te Heuheu Georgina: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8646] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to the third reading of the Gambling Bill. At the outset I say as my colleague Judith Collins did that National opposes this bill. 
I commend the ACT speaker and the Greens’ speaker Sue Bradford who spoke before me. I do not normally necessarily agree with the position that the Greens take but I have to say that their stand—unlike that of United Future—has been completely principled and in that respect I certainly support them. 
 I take the opportunity to discuss for the last time the issue of Rotorua Casino Ltd. Supplementary Order Paper 109 which I lodged sought to enable Rotorua Casino Ltd to apply for and have considered a casino venue licence. That amendment would have allowed genuine consultation with the Rotorua community on a proposal to build and open a resort casino in Rotorua and would have provided for an independent assessment of the application community consultation and the distribution of the profits by a charitable trust. 
The background is that Rotorua Casino Ltd viewed as a serious injustice the moratorium on further casino applications that was imposed by Parliament in 1997. The moratorium prevented two of the six applications that had been lodged before the passing of that bill from proceeding. Of course one of those was from Rotorua Casino Ltd. The other was from a company that at its base was the Wellington Tenths. It is interesting that both those organisations were Maori based but I will say no more on that; given that all people in this country say they want to see Maori involved in economic development it is interesting that the two organisations that missed out were Maori based. 
Rotorua Casino Ltd sought to rectify that. At the time that the moratorium was imposed it was generally understood that the purpose of the imposition was to allow a complete review of gaming laws and the expectation was that casino applications would then be heard under the new rules. Of course we know that this bill has completely barred them. That decision might not have been so bad if there had been some logic behind it but if one looks at the bill one sees that one of the most pernicious forms of gambling will be allowed to spread right across this country so there does not seem to be any logic at all to the Government’s approach to gambling. 
Rotorua Casino Ltd wanted the opportunity as it had already invested so many resources and funds in 1997 to have an application considered. But it recognised that it would need to meet more stringent and comprehensive conditions had been faced previously by other applicants for casino premises licences and that is what it did. As embodied by the proposal in the Supplementary Order Paper Rotorua Casino Ltd had taken a very responsible approach to the issue and had taken into account a lot of the comments that had been made at the time of the 1997 legislation. 
One of the side effects of the moratorium has been to create a casino monopoly in New Zealand and substantial market dominance by one company throughout the country. This bill confirms and makes permanent that private business monopoly and that surely cuts rights across the business and competition policies that all Governments—particularly National and centre-right Governments—have. I would have thought that this Government in particular as it seems to have all the language about business and enterprise—although it does not actually deliver on it—would see the sense in that as well but clearly it did not. Essentially sitting behind the Rotorua Casino Ltd application were two fundamental issues. One was the right of communities to decide their own economic development to make decisions around what activities they see as enhancing economic growth and development in their own regions and the other was the injustice that had occurred with the moratorium in 1997. 
I want to spend a short time on some of the things that the Minister of Internal Affairs said the other night. On the issue of casinos and the fact that no more will be allowed he shouted out in the Chamber that the public does not like casinos. Well I ask who the public is because it seems that the public is the Labour Government—that that is who the public is. I imagine that those people who do not like casinos are not too crash hot in favour of any form of gambling anyway. 
That was such a stupid thing for him to say when this bill will see the spread of interactive gambling in any event. It will be worse. This legislation makes provision for a form of gambling that will be much worse than anything that the Minister talked about the other night. That is why I say there is no logic to this bill and that is a great pity. After a 4-year gap this House should have seen a decent piece of legislation that was comprehensive and consistent but this bill is not. It is not consistent at all. Government members make great noise about the fact that they are limiting the number of pokie machines and preventing further casinos but on the other hand the State will now sponsor Internet and remote interactive gambling. I ask what the sense in that is. [ 
Interruption 
] I want Dianne Yates a member from Hamilton to stand up and tell me the logic behind that because there is none. This way people do not have to get up and go out of their sitting rooms; they can sit there and gamble. How come that is OK and casinos are not? Members should tell me that. They should tell me how come that is OK. Well it is not. 
The Government should be ashamed of itself especially a Government that says it is family-based and all those things. However that is just a lot of rubbish. I deplore this legislation and the way that this Government has behaved on it.