Cosgrove Clayton: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11907. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):This is a serious issue that I think some members of the Commerce Committee—well in fairness I think generally all members of the committee—tried to deal with as we had submission after submission mainly from people as colleagues have said who have experienced extreme problems or represent or attempt to care for those people who have extreme problems in the community as a result of gambling. Like I think Mr Little and others have said about all forms of addiction or forms of recreation or whatever if one overindulges these can become problems—whether it be alcohol gambling or other issues. That does not mean of course that the vast majority in our society as Mr Little said cannot enjoy a flutter whether it be on the horses or on the pokies or on other forms of gambling—internet or what have you—without the devil grabbing them by the throat and them becoming addicted to that form of gambling and that then having an insidious negative impact both on the lives of the gambler and obviously on the lives generally of loved ones and family around them.I recall some years ago a woman constituent coming to my office. She came with her kids. She turned up in tears very upset and said that she was in difficulty. She had no money. She needed housing and what have you. You would think that was almost a generic case of somebody who had been booted out of home. Had the landlord thrown them out? Had the home been sold? I said to her: “We’ll get you to Work and Income. What have you got?”. She said to me: “I’ve got nothing.” I said: “What do you mean? Has your husband left you or whatever?”. She replied: “No. We have no home. The home has gone. The bank has it. We have no assets. The bank accounts have been cleaned out. I have nothing.” and she meant that all she had was what she and her kids stood up in.As we got through the conversation she relayed the simple fact that her husband unbeknownst to her had a major gambling problem. I cannot recall exactly what form of gambling it was. It was not racing. It was other forms of gambling—pokies and other things I believe. But he had basically mown down the family resources. He had sold the house out from under her or the bank had repossessed it—I think that is how it went.The bank accounts had been cleaned out and various other chattels and assets had been sold off to try to pay gambling debts. She literally had nothing—zero. She felt obviously a degree of ill will towards her husband but she loved her husband and she realised that he had a problem.I recall the case of that woman and her family—I think we got them some assistance but I do not know what the future held for them. But their lives at that point were destroyed. You could cast blame on the bloke on the relationship and on all sorts of things and I was never close enough to it to make a judgment but for whatever reason that bloke had a problem and it was an addiction to gambling. It had destroyed not only his life but I suspect—hopefully not ultimately—the lives at that time anyway of his family members.If you look at the figures we are advised that at any given time between 0.3 percent and 1.8 percent of adults living in the community in New Zealand are likely to score on standard questionnaires as problem gamblers which equates to between 10000 and 60000 people. It is a problem. It is a hard problem to deal with.I have got to say that I oppose this legislation for many of the reasons that other colleagues have said. I think this bill to be blunt—and no disrespect to Mr Flavell—was ill-conceived in the form that it came in. I think we generally across the House tried to come up with some ways of achieving at least some of the objectives in a balanced way to address some of the problems. I think some of the problems that Mr Flavell brought to the committee were valid and others were less so but it gave us an opportunity to try to bring a bill out of the committee that had some worth and some value.I think putting politics aside there would not be too many in the House who would disagree with the fact that gambling in its forms is a problem. That does not mean it should be outlawed as a recreational opportunity for people. It means we have got a problem. Some people are addicted. We have got to deal with them. But I have got to say when you look at this piece of legislation that there are effectively only four clauses that survive from the original bill. The rest of the bill has been gutted changed amended or whatever. The assessment that we make on this side of the House and that colleagues who have more knowledge than me of these matters have made is that this bill is ineffectual.In fact there are those like the Salvation Army that have criticised the changes in this bill saying that they do nothing for problem gamblers—those at risk—or for communities wishing to manage the impact of gambling. They say: “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this Bill on balance will make matters worse.” Again putting the politics aside the Salvation Army is not a political organisation. It is a charitable organisation with you have got to say a pretty amazing lineage a pretty amazing history. Those folks in the Salvation Army know about these issues. They work with these folks they work with the lost and lonely over a wide range of issues and they do know about this. And I say to the Government that really apart from the politics of this those over the other side who are in charge of this bill should really take heed of organisations like the Salvation Army. If those organisations are saying that this bill will make matters worse in respect of problem gambling and if they are criticising this bill and saying that it does not have value then we should really heed that. I would counsel those in Government to maybe look at pulling this bill and doing it properly.The Government has not listened to organisations like the Salvation Army. I think we would all agree that the Salvation Army is not political. If it criticises something—it criticised things we did in Government—it is generally for the best motives for very good reasons and based on evidence research and experience. If it is going out andsaying quite clearly that on balance it will make matters worse in respect of problem gambling then you have got to ask yourself whether we have failed as a Parliament and failed those 10000 to 60000 people who at any given time have the devil grabbing them by the throat in the form of this addiction.So I suppose the question for the Government—and I would like an explanation from the Minister as we sort of mow through this piece of legislation—is that presumably officials have advised and have counterarguments in respect of the Salvation Army’s criticism and I think we need to hear those in order to get some understanding as to why the Government is going to force this through.We had submissions from many organisations. I see I think the Minister of Internal Affairs who is I suspect in charge of this or ultimately responsible for this bill. I am glad he is here. Minister I was just saying to the House that given that the Salvation Army has criticised this bill and has said that it will make matters worse for those with problem gambling I would be grateful if at the appropriate time you as Minister would provide us in Parliament with the advice or counter-advice that attempts to negate the criticism of a very venerable organisation made up of specialists who deal every day with folks who have this problem. They do not lightly make judgments like this on pieces of legislation.I see there are some clauses around mobility of gaming machines. There is not anything in here in respect of communities making and taking decisions about the numbers of machines or sinking-lid policies or those sorts of things that are in their jurisdiction. Again with this bill Parliament is sort of taking a blanket approach to telling communities what to do.So I have a plea in respect of this. I am sure that if we all looked at our constituent case files over the years we would have examples similar to the one that I gave of the woman and her family who lost everything in relation to gambling. We could dredge those files out. They would pull at the heartstrings because there is no early warning system. That is the problem with this addiction: there is no early warning system. If you are a drunk say there are some pretty physical and visible early warning systems that advise people around you sometimes graphically and violently that you have an alcohol problem. Often as with the problem in the example I used there is no early warning. In the case of this woman the bank accounts were gone—cleaned out. She had no idea. She was a good person. There was no physicality about the symptoms of addiction in respect of her husband. So I say to the Government as we proceed through that we need to know and we need to see the advice that counters the Salvation Army’s criticism. Organisations like that must indeed be listened to and we need to take this matter seriously.