Hayes Joanne: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHayes Joanne: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 04 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4363. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JOANNE HAYES (National): I rise to take a call in the second reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3). I am really pleased to do this. I have a background in a programme called the problem gambling contract and the member across the way there Adrian Rurawhe knows that programme very well. It was a problem gambling contract. Part of that contract was about working with the venues that had pokies and making sure that they upheld the rules and regulations of each of their venues and working with the retail sector as well.While we were doing that some issues that came up around that for staff training were around how you identify a problem gambler and how you work with that problem gambler to make sure that they get the proper counselling opportunities. The second area that we looked at was making sure that the Department of Internal Affairs was keeping up with its audits of these premises. The third area was supporting the Wanganui District Council at the time with its sinking-lid policy that it had put in for gambling venues so that once they had closed their renting out of pokie machines no more pokie machines were introduced into Wanganui.When I looked at this bill even though I was not on the committee when it came to it I could see that there are so many more advantages for the people who have the problem gambling contracts in New Zealand from implementing this bill. The bill like my colleagues have said aims to increase the transparency of grant making from the proceeds of class 4 gambling venues. While I was working for this organisation in Wanganui this was some of the feedback that we were getting from some of the community providers there. It was about their inability to know whether or not their applications would be successful how that was actually going and how they would be advantaged by that.I want to talk about a particular provider that was based out of Taihape. They would apply for funds from the community grants for uniforms for their kuras or their kapa haka groups and most of them were declined. When we started looking at that they did not know why they were declined. So I believe that increasing the transparency around that grant-making process is going to be very good for small providers in rural areas that have hotels with a gambling venue attached to them. It is going to be a very good policy section to this bill because they will understand exactly where all the money is going to and why they actually missed out.In terms of reducing potential conflicts of interest and the “key person” definition I do not want to go any more into that. I think that Mark Mitchell and others in the House have discussed that quite well. But the bill allows small providers and community groups to have an understanding also about conflicts of interest. As I said I am not delving any more into the key persons but the bill gives some clarity around that. Obviously it is up to the Committee during the Committee stage to debate that further.The bill also provides for improving transparency surrounding management companies that provide societies with services. I think this is very good for the societies. I think that having those organisations being able to come in and support them and to provide the services through increased transparency of the types of services that they are receiving is good for the societies and will support them.Another aim of this bill is to simplify compliance and reduce costs. I was pleased to see when I was reading the information around the bill advertising for when the grants process is coming up. At times it would cost the various societies quite a lot of money to advertise that but to be able to actually do that via the internet is a good way of reducing costs. This means that having less money used on advertising and things like that is good for the community because that means that more money can be invested back into the community to do good things for that particular community. Ensuring the efficiency of the appeals process is not undermined is also a really core part of this bill.When I start to look at the allocation of funding—which I understand from listening to the speech just before me through the member Clayton Mitchell around how proceeds of the funds are allocated—about $200 million is allocated out. I got that information out of this guide Pokies in New Zealand from the Department of Internal Affairs. About $200 million is invested into the communities but that is only a portion of it because the gaming duty percentage for the total amount of funds gained through the takings of pokie machines actually goes on gaming duty. Sixteen percent is the maximum venue payment. We have a problem gambling levy which is 1.51 percent and that levy is what these problem-gambling organisations are actually funded from. At the organisation that I worked with that is where it got its funding from to be able to deliver the services to the people in the Wanganui area.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to interrupt the member and ask her now to address the bill—not problem gambling or gambling generally. Thank you.JOANNE HAYES: Yes I was just talking about the allocation of class 4 gaming machines because that is about investing back into the community. It is about this bill being able to free up funds through the reduction of the various costs that it takes to advertise the grants process. I will tell you that when I worked in that sector people thought that all the funds the machines made would come back to the community. They had no understanding of where it all came from and where it was all going to and that was really key. Obviously the distribution for authorised purposes is about 40 percent of that.I will carry on with this bill. We want to make sure—again I am going to say this—that local communities benefit from this bill. It is so key because the Government cannot keep funding everything so this is an opportunity for the communities or organisations that are class 4 gaming machine societies or organisations to actually help to do that and help to grow their communities. It does bring about a close community.In terms of the policy framework of the Gambling Act 2003 a purpose of the Act obviously as I said is to raise funds for our community and for the societies that they belong to. A little bit more around transparency of the grant making by societies—I am going to talk a little bit about that because it is to make available more comprehensive information as I said on grants to communities so that communities understand what it is that they can actually apply for and how successful they will be.I have talked about the visions of reducing conflicts of interest and I have talked a little bit about alterations to improve transparency of management companies. But I just want to say a little bit more about that because some societies use these companies in their gambling operations. These companies provide societies with services like contract negotiations and that is a key thing with some of the venues. It may not be a skill that these venue people actually hold. Some administration and financial management skills which are really key to be able to make sure that their business is financially operational—some of the owners may not have the full skills so that is what these management companies actually do especially around grant application processing. It is really important. I have sat on funding and planning organisations where we had to have a robust system for being able to deliver funds out to the community that was equal and fair. But it is not exactly a skill that you can just pick up a book on and read about. It has to be fair and it has to be transparent.Also another key area is that the bill provides the Secretary for Internal Affairs with the ability to be able to audit the companies and also the ability to actually give licences out to class 4 venues which is very good and helps to reduce some of the funding that goes along with it.In wrapping up I think this is a very good bill. I am pleased that I have had a chance to be able to get up and talk a little bit about my experience within the problem-gambling area and about gambling minimisation. I commend the bill to the House and thank Mr Dunne. Thank you.