Roy Heather: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Roy Heather: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8459] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the title. The bill is now called the Gambling Bill. The changes to the title that have gone on are indicative of what has happened to the bill itself. It has been passed from side to side there have been dealings with different parties it has gone round and round through swings and roundabouts and all sorts of changes have transpired. In fact the bill as it started off bears little resemblance to what we have now. But is the title a good indication of what is in the bill? I do not think so. 
It was interesting to listen to the Hon Matt Robson’s speech on the title. When he was not diverted to making comments about other parties in the House when he was not having to be reined in by the Chair he made a lot of comments about disappointment about concern over the content of the bill now about concern about families and about gambling not being conducive to good family life and what not. Because he expressed those great concerns I look forward to Progressive casting its two votes with this side and opposing the bill. His speech certainly sounded to me like a speech of a member who opposes what is inside this legislation—whether or not he agrees with what the title now is. 
 We have heard several suggestions about changing the title. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I again say to members that in debating the title they have to ask themselves whether the proposed title adequately describes the bill. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Thank you Mr Chair. That is why I was coming— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Every member has had a problem with this. I refer members to Standing Order 108(2). If the discussion continues in this way then I will terminate speeches or take a closure motion. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Many other members have suggested alternative titles. Judith Collins suggested “Irresponsible Gambling Bill” instead of “Responsible Gambling Bill”. That is a very good suggestion. What we see here is not a lot of responsibility at all. From what the Hon Matt Robson said one would have thought that people who go to gambling premises to gamble had a gun held to their heads. It is good that the word “Responsible” has been taken away because the general theme in this legislation is that personal responsibility does not count at all; that people are not responsible for their actions and therefore the legislation is necessary. So “Irresponsible Gambling Bill” is a reasonably good suggestion. 
Another suggestion by Judith Collins is that the title be the “Gaming Bill”. Who would like to stand to tell us what the difference between gaming and gambling is? Why have we had this change? It seems there is no good reason except that we have had backwards-and-forwards toing and froing between parties. Gambling is I suppose a much more negative term and that is what this Government wants to imply—that gambling is a terrible thing that people cannot be held responsible for gambling and that the Government must take care of those who have problems with it. I feel much more sorry for the families of those who encounter difficulties. But people must be held responsible for their own actions. 
Is it responsible to allow more power to go to the Department of Internal Affairs? Most certainly I stand in this Committee today and say “No”. I guess that “Responsible Gambling Bill” is not appropriate; it must be called the Gambling Bill. Is it responsible to hand over responsibility for problem gambling to the Ministry of Health? The section under the heading “Background” in the commentary cannot even name the Government department that is to be responsible such is the shame I suppose that goes with it. The ministry itself has had a great deal of difficulty with accountability; I could name many examples but I suspect the Chair will not let me go that way. 
The problem gambling committee which we have at the moment has representatives both from the industry and from groups concerned about the treatment aspect of gambling addiction. It actually provides a very good service at the moment. If one speaks to the members of those organisations one hears them say that the right chord has been struck and there is a reasonable sort of balance but no again the Government wants to take responsibility for people. It wants to hand over responsibility for problem gambling to an organisation that has not had a lot of success in many other areas—the Ministry of Health. That is a retrograde step. The public health aspect of this measure will be a dismal failure and not nearly as good as what we have at the moment.