Beaumont Carol: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBeaumont Carol: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12497. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):This is the first time I have spoken on this bill the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill so I do want to go back if you like to the very beginning and talk about the harm that is caused by gambling. I think that that is the right place to start when we are looking at this bill and looking at possible amendments to it because I do hope that some members opposite may actually decide to do the right thing and actually tighten up this bill which as my colleague and friend Denise Roche has said has been absolutely gutted from a bill that started out with great intentions and some very very useful provisions. It has been absolutely gutted. Now we have an opportunity to do that but why do we need to do that?Well our role here as members of Parliament is to try to deal with issues of harm in our communities to try to put in place legislation that can help communities and can try to avoid harm. 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 on standard questionnaires. That is between about 10000 and 60000 people. The harm from their gambling can include poor parenting family violence other crime and suicide and the obvious point is that those harms affect people other than just the gambler. So what you start to get is much bigger numbers. The reasonable ballpark figure may well be that adults and children affected by problem gambling might range to up to 500000 people in our community—500000 people in our community.Overwhelmingly that damage is being done in high-deprivation neighbourhoods. It is being done among Māori and Pacific peoples—and among Māori and Pacific women in particular—and it is pokies that are the most harmful form of gambling. The majority of people seeking help with their gambling problems do so because of non-casino pokies. So it is really important that we take seriously the opportunity that we have in looking at this bill and in looking at the suite of amendments that have been put forward.Just in terms of money and the financial cost of this the calculation is that something in the range of $2 billion per year is lost to gambling. That is $5.6 million per day including $2.3 million that goes to non-casino pokies. As I have already said those non-casino pokies are more likely to be found in the more deprived areas of New Zealand rather than in the well-off areas. In fact the ratio of pokies to people in those poorer areas is one pokie machine to 75 people whereas in our wealthy areas the ratio is one pokie machine to 465 people. So quite clearly as Denise Roche was saying there is very very much a targeted problem here: those who are making money from pokies are putting them where they know they will get the most money.As I said it is my first time speaking on this bill and I hope to speak on it several times but I do want to acknowledge the member in the chair Te Ururoa Flavell. I think everybody has recognised that his original bill was very much designed to deal with the sorts of harm that I have just mentioned and it had a range of very good provisions in it. But it has come back to this House absolutely and utterly gutted.As I understand the bill that is now before us there is talk of various provisions possibly being put into regulations at some point. Well the thing is who would trustthis Government to deal with these things in this way? This is a Government—as we know and as I am sure will be mentioned on more than one occasion tonight—that has done all sorts of deals with Skycity to actually increase the harm from gambling. But I think the people I would trust are people like the Problem Gambling Foundation and the Salvation Army. They have very clearly said that this bill as it has now come back to the House is essentially not a helpful bill and will not have an impact on gambling.The Salvation Army has come out criticising the changes and saying that they will do nothing for problem gamblers those at risk or communities wishing to manage the impact of gambling. I am quoting here now from Campbell Roberts: “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this bill on balance will make matters worse.” So not only will it not help but it will make matters worse. That is a very strong statement to be made by an organisation like the Salvation Army which I think every member in this House would recognise as being a very measured organisation that does not go out on a limb lightly. So there are real concerns about what has happened.I am glad to say that there is a range of amendments being put forward on this bill and I have one of those amendments in my name. That is a comprehensive suite. The Hon Trevor Mallard has been through a number of the amendments that are in his name.I just want to talk specifically about one of those amendments—and again Denise Roche has mentioned this one—Supplementary Order Paper 291 relating to transfers of licences. That will provide that a territorial authority’s class 4 venue policy must include a relocation policy that must specify the maximum percentage of gaming machines permitted to operate at the new venue. This percentage must be no more than 100 percent of the gaming machines that were permitted to operate at the old venue immediately before the licence relating to the old venue is cancelled.This amendment also provides that if a class 4 venue licence is to be transferred the maximum number of gaming machines permitted to operate at the new venue at the time when the new class 4 venue licence takes effect shall be no more than the percentage specified in the territorial authority’s relocation policy. So again that looks to try to give the authority the ability to reduce the numbers and certainly not to assume that the current number of machines will be transferred over.I think that that is an attempt to help improve this bill. There is as I said a range of other Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward here tonight and I really do hope that members opposite do honestly and carefully consider these amendments because you know this is an opportunity to actually restore some of the measures that were in Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill to try to make this a bill that will reduce harm in our communities. I think that I want to give people the benefit of the doubt here—that they are not just you know basically gutting it so that their mates can get what they want out of this and that the National MPs are not motivated by those sorts of issues. The opportunity really is to rise and speak on this bill and to look closely at the amendments and to attempt to replace some of the matters that are in the bill.I think that in looking at the second reading speeches and at some of the comments that people have made I did find it really interesting to see that the National Government—or certainly one National MP and that was Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga—felt that somehow this Government has actually done something to reduce the number of pokie machines.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Yeah we have.CAROL BEAUMONT: Well I am sorry but that is called spin. That is called claiming something that is nothing—absolutely nothing—to do with the Government but everything to do with sinking-lid policies that local authorities have actually put in place. So I thought that it was really rich to hear in fact quite a lengthy piece about thenumber of machines being reduced and the amount of money that was being taken by pokies. Well thank you to all the local authorities that actually have sinking-lid policies for that outcome but it was certainly nothing to do with the National Government.Again though this is the same MP who talks about the gambling scourge that needs to be addressed and about all the difficulties that gambling causes—this is our Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. He said: “This is a scourge—this gambling scourge—that certainly needs to be addressed”. He talks about it in terms of the number of constituents he sees in his electorate office the kids who have gone without essentials the broken families and the broken relationships. Those are all true statements but the member actually needs to do something to make that real and not just make statements like that and then operate in a way that does exactly the opposite. So he could certainly start by supporting some of the amendments here and of course later on he will have another opportunity when the Skycity legislation is up.