Fenton Darien: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Fenton Darien: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:654;Page:3114] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a very good bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government and indeed I see it still has your name on it Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. That is a good indication of the work the previous Labour Government did on this very very difficult issue. 
I must say that this bill was one of the more controversial and difficult bills that I dealt with in my time as a member of the Government Administration Committee during the last Parliament. It was frustrating both to committee members and to submitters that the scope of the bill restricted the committee from considering in any real way the broader concerns that were raised. However that was not the intent of the bill. 
I acknowledge the submitters. They were passionately concerned about problem gambling and its impact on our communities and society. They made powerful arguments for real change. It was not that the bill itself was controversial; it was just that many of the submitters wanted the bill to be a lot more than it actually was intended to be which was a tidy-up of the Gambling Act 2003. It was intended to be a collection of small but important amendments to make the original Act work better. However I acknowledge that the submitters reflected genuine concerns of anyone who has experienced the problems that gambling causes and the harm it can cause to families and communities. 
Quite frankly I think pokie machines are a blight on our society. I would like to wish them away as I am sure many people would but unfortunately it will take a lot more than an amendment bill like this one to have that effect. I am interested to see how the National Government will respond to these challenges and I was interested in Dr Worth’s comments in his contribution the other day and in his answer to a question today about dodgy pokie trusts. 
I wish gambling did not exist but to some extent it always has existed. Many of us—not I but my father and many others—like to have a flutter on the races. The critical thing is that they have always kept their flutters within reason and within control. Unfortunately it is those people who become addicted to a fix of gambling who are at risk. Easy access to pokie machines and other forms of instant gambling have brought the problem into every corner of New Zealand’s communities and that was reflected by many submitters to the committee. 
There is also the difficult question of the myriad community organisations that rely on funding from gambling to provide services in their communities or the local clubs that absolutely depend on gambling money to fund local activities. Many New Zealanders believe that there must be a better model but it will take some work to put it together. Ultimately if community funding from gambling money is to be abolished the community will rely on the Government to fill the gap and there is no sign of that happening under this Government. 
I also say that casinos are a blot on our society. It is a newer form of instant entertainment with all of the associated problems. When this bill was introduced last year there was a lot of publicity around money-launderers and gambling sharks at Skycity’s Auckland casino. Luckily that seems to have died down and I acknowledge the work of the Department of Internal Affairs in getting on top of those issues. Thank goodness the previous Labour Government’s 2003 Gambling Act prevented the spread of money-launderers and gambling sharks throughout the country with its moratorium on the building of new casinos. Out went a focus on economic gain and huge profits at the expense of the local population and in came harm minimisation and keeping the lid on casino gambling. We were delighted that the explosion of casino building came to an end. However I note that last week Skycity said it would love to build a casino here in Wellington but that it would take a change of law for it to do so. So they are still out there wanting to build more casinos. I look forward to hearing from the National-ACT Government as to whether it is prepared to change the law to accommodate Skycity’s casino or whether it will put a lid on this issue once and for all. I look forward to hearing contributions from members opposite. 
It was a Labour Government that brought in the Gambling Act and it was far-reaching world-leading legislation. The purpose of that Act was to control the growth of gambling which had been running away in terms of growth in the number of casinos and pokie machines; prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling including problem gambling; authorise some gambling and prohibit the rest; facilitate responsible gambling; ensure the integrity and fairness of games; limit opportunities for crime or dishonesty associated with gambling; ensure that money from gambling benefits the community; and facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling. The legislation we are debating today was designed to build on the work of the previous Labour Government to clarify the law and to remove any uncertainties arising from the Gambling Act 2003 which became law in 2004. 
Another big change to gambling came about with the introduction of the Labour Government’s 2003 legislation to ban smoking in the workplace. I believe that that legislation changed the culture of gambling and hospitality workplaces. I know that workers were right behind it because they were the ones who were being affected most by second-hand smoke. Sure it caused some angst in smaller clubs but today that foresighted legislation by the previous Labour-led Government is widely supported by the public. 
I note one issue in the select committee’s report where the committee could not agree. As a consequence of Labour’s 2003 amendments to the Smoke-free Environments Act some determined gaming venues have altered the layout of their outside gaming areas so that smokers can gamble outside and obviously that is in contravention of the intention of that Act. Labour wanted that issue cleared up in the bill. The National Party would not agree. It seemed to me that Richard Worth indicated some acknowledgment of that issue the other day. So I look forward to a Supplementary Order Paper coming forward in the Committee stage that will tidy up that particular issue. The issue is a loophole in the current law and I would be very pleased if the loophole was closed. 
As other speakers have said this is a technical bill. It contains technical amendments and minor policy enhancements to clarify the law and make it work as it was intended to do. The aims of the bill are to make recipients of pokie-machine grants use their grants appropriately to extend conflict of interest safeguards to all persons making decisions on gaming-machine grants to strengthen the requirements on venues banking gaming-machine profits to widen the offences and regulations for gaming-machine operators and licensed promoters to introduce requirements for the accurate disclosure of non-cash prizes and to provide more flexibility for clubs that want to merge gaming-machine operations. As members can see from the select committee report some other amendments were proposed by the committee which we support—with the exception of the one I have already mentioned about smoking and gambling. As I said this bill is largely technical and it is not the right vehicle to make the kinds of wide-sweeping changes that many of us would like to see. 
Unfortunately because of the narrow scope of the bill some communities that deal with the harm caused by gambling were unhappy that the select committee was not prepared to hear all submissions. They felt we were not listening. I want to assure those communities that I read every single submission and I listened very carefully to those who appeared before us. I was listening and I heard their very legitimate concerns. The conversation will carry on within Labour. The issue is not dead with this bill. I share the worry of those communities about the impact that pokie machines in particular have on family life. Therefore I am supportive of the proposed amendments that will assist with the Act’s harm prevention and minimisation objectives. However I do want to reflect on how bad gambling-related problems would be if Labour had not passed the 2003 Gambling Act. Members need to continue to work together with the community to ensure that local government uses the tools already provided in the Act as effectively as possible. It pleases me to note that many territorial local authorities in conjunction with their communities are becoming much more active around this issue and we are seeing sinking-lid policies being implemented with the active support of the community. 
This bill is another step forward in the debate about what needs to be done in the future to ensure that we continue to deal with the harm that gambling can cause and to limit the growth of gambling. The select committee process demonstrated that there is a lot more to be done and that is why the select committee report recommends further consideration in the future of the issues raised by the submitters. Once more I want to acknowledge the submitters and acknowledge the work of the officials. The work must go on.