New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill

I think that there are some things that need to be placed clearly on the record. The first is that Labour, in Government, will regulate to prevent gambling harm. Second, we will not compensate for the regulatory functions of Government. If the convention centre is half-built, no one is going to go around and rip up the foundations, but this deal is gold-plated and we will not be bound by it. We will be supporting the Green Party’s amendments to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. Gambling harm is an issue right across society and it affects many household budgets. I want to put a few things on the record from the select committee process.

First of all, the Labour Party members of the Commerce Committee asked that Treasury, the Department of Internal Affairs, and Ministry of Health officials advise the committee so that all members could be better informed. Government members, led by Jonathan Young, blocked that advice from going directly to the committee. What that meant was that we did not get the level and the quality of advice that a committee should receive. Instead—and I want to say that the officials whom I am now going to criticise worked for me, at least the lead one did, and he is a wonderful chap—at the committee the advice we were getting was from people who had themselves been involved in the negotiations. These people felt, I think, owned by the negotiations and had a sense of ownership over the deal. As a result of that, the advice that the select committee got from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment was defensive and not informative. I regret that, because if the Government had nothing to hide, it would have allowed full, free, and frank advice from the full gambit of officials, rather than channelling it through people who had a personal, as well as a departmental, commitment to this legislation.

We are further concerned about the warning given to organisations providing health services—people on contract to the Ministry of Health who work with gambling addicts—that the people who did that very work were not allowed to come to the committee to give evidence. That was wrong, and I would like to thank the Salvation Army for having the bravery to come to the committee and to make it clear, on behalf of itself and the other organisations, that those were the instructions it was under from this Government. It comes so close to being a breach of privilege—but it is probably not—but the thing that I do know is that it is morally wrong to stop the people who know the most about gambling harm from giving evidence, giving their testimonies to the committee so that we could understand better.

Notwithstanding that, there was some advice that we received, directly and indirectly, that really summed up the situation. The Deputy Auditor-General said “we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.” I am going to repeat that: “we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.” This deal went to Skycity on a rort arranged at a dinner by the Prime Minister. He is transferring a massive amount of wealth to the private shareholders of Skycity from the people who are addicted to gaming machines in order to have something that he can turn the sod on next year, in election year. I want to agree with Treasury. I sometimes agree with Treasury more than my colleagues would like, but generally I do not. But on this one, Treasury hit the nail on the head. It expressed “strong concerns that private benefits to Sky City will exceed public benefits to New Zealanders”. That is the rort that I am talking about.

I say to Bill English: why does he not stand up for the things that he believes in? He knows that gambling is wrong at this level. He knows that this deal is a rort. He knows it in his heart and he knows it from the official advice that he has got. Why does he not take a principled stand? We all know there is a conscience vote on this issue. I am asking Bill English to look at the advice that he has received, to understand it, and to vote according to his conscience on this bill.

There is a growing consensus that the Ministers undervalued the worth of the additional pokie machines and, more important, the value to Skycity of the 27-year, unchallengeable—other than by legislation—extension to its exclusive licence in Auckland. These are the people who are providing an extension to the monopoly that sits around casino gambling in Auckland. The Australian examples indicate that that sort of arrangement on its own is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. In Australia Skycity is prepared to pay it, but here it was hardly counted—hardly counted—in the Government’s evaluation of the worth of this deal. We also note that the report that was prised out of the Minister who preceded me in this debate, the Minister for Economic Development, indicated that because of the diversion of investment there will be only a net 18 jobs created.

💬 Metiria Turei: 1-8.

One-eight. He said thousands. It might be that thousands of people are involved in the building of it, but net 18 jobs is the advice that he asked for and that he got and tried to hide. That is just typical of the arrangements around this legislation: blow it up as wonderful in public, and if there is any advice that does not support John Key’s view—the sacrifice of the gamblers to his sod-turning—then let us keep it hidden away. If any advice does not agree with John Key, then let us keep it hidden away. We are going to see many more examples of this.

There is no doubt, notwithstanding what the Minister for Economic Development said, that these tables are the most used and are the worst form of gambling. The machines are used much more heavily—eight times to 10 times as much—than other machines are used around the country. Therefore, any one of these machines is much worse than those that are being taken out under the sinking-lid policy that has been praised so much by members opposite. This bill will result in more of the most harmful gambling. It will result in families losing significant assets, including their houses. It will result in family breakdowns. It will result in suicides. It will result in murder. We have seen the evidence of all of that already around the activities of Skycity. We have seen that on a repeated basis, and what we have opposite is a Government where not one of them will use their conscience. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, I challenge you to use your conscience. Jonathan Young, who used to be a person of principle, used to preach anti-gambling, and what do we have here? We have someone who is promoting more gambling. I say to Jonathan Young, use your conscience. Stand up for what you used to believe in, and stop being a toady to the Prime Minister in an approach to try to get a Cabinet position, which we all know he will never get.

Can I please start by just addressing an issue that Mr Mallard raised regarding the hearings in Auckland, where a member from the Salvation Army made a comment. I was concerned about that comment, so I investigated it. After the statement was made—and the statement was that members of the organisation were muzzled from appearing before the Commerce Committee—officials sought to clarify and understand the statement made to the committee. At that point, the Salvation Army made it clear that the Ministry of Health had not instructed the Salvation Army against making a submission to the select committee in respect of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill.

The comments made to the select committee related to an interpretation of the political neutrality clause, which is standard in health sector service contracts. That clause is about the relevant non-government organisation delivering its services in a manner that maintains the neutrality of central government agencies, which is a requirement of the State Services Commission. The meaning of that clause was clarified for the Salvation Army during the conversation with officials. The Salvation Army says it now understands that the clause means that it is entitled to make submissions and voice its opinion, but it cannot endeavour to influence the thinking or decision making of other individuals, organisations, or agencies. The member knows that that is a consistent regulation and guidance in terms of the State Services Commission.

This bill is about creating economic growth, particularly in tourism and construction, and seeing the spin-offs around the country of significantly more numbers of convention centre participants coming to New Zealand. The size of the international business events market is growing. The International Congress and Convention Association estimates that there were approximately 10,070 non-government international association conferences organised in the world in 2001, but only 44 of these were held in New Zealand. This is due in part to New Zealand not having the right facilities to attract larger conferences.

Addressing the harm issues around gambling, which the Minister for Economic Development, Steven Joyce, raised, is very much part of this bill. Increasing Skycity’s obligations to do so is embedded in this legislation. But also central to this legislation is addressing the issue around job creation. Let us not minimise that. The people whom I have had contact with—and I am sure members of this House have all had contact with—who struggle with long-term unemployment also suffer from depression, loss of confidence, some poor health, and very poor social outcomes. In the research that I did, I noticed that a number of academics at universities—Massey University and Auckland University—state, and I quote from an article in Policy Quarterly November 2010 entitled “Health, Employment, and Recession”, that increasing unemployment is associated with a wide range of adverse social outcomes, particularly when prolonged. The writer said: “Unemployment also has significant acute impacts on health, particularly poorer mental health status. Unemployment is a major contributor to reduced incomes and is itself related to significant adverse social and health outcomes.” This bill is principally about encouraging economic growth and increasing employment.

But, of course, we acknowledge that for some in our community, gambling-related harm is a terrible thing. It is something that we can and should do something about. This bill, leveraging off the agreement between Skycity and the Government, lifts the bar on harm minimisation obligations. I believe that we can see development and positive change in addressing this issue. Professor Delfabbro, who is an associate professor at the University of Adelaide, reported to the Gambling Commission that the New Zealand regulatory environment is rigorous, as the Minister said. Professor Delfabbro continued to say that the Auckland casino’s current host responsibility programme is of a high standard internationally.

One of the measures that Skycity is obligated to put in place is a predictive model created by Focal Research Consultants, which analyses loyalty data as a tool to identify players who are at risk from gambling harm. The Australian regulations stipulate that casinos do something only about those who are harmed, whereas here in New Zealand we have to put in place tools and technologies to identify players who are at risk, which is why New Zealand is seen as a world leader in harm minimisation. As these technologies and tools are developed, there is every opportunity that these can be extended right throughout the country. It is our understanding that Skycity’s development of this tool is an international first. This is about building those measures and putting contingencies in place.

The regulatory concessions in no way remove Skycity from the continuous review of its host responsibility programme, as the Green minority view in the commentary of this bill stated. Skycity does not escape the issues around public health scrutiny. The Gambling Act 2003 requires casino operators to implement a range of measures to prevent harm from casino gambling. As we know, every 2 years that is reviewed. The Gambling Commission considered whether there is a need for an additional independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the Auckland casino’s host responsibility programme. A number of submitters raised this as an issue. The commission felt no such need, as it undertakes such an evaluation in the course of its periodic reviews of casino host responsibility programmes. It does so by consulting with a range of knowledgable parties, as well as seeking independent expert assistance. The committee was also informed that the Department of Internal Affairs inspectors continue to walk through the casino on a very regular basis.

As I have said, what this bill does is create a significant economic opportunity for tourism, hospitality, retailing, construction, and convention centre activities that will create employment opportunities for New Zealand. It also places on Skycity a very serious obligation to develop and put in place measures that will identify people who are at risk from gambling harm. So this bill will maximise the positive opportunities of economic growth and employment, while also proactively developing technologies and practices that will identify potential gambling-related harm and work to reduce that. I commend this bill to the House.

The one thing that is lost on the Government as we debate the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill is that there is a process that should have been gone through to come to an appropriate outcome. It may be that some of the things the Government says are true. There may be a case for a convention centre. There may be a case. There may well be a case for economic opportunity based around a convention centre in Auckland. There may well be a case for involvement by a whole lot of commercial entities. But the problem is that we will never know, because, as we know, no appropriate economic evaluation was done because there was only one bidder. Actually, when you look at Skycity, it is a private sector entity. Its job is to get the best deal it can for its shareholders in any commercial negotiation. I do not hold that against Skycity. It is its job as a private sector commercial organisation. But you would hope that the job of the Government, in negotiating a deal with the private sector, would be to, firstly, do it appropriately; secondly, do it ethically; and, thirdly, do it with a bit of gumption.

We know that when it comes to actually negotiating deals, whether it be with Rio Tinto—where Bill English told us that the $30 million was a free gift in order to secure the jobs down south, and then we found out that there is no jobs guarantee, and then, bizarrely, we found out that he did not even have the brains to ask for a jobs guarantee—or Meridian Energy or Mighty River Power, botch-up after botch-up—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Chorus.

—or Chorus—those guys over there could not negotiate their way out of a paper bag. Skycity must be sitting up there in Auckland going “Ha, ha, ha! Didn’t we do well?”.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Inept.

As my colleague said, the Government is inept to the point of negligence. Maurice Williamson grins away. He knows that it is true. He has negotiated the odd deal in his time. Maybe the Government should have put Maurice in charge of this. He might have done a better job. The job of Ministers and the Government is to be responsible, to look after the public purse, to get the best deal they can, and to protect our communities.

When you look at the process—my colleague Mr Mallard called Mr Young a toady. Well, there is a pattern.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no, no.

Was it not you?

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, I think he toadied up.

He toadied up. Well, there is a pattern when you look at the minority report that the Labour Party has put in and you look at the process that the Commerce Committee went through. The truth is that in the select committee, when Labour and, I think, Green colleagues asked repeatedly for the Ministry of Health to come in directly and make a submission to us so we could ask questions directly to specialists in the Ministry of Health—not the gatekeepers in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; the Ministry of Health—the Gambling Commission, and the Department of Internal Affairs, those entities and Government agencies charged with policing and dealing with the problems around gambling per se, they were blocked on every occasion by Jonathan Young and his band of merry men. They are all men. They were blocked on every occasion.

In fact, I can recall in the select committee that we wanted to send a letter to Steven Joyce and ask him for some particular commercial data that we believed he held. He is entitled as a Minister to say no. He was entitled to do that. Jonathan Young, the lion in Parliament and the lamb in the select committee, said no and blocked it on numbers. He would not even allow the committee to write to the Minister and just ask him for the information he had—not demand but ask—knowing, of course, that Steven Joyce could and would say no. That is the amount of intestinal fortitude and bravery—and he has got a ton of it—that that member exhibited on the committee.

Just like with Solid Energy when we asked for an inquiry, the toadies—and Trevor Mallard is right—for whatever reason, for their own political vanity and ambition, blocked every inquiry into that disaster. So those members cannot stand up here with any moral authority and say that as select committee members, just like their Ministers, they executed their duty and looked after those whom they purport to represent in the Government. And if I was Skycity, I would be looking at them and going “What a bunch of amateurs.”

In fact, it was so embarrassing, of course, during some of the public hearings, looking at Sam Lotu-Iiga. We now know, of course, that his electorate chairman rocked up, allegedly on behalf of the Catholic Church, unbeknownst to the Catholic Church, the pontiff, the archbishop, and a few others in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and said that this was a fantastic deal. Sam Lotu-Iiga never even asked him a question—for good reason, because he did not want to admit that he is a very close personal friend of that member. Did he breach any Standing Orders? No. Did he breach any ethics? Yes. Does he have any moral authority to stand on this issue? No. A number of those members, Jonathan Young and others, railed against the gambling industry for years, but when Steven Joyce comes acalling—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Flipped over.

—they just flip over, as my colleague said, and they are just marshalled into the corral like a bunch of sheep. I ask Jonathan Young—and he might want to ask his Minister—why, if he believes that this proposal stands on its own economic feet, on its own ethical feet, and all the data stacks up, he blocked the officials from the Ministry of Health from coming to the committee. No answer. Why did he block officials from the Department of Internal Affairs from coming to us?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Silence.

Silence. Why did he even refuse the committee sending a letter to the Minister to ask for some more information? If he was that worried—he could not even work out that the Minister does have the power to say: “No, it’s commercially sensitive, and I’m not going to give it to you.” Why did he and his merry men even block the committee from being allowed to send a letter?

💬 Jonathan Young: Leaks.

Pardon? Sorry? Leaks—he said leaks. I presume he is not referring to the vegetable variety. So let us get this straight. The alibi for not sending a letter was the fact that if the committee sent a letter to ask for information of a Minister who could then refuse, the letter might be leaked. That is brilliant. That is genius. That is incredible. If that is the best that those members over on the other side can do to justify this, then there is a problem.

The truth is that this was a deal done that the Auditor-General criticised. This was a deal done and slipped through “Slick Willie” - like. The Prime Minister said “Just get it done. One tenderer—that will be all we need to do.” I think I said in the first reading that in a way you can understand that the Prime Minister came from the private sector frustrated, as we all are from time to time, with bureaucratic processes. In the private sector, when your chief executive officer says: “You’ve got the budget. Do it on time, do it properly, and, by the way, don’t bother me. Just get it done fast.”, that is appropriate because it is their money. When you come into Parliament, you do get aggrieved sometimes, when you are a Minister, at the slowness and at the bureaucratic processes that you have to go through. That is fair enough. But you have to go through them because the difference is that this is public money. This has public impact. All this is for the public’s benefit. It is taxpayer money. There has to be a higher and a different degree of accountability and transparency when you are spending other people’s dough as a Minister and as a Government on behalf of taxpayers.

So you can understand that frustration, but I say to the Prime Minister that he needs to temper his frustration because there is a proper process to go through. And his select committee members, his toadies and lackeys over there, did not represent their constituencies or their public well. I believe that they did not want to know what submitters said—certainly not if they were opposed to this deal. They did not want any evidence, any Government agency, or any specialist on behalf of the Crown to even come, raise issues, and question any facet of the harm that could possibly be done, or even talk in general terms—take Skycity out of it—about the harm that excessive gambling causes. They did not want it on the public record, and they think that that just papers over the cracks, they can get away with it, and it is all hidden. Well, the problem for Jonathan Young and the three at the back who are on the committee is that this is a Parliament. These people are exposed; the report exposes them. We have such a thing called freedom of speech, and we can now debate it here. So the short-sighted stupidity of Mr Young in trying to hide it all, paper over the cracks—he did not even have the gumption to realise that, hang on, we are going to whip back to the Chamber when the bill gets reported back, and it will all come out anyway.

💬 Jonathan Young: Of course.

“Of course.”, he says. Well, that shows the ineptitude of that man over there. He could not even work that out.

We are opposed to the bill, we are opposed to the process that it went through, and we are opposed to the disrespect that was shown to not only submitters but those good folk in the Public Service, those specialists who could have provided great background and facts as to the impact, the negative impact, of this bill.

Outside this Chamber, on the lawns of Parliament today, you will see a life-size replica of the 230 pokie machines, 240 automated gaming places, and 40 gaming tables that John Key is giving to Skycity in exchange for a building. There is no better representation of the scale of this deal than the cardboard casino that is constructed outside. It is a casino equivalent in size to the third-largest casino in this country. I urged all members earlier today to go out and have a look at the cardboard casino before they voted on this deal. In fact, there is still some time—it will be up for a few more minutes yet. So if you have not had a look, I urge you to do so, because it is really important to the families who will suffer from the effects of problem gambling that you know what you are voting for today if you support the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. If it leads one or two of you to change your minds, all the better. But at least know what it is that you are doing, as a third—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I was on the Commerce Committee, which heard the submissions on this bill, and we heard and read very tragic stories of gambling harm that has been caused in the past and that is feared for the future. A high school teacher in Manurewa told MPs that he came from a family of gamblers. He did not gamble himself, but his younger brother did. After several years of working and saving in the UK, this man’s brother returned to New Zealand with a deposit to look for a home to buy. His fiancée was arriving soon after to join him. By the time his fiancée arrived in New Zealand, the deposit was gone. It had been squandered entirely on gambling. This man’s brother became suicidal because he knew that he stood to lose his fiancée and his life as a result of the gambling harm that he was suffering. Fortunately for him, he had a fiancée who did love him, and who loved him enough to support his recovery. She got him the professional help that he needed for his gambling addiction. His siblings supported both of them in this recovery process. This submitter’s brother got the help that he needed and was able to maintain and recover his relationship and his life, and he no longer gambles.

But not everybody will be so lucky. The Asian Family Services branch of the Problem Gambling Foundation came to the Commerce Committee and described the cases that it sees: suicide, loan sharking, family violence, and divorce—all the result of problem gambling. The painful experience of clients who are affected by problem gambling from Skycity Casino gambling cannot be measured simply in financial terms. Asian Family Services is adamant that this deal will lead to harm in their community. Only those who have been affected know how painful the experience is and understand that any deal is not a good deal if it creates more pain in our community and for our families. Many Asian Family Services clients worry that this deal will cause more new migrants to lose their savings when they arrive in New Zealand. This means the loss of their dream of a new and better life in this country, and the loss of their contribution to our community.

Bob McCroskie from Family First, whom we do not always agree with, related a terrible story of a father and recently widowed husband who lost everything to problem gambling at the casino. We heard of the desperation of this man’s family who tried to help, but who were thwarted by Skycity. They saw no evidence of Skycity managing their father’s self-ban. He had a Skycity gold card, and all the family saw was enticement after enticement by Skycity for this man to come back, to spend more, to gamble more, and to lose even more. So in the end, this loved family man was insolvent at the time of his death, owing $200,000 in stolen money to his employer and to his family. That is a terrible last memory of a life that was otherwise well lived.

Today the National Party, ACT, and United Future are all ready to vote to create more of these stories and to create more of this harm for families, affecting thousands of New Zealanders, as set out in the Minister for Economic Development’s own advice. Make no mistake, this is a moral issue. When this Parliament is deciding to support a building by increasing problem gambling, it shows just how far the Government is prepared to compromise on basic morals and decency. Some MPs who support this deal will no doubt listen to the stories of people affected by problem gambling and respond with platitudes of “So, personal responsibility.” My response to that is that it is precisely the job of the Government to make good law to protect public health and prevent harm. If those MPs cannot be bothered doing their job, then they should get out, because all they are doing is causing more harm for families who do not deserve it.

Today I asked the Minister for Economic Development, Steven Joyce, about the harm minimisation advice that he received, and the fact that much of it was withheld after his consultation with Skycity. We can only surmise that Skycity wants to keep secret this information about the extent of the harm caused by its casino and the increase in harm caused by this deal because it is commercially sensitive. That can mean only two things. First, it means that a significant proportion of the profits that the casino reaps is from problem gambling. Actually, we do know that. Around 40 percent of the profits of pokie machines come from problem gamblers. It is not new information, so why the secrecy? Second, it means that Skycity uses the information gathered for harm minimisation purposes to market to problem gamblers. We know of case after case where problem gamblers have been part of the Skycity loyalty programme. We know Skycity can track their spending, and it is supposed to track it so it can intervene if that person’s gambling becomes a problem. But, in fact, as families report, that information is not used to help a problem gambler; it is used to encourage the problem gambler, because the business model of the casino relies on people having a gambling problem and a gambling addiction.

This deal sells our gambling laws to Skycity for $400 million. So what is to stop other sales of our law? We have already seen the sale of our employment law to Warner Bros. What is to stop John Key and Steven Joyce selling our tobacco control law to Philip Morris in exchange for something? I do not know—a new motorway, perhaps? Then, at the end of the day, the Minister’s own advice shows that 6,500 children will be harmed in exchange for 18 new jobs—6,500 children will be harmed by this deal in exchange for 18 new jobs. At the end of the day, this bill is not about a convention centre. If the Government has the money to build a motorway, it has the money to build a convention centre. Frankly, it is irrelevant. Just as cigarettes are described as nicotine delivery devices, the convention centre is simply a casino delivery device for Skycity. This bill is a deal done over a couple of dinners between John Key and Skycity, where John Key has lent to Skycity the full capacity of the Government to overturn gambling laws that have hindered Skycity’s expansion plans. The convention centre is simply a convenient excuse to enable Skycity to expand, as it has wanted to do for a decade.

I urge MPs to visit the cardboard casino before it comes down this afternoon and to consider your consciences. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, Jonathan Young, Peter Dunne, John Banks, Alfred Ngaro, Chester Borrows, Jian Yang, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: consider your consciences in deciding whether to support a bill that, by every measure and by all evidence, will cause harm to New Zealand families. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak during the second reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. Let there be absolutely no doubt in anyone’s mind that this legislation, like the many other bills introduced by the National Government, is aimed at the betterment of New Zealand and New Zealanders. By way of this legislation, we in the National Government seek to create jobs and investment.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who wrote this rubbish? Drafted by Skycity—drafted by Skycity.

It was written by me, Mr Trevor Mallard. Please try to listen to it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I doubt it.

Never mind, I will show you—I will show you. Furthermore, by way of introducing this legislation, the Government also seeks to build a new international profile for New Zealand in order to attract high-value tourists.

For a considerable period of time, the tourism sector and businesses have shared the need for a convention centre of an international standard and size to be built in New Zealand. Finally, this National Government decided to act on this much-needed facility. The Government signed an agreement with Skycity to build a world-class convention centre in Auckland, with the aim of creating jobs, boosting tourism, and bringing significant benefits to the entire country. Just to share some numbers with you, the benefit of this international-standard convention centre is expected to include $90 million injected into the economy annually, approximately 1,000 construction jobs, and 800 jobs once the centre is built and is operational. We expect that the convention centre will cater for 3,500 delegates at any given time and it is likely to attract around 33,000 delegates each year. I do not know where the Hon Trevor Mallard got the number of 18 full-time jobs from. I think you would need more than 18 people just to maintain that convention centre.

The Opposition says that the Government does not care about gambling issues that may arise out of the agreement. Well, to those members’ surprise, we have a clear understanding of the issues around gambling harm and what steps need to be taken to ensure the minimisation of this harm. Skycity, for its part, has already got one of the most rigorous host responsibility programmes. The Government, for its part, has placed stringent obligations on Skycity because all of us want to minimise the harm caused by gambling. Since we have taken over the Government benches, the number of pokies has been reduced considerably.

Some of these extra harm minimisation requirements will become part of Skycity’s host responsibility programme, which is monitored constantly by experienced and professional Department of Internal Affairs inspectors. The Gambling Commission is also required to review this every 2 years. It involves a wide range of independent experts in those reviews. The method of review is entirely up to the commission, which acts independently from the Government. Based on its obligations, Skycity will introduce a predictive modelling tool that continuously analyses data in order to identify problem gamblers. In addition, Skycity will introduce clear identification requirements when amounts over $500 are being put on to, or cashed out from, the non-restricted areas. Skycity has also agreed to double the number of host responsibility specialists in order to deliver coverage 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

This agreement that the National Government has formed with Skycity is better for the economy, better for Auckland, and better for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. With all respect to the member who just resumed his seat, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, the majority of that speech was rubbish. It was very interesting to hear the Minister for Economic Development, when he started his speech, having to actually compare this deal—in the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill—with Treaty settlements and the Rugby World Cup. The Minister had to compare this deal with Treaty settlements to actually justify it to New Zealand. I think that shows how low down in the barrel the Minister and the Government have had to reach to try to justify this deal to the people of New Zealand.

This deal is nothing like a Treaty settlement. It is nothing like the Rugby World Cup, of which there was not just a single beneficiary; the whole country benefited. For the member who just resumed his seat to suggest that the whole country will benefit from a convention centre inside Auckland is nonsense. These buildings are built. The company, Skycity, runs them specifically to keep the customers it brings into its buildings inside its buildings. That is why it builds restaurants in them. That is why it builds shops in them. It will pick up these China Southern Airlines customers from the airport in its cars. It will transport them to its convention centre. It will keep them within its walls as much as it can. Auckland will see no improvement, apart from the fact that Skycity might have to pay a few more dollars out to charity to counteract the harm it is doing. So I am sorry, but your speech was rubbish.

I get back to the point where I actually wanted to start. We keep hearing—and we just heard it again—that New Zealanders will reap the benefits of a convention centre. New Zealanders will not own it. New Zealanders will not own it—it is a private building. Again, I just take up the point made by the Green member Metiria Turei where she mentioned that John Key had swapped 250 pokie machines and this many, this many, this many for a building. We do not get the building. If we were actually going to get the building, New Zealanders might say that they gained something. We do not. We have given away legislation so that a private company can improve its own profit line, and that is exactly what private companies do. [Interruption] No, no, I have no beef against Skycity. If you can get a deal like this, of course you would get it. The fact is that you should not be able to get a deal like this on the New Zealand people. This is not about a convention centre; this is about pokie machines.

The very fact that Len Brown and the rest of the councillors and local board members in Auckland put forward and approved a motion to have a sinking lid on pokie machines in the very city where this company may, because of that sinking lid, end up with a monopoly concerns me. I would like to know from Len Brown what changed his mind after he voted for a sinking lid across Auckland because he saw the harm of pokie machines on the rest of the communities, and why he now supports this convention centre idea and this Government. What happened? Let us hope that it was not some discussion about a tunnel under a harbour or some discussion about some electric trains out to the airport or any other discussions like that that made Len Brown change his philosophy around this particular deal.

The Government and the proponents of this deal like to point to data that suggests that more gamblers on pokie machines become problem gamblers in small, local pubs and RSAs than in the large, responsible organisations such as Skycity. This is a really interesting manipulation of the data. I want to point out a joint statement by Chris Tremain and Peter Dunne. It was put out in May of this year. The title of it is “Government sets $55.3m problem gambling strategy”. It says: “The problem gambling levy is expected to recover about $33.35 million from non-casino gambling machines, $11.34 million from casinos, $5.38 million from the NZ Racing Board and $3.95 million from the NZ Lotteries Commission.” It also says: “The levy is staying about the same because there’s been no significant change to problem gambling data.”

We are hearing that apparently there has been a change to problem gambling data, because the Government keeps patting itself on the back about apparently lowering it, but the levies need to stay the same because there has been no significant change. It continues: “The number of machines has decreased,”—righty-o—“expenditure overall is down and the most recent New Zealand health survey appeared to indicate a slight decline in prevalence.” This is from the Ministers: “The amount that each sector is required to pay depends on that sector’s share of total player expenditure across the four sectors, and that sector’s share of the help-seeking … associated with gambling in those four sectors … This means that non-casino gaming machine operators will continue to pay by far the highest share of the levy. Harm is associated with non-casino gaming machines more often than with any other form of gambling.”

By this point you might be asking why Tracey Martin is standing up and fighting against the small RSAs and the pubs and their gambling machines. It is because that is a really interesting twist on how this data was created. The number of problem gamblers in the country is predominantly created by those who seek help; those who are identified and then actually go to seek help from such an organisation. They are more readily identified inside the communities that know them. They are more readily identified inside the local RSAs. They are more readily identified inside the pubs. The publicans and the people in the RSAs walk up to those clients, whom they know, and say: “Mate, you’ve got a problem. How can we help you out?”. To actually penalise the RSAs and the pubs through situations like the levy, where they pay 1.31 cents in every dollar, whereas the casino pays only 0.74 cents in every dollar—one could say that the casinos do not identify the problem gamblers.

I love the fact that the Minister and also other members have said that the casino, as part of the deal, will be doubling its—what are they called? They are called something or other—responsible persons; that is right. So there will be extra staff. In June One News said: “As part of the pokies for convention centre deal, SkyCity only needs to employ three extra staff to help identify problem gambling. … In response to questions from ONE News, SkyCity has confirmed that it currently has three host responsibility executives, and that number will increase to six. Minister for Economic Development Steven Joyce said his understanding was that there would be ‘twenty-four seven’ coverage.” Figure out how many hours those people are working and figure out the floor space of that casino. Those people ought to be earning their wages. “This coverage is a requirement in the legally binding agreement unveiled by Joyce and SkyCity last month.” This is from June. It goes on: “ONE News asked SkyCity exactly how it would provide 24/7 coverage with just six people. However, SkyCity has refused to answer.” That is probably because it does not know how it is going to do it. This is a spin again. This is a spin. This is a deal done.

Let us talk about the fact that clause 3, at the beginning of the bill, says that “The overarching purpose of this Act is to provide economic benefits to New Zealanders by improving New Zealand’s capability to host …”, etc. I just went to the Government’s new Careers New Zealand website to have a look at how much the people who would be employed inside this casino might be paid. Right now, if you get a job inside a casino in New Zealand, you will get paid $15 an hour. This is not exactly the high-wage economy that John Key and this Government sold the electorate on when they went to the last election. The other jobs that are going to be inside this convention centre—housekeepers, kitchenhands, possibly waiters and waitresses, dishwashers—all get paid less per hour, as currently shown on the Careers New Zealand website. That is hardly what I want to go back and talk to the young people in my community about—for them to aspire to be dishwashers in a casino.

💬 David Bennett: You don’t have a community.

Everybody has a community. That is the problem, sir. You obviously do not belong to a community—you do not understand that point. It is said that this bill is about economic growth, but it is economic growth in the wrong direction. There is nothing in this bill for the people of New Zealand. The Government has sold our legislation yet again. New Zealand First will be opposing this bill.

Firstly, I would just like to acknowledge my colleague and good friend Kanwaljit Bakshi, who is a very, very good member of the Commerce Committee. He has had some really positive input in the work that the select committee has been doing on this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. He is also very passionate about the community that he represents. I think it goes a long way to talk about the poor quality of the debate when you have a member of this House who gets up and accuses him of speaking rubbish.

I would like to say that I find it amazing that there are members of this Parliament who are getting up and saying that there are going to be no benefits to New Zealand at all of us being able to attract a further 33,000 tourists each year into our country and that there is going to be no positive spin-off. I would like to use a couple of quotes from Business New Zealand’s Chief Executive, Phil O’Reilly. He said: “For New Zealand to deliver on the goal of achieving more high value tourism, an international quality convention centre is essential.” I agree with him entirely.

I would just like to talk about my own electorate of Rodney. When we have 33,000 additional visitors coming into Auckland each year, they are not going to sit in a convention centre; they will want to get out and experience New Zealand. They will want to take in the Kiwi experience. Rodney has got wineries. We have got fantastic horse trekking outfits. We have got Snowplanet in Silverdale. We have the Pūhoi cheese factory and the historic Pūhoi Pub. We have the Waiwera hot pools. We have SheepWorld between Warkworth and Wellsford. We have got wonderful facilities at Gulf Harbour. We have got wonderful accommodation and lodges in Rodney to stay in.

Actually, if those 33,000 delegates arrive in New Zealand each year, I am very confident that they are going to be out spending and wanting to experience and putting more money into our local economy. So I am very, very happy to stand here to support this bill. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

This New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill is a terrible bill. It is a shambles. The Government has put itself in a terrible negotiating position, and this is a bad deal for New Zealand taxpayers. That is what has come out of this shoddy—shoddy—negotiation that the Government has done. Many New Zealanders will think that having an international convention centre is a desirable thing, and, in fact, it is. Few would disagree with the proposition that having a high-quality international convention centre is a good idea. Nobody disputes that. What people are disputing here in this Parliament, quite rightly, is that paying for it by problem gambling is the answer. It is not the answer. Paying for a convention centre with problem gambling is a terrible idea. New Zealanders know that and this Government knows that. That is what this Government knows. Well might those members opposite hang their heads, as they are, because they should be ashamed of this legislation. I see that the members in the backbenches are ashamed. They know—those low down on the list—that this legislation may well be a reason that they are not coming back into this Parliament at the next election.

Steven Joyce’s own department, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, estimated that 8,000 New Zealanders would be affected by problem gambling, by the fallout from these changes—8,000 New Zealanders would be harmed. That is why Government members are getting noisy over there. They do not like the fact that officials, giving fair, free, and frank advice, have advised the Government that a huge amount of harm will come from this legislation.

The net benefit of it, according to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research in its independent review, is just 18 jobs—18 jobs. This is the Government’s big idea—18 jobs for New Zealanders and 8,000 people harmed. It is atrocious—atrocious—legislation. The Government originally tried to sell this, believe it or not, as an economic development initiative. It is a mockery—it is a mockery. It makes a mockery of the term “economic development”. The benefits of the casino deal to New Zealand are marginal. The debate has shifted to problem gambling. That is rightly where it should be.

Why is the deal so bad? Well, the reason is that the Government put itself over a barrel in the negotiations. There was a lack of transparency in the process, with the Prime Minister favouring one party, having talks with one party—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Was there a tender process?

—and giving that party the inside word on how to put the bid through. Was there a tender process, my colleague asks. Well, there certainly was not a tender process, as we would understand it, to proceed normally in Government. There seemed to be one party that had the inside running on this from start to finish. A transparent process would have seen competitive bidders. Taxpayers would have had a much better deal if this Government was not doing a shoddy deal with its mates. That is what has gone wrong here. That is what is most obviously wrong.

Treasury has made it clear that it is not convinced by the cost-benefit analysis of this proposition. It says it has “strong concerns that private benefits to Skycity will exceed public benefits to New Zealanders.” That is pretty clear from Treasury. It is not mincing its words. It says that public gains are exceeded by private benefit. It says that “Public costs will only go to private gain,”. They are pretty strong words. “Treasury is concerned that the Crown currently lacks adequate leverage in the negotiations.”—that is from another part of its report. It said that the Government really was not up to the task of negotiating, and well it might say that. The business had all of the facts and figures. The Government case relied upon the information provided by Skycity. We needed an independent look at this, but we did not get it. There was no independent, transparent process for picking the winner from this tender. It was a shoddy deal done by a shoddy Government that is determined to do shoddy deal after shoddy deal after shoddy deal. This casino deal, I am afraid, is no different.

The deal by Skycity was an extra 230 pokie machines and an extension on its licence until 2048, in return for building the convention centre. Even if you put the horrors of problem gambling to one side, comparisons with overseas valuation of the gambling rights show that taxpayers have been short-changed. In Australia, just across the Ditch, the firms that run the pokie machines pay a huge amount for licence extensions. They pay a huge amount for monopoly rights to have gambling in the city, and that could apply here. We have an effective monopoly operating right now in Auckland on these machines.

Sudhir Kale, Professor of Marketing at Bond University and a friend of Skycity Chief Executive, Mr Morrison, and who has worked as a consultant at casinos on five continents, said that the deal was a clear win for Skycity. He said, and these are his words: “He’s a friend, but if you want to quote me you can say: ‘Morrison did an excellent job negotiating with authorities’.” The 27-year licence he calls the icing on the cake. He says the pokie machines will pay for the convention centre in 3 years. The licence extension is the icing on the cake. Skycity is a business. You can understand why Skycity has done things the way it has. It is laughing all the way to the bank, but it is the taxpayers, who are bearing the cost, and the problem gamblers, who will pay for this legislation, who are really worse off. Treasury was spot on when it said that the public costs would flow to private gain once the centre is paid off.

There may be worse to come—there may be worse to come. We know that the final negotiations on spending for the convention centre are set to happen next year. What else is happening next year? Well, we believe there is an election scheduled for next year. We believe there is an election scheduled. If it does not happen sooner—if this Government, with its shoddy deals, does not bring itself to fall over before then—there is an election scheduled, and Skycity will know that. In the agreement that the Government has signed there is a clause that allows it to shovel more money to Skycity if the convention centre looks likely to cost more than is currently projected. If there is a saving, Skycity gets to save it. It gets to keep the extra money. It gets to pocket it. But if it looks like the convention centre is going to cost more than it is currently projected to, the Government has left itself a clause to shovel more taxpayers’ money into it. It is basically an open cheque book. The negotiation will be a very one-sided one in election year, when this Government, embarrassed as it is at the lack of progress in many areas, tries to ram this legislation through so that it has a glossy convention centre to show for its work.

Well, that is not going to be good for New Zealanders. Currently, the centre is projected to cost $402 million, and we will see whether or not it exceeds its budget. But Skycity has form on exceeding its budgets. I remind the House of the TV programme Under the Grill. The restaurant, The Grill, cost $4 million. It was supposed to be open for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. That project ran 25 percent over budget and 25 percent over time. That was when the incentives were lined up for Skycity to finish it on time and to finish it under budget. But right now the incentives are lined up to finish it over time and over budget, at the taxpayers’ expense.

This is a terrible deal. Treasury has pointed it out and the Deputy Auditor-General has also pointed it out. This Government has not been a confident negotiator. The Deputy Auditor-General pulled no punches, describing the process for what it was: “we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.” Those are the words of the Deputy Auditor-General. Treasury says it is bad value, and the Deputy Auditor-General says it is not transparent or even-handed. This is a shoddy Government doing shoddy deals, and it is at the expense of problem gamblers. It is at the expense of the New Zealand taxpayer.

Those members opposite who are hanging their heads do so quite rightly. This will cost the Government because New Zealanders know that this is a bad deal for everybody. It is a bad deal all round. It is shoddy. I ask those members opposite to examine their consciences when it comes time to vote on this conscience issue, and pull out now. Save your seats, do the right thing, and let us have a proper, transparent process around this deal. Let us get a convention centre that is paid for the right way, not paid for off the back of problem gamblers and not at the expense of decent, proper process. This is a bad deal. There will be 8,000 more New Zealanders harmed, according to the Government’s own figures, for just 18 more jobs. It is a shoddy, shonky deal from this Government.

I would like to make a few comments about Tracey Martin’s speech. I was simply appalled when I heard that Tracey Martin was saying that private companies are not New Zealand companies. That really reflects Tracey Martin’s attitude. It was New Zealand companies—

💬 Tracey Martin: What? Private companies are not New Zealand companies—when did I say that?

You said that because it is a private company, it is not a New Zealand company. That is what you said.

We all know that New Zealand’s economy is recovering well from the global financial crisis. New Zealand is, and will continue to be, one of the fastest-growing economies amongst OECD countries. I am very proud of what the Government has been achieving. The Government has been working very hard to build a more competitive and productive economy. This has been one of National’s top priorities—one of its main priorities. The New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill will deliver more jobs and growth for New Zealanders.

Tourism is one of our most important pillars of our economy. The New Zealand International Convention Centre will further boost our tourism industry. I have no doubt about this, because I have talked to a number of professionals in this industry, and all of them share my views. As a matter of fact, for years the tourism industry and the business sector have been asking for an international convention centre to be built in New Zealand, to ensure that we can compete with Australia and Asia by tapping into the growing market of high-value business visitors. The New Zealand International Convention Centre is expected to attract about 33,000 more—

💬 Scott Simpson: How many?

—33,000 more conference delegates to New Zealand each year. Let me quote Tourism New Zealand’s Chief Executive, Kevin Bowler. He said: “International delegates deliver the highest average daily spend of all visitors, spending over $3,000 while holiday, Visiting Friends and Relatives (VFR) and business arrivals spend under $3,000.”

There are, indeed, people in our community who do have issues with gambling. However, it is worth noting that the Department of Internal Affairs acknowledges that the figures are very difficult to quantify, and putting a cost on it is “extremely difficult”. Under the agreement, Skycity will have to introduce a predictive modelling tool that analyses data to identify players at risk of problem gambling, as well as a voluntary pre-commitment system where players can elect to restrict the amount of time they play or the amount they spend. In August of this year the Gambling Commission published its review of Skycity’s Auckland casino programme. Its assessment included extensive consultation with the Salvation Army, the Ministry of Health, the Department of Internal Affairs, and Lifeline Aotearoa. The report concluded that New Zealand’s regulatory environment is rigorous in the extent to which it emphasises responsible gambling principles, and that the Auckland casino’s current Host Responsibility programme is of a high standard internationally.

The New Zealand International Convention Centre is just one of the Government’s around 330 initiatives in the Business Growth Agenda to grow jobs for all Kiwis. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. Normally when I take a call I say that it gives me pleasure, because it does. It is a privilege to be in this Parliament. But this is one of the saddest bills that I have seen debated. It is made even sadder, actually, because my understanding is that at the end of this debate we will be having a personal vote. That is pretty rare in this Parliament and I think that it will be pretty challenging for some members of this House to vote in support of this bill when, in their own conscience and their own heart, they know that it is wrong. I would really urge them to reflect on the fact that it is not just your constituents whom you need to go back to and front up to. It is not just your party hierarchy that you need to go back to, front up to, and explain your actions to. Actually, in the end, it is your own conscience. It is your own reflection in the mirror that you see in the morning that you have to justify your actions to, and this legislation and the shonky deal that it turns into law cannot have any moral justification. It is an outrage.

If there is a good debate to be had in this Parliament—and, by crikey, I hope there are lots of them; I have been party to many of them and I hope there will be many, many more—and if there is a contentious issue, then it is my view that it is the responsibility of the select committee and, indeed, the Minister to make sure that all the information about that issue is presented. You know, so what if some people do not like it? That is not the point. It is so that you can have a well-informed debate based on the facts. Well, that is what the Commerce Committee looking at this bill sought to do. The advisers on this legislation are from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. They are quite literally the same people who have been negotiating with the Skycity people over this deal. How could they possibly give robust advice to the select committee? It felt as if they were compromised and they certainly acted as if they were compromised in some of their advice.

So the select committee members—well, the Labour and Green members, anyway, but not the other members—quite properly said that we needed a broader range of advice. We wanted advice from Treasury about the financial implications of this deal. We wanted advice from the people from the Department of Internal Affairs. They are the people who run the gambling regulatory regime in New Zealand. They should know what is going on in this space. And we wanted advice from the Ministry of Health because, after all, the gambling problem is a public health issue. So that is what the select committee said. I think that it should be commended. That was good thinking. That is looking at the breadth of issues that are implicated and are impacted on by this legislation.

What did the National Party members do to that proposal? Did they say: “What a good idea. We want well-founded, well-informed, robust debate.”? No, they did not. They said: “No. We are blocking any attempt to have that breadth of advice to the select committee.” I think that is a disgrace. Hiding information and hiding advice from a select committee is something that should not be tolerated by this Parliament. Of all the members of Parliament who chair select committees or have positions of responsibility, Jonathan Young did that and I am stunned. I am not wont to praise National members of Parliament; I think it is damaging to both their and my reputation. But, actually, I think quite highly of Jonathan Young and this is a huge disappointment. It is a major detriment to the quality of the debate that we are able to have. What we ended up with was a select committee that just had so-called Public Service independent advice from the very department officials who had negotiated the deal with the Skycity people in the first place. That is the first issue I want to raise in regard to a shonky process leading to a shonky outcome.

The second point I want to make is one that both Jonathan Young and Trevor Mallard have commented on. I was alerted to this by Jonathan Young after I mentioned it at an earlier stage of this debate. I feel tricked by his advice because it is about the people who worked for organisations that had contracts with the Ministry of Health. They could not make a submission on this legislation solely because of their contracts as public health supporters and advisers or as those who offer treatment to people who have a gambling addiction. Those people were not allowed to make a submission. Jonathan Young corrected me when I said that before. He said: “That’s not true. We did have those organisations represented.” What we did not have—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. [Interruption] Order! The member’s time has expired.

I will be taking this short call for the Greens on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill as it comes back for its second reading in the House after it has been to the Commerce Committee. The Government says that this deal is about economic growth, but this deal relies on bad negotiation. It relies on favouritism, it relies on crony capitalism, and it ignores officials’ advice on how many jobs will be created as a result of this deal. The officials’ advice says there will be 18 jobs created as a result of this deal. If that is economic growth, then we must be very worried indeed, because those 18 jobs come and that economic growth—and it is not a lot—comes at the cost of 230 pokie machines, 12 automated gaming tables with 20 seats at each table, and 40 gambling tables as well. Basically, that adds an entire casino to New Zealand’s current list of casinos. In fact, it would be the third-largest casino in New Zealand and we add that on top of what is already there in Auckland. We do that in exchange for 18 jobs.

The casino is obviously a very good negotiator and also gets a 27-year extension on its licence. In Australia, we are a laughing stock. We are a laughing stock because we are hopeless negotiators. The sweet deal that was stitched up over dinner between Government Ministers, the Prime Minister, and Skycity management is a sweet deal for Skycity. It is not a sweet deal for us. Skycity is basically increasing its revenue by 25 percent and it will have recouped the $403 million it will cost for it to build its convention centre in 4 years, so the extra 23-year extension to its licence was for free. It was for free. Generally, it would have to pay millions for that. How come our Government did not factor that in to the negotiations? Minister Joyce, in his introductory speech, said that New Zealanders will get a convention centre with little or no investment by New Zealanders. That is absolute tosh because New Zealanders will be paying the externalised costs for years to come.

We know that the Government had some information about the cost of social harm, but we do not know what that information was because it has been kept out of the public arena because Skycity, the friend of this Government, says that that information on the costs of harm minimisation or harm reduction is commercially sensitive. The taxpayers of New Zealand will be covering the costs while Skycity reaps the profits. We know that 40 percent of those profits that it makes come from problem gambling. We will pay for the increase in crime, the increase in neglect, the suicide, the family erosion, and the harm to our communities. We will be paying for the crime that occurs to businesses and not-for-profit organisations when they deal with theft by their employees who are fuelling their gambling addictions. It is us who will pay for that.

We know that for every pokie machine of those 230 that are put into this casino in exchange for a convention centre, 0.8 of a problem gambler is the by-product of that machine. We know that last year alone there were 89,000 people in Aotearoa New Zealand who were harmed by someone with a gambling problem. We also know, through the officials’ own information, that they estimate that 6,500 children will be harmed as a direct result of this deal. This is incredibly disappointing legislation. The Government has a one vote majority to pass it and it will be a conscience vote. I implore the members of the House on that side to seriously consider their consciences and to consider what their constituents want before they cast their votes tonight.

The constituents of Coromandel want jobs, they want opportunity, and they want a chance to share in the great wave of tourist convention people who will come to Auckland and then, on the shoulder of their conferences and conventions, want to explore other parts of our beautiful country. My colleague Mark Mitchell made the point earlier this evening that people will want to go up to his electorate of Rodney, and so too they will want to come to Coromandel. They will want to come to Coromandel to explore the lovely, beautiful scenic attractions we have, like the white sandy beaches, and they will want an opportunity to experience the terrific quality of parliamentary representation.

💬 Tim Macindoe: They’ll come to Hamilton West as well.

And they will come to Hamilton West as well. So this bill, the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill, represents a very good deal for the people of Auckland. It represents a very good deal for the people of New Zealand.

It strikes me as being somewhat truly bizarre that in 2001 a Labour-Greens administration supported a deal that was less favourable to the taxpayers than this one, less beneficial to New Zealanders, and yet it supported that deal. Did we hear a squeak? Did we hear a tweet? Did we hear a single word of opposition from the Greens to that deal? Not a single word, and now, today, we have all these bucketloads of crocodile tears—

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: Sanctimonious.

—about a significant deal that will be good for all New Zealanders. It is sanctimonious. My friend the member for Botany says that it is sanctimonious and he is absolutely right.

This deal represents an exceptionally good opportunity not only for the people of Auckland but for surrounding districts as well, because in the shoulder seasons we want tourists. We want them to come. We want them to come to New Zealand. We want them to experience the great delights that we have as a nation, and this convention centre will help achieve that. I heartily commend the adoption of the second reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill to the House.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to.