Roy Heather: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Roy Heather: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8473] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 That was a very confused speech. The Minister made lots of contentious arguments. The public do not like casinos apparently. [ 
Interruption 
] It must be why they are not going to them! The public I would contend to Mr Hawkins do not particularly like pokie machines either but they do like the proceeds that come from them. The sporting and cultural groups that are the recipients of the proceeds like them particularly—despite the fact that they do admit they do not like the machines themselves. I think that Mr Hawkins has been spending too much time in Manurewa and not enough time in places like Rotorua and Queenstown. 
I support my colleague in the National Party the Hon Georgina te Heuheu who is complaining about the situation in Rotorua and she is quite correct. That is why the ACT party supported her amendment in Part 1. The Minister said that the Rotorua casino missed the boat by miles. He is very badly informed because it missed the boat by 1 day because of the 1997 moratorium. One day is not missing the boat by miles. Mr Hawkins is very deliberately ignoring the gains that are made to this country by casinos—whether or not people like them casinos bring a lot of money to this country. Casinos bring a lot of money a lot of tourism opportunities and a lot of employment opportunities. However if we look at the amendment to clause 8A “No more casinos” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 132 which I will come to in a minute we see that subclause (1) provides: “No new casino venue licences may be granted under this Act.” 
Sandra Goudie 
: The Lotteries Commission doesn’t want the competition does it? 
HEATHER ROY 
: It does not want the competition. New clause 8A(2) provides: “However an existing casino venue licence may be renewed.” Is this just yet another example of this Government picking winners? That question does have to be asked does it not? Existing casinos are all right but new ones are not. If casinos are such terrible things and the public hate them as much as that why are we not banning all casinos? Why do we not ban everything as this Government is wont to do? 
I want to come now to Supplementary Order Paper 132 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins. This Supplementary Order Paper is a disgrace. It contains 65 pages of amendments to the bill that will have absolutely no scrutiny at all. The most disgraceful part of this Supplementary Order Paper is who it is being supported by—the United Future party. I campaigned in Ohariu-Belmont with Peter Dunne at the last election in 2002. I went to every meeting and we were both there. It was an interesting experience because I used to hope that my number was drawn first out of the cup or plate or whatever it was we were drawing numbers out of. Do members know why that is? 
Sandra Goudie 
: Why? 
HEATHER ROY 
: Because we would always be saying the same thing. I wanted to be on my feet first because— 
Judith Collins 
: He should join ACT. 
HEATHER ROY 
: He should join ACT because that is what he really believes. The fact that he campaigned on more transparency and more accountability shows the farce of the support that United Future is lending to this Supplementary Order Paper which will have no scrutiny— 
Sandra Goudie 
: The worm has turned. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right the worm is turning. There will be no scrutiny and no way for this side of the House to make any amendments or contribution to what is in this Supplementary Order Paper and there is certainly no provision for the public to make any sort of submission on it. I noticed that Matt Robson is suddenly over the intense disappointment he described in the debate on the title. 
Sandra Goudie 
: It didn’t last long. 
HEATHER ROY 
: It did not last long at all. The holes in this bill that he spoke about—the terrible disappointment he was expressing—have gone! I was expecting him to vote against the bill given his intense disappointment but that did not happen. I do not know. It beggars belief does it not? 
The other amendments have been out for quite some time but this Supplementary Order Paper contains 65 pages full of amendments—I have forgotten how many. Mr Tisch told us previously but I cannot remember because there were so many of them. The amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper will receive absolutely no scrutiny. This process makes a farce of the lawmaking process and the democracy that we are so proud of in this country. I say to Mr Hawkins that I think that is truly contemptible.