Robson Matt: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Robson Matt: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8477] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 This bill has been a long time in the making and my party has been involved with it at many levels particularly at the level of Government. We found that we came to some sensible arrangements through discussions on many aspects of the bill and that in the main the bill helped us to reach an agreement on taking care of both the social concerns and the needs of communities in terms of gambling being part of life and also of fundraising. 
However we came to a part where we found one area with a particular problem and that is therefore the burden of the Supplementary Order Paper in my name on behalf of the Progressive party. The issue that concerned us in particular and which we wished to highlight related to the number of gaming machines that has grown in New Zealand. We believe that if the situation is not regulated properly with a sensible cap being placed on that number it will help to foster a social problem that exists and that we cannot close our eyes to. It seems to me that that is the position of a number of speakers who have represented their parties in the Committee today. They are closing their eyes to the social problem we have when gambling takes control of a person rather than the situation being the other way around—when the person has fun and a sense of relaxation through gambling. 
In October 2001 there were 2095 gaming-machine sites in New Zealand with 20597 machines but by 30 June this year there were 25221 gaming machines in 2122 gaming-machine sites. If people do their mathematics they will see that there has not been a correlation between the rise in population in that time and the number of gaming machines per person. So the Supplementary Order Paper in my name on behalf of the Progressive party is aimed particularly at that issue. 
The Supplementary Order Paper seeks to put a limit on the number of gaming machines to not exceed the number at 17 October 2001 so that we have a reasonable level of machines and a reasonable gap and so that there is not just a continual and exponential growth of gaming machines. That will allow people to have access to gaming machines; it will not prevent people from taking part in gaming. But with the limitation the provision will be an assistance in the area of addiction—the area that is of enormous concern to those social agencies or individual families that have to deal with that problem. It is not the total answer. Of course there has to be a whole range of other activities—which there are—and interventions but it is part of those. 
Another area as important which is not in the Supplementary Order Paper but which I wish to mention now is the area of note acceptor machines. We will be voting against the clause that enables note acceptors to be part of the gambling scene. We know that it is clunky and inconvenient to be carrying lots of coins around and people can find that rather difficult but a ban on note acceptors is one way of limiting those people those who have an addiction from feeding machines with large notes which usually come out of their own family budgets. So we have concerns in those two areas. 
Lastly I note that there was some advice from the ACT party. I always appreciate advice except when it comes from Richard Prebble’s party. I think I stopped taking advice from Richard Prebble in 1974 and I certainly advised the Labour Party not to take his advice on GST in 1985 and I was right about that. I advised the Labour Party through the 1980s not to take his advice on the sale of public assets to line the pockets of those people who are now the major supporters of the ACT party. I gave that advice then. He did not accept it so I am not about to accept advice from the ACT party now and neither are the Progressives.