Turner Judy: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurner Judy: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 August 2007. Volume:641;Page:11414. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I stand on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) 2007. As the Minister of Internal Affairs Rick Barker stated this amendment bill is both technical and policy driven and responds to implementation difficulties arising out of the 2003 principal Act. Part 1 of the bill makes about 14 changes to definitions Part 2 has about 64 clauses that are devoted to amending provisions relating to classes of gambling and classes of gambling institutions Part 3 relates to harm minimisation and Part 4 has some technical details.Overall the bill intends to widen the suitability criteria for gaming machine operators and licensed promoters to cover a wide range of offences and management provisions. For instance if a person has been the director of a company in receivership or a company that has been placed in receivership in a 7-year period that person is not suitable. If a person has been disqualified to act as a director of a company under the Companies Act that person is unsuitable. If a person is prohibited under the Insolvency Act from acting as a director that person is also considered unsuitable. Interestingly though the bill narrows the time frame under which a person is considered historically unsuitable from 10 years down to 7 years. I will be interested to see what submitters have to say about that.One of the second purposes of this bill is to introduce explicit obligations on grant recipients to use pokie grants appropriately including an offence for non-compliance. This is a particularly interesting area because many community groups in greater numbers are refusing in principle to apply for grants from pokie machines feeling that it would be perverse to have their services funded by the proceeds of gambling. The same organisations have expressed to us in United Future their huge pleasure in our ability to have negotiated with the Labour-led Government for a lifting of the cap on rebates on charitable donations so that community and charitable organisations are able to receive funding from a source that is more legitimate and that ethically measures up to the work they do. However it is even more tragic to think that those who do apply for a grant could actually at times be doing so under false pretences and we welcome the tightening-up of that.This bill also extends conflict of interest safeguards to all persons making decisions on gaming machine grants—not just those with key roles in the management of societies. It also strengthens the requirements on venues to bank gaming machine profits. That is an attempt to make sure there is much greater transparency regarding how much money has been taken from gambling activities.The bill also seeks to enhance regulation-making powers to better deal with problem gambling. This is largely about exclusion orders. Where a person has self-identified as a problem gambler the legislation seeks to make sure that those venues the person has requested to be excluded from follow through on that commitment. The bill widens the class of person required to use the policy to identify actual or potential problem gamblers to include people like venue managers so that more people are being very watchful. The interesting thing though in this particular part of the bill that I think needs further scrutiny by the select committee is the fact that the penalties for breaching that requirement have been reduced from—I think from memory—$10000 down to$5000. That is quite a substantial reduction in penalty. I would like to hear that reduction justified and I would like to hear what people have to say about it during the select committee process.The bill introduces requirements for the accurate disclosure of non-cash prizes as a consumer protection measure. I think that is a very wise inclusion. It provides more flexibility for clubs that wish to merge their club and gaming machine operations to address financial viability issues. This particular part of the bill is something I also signal some concerns about and interests in. In the commentary on the bill it states that it is expected as a result of this amendment bill that there will be an increase in funding for the activities of clubs that operate gaming machines in order to raise money for their own community purposes.I am not sure whether it is still true today but I remember some years ago discovering that organisations like St John Ambulance survived and were only financially viable because they owned pokie machines. At the time I considered that quite a bizarre set of circumstances. I am not sure whether St John Ambulance is still funded in that way but it certainly concerned me then. This provision says that the Government wants to be able to increase the opportunity for community groups and non-profit groups like St John Ambulance to increase the funding they receive from those investments they have in gambling machines. I have some concerns about that and I share the sentiments that have been expressed by others in the House tonight. Pokie machines are the cocaine of the gambling industry—that is very very clear. Surely we should be making sure that the number of pokie machines is determined by regional considerations not by the funding needs of local community organisations.United Future is hugely hopeful about the next financial year when non-profit charities register with the Charities Commission and those who give to those organisations recognise the huge advantages they now have in their ability to give more of their income and receive a much better return in their tax return. We are hopeful that we will see a decreased reliance by charitable organisations and community bodies on the proceeds of gambling as New Zealanders step up to the mark and start to put their hands in their pockets knowing that there is a much more generous response by the tax department to their willingness to support community activities.We are happy to support this first reading of the bill but we signal that we are keen to see some of these issues clarified at the select committee. We are very keen to hear what submitters have to say.