Beaumont Carol: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBeaumont Carol: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 04 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13273. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):Malo elelei. I want to acknowledge as others have Tongan Language Week. The community in which I am based has a very strong Tongan community and I wish well all of those who are working so hard to keep our Pacific languages alive in this country. Unfortunately based on the select committee I was at this morning there does not seem to be a lot of commitment by the Government to that issue. But that is not why I am standing up here to speak. I am here to outline why I will be voting against the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. As others have I too want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell. I think the original bill was actually a very brave bill because there are massive vested interests in this area. There is no question that the gambling industry has huge vested interests and unfortunately it appears to be the winner under this National Government.The Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is a bill that actually does not live up to its initial promise and does not reduce gambling harm. I think that those people who have been following this whole debate and maybe listened to the honourable Minister Chris Tremain will by now have heard a number of very compelling speeches that outline the real story behind this unlike the Minister’s speech which seemed to indicate in fact that the bill had been strengthened through the select committee process. Well I do not think that even the member whose bill it is would argue that that was the case. When this bill was introduced organisations like the Salvation Army and the Problem Gambling Foundation—organisations that I respect enormously and that work day in day out on issues related to problem gambling—were very positive about this bill. They could see that it would make a difference. Well they are no longer positive and I will come back to that.What is the purpose of the bill? The purpose of this bill has been set out as “to prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling including problem gambling … to ensure that money from gambling benefits the community … to facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling …”. Is that the bill that we now have before us at the third reading? I do not think so. This bill through the select committee process as others have said has been gutted. It barely does anything to reduce problem gambling and the changes put forward by Government MPs—particularly in light of the other bit of legislation that we all know is coming theSkycity bill—clearly will only in fact increase gambling harm.The Salvation Army which I mentioned before has come out criticising the changes that were made by the Government saying that they do nothing for problem gamblers those at risk or communities wishing to manage the impact of gambling and that “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this Bill on balance will make matters worse”. That was Campbell Roberts. That does not sound like what the Minister Chris Tremain was describing. And what did the Problem Gambling Foundation Chief Executive Graeme Ramsey say? He said that the amendments to the bill meant that it was effectively now misnamed because it would have little if any effect on problem gambling. He said: “I think what we are seeing is a proposed radical rewrite of the bill and I don’t think it will do a great deal for harm minimisation at all.”So in fact from being strong supporters of the bill as introduced two very important organisations that deal with problem gambling are quite clear that this bill is not going to do what it set out to do which was harm reduction. They have said why the first of the three purposes of the bill harm minimisation has not—I mean I believe what they are saying. I think that Green MP Denise Roche has outlined very clearly why the other two purposes the purpose around ensuring that money from gambling benefits the community—she had very clear examples about netball and rugby—and the third purpose around facilitating community involvement in decisions have actually been undermined as well. The bill will leave gaming trusts in control of the distribution of funds and will not require them to return 80 percent of the funds to the district where the gambling occurs. And actually as others have noted the Government members of the Commerce Committee replaced the provision for councils to reduce and eliminate pokies in some areas by allowing those operators to simply move elsewhere while retaining the same number of pokie machines. I will come back to sinking-lid policies later in the speech.In the Committee stage of this bill a number of us particularly my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard tried very hard to improve through the use of Supplementary Order Papers a number of provisions in order to try to reinstate some of the issues that had been in the original bill and to try to deal with the concerns. I had Supplementary Order Paper 290 during the Committee stage. It was around the transfer of licences and basically providing that a territorial authority’s class 4 venue policy would have to include a relocation policy which “must specify the maximum percentage of gaming machines permitted to operate at the new venue and that this percentage must be no more than 100% of the gaming machines that were permitted to operate at the old venue …” and also that if the class 4 venue licence is to be transferred the maximum number of gaming machines permitted at the new venue shall be no more than the percentage specified. Certainly there were other colleagues who looked at a lower percentage but what we were trying to ensure was that we were actually in a situation where it was possible to continue to see the reduction of pokie machines. So we did try during that stage but of course no Government members were willing to do the right thing and to support any of those very sensible amendments.Darien Fenton: Not Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga?CAROL BEAUMONT: No no Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga certainly did not and he is seeming to be quite a great advocate of gambling. But I might talk a little more about him shortly. We did try.I just want to ask the question and it might seem obvious but for those listening who maybe have not heard the debates on this before why are we so concerned about this? Why does it matter? Well gambling harm is a significant problem in our communities. In the part of Auckland that I live and work in it is a significant problem. As MPs weare responsible for trying to deal with harm in our communities when we can. We are certainly not here to encourage harm. This Government unfortunately does not seem to understand that because theSkycity bill will in fact be increasing the number of pokie machines. But look what is that harm? Well at any given time in this country between 0.3 and 1.8 percent of adults living in the community are likely to score as problem gamblers. That is between 10000 and 60000 people. They obviously influence a great deal more people—the people directly in their families for starters—and the harm from their gambling can include poor parenting family violence other crime and suicide. This is a huge huge problem and it is a problem particularly among Māori and Pacific peoples and low-income peoples. So it is something we should be doing something about.It will get worse. This Government is now promoting legislation in theSkycity bill that will increase the number of pokies. I just find it unbelievable that that would be what the Government is trying to do when in fact we should be trying to manage harm. Supposedly that is going to be a conscience vote. Well we are certainly looking for the MPs who will do the right thing who will be the wild card if you like and do the right thing. My colleague Darien Fenton mentioned Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. What does he say? He certainly talked about gambling being a scourge in the community. He has particularly noted how he sees so many people in his electorate office who are suffering from harm from gambling. Yet that member at the moment despite having heard so many stories directly as a member of Parliament is still intending to support legislation that will bring in more pokie machines. Well I ask those listening and I will be asking the community as will my colleagues what should he do? What should that member of Parliament do? Well he certainly should do the right thing.I happened to sit in the other day on the Commerce Committee which was listening to submissions on theSkycity legislation and certainly the Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel from the Auckland Council was quite clear that the legislation was going to exponentially increase harm on the Pacific community. In conclusion I say to members opposite: do the right thing and particularly Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.