Lees-Galloway Iain: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading[Sitting date: 06 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:722. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):It is a pleasure to speak on the Government’s Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3). It is very pleasing to see that the bill is receiving wide support from around the House. This bill has some provisions in it that are worthy of consideration by the Government Administration Committee. I should think given that most members support improving transparency and improving the regulation of gambling it will be something that has very constructive consideration at the select committee. I was somewhat disappointed with the contribution by the New Zealand First member Clayton Mitchell. I thought it was full of droppings to be honest. I was very very disappointed because he was bordering on misleading the House when he said that we do not know about the impacts of gambling and who is affected by problem gambling. I appreciate what the member said—that the vast majority of people who gamble do so in a safe way just as the vast majority of people who drink do so in a safe way. Yet we have a very very tight regulatory system around alcohol. During the last term of Parliament a lot of the time was spent on passing new legislation to regulate alcohol despite the fact that the vast majority of people can use alcohol quite safely. But we do need to legislate for the fact that it does have a harmful impact.We know that gambling has a harmful impact on our communities. Every day New Zealanders lose $5.5 million on gambling—$5.5 million every single day. That is not insignificant. It is about $2 billion a year and half of that $2 billion a year—I think Kevin Hague pointed this out—goes on the pokie machines. The pokie machines are probably the most insidious and nasty and most addictive form of gambling that there is out there. Of course the pokie machines are one of the primary forms of gambling that occurs outside of casinos. They are a little bit more hidden away in darkened rooms usually out the back of the pub where people just quietly spend hours and hours and hours spending their pay cheque—Denis O’Rourke: Why shouldn’t they if that’s what they want to do. It’s personal freedom.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It is personal freedom says Denis O’Rourke just as it is personal freedom to go down to the pub and spend some money on drinking alcohol. Yet I know that that party voted in favour of legislation that was designed to reduce the harm caused by alcohol because families lose an awful lot of money to alcohol addiction just as the lives of families the most vulnerable families that that member should be standing up for—the most vulnerable families that that member should be standing up for—are ruined by problem gambling. This is the “member for problem gambling”. This is the member who wants to see vulnerable families harmed to see children not have food put on the table to see people miss their mortgage payments and to see people indebted to finance companies because they have lost their money on gambling.That member should be ashamed. That member should be absolutely ashamed for standing up for the gambling industry and for not being prepared to stand up for vulnerable families. The New Zealand Health Survey—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: He’s lost it.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Again if the Minister Jonathan Coleman does not think that MPs should get passionate about the most vulnerable people in our society—I know what that member gets passionate about. He gets passionate about tax cuts for the rich he gets passionate about ensuring there are plenty of loopholes and he gets passionate about corporate boxes and smoking cigars. He gets passionate about a lot of things but he obviously does not get passionate about the most vulnerable. So if he thinks I have lost it because one of the things that annoys me the most is when members of Parliament are prepared to defend industries that prey on the most vulnerable people in society then I think that tells you a lot more about Jonathan Coleman’s values than it does about mine.The New Zealand Health Survey reported that 3 percent of adults about 87000 people experienced problems due to someone’s gambling in the previous 12 months. A lot of the harm caused by gambling is not just to the person themselves. It is not just to the gambler. It is to their wider families and their wider society and community. Two out of five regular pokie players are likely to have a gambling problem. I hear the members in New Zealand First saying: “What about the sports clubs? What about the community and voluntary organisations?”. Like Chris Hipkins I have been involved with organisations that have relied on donations and funding from organisations that raise their funds through pokie money. But of course the only reason—the only reason—we are reliant on the funds from gambling to support community and voluntary organisations is that we are not prepared to fund them in some other form. That is the only reason.So I do not have any truck with people who say: “What’s the impact going to be on voluntary and community organisations?”. If members of this House are so concerned about those organisations that do good work in our community and support youngsters to get involved in sport and all the myriad things that these organisations that rely on the funds from pokies do then we should establish a fund to make sure that those organisations can be funded without the need for gambling money. Because what it is essentially is a tax on the poor and the vulnerable. It is a tax on the poor and the vulnerable in order to fund organisations that should be able to rely on more reliable and more seemly forms of funding than a tax on the poor and the vulnerable which is essentially what gambling is.I am no prohibitionist. I am no prohibitionist and members around here will know that but we do need to make sure that we have a transparent and conflict of interest - free regulatory system to ensure that those proceeds that are collected from gambling are appropriately deployed.I have to say I got a lot of those statistics that I used to demonstrate just how harmful gambling is in this country from the Health Promotion Agency website because the Health Promotion Agency is of course the Government-mandated organisation to deal with and try to reduce the effects of harmful gambling just as it is involved with trying to reduce the harmful effects of other addictive activities and other health issues.I have to say that the information is very useful and it does a very good job but if we are going to deal with reducing conflicts of interest in the regulation of gambling then I think that the Health Promotion Agency needs to get its own house in order by dealing with the conflict of interest that Katherine Rich has. She is on the board of an organisation that is supposed to reduce the harm caused by alcohol and that is supposed to reduce the harm caused by diabetes and obesity and heart disease. Yet with her other hat on—and we know about the difficulty that the Prime Minister has with his multiple hats and the conflicts of interest they can create for him—she comes along to select committees goes along and lobbies Ministers talks to bloggers—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well you know this is an important component—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It’s about gambling.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: This bill is about reducing conflicts of interest and the organisation that is mandated with reducing the harm associated with gambling which is what this legislation is all about is the Health Promotion Agency which has to deal with an enormous conflict of interest in its own house. This is the situation for Katherine Rich who lobbies for the alcohol industry who lobbies for the sugar industry who lobbies for so many businesses that cause harm and yet she is there on the Health Promotion Agency supposedly doing the exact opposite meanwhile funding who knows who to attack anybody who speaks out against the alcohol industry or speaks out in favour of greater regulation of food that causes harm.Gambling is something that people can enjoy. I put some money on the Melbourne Cup the other day. It was the first time I have placed a bet in quite some time.Ian McKelvie: Who’d you back?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well I went for the box trifecta and I had Red Cadeaux and I had Protectionist. Silly me I did not back the New Zealand horse and I do not want to dwell on how that impacted me financially. But anyway $10 was spent for a bit of fun and that is probably my gambling for the year. But that is not the story for so many people. That is not the story for so many people. For so many people the day the pay cheque arrives they are on the pokies spending money that should be spent on their rent that should be spent on their mortgage that should be spent on food and that should be spent on their children. Gambling can be addictive for a significant proportion of the population; therefore we need to have good regulation.We do need to have good regulation and so that is why Labour supports this bill and that is why Labour MPs such as myself get passionate about issues that affect the most vulnerable in society.