Williams Poto: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 04 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4370. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to take a call on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3). I want to start my comments by just saying that those who have had experience in the community sector know that there is a natural tension between community organisations that receive funding through pokie machines and through gambling and those organisations that actually treat people who experience harm from problem gambling. It is an interesting tension because many of the community organisations cannot do the work that they do without the support that comes through pokie machines. Just today I was having conversations with some people who know that the funding environment is such that they walk a fine line between what their values base is as an organisation and the work that they want to do in terms of the social good that they provide in our communities.This bill is supported by Labour but there are a couple of concerns that we have. It does continue the good work of the original Gambling Act but through the course of discussion and through the submissions there have been a couple of key concerns that have arisen. One of those of course that has been traversed quite widely across the House this afternoon is around the commission-based payments. I admit I had to seek some advice from members of the Government Administration Committee—which is ably chaired I might say—and they have had some robust discussions about the removal of the prohibition around commission-based payments.It is interesting because currently the venues that have these machines have a mechanism in place under which they can get paid the costs to run the gambling machines. Going to a commission-based payment—and here I want to pick up on a point that the New Zealand First member made—does not necessarily mean that the payments will be only to cover the costs. I presume that the more machines you have in a venue if you have a commission-based system the more likely you are to be able to attract more in terms of your commission and the more frequently those machines are used and the more money that is put through those machines also increases the commission that you are likely to receive.So I disagree with the New Zealand First point of view—and this is our view in Labour—that putting a cap on those commissions means that you will actually bear the cost if you are the venue holder. I disagree completely. It is really clear from the submitters who are concerned with problem gambling and the harm that is caused by problem gambling that they really feel significantly that the commission-based payments then go on to incentivise those venues to maximise the amount of money that is pushed through those machines. Currently the venues are paid for the costs incurred with gaming but more commission-based payments will likely mean a higher use of the machines.I also want to pick up on a comment that my colleague Jenny Salesa made about the harm that is caused to particular groups of people. There is no doubting that Māori and Pasifika populations tend to experience the harm from problem gambling more than other population groups. I also want to acknowledge the work that has been done in South Auckland and in Manukau in particular around reducing the availability of these machines because of the harm that it causes those populations which are most vulnerable to the harm from problem gambling.The Labour Party has a minority view of course that is consistent with the view of many of the submitters. Further it talks about the compliance examination conducted by the Department of Internal Affairs that showed there is an inconsistency in the practices across gaming venues. Here I want to point to the mystery shopper intervention that occurred where the mystery shopper was to mimic the type of behaviour of a problem gambler in venues. In over 102 venues where this mystery shopper intervention happened there was only one venue that provided the type of support that would be consistent with good host responsibility. I think that is quite significant—only one out 102 of the venues. It goes to show that good host responsibility is not a practice widely used across these venues.The submitters agreed with the Labour committee members that the bill should actually provide for greater harm minimisation measures within the bill itself. I want to speak about the submitters who came from Christchurch in particular from the Christchurch Methodist Mission and also the Canterbury and West Coast branch of the Public Health Association. They said very clearly that the bill would enable a commission-based payment system for venues. The Public Health Association is not supportive of this measure saying that “Allowing for venues to profit directly from the spend in their gambling machines may incentivise problem gambling and this is a public health risk.” The Christchurch Methodist Mission said that its stance would be to advise against a commission-based model and encourage the incorporation of harm prevention measures based on known harm caused by class 4 machines in our communities—especially low-income communities where class 4 machines are concentrated. We do agree with that.Further one of the concerns we have is the introduction of regulation-making powers so that processes controlling the commission-based payments are governed by regulation. Of course if it is done through an Order in Council we would be unaware of what changes would be made to that regulation until that Order in Council appears.So just to conclude and wind up and just to confirm we are supporting the bill. We have concerns around the commission-based payments to venues as opposed to the current method. Commission-based payments would be acceptable if there was a cap involved in that. We are concerned that measures for harm minimisation are not part of the bill and we are also concerned with the process around regulations. On that note thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.