Dean Jacqui: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDean Jacqui: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2009. Volume:654;Page:2899. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):In speaking to the second reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) I guess there is no question by members from across the House that gambling damages people damages homes and has damaging effects on whole communities. I think that this bill is a good attempt to make several policy amendments and a number of technical amendments to the Gambling Act 2003.That Act is quite a large piece of legislation. It is technical and complex. It brought a number of reforms to the gambling sector that I believe were quite welcome at the time. Those were a moratorium on the opening of additional casinos and a reduction in the number of class 4 gaming machines and new venues. There was also a significant shift in focus towards the minimisation of the harm associated with gambling. I know that the Minister of Internal Affairs has shown a lot of concern about the effects of problem gambling. Recently I have had several conversations with the Minister on just that subject and I know that he has a deep and ongoing concern and would like to see more work done on the issue of problem gambling.But here we are this evening facing the second reading of this bill which does bring in a number of provisions. I guess it is worth noting because it is a little unusual that there were 168 written submissions on this bill to the Government Administration Committee of the previous Parliament. Although 32 of those submissions expressed direct support for the provisions within the bill the remainder of them were supportive in ways that fell outside the scope of the bill. That tells us something very significant. It tells us that around 136 people were concerned enough to submit on this bill. Their concerns were outside the scope of the bill but they were concerned enough about problem gambling in New Zealand and in our communities and about the effects of it on individuals to make a submission to the select committee of the day. I think that is significant and is worth noting in this House. It is something that the Minister of Internal Affairs the Hon Dr Richard Worth has certainly taken on board and is very concerned about.Turning to the amendments that the bill makes to the Act I say there are many but I think it is worth rehearsing them in this second reading. I know they have been raised by members across the House but it is important to restate some of the amendments. One is a requirement to bank gaming-machine profits directly into the gaming-machine society’s bank account. Of course the reason for that amendment is that some societies have been utilising profits to ease the cash flow which is a rather delicate way of saying that the cash could not then be accounted for. That must be a very useful amendment to be brought in as part of this bill.I pause here very briefly to comment that members across the House have noted the fact that I have been speaking rather slowly and carefully. Of course there are people who are unable to hear my words. This is a very special week and I think it is incumbent on us as parliamentarians particularly in Deaf Awareness Week to recognise that slow and careful speech can be useful to those who do not hear as well as we do.Returning to the policy amendments there will be a requirement in this bill that community grant recipients use those grants only for the specific authorised purpose for which the grant was made. The justification for requesting the grant cannot be changed. That is a rigour that I believe will be very welcome in this context. The legislation will set out the circumstances in which a gaming-machine society may apply gaming-machine proceeds to its own authorised purpose as opposed to making grants to the wider community. It will also set out the duty for gambling venues to assist potential problem gamblers where ongoing problems are suspected. Essentially this means that it will not suffice for a venue to approach a person on one occasion provide him or her with information on problem gambling and then do nothing further. What would be the use of that? I would argue that it would not be particularly useful. It will not be sufficient to provide information about problem gambling and do nothing further if the person’s gambling behaviour continues to be of concern. It is not adequate for someone in a gambling situation to approach someone whom they perceive to be a problem gambler only once when they suspect that ongoing problems are occurring.The amendments to the Act will tighten the regulations around the monitoring of gaming. Organisations or people who receive grants from gambling societies will need to be accountable for how that money is spent.Debate interrupted.