New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill

I move, That the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be now read a second time. I would like to thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their work in considering this bill, the work by officials, and those who submitted on the bill. This is a bill that will provide jobs and growth for New Zealanders. Once again, the Government lines up in this House in support of jobs and growth, and the Opposition lines up against jobs and growth, although, actually, because it is a personal vote, Labour members opposite today have the chance to demonstrate whether they are actually in favour of jobs for Kiwis or whether they cry only crocodile tears, washed away, of course, occasionally, in some cases, by the hospitality of a certain Skycity.

I also think the Labour Party has some wriggle room because I think it was in favour of this in 2011, before it was against it under the previous leader. And then the current leader was going around Auckland saying that he was sort of in favour of it but not publicly, and then I think he went on in the weekend and said that he would not rip up the contract throughout the term of Skycity’s gaming licence. I think that does give members opposite a certain amount of latitude, at least seven or eight positions that they could adopt, in voting for this bill.

The construction of the New Zealand International Convention Centre is vital for this country. There will be 1,000 people employed in the construction process. There will be 800 people servicing the needs of delegates and exhibitors when this centre is fully established. These are real jobs that provide real incomes for New Zealanders and support their families. This bill will help generate economic growth for all New Zealanders. The convention centre will inject an estimated $90 million in initial spending by delegates in Auckland and elsewhere in this country. There is expected to be a $49 million jump in GDP as a result. This bill will enhance New Zealand’s international reputation. It will enable the construction of an international-standard convention centre seating up to 3,500 delegates, which is something we have never had in New Zealand before and something that has been repeatedly called for over the last 20 years. It will be a new $400 million asset that will consolidate Auckland’s standing as an international metropolitan city and a destination of significance. All of these things will be achieved with very little, if any, direct investment by New Zealand taxpayers, and that is the beauty of this legislation and agreement.

Some of the claims made about this agreement and this bill over the last few months have been ridiculous. Let me just address a few of them. First, there is the claim that the deal is unfair to the Crown. The agreement between Skycity and the Crown was described by the independent assessment of KordaMentha as a fair deal for both parties, and market analysts and investors have clearly agreed with that assessment, as Skycity’s share price was not given a significant boost when the agreement was announced.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Based on Skycity information—it’s not independent.

Mr Mallard obviously wants to besmirch independence; that is fine. Then there was the criticism of the compensation provisions in the agreement. Let us be clear: the provisions in the agreement reflect standard commercial practice, which is that if either party—not just the Crown—breaches the agreement, then the regime will operate to restore the parties to the position they would have been in but for the breach of that agreement. If Skycity breaches certain agreed operating standards, it will be required to pay the Crown money for non-compliance. If Skycity does not deliver on its end of the agreement, it is required to pay back to the Crown the value of the regulatory concessions granted to that point.

There has also been some excitable commentary that the agreement breaches the principle of equality before the law, except that many pieces of legislation confer benefits on a particular party or activity. Look, for example, at the Rugby World Cup empowering legislation, or the legislation that established Fonterra. Nor is there anything special in the fact that the legislation gives effect to an agreement. Parliament has considered Treaty settlement bills for nearly 20 years now that do exactly as this bill does—give effect to an agreement. Some have even claimed that the agreement breaches parliamentary sovereignty or the Bill of Rights of 1688, yet the Government contracts past the expiry of Parliament all the time. Indeed, the Government could not function if contracts did not extend past the ending of particular parliaments. It enters into long-term agreements on construction projects like roads and rail, and on a whole range of Government services like IT and banking.

I do want to spend a bit of time on one area of criticism, which is about problem gambling, and that is where some of the more ill-informed criticism has been directed. The first point to make is that there is no certainty at all that this bill would increase the prevalence and harm created by problem gambling. The impact on the incidence of problem gambling by increasing gambling opportunities within an existing gambling venue is by no means clear, as Professor Max Abbott of the Auckland University of Technology stated in his oral submission to the select committee—although probably he is part of the conspiracy, as well. The Department of Internal Affairs acknowledges that figures around problem gambling are very difficult to quantify, and putting a cost on it is extremely difficult.

Secondly, it is very important to note that the agreement requires Skycity to implement a range of enhanced harm minimisation measures before any of the new pokies or other concessions are able to be used. They include a predictive modelling tool that analyses data to better identify players at risk of problem gambling. The Greens claimed in their minority report that Skycity already uses this. This is false. Thanks to this agreement, Skycity will be one of only two places in the world where this software is used. There will be a voluntary pre-commitment system, where players can elect to restrict the amount of time they play or the amount they spend; a doubling in the number of host responsibility specialists, to deliver 24-hour, 7-days-a-week coverage; and the introduction of player identification requirements when amounts of over $500 are being put on to or cashed from ticket-in, ticket-out tickets in non-restricted areas. Some submitters felt that the harm minimisation provisions are an important aspect of the agreement and that they should receive specific statutory recognition. The Commerce Committee agreed, and this recognition is now provided for in the purpose and outline sections of the bill. I support that amendment.

Third, 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, and it involves independent experts in those reviews. This method of review is entirely up to the commission, which acts independently. 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 casino’s current host responsibility programme is of a high standard internationally.

Fourth, it is worth noting that in the future, if the Gambling Commission decides to revoke or amend Skycity’s host responsibility programme, or if it requires the Auckland casino to have more or tougher harm minimisation measures, then Skycity must comply. None of the other obligations in the agreement, including the compensation obligations, will apply in that situation. Fifth, and finally, overall the number of pokie machines in New Zealand is falling by around 500 a year. This agreement would slow that reduction by around 6 months. Under the previous Government, pokie machines actually increased by an average of 700 machines per year—and the Opposition claims to be concerned about them! Many things in life have risks attached to them. If you did not want any risk, you would never get out of bed. The Government has done a good job of minimising the harm from this agreement while maximising the economic benefits to New Zealand.

In closing, let me summarise what this bill means for New Zealand. For little if any investment by taxpayers, New Zealanders will reap the benefits of a $400 million international-standard convention centre. The 230 new pokie machines is the same number granted to Skycity under the previous Government in 2001 for the development of the existing, and much smaller, Auckland convention centre. Helen Clark was happy to champion that at the time, and there was not a single squeak out of the Green Party. There was no cardboard out on the forecourt of Parliament. There was nothing. The Greens were quiet.

This is a bill about jobs and growth. Parties in favour of those things will vote in favour of the bill today. Parties that cry crocodile tears but do not actually support anything to create jobs and growth will once again vote against it. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.