Dyson Ruth: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6469. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): You will be delighted to know Mr Chair that I want to speak to Part 2 which starts at clause 17—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well it will be a novel approach.Hon RUTH DYSON: It goes through to clause 20 and includes the schedule in this particular debate and it includes Supplementary Order Paper 120 which deals with clause 18 and the schedule. As you quite correctly pointed out the main content of this part is in relation to the review of the secretary’s decisions and what that involves. These were changes that the Government Administration Committee took some time to consider because it is not something that we normally deal with in terms of policy issues unlike the other matters that have been the subject of the majority of the vote.What I found really interesting when we discussed whether an organisation had an appeal right after the secretary had made the decision—and this is in relation to class 3 or class 4 gambling—was whether they could appeal then to the Gambling Commission how long they had to appeal and what the grounds were. What the debate indicated to me was that the nature of the organisations that we are dealing with has changed substantially since the first major gambling legislation in 2003. I think that is something that the House not during this debate should at some time give quite a lot of consideration to. I do not think that our Parliament has done that in the consideration of gambling legislation.There is the highly competitive nature between the organisations seeking to get more pokie machines basically and then after that when they are granted a licence or if they are refused a licence there is the issue of how they are able to appeal and how long that is going to take. The reason that it was so important for the organisations and why they made such a song and dance about it was that their businesses depended on it. I do not think that is how these organisations were originally established. It was certainly never the intention of the gambling legislation originally but what we have got now is an entirely different sector. We have vending operators that are dependent on their pokie machines in order to run their business. It is cart before the horse. That is why the secretary’s decision the appeals to the Gambling Commission—how long that takes how many licences they are allowed what the terms for withdrawing a licence are; all those issues—were drawn into far greater tension I guess.The other issue that became very obvious in relation to this was the groups that now get pokie money. All the electorate MPs in the Committee would be very familiar with their organisations that every year apply for pokie money and are dependent on it. The nature of their reliance I think is another problem that at some stage this Parliament needs to grapple with. They had exactly the same concerns about the issues that are outlined in clause 17 which inserts new section 235A about the review of the decision the grounds for the decision the appeal to the Gambling Commission and the opportunity to apply for a judicial review. Some of them talked about how they would have to basically get pokie money to apply for a judicial review to then be able to maintain the pokie operations of the organisation that they had a relationship with. So it is not a healthy situation actually.Clause 17 deals with the nuts and bolts of the operation. It does not deal with the fundamental policy questions about whether we think that having gambling that does public health damage should drive dependency of very good worthy community and voluntary organisations to the point that in this clause they were so anxious about the rigidity or the rigour of the licence issuing and appeal process—not because of wanting to have integrity in the gambling system but because of the potential harm that that it would do to them either as a vendor running their business dependent on gambling money or one of our really great community and voluntary sector organisations that is dependent on the pokie money for their survival. So although we looked at these provisions in clause 17 originally it was just a “Well this is just a standard process how you would go through this.” Of course you need a proper process to have a licence issued. You need a proper appeal process if there is some concern about their behaviour and all those rules in both class 3 operators’ licences and class 4 operators’ licences or class 4 venue licences are clear in here.What we learnt during our debate on this clause was entirely different. It was about the changing nature of the organisations that run pokies the huge competition that there is now and of course with more and more local authorities taking the opportunity to have sinking-lid policies on their pokie machines that heightens the tension and the inability of organisations to move their operation from one part of a city or town to another—all those issues came up during this process.I think that we did good work in considering that. I think that the small changes that we have made in these provisions—you will notice that we made small provisions right at the start of clause 17 and in 17(a) and then a deletion in clause 19 which affects new section 378 and very minor changes in the schedule. I think the changes were good but what it has left open and I would again urge Parliament in future—the Minister of Internal Affairs himself has always been interested in big policy issues. He may want to instigate a cross-party forum discussion for the issues that are not dealt with specifically in the legislation but that were debated because they were generated by the provisions in Part 2 and that is how different the organisations are now that run these machines and how the competitive nature and the licensing regime that we are discussing in this provision plus the sinking-lid policy of the territorial local authorities have combined to make it a pretty hostile environment actually. It is certainly very finance driven.The other concern that I have is the total dependence of groups on pokie money. I do not think that is a good environment whether it is a surf life-saving club or the local kids’ rugby or netball club or whatever it is. There are hundreds of examples where organisations are dependent on pokie money. I think those bigger issues need to be debated as we go forward. They were generated absolutely as a result of the specificity of the issuing of the licences of the appeal procedure and as I said of the provisions that are in clause 17(3) for the judicial review. The bigger issues I think need to be debated and I offer the Minister a gentle challenge. I think that this Parliament is up to that debate I think the members of the select committee would be happy to assist with it and I think that if we are going to make good progress on gambling legislation in the future those are hard issues that need to be tackled.Just in conclusion I want to briefly refer back to the provisions that are in Supplementary Order Paper 120 in the name of Denise Roche dealing with clause 18. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s explanation of why the prohibition on commission-based payments had been made. This is another attempt—your consideration earlier on is exactly right—but I think the Minister is unusually for him dancing on the head of a pin. He is certainly saying that this is not the way it is necessarily going to go because the regulations have not been promulgated. Sometimes when a politician says “Trust me.” you would laugh. I do actually trust that what the Minister says when he makes a contribution in the Chamber is what he believes and what is true but I do not think that this is a small issue. I want to have more confidence. Even though I do have that trust in him that it has not been made yet it does not mean that it is not going to be made. And the fact that that is now an available option remains the biggest consideration of the Government Administration Committee which heard it and I think of Parliament as a whole and certainly of the overwhelming number of submitters.I think that Part 2 minor though it may seem in terms of the policy issues that it contains leads us to the need for much bigger policy debate.