Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2)

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) Link to this

There can be no doubt that gambling damages both individuals and homes, and that to an extent it damages and affects whole communities. I do not think that fact is much disputed around this House, so it is with pleasure that I speak for a few more minutes on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2).

This bill makes good progress in bringing into effect what Parliament has desired to introduce in terms of the mitigation of problem gambling. As I have just a few minutes left to speak, I refer to the select committee consideration of this bill. It seems to me that the Government Administration Committee of the previous Parliament had a really thorough look at the issue of problem gambling, under the chairmanship of Shane Ardern and a number of other excellent members. It is notable that of the 168 submissions received on this bill, while 32 of them expressed general support for the bill, the rest of the submissions were not necessarily against the spirit of the bill; they were outside its scope, perhaps, or they advocated for measures that were beyond the intention of the bill. It is worthwhile to reflect on the intention of Parliament—both the previous Parliament and now this Parliament—to acknowledge and recognise that we still have some way to go in New Zealand to address the issues of problem gambling.

The amendments to the Gambling Act are intended to tighten the regulations around the monitoring of gambling in New Zealand. Importantly, organisations or people who receive grants from gambling societies need to be accountable for how that money is spent. I think that is one of the critical amendments that has been brought in by this bill. I read with horror about money that is raised from gaming machines in South Auckland and is then spent in North Otago on stakes for horse racing. I know that that issue has attracted the attention of a number of people.

Importantly, this bill allows for the regulation of the collection of important information around the gaming industry. For example, if somebody on a gaming premises is viewed as having a problem with gambling, that person must not be approached only once. That person must be approached a number of times, making the intervention more effective. It is not good enough for a person with a gambling problem to be approached only once, and for the people who made the approach to then wash their hands and say that they have done their bit. With those few words, I commend this bill to the House.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this

It is a pleasure to take a call on the second reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a very good bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government, and, indeed, I see it still has your name on it, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. That is a good indication of the work the previous Labour Government did on this very, very difficult issue.

I must say that this bill was one of the more controversial and difficult bills that I dealt with in my time as a member of the Government Administration Committee during the last Parliament. It was frustrating both to committee members and to submitters that the scope of the bill restricted the committee from considering in any real way the broader concerns that were raised. However, that was not the intent of the bill.

I acknowledge the submitters. They were passionately concerned about problem gambling and its impact on our communities and society. They made powerful arguments for real change. It was not that the bill itself was controversial; it was just that many of the submitters wanted the bill to be a lot more than it actually was intended to be, which was a tidy-up of the Gambling Act 2003. It was intended to be a collection of small but important amendments to make the original Act work better. However, I acknowledge that the submitters reflected genuine concerns of anyone who has experienced the problems that gambling causes, and the harm it can cause to families and communities.

Quite frankly, I think pokie machines are a blight on our society. I would like to wish them away, as I am sure many people would, but, unfortunately, it will take a lot more than an amendment bill like this one to have that effect. I am interested to see how the National Government will respond to these challenges, and I was interested in Dr Worth’s comments in his contribution the other day and in his answer to a question today about dodgy pokie trusts.

I wish gambling did not exist, but, to some extent, it always has existed. Many of us—not I, but my father and many others—like to have a flutter on the races. The critical thing is that they have always kept their flutters within reason and within control. Unfortunately, it is those people who become addicted to a fix of gambling who are at risk. Easy access to pokie machines and other forms of instant gambling have brought the problem into every corner of New Zealand’s communities, and that was reflected by many submitters to the committee.

There is also the difficult question of the myriad community organisations that rely on funding from gambling to provide services in their communities, or the local clubs that absolutely depend on gambling money to fund local activities. Many New Zealanders believe that there must be a better model, but it will take some work to put it together. Ultimately, if community funding from gambling money is to be abolished, the community will rely on the Government to fill the gap, and there is no sign of that happening under this Government.

I also say that casinos are a blot on our society. It is a newer form of instant entertainment with all of the associated problems. When this bill was introduced last year, there was a lot of publicity around money-launderers and gambling sharks at Skycity’s Auckland casino. Luckily, that seems to have died down, and I acknowledge the work of the Department of Internal Affairs in getting on top of those issues. Thank goodness the previous Labour Government’s 2003 Gambling Act prevented the spread of money-launderers and gambling sharks throughout the country, with its moratorium on the building of new casinos. Out went a focus on economic gain and huge profits at the expense of the local population, and in came harm minimisation and keeping the lid on casino gambling. We were delighted that the explosion of casino building came to an end. However, I note that last week Skycity said it would love to build a casino here in Wellington, but that it would take a change of law for it to do so. So they are still out there, wanting to build more casinos. I look forward to hearing from the National-ACT Government as to whether it is prepared to change the law to accommodate Skycity’s casino, or whether it will put a lid on this issue, once and for all. I look forward to hearing contributions from members opposite.

It was a Labour Government that brought in the Gambling Act, and it was far-reaching, world-leading legislation. The purpose of that Act was to control the growth of gambling, which had been running away in terms of growth in the number of casinos and pokie machines; prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling, including problem gambling; authorise some gambling and prohibit the rest; facilitate responsible gambling; ensure the integrity and fairness of games; limit opportunities for crime or dishonesty associated with gambling; ensure that money from gambling benefits the community; and facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling. The legislation we are debating today was designed to build on the work of the previous Labour Government, to clarify the law, and to remove any uncertainties arising from the Gambling Act 2003, which became law in 2004.

Another big change to gambling came about with the introduction of the Labour Government’s 2003 legislation to ban smoking in the workplace. I believe that that legislation changed the culture of gambling and hospitality workplaces. I know that workers were right behind it, because they were the ones who were being affected most by second-hand smoke. Sure, it caused some angst in smaller clubs, but today that foresighted legislation by the previous Labour-led Government is widely supported by the public.

I note one issue in the select committee’s report where the committee could not agree. As a consequence of Labour’s 2003 amendments to the Smoke-free Environments Act some determined gaming venues have altered the layout of their outside gaming areas so that smokers can gamble outside, and obviously that is in contravention of the intention of that Act. Labour wanted that issue cleared up in the bill. The National Party would not agree. It seemed to me that Richard Worth indicated some acknowledgment of that issue the other day. So I look forward to a Supplementary Order Paper coming forward in the Committee stage that will tidy up that particular issue. The issue is a loophole in the current law and I would be very pleased if the loophole was closed.

As other speakers have said, this is a technical bill. It contains technical amendments and minor policy enhancements to clarify the law and make it work as it was intended to do. The aims of the bill are to make recipients of pokie-machine grants use their grants appropriately, to extend conflict of interest safeguards to all persons making decisions on gaming-machine grants, to strengthen the requirements on venues banking gaming-machine profits, to widen the offences and regulations for gaming-machine operators and licensed promoters, to introduce requirements for the accurate disclosure of non-cash prizes, and to provide more flexibility for clubs that want to merge gaming-machine operations. As members can see from the select committee report, some other amendments were proposed by the committee, which we support—with the exception of the one I have already mentioned about smoking and gambling. As I said, this bill is largely technical and it is not the right vehicle to make the kinds of wide-sweeping changes that many of us would like to see.

Unfortunately, because of the narrow scope of the bill some communities that deal with the harm caused by gambling were unhappy that the select committee was not prepared to hear all submissions. They felt we were not listening. I want to assure those communities that I read every single submission and I listened very carefully to those who appeared before us. I was listening and I heard their very legitimate concerns. The conversation will carry on within Labour. The issue is not dead with this bill. I share the worry of those communities about the impact that pokie machines, in particular, have on family life. Therefore, I am supportive of the proposed amendments that will assist with the Act’s harm prevention and minimisation objectives. However, I do want to reflect on how bad gambling-related problems would be if Labour had not passed the 2003 Gambling Act. Members need to continue to work together with the community to ensure that local government uses the tools already provided in the Act as effectively as possible. It pleases me to note that many territorial local authorities in conjunction with their communities are becoming much more active around this issue, and we are seeing sinking-lid policies being implemented with the active support of the community.

This bill is another step forward in the debate about what needs to be done in the future to ensure that we continue to deal with the harm that gambling can cause, and to limit the growth of gambling. The select committee process demonstrated that there is a lot more to be done, and that is why the select committee report recommends further consideration in the future of the issues raised by the submitters. Once more, I want to acknowledge the submitters and acknowledge the work of the officials. The work must go on.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) Link to this

It is going on for 2 years now since we debated the first reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) in this House in August 2007. I think many MPs, not to mention members of the public and interested groups, will have just about forgotten that the bill ever existed. In the interim we have had the whole select committee process, the bill’s report back to Parliament, and a general election. I was beginning to wonder whether this bill would ever see the light of day again, and I have to say that despite the Green Party’s many reservations about its manifest inadequacies, it would have been a big waste of a lot of effort if this bill had just quietly died as a victim of the change in Government. So I thank the new administration for bringing the bill back to the House, but, at the same time, I call on National and its partner parties to consider doing what Labour seemed so unwilling to do at the time—that is, amend the bill so that it can achieve substantially more than it does at present.

The problem of pokies and the harm that they cause to individuals, families, employers, and communities has not magically disappeared since August 2007. Although pokie spending dropped by nearly 10 percent in the first quarter of 2009, over $200 million was still lost by punters during January to March this year. That is a phenomenal amount of money when one considers the currently rising levels of unemployment and poverty. I also note that in the second and third quarters of last year spending on pokies actually increased. So it is hard to say whether the recent drop-off is seasonal and temporary or whether it is a result of other factors, like the recession. I also see that for the year ended June 2008 over $2 billion was lost altogether in all forms of gambling—the second-highest amount ever, despite the tighter laws and regulations that have been brought in since the passage of the Gambling Act 2003. Behind all those figures, of course, are countless tales of human misery: the devastation that ripples outwards when the actions of a problem gambler impact not just on the individual but on all those around him or her, often with devastating consequences.

The bill before us, as reported back from the select committee, is basically a series of mainly technical amendments—fixing up or improving a number of issues that have arisen since the original Gambling Act became law back in 2003. For example, the bill extends criteria on which suitability of people to hold a class 4 gaming licence are judged; does more to define and regulate those who are seen as persons of significant influence in a venue; extends specifications as to what property or services may not be offered as a prize for gambling; clarifies that the venue manager or the holder of a casino operator’s licence must have a policy to identify problem gamblers; and puts more definition around the circumstances in which corporate societies may put gambling proceeds to their own purposes.

One area where the bill was slightly strengthened by the Government Administration Committee was around information gathering. Many submitters were concerned about the lack of accurate and publicly available information around the distribution of funds. As a result a new clause has been inserted into the bill to require more from the Secretary for Internal Affairs, both in terms of what information is collected and how it is published.

On the other hand, the bill was actually weakened during the select committee process in relation to the question of gaming machines being confined to internal areas. The Green Party had welcomed the bill’s original commitment to ensuring that pokie machines could no longer be moved outdoors so that people who smoke can continue to gamble and smoke simultaneously, uninterrupted by any considerations of health, finance, or ethics. Unfortunately, the committee saw fit to get rid of this clause, and I would like to make a plea to parties in this House to consider seriously reinstating it, in a stronger form, to ensure that outdoor venues of any nature should be declared unsuitable for class 4 gambling.

However, the much bigger problem with the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) is that it does not deal substantively with the harm being inflicted on individuals and communities by pokies. As the Green Party said in its minority report attached to the commentary on the bill, we believe that the Government should act urgently on a number of measures, including devolving greater power to local authorities so that they can reduce the number of pokie venues in their own district—down to zero, if they so choose. We should speed up the investigation and application of new technologies such as player tracking and pre-commit cards, which can help minimise the harm done in terms of creating and maintaining problem gambling.

Racing should be capped as an authorised purpose, with restrictions on how pokie funds committed to racing are applied. Some trusts give large percentages of their proceeds to racing; a lot of it goes on high-end stakes. The Greens do not think funding the rich end of the racing industry is a suitable purpose for funds extracted from low-income communities and problem gamblers.

We would like to see it be a requirement for the Department of Internal Affairs to publish class 4 grant reports every quarter, along with the electronic monitoring system reports, including clear information about where funds come from as well as where they go. At the moment gaming trusts are required to regularly publish whom they give grants to, as legislated for in the earlier Gambling Act. However, it is considerably harder for those of us with an interest to work out where the funds have come from. What analysis has been done shows a number of inequities, such as how much of the gambling proceeds come out of some very low-income communities, and how little goes back to them, in comparison.

The Green Party would also like to see reforms to improve the fraught question of the way in which the problem gambling levy is administered. I will be putting forward a number of amendments to the bill when we reach the Committee stage in the House. I hope other members will join the Greens in seriously considering what we might do to improve the bill within the scope of what is possible. I call on National members, as well as colleagues from Labour, to take a serious look at those amendments when they come forward.

Many individuals and organisations made submissions on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). However, the process by which the select committee dealt, or attempted to deal, with submitters was atrocious—unlike anything else I had ever seen since becoming a member of Parliament. Some submitters were treated well; others were treated with downright contempt. Some who had asked to make oral submissions were simply denied the opportunity altogether. Some submitters had their submissions returned without any record of the submission’s arrival at the select committee having been kept in the first place. Some returned submissions were sent back, not to the original submitter but to someone else entirely. Very arbitrary decisions were made about what was inside or outside the scope of the bill, and so on. I found, to my surprise, that all of this was deemed legitimate behaviour on the part of the committee, but I am glad it is not common practice.

I see select committees as the engine room of Parliament and of the democratic process. This is the place where MPs work on the minutiae of legislation, informed by relevant Government officials and parliamentary staff. It is also the place where any citizen can make representations to us about matters that concern them. I have sat on committees dealing with much more contentious issues than the bill before us tonight. These committees have literally had thousands of submissions—for example, on the Employment Relations Bill in 2000, the prostitution reform bill, and the bill reforming section 59 of the Crimes Act. Yet those committees, when we had far more submissions, did not turn away people who wished to make an oral submission. Everyone got their chance to be heard—even if sometimes the time allotted may have been brief. On the whole, in every other committee I have been on there was an attempt to treat submitters with fairness and equity, even if sometimes mistakes or omissions occurred. I understand that at the moment there is another select committee acting in a similar, cavalier way in dealing with submissions on the resource management legislation.

I would love to see some action taken on a cross-party basis to change the rules by which committees operate, so that all submitters have a right to a fair go. I believe we owe it to the democracy that we are here to serve, and to the voters who collectively put us in this place, to treat submitters, whoever they are, with some minimum standards of decency and respect.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) Link to this

One of the most pleasant things about coming to Parliament is being able to stand up and say that I agree with the speakers who have spoken before me who are nominally on the opposite side of the House. I think I am, perhaps, in the unique position tonight to be able to say that I was listening to Sue Bradford and Darien Fenton and I could identify with much in their speeches. I picked out just a couple of phrases.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei pō. In doing some research about this particular bill today, I came across some information that set me back a little bit. The 2006-07 Gaming and Betting Activities Survey revealed that 86 percent of Māori had participated in gaming over the last 12 months; that Māori spent more on average than any other demographic group, with an annual spend of approximately $644; and the third figure was that three-quarters of Māori who participate in such activities believe that they break even when playing the pokies.

I think that the last statistic is probably the saddest one. Breaking even simply does not add up when one looks at the long list of criminal activities associated with gambling. Perhaps the more correct term might be breaking and entering, or theft, forgery, embezzlement, fraud, credit card scams, counterfeiting, assault, child neglect, prostitution, vandalism, loan sharking, money-laundering, and home invasion. We could describe all of these as the collateral damage associated with or caused by gambling. Perhaps the most tragic outcome of all is the crime against families that occurs when those who are drawn to the casinos and pokie machines gamble away relationships by breaching the trust of family members—and I have seen that myself, first hand.

This bill today does not reduce the activity of gambling. It does little to address the path of pathological gambling, or to develop strategies that address the harmful effects on our communities—the wider social, economic, and health costs. But there are some increased provisions within the bill that will identify and assist problem gamblers, and this is a gain.

I want to outline the Māori Party position right from the outset. Our commitment to this issue is such that my colleague Hone Harawira sat on the Government Administration Committee when it considered this bill, as a non-voting member. I am told there were 168 submissions. We wanted to respond to all of those submissions. We were also involved in, and influenced by, the community hui, the national conferences, the advice of key organisations along with the problem gambling network, and the excellent advice from expert specialists such as Dr Lorna Dyall from Te Herenga Waka o Te Ora Whānau and John Stansfield of the Problem Gambling Foundation. The expert analysis of all of these individuals and organisations is invaluable in advising us of the significant and harmful effects caused by gambling.

I want to remind the House that Māori and Pasifika peoples are more likely than other groups to suffer gambling-related harm, and that there is a ripple effect that goes all the way through whānau, families, hapū, and iwi from gambling. The best estimates from Dr Dyall predict that up to 239,000 people could be potentially adversely affected by Māori problem gambling when we take into account the impact on whānau and others—239,000 people. This is one of the great concerns that I see around the expansion of gambling in our modern lives. Personally, I am opposed to the practice of gambling as an unwise, potentially addictive habit. The decision to indulge in unwise investments has, I believe, a destructive and damaging influence on families and whānau. In essence, those with money to burn on gambling should remember their responsibilities to care for their whānau.

I am told that Katherine Pau, a counsellor from the Problem Gambling Foundation in Christchurch, demonstrated the factual nature of this point of view. She gave evidence about relationship problems, financial stresses, personal stresses, loss of employment, crimes, and suicide as examples of the devastation incurred by families and communities. From that same city, the 198 Youth Health Centre was concerned that gambling is still in oversupply, and spoke of the need to address the significant and ongoing negative social, health, and economic costs on families and communities.

The bill has responded to these concerns with a very specific provision around problem gambling. The Government Administration Committee has recommended that a venue manager should be liable for any failure to display a notice in the gambling area advising customers that the venue has a policy for identifying problem gamblers. We support and note the clear and absolute statement of responsibility as outlined in the report from the select committee. But there are many, many other issues that need to be addressed to reduce the harm being done by pokies, particularly to Māori, Pacific Island peoples, Asian, low-income workers, beneficiaries, and, of course, their communities. As a consequence of our concerns, we included a minority report in the bill recommending that the Government should act with urgency to, firstly, devolve greater power to local authorities to reduce venue numbers; secondly, to investigate new technologies such as player tracking and pre-commit cards; thirdly, to restrict how pokie funds committed to racing are applied, and others have spoken about that; and, fourthly, to require the Department of Internal Affairs to publish clear reports about where funds come from as well as where they go. We carried on and said that there is a need to address serious issues around the role of trusts in the distribution of pokie funds; and, finally, to reform and improve the way in which the problem-gambling levy is administered.

I did want to point out the real irony within the industry. As I understand it, more than $58 million per year is being siphoned out of the charitable gaming sector into the racing industry. Others have sort of touched on this matter, but it is worthy of mention as we discuss this bill tonight. The recent controversy that erupted over the Christchurch based Eureka Trust giving over $75,000 to the Oamaru Harness Racing Club has drawn criticism from some quarters. Morally one would expect that gambling profits accrued within Canterbury should stay within Canterbury, not diverted south. But even more important is the simple principle that money taken from the activity of gambling should not be redirected to another form of gambling.

In speaking about the submissions again, I point out that the Porirua problem gambling network urged the select committee to ensure that any new devices or machines should at least be less harmful than existing machines. The Waitakere Association for Gambling Action highlighted the oversupply of gambling opportunities with more than 300 pokie machines available within a short distance of the Auckland casino. Terry Huriwai, project manager for Matua Raki, the National Addiction Treatment Workforce Development Programme, advocated a need to strengthen consumer protection measures and other strategies to minimise harm. The Wellington People’s Centre specified far more meaningful avenues for profits generated from gambling to be distributed. Its position was that the amounts given in grants should be increased given the cost of gambling to the community. This, at least, was a move towards the recognition of the impact of poverty, family breakdowns, suicide, bankruptcy, and so on.

These are just a few of the strong and consistent views that advocated for further consideration of issues around problem gambling. It is my understanding that, in all, some 108 submissions held the view that more comprehensive amendments are needed over and above the changes proposed in this bill, and I have some empathy with the position that substantial reform is needed to achieve the original intent of the Gambling Act.

I remind us all that the purpose of the Gambling Act is extremely significant. There is a commitment to control the growth of gambling and the aspiration to prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling, including problem gambling. There is a call to ensure the integrity and fairness of games, while at the same time facilitating responsible gambling. Importantly, the Act makes a commitment to ensure not only that the profits of gambling benefit the community but also that they facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling.

These are important principles that we must reconsider and revitalise in the work ahead. My own kinsman Anaru Bidois, who is heavily involved in supporting those with gambling issues in Rotorua, is one who acknowledges that this bill does not go far enough, but it does go in the right direction. It is a first step, and the Māori Party will support this bill as one way of supporting the change that we want to see.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I am pleased to speak on the second reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). Gambling is a growth industry in New Zealand. It is an industry that can cause great harm and devastation to individuals and families. New Zealanders have a reputation as some of the world’s heaviest gamblers. Gambling, a tradition in New Zealand, has gained strength over the last 10 years through the rapid growth and expansion of the gambling industry. For many people, gambling is an enjoyable recreational activity. For some it may be once a year—a bet on the Melbourne Cup—but for many it is a normal part of their week’s activity. Those who have serious interests in gambling usually devote a great deal of money and time to it. Unfortunately, problem gambling can result in relationship problems, including separation and divorce; job problems such as absenteeism and loss of employment; financial stress such as bankruptcy; legal problems such as stealing and other illegal acts to finance gambling; and family problems, including domestic violence and neglect of family life.

I will talk for a short time on problem gambling and domestic violence. There is a link. There is evidence that domestic violence is more prevalent among problem gamblers than the general population. A number of studies support this conclusion. A few years ago, a survey of 144 spouses of compulsive gamblers indicated that half of them were physically and verbally abused by their spouses, and 12 percent had attempted suicide. A 1993 study found that 23 percent of pathologic gamblers admitted to hitting or throwing things at their spouse or partner more than once. One in 10 gamblers in counselling reported domestic or other violent incidents related to their gambling. There is no doubt that gambling affects family members. A 1999 survey of 215 spouses of pathological gamblers indicated that they suffered from symptoms such as headaches, stomach problems, dizziness, and breathing difficulties, in addition to emotional problems of anger, depression, and isolation. These symptoms were usually due to psychological abuse. The children of problem gamblers were reported to be two to three times more likely to be abused by the gambler and his or her spouse than their peers were. This is a tragedy. Gambling affects families; it rips them apart.

This bill goes some way to address these serious issues of gambling. The proposed amendments to the Act tighten the regulations around monitoring gaming. Importantly, with the proposed amendments, organisations or people who receive grants from gambling societies will need to be accountable for how they spend that money. Gambling is a money-making business—there is no doubt about that. As a result of the increases in expenditure on non-casino gaming machines, racing and sports betting, and Lotteries Commission products, gambling expenditure in 2006-07 increased for the first time in 3 years to just over $2 billion, which matched the 2003-04 figure. As a result of the electronic monitoring that all non-casino gaming machines have now been connected to since March 2007 we have accurate and up-to-date figures for that part of the sector. Expenditure on these machines was almost $1 billion to the end of June 2007. In the 2006-07 year, turnover exceeded $14 billion; expenditure was just over $2 billion. Gambling provided $400 million to community purposes, almost $90 million to racing clubs, and over $285 million in sector-specific taxation. In the calendar year 2007 problem gambling intervention services funded by the Ministry of Health assisted over 5,500 first-time clients with gambling problems. Gambling is epidemic.

The purpose of this bill is to update the Gambling Act 2003, which took effect on 1 July 2004. The Act brought major reforms, and, in particular, changed the focus towards the minimisation of harm associated with gambling. However, since it came into effect, a number of issues have emerged, and are addressed by this bill. The bill was introduced in August 2007 and was reported back by the Government Administration Committee in May 2008. The Government has elected to progress this bill with a number of minor policy and technical amendments. The amendments to the Act will tighten the regulations around the monitoring of gaming.

Organisations or people who receive grants from gambling societies need to be accountable for how that money is spent. This bill addresses that. There are concerns that there have been instances where gaming profits have been used to ease an organisation’s or a person’s cash flow, and then have been unable to be accounted for. That is not satisfactory. Therefore, an amendment requires that gaming-machine profits be banked directly into the gaming-machine society’s back account. There is also a requirement that community grant recipients use grants only for the specifically authorised purpose for which the grant was made. Importantly, the justification for requesting the grant cannot be changed, and I am sure members will not have any issues with that particular amendment. Specifically, there is an amendment that sets out the circumstances where a gaming-machine society may use proceeds for its own authorised purpose, rather than distributing grants to the wider community.

There will be an absolute duty for gambling venues to assist suspected problem gamblers. Those venues cannot turn their backs on those people. It will not be sufficient for gambling organisations to approach a person on one occasion, provide information, then do nothing. Further, if the person’s gambling behaviour continues to be of concern, gambling organisations will have to be accountable. There are regulation-making powers that will enhance harm prevention and minimisation measures. For example, mobile eftpos devices will be prevented from being placed close to gaming machines and players. This means that a player would have to walk away from a gaming machine to obtain additional cash from an eftpos device.

Currently, the Secretary for Internal Affairs can collect information from people involved in the conduct of gambling, to facilitate the objectives of the Act. The new clause 99A enables the secretary to specify what information should be collected, how often, and the manner and form in which the information should be provided. This information may include details about how gambling profits are distributed or granted. The amendment further requires the secretary to publish any resulting statistical information on the Department of Internal Affairs’ website, or in another publicly accessible electronic form. The bill gives the secretary the power to conduct gambling equipment research in gambling venues. Currently, the secretary is not authorised to test gambling equipment in a real-life gambling environment, which makes it difficult to assess the likely impact of equipment.

A number of technical amendments have been included in the bill. There will be a clearer definition of the term “gaming machine” to ensure that equipment associated with gambling is not captured. For instance, electronic card shufflers do not need the same level of regulation as gaming machines. The insertion of clause 80(1AA) will provide that, rather than the holder of the venue licence, a venue manager will be liable for the failure to display a notice in the gambling area that advises customers that the venue has a policy of identifying problem gamblers. Most of all, this bill addresses some serious issues in regard to problem gambling. Under this bill a licence holder or casino operator will be required to keep a record of every person excluded from their venue, and to provide this information to the Secretary for Internal Affairs on request.

In summary, gambling damages homes and communities. This amendment to the Act will tighten the regulations around the monitoring of gaming. Licensed venues and the people who work in them will be responsible for the monitoring of people who come to gamble. The people who work in gaming venues at casinos will now be vetted more strictly. The bill allows for regulation of the collection of important information around the gaming industry—the people, the money, and the organisations involved. The amendments are consistent with the intent of this Act, which is to minimise harm. I commend this bill to the House.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this

It is a pleasure to join in this debate. It has been a very interesting debate in one sense because of the clear view across the House that there is significant further work to do in terms of our gambling laws. The Gambling Act 2003 was excellent legislation, but it dealt with what we all know to be a very complex and troubling area. It is an area that is full of moral hazards, but which is, of course, the source of funding for many of our sporting and cultural organisations. The balance that was attempted to be struck in the Gambling Act 2003 produced many good outcomes, and we have already heard about those tonight. My colleague Darien Fenton has mentioned the moratorium on casinos. There has been a drop off in the number of class 4 gaming machines, or pokie machines as they are more commonly known, so we have seen some good consequences from that legislation.

The Gambling Act itself in 2003 was also, bluntly, the result of a need for the then Labour minority Government to put together a majority to pass the legislation. As a result there were a number of negotiations that I, in a previous life, participated in. It was difficult to bring the law together and it had, of course, some imperfections once it was finally passed, and this bill deals with some of those imperfections. But it is largely a technical bill. As other speakers have noted, when the Government Administration Committee heard submissions, many of those submissions sought a mandate to go much further than the bill does. As I have said, it is pleasing to hear members across the House address some of those issues, and I hope that this Parliament will be able to take up a number of them in one form or another.

It is important to note that this bill will not address those deep issues of concern, but that does not de-legitimise them. A number of other speakers have mentioned the impact of gambling on New Zealand society, and I think it is worth setting out that context so that people can be aware of the importance of having regulation around an issue such as gambling. We know that every day in New Zealand $2.77 million is lost on pokie machines. That is not the amount of money that is bet in pokie machines; it is the amount of money that is lost every day—over $2 million. We know that disproportionately that money is being lost in low socio-economic areas. If we use the decile categories, in decile 9 there is one pokie machine for every 75 people. In decile 1 there is one pokie machine for every 465 people. So problem gambling and the problems associated with pokie machines are far more evident in our low socio-economic areas. We also know that 3 percent of the adult population are problem gamblers, and they account for 24 percent of the expenditure on gambling. Obviously that is the very point—they are problem gamblers because they are betting far in excess of others in society, and often far in excess of the resources that they bring to the gaming machines. The problem of gambling in New Zealand is deep, it is widespread, and the original Gambling Act made an attempt to deal with that.

I also want to refer to the speech made by Richard Worth at the beginning of the first reading debate.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) Link to this

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2). As I have done research today, as I have listened to others participating in this debate, and certainly since I was elected a member of Parliament for Rotorua with a great majority of 5,065 only 6 short months ago, it has become clear to me that this is a very important issue. One thing often comes up in Rotorua—and others have given us a name or a nickname about Rotorua, which I prefer not to use here today. Gambling can and does damage homes, communities, and, of course, individuals.

The bill before us today will do a number of things. It amends the Gambling Act and will tighten the regulations around the monitoring of gaming. The intention of the bill is to reduce harm on people who have difficulty with gaming. It will mean that organisations and people who receive grants from gaming societies need to be accountable for how that money is spent.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this

It is a pleasure to be probably the penultimate speaker on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) this evening. I have listened to the debate during the evening, and I have heard the bill being described variously as a technical tidy-up, a fix-up, an improvement on the original Act, and an improvement to assist with the intent towards harm minimisation and controlling the growth of gambling venues and the availability of gambling in our communities. But I think—and this has been discussed a lot—that this bill does somewhat more than that; it is trying to address issues that are incredibly important to our communities and families. It essentially looks at two areas. The first is the transparency around how gaming funds are both collected and disseminated in our communities. The second looks at issues of problem gambling. Although I acknowledge some of the comments by Mr McClay, and also by Mr Garrett, around the good that funds from gambling can actually do for our communities, it is important that we look closely at the transparency of how those funds move around our communities, how they come in from gambling, and how they go back out, and at exactly to whom they are going and how trustworthy the processes are.

It is good that we are looking at those issues, but I will focus a little bit more on the problem-gambling side of things in this bill. The Act currently requires the holder of a class 4 venue licence or a casino operator’s licence to develop a policy for identifying problem gamblers. This bill widens the class of people who are required to use the policy to identify actual or potential problem gamblers to include the venue manager, the holder of a casino operator’s licence, or a person acting on behalf of either of those persons. The offence provision for the venue manager, the holder of a casino operator’s licence, or a person acting on behalf of either of those persons is amended to include those persons as well. The offence is punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding $5,000.

The bill also requires the venue manager, holder of a casino operator’s licence, or a person acting on behalf of either of those people, to take all reasonable steps to assist a person if the person’s behaviour gives rise to ongoing concerns about problem gambling. It also provides that an exclusion order must be issued to a self-identified problem gambler if the person has identified himself or herself as a problem gambler and has asked to be banned from a gambling venue.

This is one of the very interesting things about gambling: it is addictive. Problem gambling is an addiction. People can actually self-identify as problem gamblers and still find themselves overcome by the compulsion to return to a gambling venue. This places the onus on those venue operators to make sure they have a plan in place to help and assist those people who identify themselves as problem gamblers.

I will talk and reflect a while on some of the health issues associated with problem gambling. As it is addictive—it is not a substance like alcohol or drugs, but it is equally addictive—gambling is a health issue, and the health implications need to be considered alongside what we are trying to do here tonight with this bill. With a large number of New Zealanders each year being characterised as problem gamblers, a range of harmful and socially damaging effects have been evidenced to impact individuals, families, whānau, and communities. Individuals defined as problem gamblers can suffer from depression, poor physical health, and physical feelings of withdrawal and compulsion. They may also display signs of mental addiction similar to drug users, and drastic changes to normal patterns of social interaction and behaviours.

A recent Australian study found a number of key indicators around problem gambling. The study showed that 20.3 percent of problem gamblers evidenced physical symptoms associated with their problem gambling—the like of which Dr Jackie Blue referred to earlier on; 64.5 percent had significant anger problems that were identified as contributing factors to incidents of violence; 60 percent suffered varying forms of clinical depression; and 1.7 percent of suicides were linked to problem gambling, with between 17 and 24 percent of all problem gamblers having attempted suicide at least once. Seventy-five percent of problem gamblers also suffered from alcohol addiction problems. The two are inextricably linked. The Ministry of Health statistics in 2006 showed that 58 percent of problem gamblers were cigarette smokers, compared with only 23.5 percent of the rest of the population. Problem gamblers were identified as three times more likely than non - problem gamblers to be daily, persistent smokers. Gamblers who smoked on a daily basis gambled on more days and spent more money than non - daily smoking gamblers. They also craved gambling more than other gamblers did.

It is highly concerning to me that the select committee was not able to come to a conclusion on the question of pokie machines being placed outside of gaming venues in order to allow people to smoke and gamble at the same time. Not only that, they are able to smoke, drink, and gamble at the same time. There is nothing like the ultimate cocktail, the ultimate mix—

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) Link to this

It is a sad irony that just a few moments before rising to take this call I learnt of the death of one of my most distinguished constituents. Retired Hamilton lawyer Mr Athol Bishop passed away today. The reason I mention that in the context of this debate, apart from the fact that he was a man who did great work in our community and who gave great service to his profession, is that I think of Athol at the races at Te Rapa. He was a very enthusiastic member of the Waikato Racing Club, and a man who always behaved with great dignity and decorum but who loved a flutter. I mourn his passing and I send my condolences to his family.

I have no doubt that Athol would be strongly in support of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2), which we are debating tonight. For most members of our society, gambling is an occasional, affordable, and pleasurable activity. A day at the races is a great social occasion, as it always was for Athol, but it is such only for those who set out knowing what they can afford to lose and who have the self-discipline to stick to their limits. An occasional deposit in a pokie machine is a bit of light relief and merely a momentary indulgence, and that is as it should be. That is how it is for most of us, most of the time. But it is sobering to reflect on the fact that right around our country, as we consider the second reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) in this House tonight, people who can ill afford to waste their money are doing just that because of their addiction to lotteries, pokie machines, scratch cards, the lure of the TAB, or long hours spent in a casino.

Problem gambling is a significant and very distressing form of addiction. It can be catastrophic for families and personal relationships. It can lead to friction in the home, the neglect of children, conflict and dishonesty in workplaces, and a loss of life-savings and self-worth. The distressing consequences of this problem are reflected in some sobering statistics associated with other forms of addiction—and members on all sides of the House have drawn attention to some of these tonight—including mental illness, family breakdowns, and sometimes even suicide. So it is right that we do all we can in this House to minimise the risk of harm from such an insidious addiction. It is for that reason that I commend the past and present Ministers of Internal Affairs, and the Government Administration Committee, for the good work they have done in updating the original Gambling Act, in focusing on a number of issues that have arisen since the Act took effect nearly 5 years ago, and in furthering the important objective of minimising the considerable harm that some in our communities suffer as a result of their own gambling or that of a close family member.

As my colleague from Otago noted, this bill is a practical measure designed to achieve effective interventions in those areas where problem gambling is most likely to occur. As technology is constantly updated and new gambling opportunities are devised, it is important for legislation to keep pace with evolving trends. To a large extent, this bill, as many members have commented, is of a technical nature, designed to amend the principal Act so that it may operate as it was originally intended. That is among the reasons why the select committee has recommended a new definition of a “gaming machine”. It was also necessary to ensure that the definition of “gaming machine” did not unintentionally capture equipment associated with gambling that does not need to be regulated as such, such as electronic card shufflers.

Those in my city of Hamilton who do sterling work to tackle problem gambling and to support those who suffer from it will welcome the amendments in this gambling bill that require licence holders and casino operators to keep a record of every person who is excluded from their venues, and to provide that information upon request to appropriate authorities—not to cause shame or humiliation but to assist problem gamblers to break their serious and calamitous habits. It is appropriate that those who obtain licences to operate gambling establishments, and those who are employed in those establishments, should be required to exercise responsibility and effective monitoring of those who come to gamble on their premises, especially those who do so on a regular basis. And I am sure that all of us at times have seen pictures of such misery—for that is what it is. For that reason, it is also appropriate and necessary that the people who work in gaming venues and casinos should be carefully vetted. They must be up to the job, they must be responsible in the way they conduct their activities and duties, and they must be empowered to take effective steps to intervene when it is obvious that their patrons are doing themselves and their dependants considerable harm. This bill sets out those expectations. It allows for regulation of the collection of important information around the gaming industry: the people, the money, and the organisations involved.

We can never hope to protect all of our citizens from all of the afflictions and temptations that can lead them down the path to serious harm, but, as my colleague Dr Jackie Blue recounted, the problems arising from gambling can have particularly tragic effects. It is often innocent family members who suffer the most. The link between problem gambling and domestic violence cannot be ignored. This bill is not about sitting in judgment or removing the obligation for people to exercise personal responsibility for their actions, but rather is about minimisation of harm and protection of the highly vulnerable.

As I am the final speaker in this debate, I acknowledge the thoughtful contributions to this debate tonight from members of all parties. As Mr Garrett commented, it is refreshing to take part in a debate that is characterised by common sense, consensus, and compassion. Those were not Mr Garrett’s exact words, but I am sure he will recognise the spirit of them and readily agree to them. The clear expression of collective will that the passage of this bill will send out to our communities will give heart to those who do such important work to tackle problem gambling, and it will strengthen the arm of responsible gaming operators and their employees everywhere.

There is no question that many clubs, community groups, and charitable organisations depend heavily upon the proceeds of gambling, in the form of grants, to conduct their activities and to do much good work for a myriad of causes. In my career before I came to this House I was the chief executive of a trust that depended heavily on money from those sources, so I appreciate that the money is often put to very good use, and that it is absolutely essential for much that is good in our communities to happen. But I am sure that almost all of the office holders and grant administrators will welcome the extra safeguards that are built into this amendment bill. Those groups exist to do good works, and I am confident they will share the sentiments that have been so widely expressed during this debate. Nobody working in those areas wants to see others come to great harm as a result of gambling.

Gambling is a serious issue. It is a major problem for a small but significant group of our population right around the country. I commend everybody who has worked on this bill in order to try to minimise the harm that gambling can do. I thank those who have spent long hours at select committee meetings working to bring about improvements to the bill. I have pleasure in supporting it, and I commend it to the House.