Rurawhe Adrian: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRurawhe Adrian: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1503. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Ka nui te mihi atu ki a koe i tēnei rā. It is a privilege for me to stand and speak to the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). In particular I want to speak to clause 54 which inserts new section 115A “Duty on grant recipients”. My overall view is that this bill is a good bill. It addresses a number of issues around minimising gambling harm but it also addresses other issues as well and this is the one that I wanted to start off with. I think it is important that the Gambling Act is amended by this bill to explicitly state the obligations on grant recipients and the consequences of contravening those obligations. There is a raft of issues like this one that in each one of these clauses takes that clause and improves on the Act that was passed in 2004 and subsequently in being amended by this bill.I speak in support of that particular clause mainly because from the perspective of a number of providers that provide services for those people who present with gambling problems one of the good things about this type of gambling—although they would say to me that they were against this type of gambling but the one ray of hope—is that funds are redistributed to the community. From their and my point of view it would be far better for those funds to stay in the pockets of those people who have lost them because to distribute those funds is actually distributing money that has actually been lost. The loss of those funds can in some part be returned to the community but it is really important that when they are returned to those grant recipients they are used in the way that they were intended for. I have heard too many stories about how certain grants to certain recipients have not been used in the way they were intended. This clause is a good thing because it explicitly states that and it states what the consequences of contravening those obligations are.In clause 82 there is the insertion of the new section 309A “Duty to assist problem gambler if an ongoing concern exists”. Operators and venue managers must take all reasonable steps to make sure that they are following up with problem gamblers who are presenting on a regular basis. It is not good enough to approach them just once and think that by giving them information about problem gambling they have done their duty. In this instance they have not because if that person comes back again on a number of occasions and they just sit back and think to themselves “Well I have done my bit. I have told them about it.” that it is not good enough. This new section addresses that issue. I think it is important because providers have also told me that the people who present to them as clients are mostly self-referred or referred by family. They have very few clients—problem gamblers—who are referred to them through the venue managers and the operators. I think that this clause here is really important because it potentially addresses that issue where the responsibility of the venue manager is much more enhanced. As I was saying it gives the opportunity I think for more responsibility to be put on the venue managers and operators to refer and to give ongoing advice to someone who presents often. That is really important.The other issue that is often raised with me and is addressed by the Minister of Internal Affairs’ Supplementary Order Paper 454 is around increasing the minimum rate of return from 37.12 percent to 42 percent. It is often seen in the community that far too much of the money that is expended on gambling does not come back to the community. That is an issue that has been raised with me on a number of occasions as well. Addressing that is good. I have to say again that it would be fantastic because that money was lost by someone if that money actually stayed in the pockets of those people who lost it. Quite often it is the people who can least afford to lose it who actually lose it. Another issue related to this that has often been brought up with me is where exactly in the community that money goes. I think that too often it is lost in one part of the community as I said earlier that can least afford to lose it and then distributed to recipients in an area that maybe does not really need to be the recipient of that kind of money. I will not name names but you can imagine different suburbs where there are lots of these pokies these machines this type of gambling and then you read in the newspaper of who exactly has received the grants through those clubs and foundations etc. and they bear no resemblance to where the money was lost.I think my overall impression of this amendment bill is that it is a good one. I am pleased to support this particular bill. There are a number of other clauses as well that are really good for making certain that gambling harm is minimised but I think there is more work to be done. That is probably why we have got a third amendment coming through the House and further opportunity for providers and others in the community to make their submissions on this particular area—gambling harm. That is my contribution.