Young Jonathan: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11895. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):I am pleased to stand and speak on this bill the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I want to give credit to my parliamentary colleague Te Ururoa Flavell for a number of things—firstly his passion to see people particularly people who are close to him in his electorate free from the problems of gambling addiction and to bring some answers to thosewhānau and families. I also want to give him credit for being pragmatic andworking through solutions with the Minister of Internal Affairs the Hon Chris Tremain. I certainly would not consider Te Ururoa Flavell a mosquito by any means or in any regard and I think that we on our side of the House would regard him as a colleague with whom we have been very happy to work towards his aims.Going through the public submissions was very enlightening I think for all members of the Commerce Committee who were part of that and for some who came on as members of the committee during the process. We have heard from thousands of New Zealanders and we have heard from both sides of the argument and I do not think there would be one person out there who would disagree with the aim of harm reduction for gambling. But there is a variety of opinion on how that ought to be achieved and I would have to say there were a number of comments to say that people did not feel that some of the measures that were proposed were going to work as hoped. So that is why some of the amendments came through from the committee.Also it would be true to say that quite a large number of people who came through said that we needed to have a wider review of the gambling laws. That is another reason why I believe that the Minister has been working with Te Ururoa Flavell to look at a wider working programme around this.There were a number of concerns regarding having local authorities as the entities that disburse the proceeds from gambling. There was not agreement that they would do it any better perhaps at more expense and with less funding available for community groups than what is currently happening. At the same time I believe that as the member has mentioned there was concern about what have been called rorts in the system. The Minister is well aware of the member’s concerns about that and no doubt there will be measures put in place to better bring transparency to the matters concerned.One of the areas that attracted some concern was this matter of where racing is considered to be an approved cause or authorised purpose. That was one particular area that the committee did not accept in terms of the member’s bill as it was originally presented to the committee. Essentially we saw that the racing industry is very much contributing to the economy of the country with 17000 fulltime-equivalent employees with a $1.6 billion annual contribution to the economy and with the export industry of thoroughbreds out of this country to other countries of the world. We considered in the balance of things that the harm to that industry was also something to be considered if they found that it became a retrenching industry because of these measures.You know those are all difficult decisions and difficult things to weigh up. I guess politics is full of trying to find an acceptable compromise and obviously there are people on one side who agree and people on the other side who disagree on these sorts of measures.All I can say is that this was an incredibly thorough process. There were 5020 substantive submissions and 28000 form submissions with a total of 33000 New Zealanders making their viewpoint known by one means or another. There was a tremendous amount of debate and discussion around the pros and cons of the money that is lost and the money that is utilised for community effort and concern. I found it quite a fascinating process to go through. I feel in the end that we—along with what the Minister and Te Ururoa Flavell my respected colleague are working on towards the future—hopefully have a comprehensive package that is going to address some of the concerns that the member put through in his original bill.In terms of just a wrap-up to what I am saying this afternoon one of the particular areas that the committee brought into the bill which was not actually in the original member’s bill was this ability now for licences in low socio-economic areas in particular to be transferred out. There were grandfather provisions that kept them lockedinto those areas which we felt was a real problem and so we have added an amendment that would enable councils with the agreement of the licence holders’ venue owners to transfer them out of those particular areas where there is some concern that in the past they may have been targeting people of low income.I am very pleased to be part of the process and I do trust that we can work together going forward for a good solution. Thank you.