Alexander Marc: Gambling Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: Gambling Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19848] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 Now that that member has resumed his seat the pigs can stop flying. He does not seem to be able to control his own shadow as far as I can see. The simple fact of the matter is that gambling problems are something that we ought to be seriously concerned about. But this legislation does not deal with that at all. The point to make with gambling problems is that a lot has to be taken on board as personal responsibility. In my opinion nobody has ever had a gun held to his head and been forced to go into a casino and put money into a slot machine. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: This is the “Family Party” speaking. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: The “Family Party” actually wants choice. We want people to be able to decide for themselves what to do and we want less Government intervention. But that member from the “Winston Party” obviously wants to have more Government intervention in people’s lives and more restrictions placed on individuals and I think that is unconscionable. What did he do when we was in Government other than melt down the National Party to the point where it cannot even get back into the race for the next election? It is crazy. The kiss of death is what the “Winston Party” is all about. 
This bill amends the Gambling Act to exempt licensing trust members and trustees of community trusts who are the equivalent of licensing trust members where the licensing trust is reconstituted as a community trust under the Sale of Liquor Act from the definition of “key person” in the Gambling Act in relation to a class 4 venue. The amendment has the effect of excluding those members and trustees from the provisions of the Gambling Act that require the separation of functions and it will enable them to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. 
Licensing trust members are elected under the Sale of Liquor Act to operate businesses in the hospitality industry. Licensing trusts are not eligible to operate gaming machines under the Gambling Act. However some licensed gaming-machine societies choose to operate gaming machines on licensing trust premises. Many of these societies allow or have allowed licensing trust members to be involved in decisions about the operation of gaming machines and the distribution of gaming-machine proceeds. This was permitted under previous gambling legislation. The Gambling Act prevents this type of arrangement by way of a strict separation between those who run commercial premises at which gaming machines are operated and those who control the proceeds from the gaming machines at those venues. The separation of functions is designed to reduce the potential for conflict of interest. As licensing trust members are publicly accountable to their local community and cannot benefit personally from the licensing trust the risk of conflict of interest is considerably lower. 
Out of the Government Administration Committee came only one minor recommendation—that is to clarify that the definition of “key person” includes trustees of a community trust who hold office under section 219Q of the Sale of Liquor Act. This is eminently sensible and it is something that United Future will absolutely support. One thing that I would mention however is that again the previous speaker was utterly wrong because the Gambling Act specifically avoided centralisation of the proceeds from gambling. He was simply wrong. But that is what we expect from the “Winston Party” I suppose despite the fact that its members might vote for other than what they talk about. Nevertheless United Future will support this. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am very reluctant to interrupt this member’s speech—the sooner he gets it over with the better—but the real fact is that he cannot talk about the “Winston Party”. We all know that the fastest rising party in this country is called New Zealand First and it should be addressed properly by that name at all times—particularly by the “Poodle Party”. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Parties should be addressed by their correct name. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Speaking to the point of order I apologise if there was any confusion in calling New Zealand First the “Winston Party” but in the minds of most the two are indistinguishable. I would just like to correct the member by saying that we are not the “Poodle Party”; we are in fact the guide dog of Parliament—the guide dog. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I just remind members that they should refer to parties by their proper names. Those two names should not be used.