ministers have been before him none of them have succeeded in getting it back to the House in this time. So that is good work.But also I want to acknowledge the Minister’s contribution to the debate. Some Ministers sit in the chair and you would not know whether they were asleep or dead and frankly you would not know whether it would make much difference. The Minister clearly listened and did not answer every single question that was raised tonight but I think did give a very good perspective on the bigger picture and the challenges that lie ahead. I want to just note my appreciation and I think that of others in the Committee as well.I want to acknowledge the Minister whose name is on the bill the Hon Rick Barker who is not a Minister any more—he is a member of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council—and say that at the time of this bill’s being introduced in 2007 it was clearly needed. There had been quite a short time only 4 years between the first ever major gambling reform legislation of 2003 when New Zealand as a society said: “Gambling in some parts of our society is getting out of control we need some regulation and we need to recognise that there has to be transparency for the distribution of funds. There has to be recognition of harm and there has to be accountability to the public from those who administer it.” This bill—the second attempt at that regime of harm minimisation but also at ensuring there is honesty and accountability in the sector—was I think a really good move forward.As the Minister and others have noted there is a Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) before the Government Administration Committee now. There are a couple of puzzling things in that bill. I will not refer to them in this debate because of course it is outside the scope and I will be sat down before I have concluded the contribution that I want to make. I am keen to ensure that we stay on a path where our gambling legislation is evidence-driven and has recognition of the public health impacts. I think that is important. There are parts of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) that go outside that.The Minister might be thinking “This is the eighth year of this blimmin bill—let’s just get it over with.” but I am a little disappointed that some of the improvements in the Supplementary Order Papers are not I think going to be agreed to. Denise Roche from the Green Party referred in passing to what I think is worthy of mention again in terms of what is actually needed in further amendments to the legislation. One piece of evidence that this bill does not actually go far enough and evidence of why some of the Supplementary Order Papers should be supported is in relation to the mystery shopper survey that was done prior to Christmas by the Department of Internal Affairs. Ninety percent of class 4 venues were failing to comply with the regulatory regime that we have currently—90 percent. That is an indication of a major problem. I commend the Department of Internal Affairs. It knows that it has not got enough staff to monitor class 4 venues 24/7 however long the individual venue is open for so it was quite an innovative approach to get the mystery shopper over so many venues. But to have that level of non-compliance—90 percent—I think is a real indictment on the sector and I certainly think that the assurances that we have been given by internal affairs officials that the sector is now buying into a high level of compliance is really important.I know there is an agreement on the time of concluding this debate and I want to honour that agreement but I just want to conclude with a comment about an issue that I found quite puzzling. That is in relation to two Supplementary Order Papers. It may well be the first time that this has occurred in this Parliament or it may be a clerical error and I would like the clerks to just review the situation. My reading of Supplementary Order Paper 478 which was introduced on 2 July last year by the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Supplementary Order Paper 84 which was introduced on Tuesday 13 October 2009 by Kevin Hague seem to be exactly the same. I just want to check that the amendments moved in the two members’ names as I noted—Kevin Hague from October 2009 and the Rt Hon Winston Peters from July 2014—appear to be exactly the same. If it is not a clerical error then I think it is indeed the first time that that situation may have arisen in this Parliament. If Kevin Hague and the Rt Hon Winston Peters both agree on the amendment in regard to racing then I certainly think it should be supported.With those concluding comments I want to again acknowledge the Minister thank him for getting the bill to this—[Interruption] Sorry?Hon Peter Dunne: Five Ministers.Hon RUTH DYSON: I was told 8.45 p.m.; I am going to stick to what I agreed to.Hon Peter Dunne: No five Ministers.Hon RUTH DYSON: Oh five Ministers. I congratulate him on being the fifth Minister and the only one who has got it back to the Committee stage. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 84 in the name of Kevin Hague be agreed to.