Roche Denise: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 06 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12429. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Third ReadingDENISE ROCHE (Green):I rise to take the second call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). As discussed—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Excuse me you said “the second call”. Is this a split call or is this a—DENISE ROCHE: A split call.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): A split call—a 5-minute split call.DENISE ROCHE: Yes sir.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Labour does not intend to take its call so the Green member can take as long as she likes.DENISE ROCHE: Thank you very much. As discussed this is a reasonably straightforward bill. It is essentially a tool to ensure that regulations contained in the primary Acts are confirmed and validated. A good part of this bill has a focus on issues to do with regulations that have levies in them. It refers to the Biosecurity Act 1993 the Civil Aviation Act 1990 the Commodity Levies Act 1990 the Customs and Excise Act 1996—with regulations that prohibit the importation of 10 kilograms or more of trout or trout products for a further 3 years and increases the duties on tobacco and alcohol—the Land Transport Act 1998 the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 the Social Security Act 1964 the Road User Charges Act 2012 the War Pensions Act 1954 and of course the Gambling Act 2003 and that is where I will focus my comments.This bill confirms the Gambling (Problem Gambling Levy) Regulations 2013 which is the levy that is paid by gambling operators to cover the costs of problem gambling. This levy is the amount of money that is paid by casinos pokie-machine operators the Lotteries Commission and the New Zealand Racing Board to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and it is passed through the Inland Revenue Department to the Ministry of Health and then to the agencies that deal with problem gambling.It is pretty ironic that this bill is being put to the House today when the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that was brought to the House byMāori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell is being discussed in the Committee of the whole House later today. That was a bill that really would have made some changes in terms ofreducing the incidence of problem gambling. However once it was brought back to the House it was essentially gutted of all its good bits that would have dealt with the problem-gambling issue.But going back to this bill and the gambling levy there is a consultative process undertaken before the levy is set. The gambling industry pokie-machine owners casino owners and the lotteries all get involved and attempt to justify why they should not have to pay very much for problem gambling. Usually they trot out the argument that in this country we spend more per capita on problem-gambling services than any other country in the world. Well of course they want to pay less for the gambling levy because that will increase their profits.The levy is negotiated every 3 years and is based on a Ministry of Health strategy that deals with problem gambling. It is interesting that when this levy was being negotiated the Ministry of Health recommended a substantial increase in the levy paid by the casino operators. The reason for this was that research by the Ministry of Health has shown that a person is more likely—five times more likely in fact—to develop a problem with pokies that are located in casinos than with pokies in pubs and clubs. However the casino industry is extremely successful in its negotiations and it has continued to pay a levy that is approximately half of what other pokie owners pay. That is an interesting fact.Another interesting fact about this levy is that although it is determined in order to pay for problem gambling it does not actually pay for the results of problem gambling. So for example this levy does not cover the food banks that are dealing on a daily basis with people who front up because they have no money because they have spent it on the pokies. This levy does not cover the crime that is associated with problem gambling the businesses who lose money and the not-for-profit organisations that lose money because their staff have stolen it and spent it on the pokies. This levy does not pay for that.I guess I have made my point about this levy. We will be supporting this bill but I did want to take the time to talk about the problem gambling levy. Thank you.