Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHarawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11845. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana)to theMinister for Economic Development: Does he think the Government’s decision to grant 230 new pokie machines 52 new gambling tables and a 35-year licence extension is worth the increase in relationship breakdowns depression suicide family violence increased money laundering job losses increased problem gambling and financial problems as identified by its own Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment-compiled regulatory impact statement; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):I reject the premise of the member’s question for a number of reasons. The first point is to note that the regulatory impact statement states that harm from gambling may include the things the member refers to. It is also important that there are a number of things that mitigate those possibilities in this case. Firstly it is by no means clear at all that a marginal increase in machines in one casino will increase gambling harm especially when the total number of machines across Auckland and across New Zealand continues to decline. Also the negotiated significant additional harm-minimisation measures that apply to all gambling machines across the casino will together act to reduce harm. Once the concessions are in place there is also absolutely nothing to stop the regulatory authorities introducing new harm-minimisation measures over time.Hone Harawira: When the Minister said yesterday that it is difficult to quantify the potential size of any increased risk of harm does that mean he did not read the full regulatory impact statement from his own ministry which said: “an additional 4779 … people may be at least partly affected by casino machines and an additional 3600 … by casino tables.” and does he now accept that the potential size of any increased risk of harm is not only quantifiable but also unacceptable?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. In fact the same statement—because it is important to get this in context—says that it is difficult to quantify the potential risk of any increased risk of harm. It goes on to say in relation to the matters the member raises that this is a hypothesis and says in paragraph 91: “it is possible to hypothesise”. It then goes on to say: “It is difficult to estimate the additional numbers …” and “Putting a precise cost on this potential increase is also difficult.” So it does record a hypothesis as a possibility but as I answered in answer to the primary question there are a number of things that mitigate that.Hone Harawira: Does the Minister accept that the decision to grant 230 new pokie machines 52 new gambling tables and a 35-year licence extension is evidence that this Government operates on the basis that deliberately harming its own citizens is acceptable as long as it achieves its own primary goals of allowing its fat cat friends to profiteer from New Zealanders’ misery and getting free access for themselves; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I reject that assertion completely. This Government is focused on jobs and growth for New Zealanders. I appreciate that that member himself is against jobs and growth for his constituents in Te Tai Tokerau. This Government is focused on them. The reality is that many human activities have the potential for social harm but the important thing is how you mitigate that risk.