Flavell Te Ururoa: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFlavell Te Ururoa: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11893. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki):I moveThat the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a second time . I cannot come to this debate without remembering the passionate advocacy of the late MaureenWaaka who inspired me to focus on the issue of problem gambling as one of the greatest social hazards impacting on our communities. Maureen moe mairā koe.The Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill was born out of a desire to minimise the harm of gambling on vulnerable communities as well as ensuring the returns from gambling remained in the communities from which the money was generated. First and foremost gambling-related harm is detrimental to the well-being the economic outlook and the community health of far too many New Zealanders. TheMāori Party stepped up to that challenge and this bill is the result. We do not have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for a better day. We know that problem gambling severely compromises the potential ofwhānau and that we must act now. When gambling gets out of control it is not just an individual who loses. Wholewhānau and communities suffer. Problem gambling has devastating consequences on individuals andwhānau. Those consequences can be demonstrated in relationship breakdown financial ruin psychological distress criminal offending imprisonment and suicide.Why then did theMāori Party take up this call? Over 20 years ago the very first gambling prevalence study in New Zealand identified thatMāori had at least three times more risk of problem gambling than non-Māori. In the early 1990s through the provision of the Gambling Helpline and gamblingcounselling services it was identified thatMāori particularlyMāori women were increasingly seeking help with problems of gambling. Ourrangatahi are also not spared the impact of this addiction.Māori youth are six times more likely to develop gambling problems than non-Māori youth. All in all the glaring reality of these statistics prompted us to commit to a goal which is shared widely in the problem-gambling sector and that is to prevent andminimise gambling harm. So I make these preliminary comments because I want to make it quite clear where our motivation for addressing problem gambling comes from: Hetangata hetangata hetangata.When this bill was introduced in September 2010 its purpose was very clear: to provide local communities with more power to determine wherepokie machines may be sited and how the proceeds can be distributed. Almost 3 years down the track I believe that that vision of a gambling-free future will be strengthened by the initiatives advanced in this bill including the intention to one cutrorts and conflicts of interest out of the gambling sector; two to introduce harmminimisation devices which can now be done through regulations; three to have a minimum amount returned to the community where the gambling occurred which can now be done again through regulations; and four to get pokies out of low socio-economic communities. Now venues will be able to transfer out of these areas where that is supported by the community and the council.The original bill wanted to cut out racing and racing stake money as anauthorised charitable purpose. The Government disagreed saying that it would have too much of a negative impact on the racing industry. That is a fight that will continue at another time. The original bill had a condition that at least 80 percent of the funds derived from class 4 gambling would be distributed to the community from which it came. The Government supported the idea of making sure funds from pokies went back into their communities of origin and the bill now enables this to happen through regulation. The original bill required territorial authorities to take control of distributing proceeds from gambling. The Government agreed that there needs to be greater transparency of the current grant system taking away the risk ofrorts and dodgy dealings. This will be part of a future workprogramme.The original bill allowed for public sentiment and evidence of harm to be a specific criterion when territorial authorities are developing their venue policies and for that to be a reason for reducing the number ofpokie machines in that area. The Government disagreed with this approach but it wanted to instead allow venues with the permission from territorial authorities to move theirpokie machines out of harm’s way. The original bill wanted harmminimisation devices to be put into gambling machines like pre-commit cards and player-tracking systems. The Government has now supported the development of regulations to support the implementation of harmminimisation technology.Let me be the first in this second reading debate to state the obvious. The bill that we are debating here today is far less impressive than my original intent. That is right. There is no denying that. Hands are up—guilty. I do however want to acknowledge my thanks to Graeme Ramsey and the Problem Gambling Foundation and indeed the mighty advocacy of the “People Before Pokies” campaign which has championed the cause of reducing gambling harm so clearly and in such a compelling way. In doing so I want to alsorecognise the incredible impact of the experience the advice and the wisdom from right across themotu. The Commerce Committee apparently considered5000 submissions from interest groups and individuals and considered another 30000 form submissions. It also heard around 159 or 160 submissions at hearings in Wellington Christchurch and Auckland. If nothing else the level of public participation has truly been awesome and this Parliament is better for their contribution.I know that this bill does not live up to the ideal that we all had. But I have chosen not to walk away. My approach to political reform is to chisel away bit by bit to persevere to do the work necessary to achieve change no matter how incremental.Tērā pea hepakupaku hepakupakunoa tenamuēngari kotōna wero ēkāore. As we say the smallest mosquito can have an impact. I was not about to pull out of those communities who desperately need change and turn my back on thewhānau who have come to me in need. So I started working with the Minister of Internal Affairs the Hon Chris Tremain on how to advance the many issues that my bill sought to address and I mihi to him today for his genuine commitment to working together to reform the legislation.What is the result? Well it is a broad package of class 4 gambling reforms which are given further strength within the regulatory and legislative reforms proposed by the Government. The changes announced by Minister Tremain are a direct result of my bill which was the catalyst for change. We placed the issue on the agenda and this wider package is the result of our hard work. Where we had achieved broad agreement we made changes and I am pleased that we have. I have been able to negotiate a series of changes that lift the percentage returned to the community that address conflicts of interest and rorts and that will ensure gambling proceeds are distributed in the areas raised. These changes are important reforms that were not on the radar until my bill came along. Perhaps one of the most significant impacts of this bill is that it has created the public climate for urgency in addressing problem gambling. In this sense a new bill to be introduced later in the year by the Minister and the regulatory changes that have arisen out of my bill are important signals of an appetite for change.If I had the right to reply to all of those who have chosen to publicly withdraw their support from the bill I would urge first that they look at the wider package and the eight new measures that have arisen provoked by the impact of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. The key drivers of my bill were to address rorts and conflicts of interests and concerns around gambling-related harm both of which have been addressed. But we were always clear that a wider strategy was required including broader legislative reform and a public education programme.Just to bring us back to the context of this bill—every day New Zealanders lose $5.5 million on gambling. That is around $2 billion every year. Should we ignore that reality? Should we walk away from this bill on principle? TheMāori Party says no. More than 18000 New Zealanders are problem gamblers and of course none of these individuals operate in isolation. Almost 3 percent of New Zealand adults close to 90000 people have experienced problems due to someone’s gambling in a previous year. Should we gamble on their future wish them good luck and walk away because we were not able to achieve what we wanted with this bill? TheMāori Party says no. We are in this for ourwhānau and our communities. We are not bowing out. We are continuing the tough fight. We have gained some ground. That is what you achieve when you sit down at the table.Tēnā koutou. Kia oratātou katoa.