Lees-Galloway Iain: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6460. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): This is my first opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3). Part 1 deals with class 4 gambling which if you read the website of the Department of Internal Affairs you will see that class 4 gambling not only is defined as gambling that occurs in pubs and clubs which members will be aware of but it also represents high-risk and high-turnover gambling.I was not on the Government Administration Committee and I have not heard all the deliberations. I have a number of questions both for the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Peter Dunne and for members about the Supplementary Order Paper that has been offered up in Clayton Mitchell’s name and this question of commission payments which has been the subject of some discussion this evening.I have been trying to get my head around why it is that we need to change the system to allow for commission payments. I appreciate that venues do need to cover some administration costs and we have systems already that allow venues to cover for their administration costs. What I do not fully understand and what I have not actually heard anybody talk about this evening is why the change is necessary. I have certainly heard a lot of convincing arguments against using commission payments but what I have not actually heard from the Minister or from anybody else contributing this evening is why this change is necessary. We already have systems in place for covering the administration costs of venues and I am unconvinced. To be fair I read the explanatory note on Clayton Mitchell’s Supplementary Order Paper and that was the closest thing to an explanation that I got.What I do not understand is why a venue with x number of machines that has a high turnover ought to receive more in payment for administration costs than a venue with the same number of machines with a lower turnover. I do not understand where the additional costs come from. If you have got a certain number of machines you need a certain number of staff to keep an eye on those machines. You have got certain maintenance that goes along with them. With higher turnover I cannot see where the additional costs come from.That is a genuine question. If Mr Mitchell wants to respond to it I would welcome that. If the Minister wants to respond to it I would certainly welcome that as well. I do not understand how the mechanism lines up with the need. What is the problem that this change is actually trying to solve? I would appreciate some support. Or indeed is there a better way of doing it? Were submissions heard at the select committee that described a better way? If there are improvements that can be made are there other ways of doing it? That is a genuine question and I would really appreciate an answer to it.Another concern that I found in Clayton Mitchell’s explanatory note is that his Supplementary Order Paper 95 appears to align the commission rate with what the TAB and Lotto retailers receive. There is a fundamental difference between those. The TAB and people who sell Lotto tickets—that is their business. That is their primary source of revenue. They are doing that as a commercial practice. That is very different to class 4 gambling where actually the primary purpose for those venues is usually that they are a drinking establishment. There is some other activity going on and the gambling is sort of tacked on as an addition. Gambling under a class 4 licence is not meant to be for commercial purposes. It is not actually meant to generate any revenue for the venue. The funds generated are to be distributed by a charity and to be used for public good works—for all manner of different reasons—but not to make a profit for the venue where they are actually located.I am concerned that we are starting to blur the lines a little bit here between the way gambling for commercial purposes operates and the way gambling for the non-profit raising of charitable funds operates. So again I am very very happy to hear an explanation of that. [Bell rung] Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Oh Iain Lees-Galloway.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: A good choice Mr Chairman.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well only just.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am very keen to hear what explanation members have for those issues as well.I am also interested in why the requests made at the Government Administration Committee for more active and proactive harm reduction activities were not taken up and not included in the legislation. I am not a prohibitionist. I am not a fan of prohibition; I do not think it works well. But I am a big fan of harm reduction and having a legalised but tightly regulated market can be a far safer way of dealing with harmful activities than prohibition can.Obviously harm reduction is vitally important to any system governing and regulating gambling and there were recommendations made to members on the select committee for identification and tracking of gamblers particularly people who demonstrate tendencies towards problem gambling and also for prepayment cards so that before people start gambling they could set the amount that they actually want to pay and that could be monitored by the venue owner. These were all rejected it would appear by the select committee but again I have not seen an explanation either in the commentary on the bill or from any of the members who have spoken this evening as to why that was.Again I have heard strong arguments from Denise Roche in favour of including such aspects in the legislation. What I have not heard is the arguments either why it is not the time or that the technology is not there or that the research does not support those approaches. Why is it that that was not included in the original bill? Why was it not included at the select committee as well?I got the feeling when I was called that the Minister might be enthusiastic about responding to some of these questions. If that is the case I would be very happy to hear some responses to the questions I have asked and look forward to asking more if the Minister’s contribution requires it.