New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill

We now move to the debate on Part 2, and this includes debate on schedule 3.

This is the substantive part of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and the part of the bill that we expect to debate today, and through tomorrow if the Government decides to put it up again. What this part does is put into place the regulatory concessions. What it does is put part, but not all, of the contract into law. What it does is take out a number of the obligations of the Gambling Commission. It puts in and takes out some obligations of the Secretary for Internal Affairs.

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

I think it is fair to say that we had just got started, and I was beginning to remind members about the precedent set by that honourable National member, Josiah Hanan, a former member for Invercargill and the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General in the Holyoake Government. On a matter of party policy following the 1960 election, he put a bill into the House, as the Minister in charge, to reintroduce capital punishment, and then he had the courage of his convictions to vote against that bill because he knew it was wrong. My challenge to National members opposite is to apply their consciences in the same way and, notwithstanding what their leader said on the hustings and the pressure he has put on them in their caucus, to stand up for what they believe in. I cannot believe that members like Jonathan Young truly believe that the lost family homes, the lost marriages, the suicides, and the murders that will flow from this bill are, in fact, an appropriate thing for a National Party person to be voting for.

I want to say that even in my time in the House there used to be a tradition of independence of thinking in the National Party and the ability to vote according to one’s conscience, in a way that, I think, for many years—in fact, for most of the party’s history—has been wider and more flexible than in the Labour Party. But under Steven Joyce and under John Key that traditional ability to think for oneself appears to have gone. I have made it clear to the House in the past that I voted for the introduction of the original casino legislation. Members opposite might say: “Shame on you!”, but the point is that I then looked at the evidence. I listened to submissions and I read what people had to say, and I had the courage of my convictions to reverse my position and to vote against the final reading of the bill because I thought that was the right thing to do. I challenge members opposite to find their consciences.

The next point I want to make is one that might be described as being “only in New Zealand” or in some other banana republic, and that is the position of the Hon John Banks with regard to this legislation. People will remember, without going into any of the detail, that a prima facie case has been established against Mr Banks for not declaring donations from Skycity. What do we have now? We have had in this House, as recently as this afternoon, a vote by the Hon John Banks in favour of the very people who gave him a donation that he attempted illegally—at least on a prima facie basis—to hide from the country.

In any other country in the world, in any other proper democracy in the world, a person would say that the matter is before the court and they do not expect him to—well, I think an honourable person might resign, but I do not expect Mr Banks to do that. What I do expect the member to do is to say that it is not appropriate, because of a vestige of integrity, to vote in favour of the people who gave him the donation, which he then hid from the public.

This is the part of the bill that effectively tips over the sinking-lid policy of the Auckland Council with regard to pokie machines. I think it is fair to say it is uneven. Manukau led the way as far as the sinking lid was concerned, but it is now across Auckland and working relatively well. We heard from Jonathan Young and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga how well it was working generally across Auckland. I did have to point out to them, of course, that most of their colleagues, when the sinking lid was introduced, voted against it. They were not supportive of it then. They are supportive of it now. But what this particular part of the bill does is tip that on its head, and it means that we will get the opposite effect. We will have a massive increase not just in the numbers of pokie machines but in the turnover from those pokie machines, because machines within casino set-ups that are open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, sometimes with queues to those machines, have a much higher turnover than would otherwise be the case.

I would like to refer to the schedule. This is an interesting bill. Missing from the schedules that are attached to the bill is most of the agreement, which should be in the bill and which we are saying overrides the letter of the law in this case. How the Minister in the chair, the Attorney-General, can sit in the chair and say that this is adequate legislation, I do not know. But what is clear is that things that are allegedly on a website somewhere on the Department of Internal Affairs site override the letter of the law in this bill. Well, that is just wrong.

But there is some stuff in here and I just want to refer to the first of it, and that is clause 7.2 of the agreement” in schedule 1, and clause 7.2(a) of the agreement and the fact that “The initial term of the Venue Licence is extended from its current expiry date of 1 February 2021 to 30 June 2048.” The two reviews that were meant to take place during that time—massive reviews, massive and important—are gone. The ability of the Government to re-tender, to make decisions as to having another operator come in, maybe on an exclusive basis, or maybe to have a competitor, is wiped. It is gone as a result of something that is sitting in a schedule of this bill, and that is just wrong.

And there are lots of other things. We know that people lose too much money because they fire $20 notes into machines and get credits. What does this bill do? It increases from $20 to $100 the size of the notes that are allowed to be fired into the machine one after another, and another again, and another, and another, and another. So people can flick away tens of thousands of dollars in $100 notes so that they can get their credits, which they then generally go on to lose, because that is what happens when people—

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: The house always wins.

Well, the house does always win, and I tell you what. The house has won exceptionally well out of this deal, because it was playing poker with people with their eyes shut.

You know, I have criticised the officials for some stuff, but I do want to give the officials praise because I think the advice that the officials kept on giving to Ministers was: “You’re being done over, here—you’re being done over. The house is beating you. You should not accept this deal.” I believe that the officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise passed on the Treasury advice as to the private benefit of this to Skycity. I believe that they had honesty and integrity and gave the right advice to the Ministers. I do criticise them for not showing the same independence at the Commerce Committee.

I have spoken on this bill, the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill, before, and I have to say that each time I do this, I realise more and more that this is an abhorrent piece of legislation. It is wrong in so many ways. It is wrong morally. It is wrong in the way that the process was followed. But I just want to say, as perhaps many people in this House have not gone there, that when you go to that casino and you walk through that main gambling area where all the pokie machines are stacked up, you see that the people who are putting their money into those machines are not the high rollers whom we are trying to attract from overseas.

These are the people from my electorate and from South Auckland and from west Auckland who cannot afford to give away their savings, their salaries, and their benefits into those machines. To think that this bill—this Act—will bring about another 230 of those machines, it obviously can only mean that more of those people are going to be trapped. As my colleague Trevor Mallard just said, those machines are no longer just the simple machines where you put money into them; they are machines that operate on cards. They are machines where many of them, at more than $20 at a time, can fleece you and take that from you, which is basically preying on those people who are unable to ensure that they able to step back from that and say: “No, I can’t do this any more.” That is the real worry about this convention centre: it is being built on the backs of those people. There is the harm that it is doing to those families and to those people who are unable to resist putting their savings through those machines—230 extra machines. Those machines are programmed to take more money off people faster.

When this agreement was being talked about many months ago, I spoke to somebody who was a former senior employee of Skycity. I said to them: “What’s the deal going to look like?”, and he said: “Well, if it was me, what I’d be looking for is an extension of my gambling licence by about 10 years, I’d be looking for a lot more pokie machines, and I’d be looking for the pokie machines that are able to take money off people much faster than the ones that we’ve got currently.” Well, Skycity certainly got a really good deal out of this, because it ticks all the boxes. But even he—even he—was shocked by the fact that it was a 35-year licence, rather than the 7 or 8 years that he anticipated, and even he was shocked by KordaMentha’s conclusions about how much money was coming back to Skycity. I believe that that amount has been grossly underestimated, and other analyses that I have seen seem to demonstrate that it is actually well under what Skycity is likely to make from this deal.

That is one part of it—the ability to take more money off people faster, more money off the people who can least afford it, more money to line the pockets of Skycity for 35 years. But the other part of it, of course, is how this deal actually came into being. Although this is all part of Part 1, I want to touch on the fact that the deal was done without the other companies that were tendering for this contract having the same information that Skycity had. So instead of the Skycity deal being a Skycity deal, and it being a Vector deal or a Ngāti Whātua deal or an Infratil deal, with their having an ability to actually put up a proposal that might have satisfied the Government, they never even got that opportunity. They did not even know that the rules had changed. So Skycity was set up right from the very beginning. That is why the Auditor-General said that the process lacked transparency, it was not even-handed, it was flawed, and there were deficiencies on both the part of officials and on the part of Ministers, and to say that somehow this arrangement, this deal, has totally vindicated the Ministers, of course, is absolute nonsense.

The other part of this is what exactly we are getting out of it: the convention centre. At the moment most of us would support having a convention centre, but Treasury documents and Treasury analysis would indicate that, actually, the peak for a convention centre of this type may have actually passed and the economic returns that we are expected to get are actually going to be somewhat lower than what we expect.

But I want to come back to the issue of the harmful effects, because most of the problem-gambling organisations that I have spoken to talk about problem gamblers being in the order of about 40 percent of those people who are pulling the levers or pushing the buttons of those pokie machines—40 percent. It means that there will be a huge increase in the number of people who are actually going to be going to the Skycity Casino and being involved in that addictive behaviour. As we have tried in the past to decrease the number of pokie machines, and we have heard all about the issues and the problems at the bowling clubs and the rugby clubs around Auckland that are slowly, but surely, decreasing—some would say that we need to do that more quickly, but they are certainly decreasing in number—here we are increasing to dramatic effect the number and going in the other direction. Let us remember that those machines at the rugby clubs, the bowling clubs, etc., give about a third of their income back to the community, whereas Skycity gets to pocket that income and it pays about 2, 3, or 4 percent of its returns back to any sort of community fund.

This is not just bad for the people who are addicted to gambling and are sitting there putting their money and their life-savings into it, supporting and backing and financing a convention centre that, I have to say, is based on some pretty dubious economics, but it is also not giving anything back to the community, whatsoever. On top of that, the number of jobs that were supposed to be created by this, which Grant Robertson talked about in his earlier intervention, is grossly—grossly—exaggerated by this Government in terms of what it is going to be producing. Any analysis of what has happened in Australia with regard to the numbers of jobs created by these casinos will tell you that they are nothing like what the Government is proposing. In fact, the figure will possibly be well below 100, and many of those jobs are actually going to be for cleaners or bar workers, in the lower-paid proportions of our community.

Do not get this wrong. This is not about economic development in the grand scheme of things that Steven Joyce has always talked about; this is about furthering the profits of a city through the back-door deals of Ministers and, more specifically, the Prime Minister. This is a shonky deal. It is a dishonest deal. It takes money from the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders. It creates harm in our society, and that is why when most New Zealanders look at this deal, they know that this is wrong. They feel that they have been duped and wronged by this Government in ensuring that this sham gets put into our city. It is in the middle of our city. It takes up several blocks—several blocks—of land, where people are going to be going in in their tens of thousands and putting their money into machines, money that they can ill-afford to spend. So this is why I feel particularly aggrieved by this happening in my city. When I go through that hall and I see the sorts of people who are putting money into those machines, and I see the sorts of people who are going to be putting money into those machines in a multiple increase on what we have today, then that is why I am standing here with my colleagues and absolutely opposing this deal.

I want to refer to the first clause within Part 2 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. That is where we have a discussion about the regulatory concessions that have been authorised. I particularly want to refer members of the Committee to clause 6(2). It says: “The regulatory concessions prevail if a regulatory concession is inconsistent with any provision of the gambling law, and the application of the provision of the gambling law is modified accordingly.” Let us just stop and think for a minute what that clause means. It means that the deal, as we have traversed—a dodgy deal done without the proper information going to other applicants, with the Prime Minister’s paw prints all over it; an appalling deal done by the Government, which is costing the taxpayer, costing New Zealanders—trumps gambling law.

That is the message the National Government is sending out tonight. The Gambling Act 2003, with its purpose to “minimise the harm caused by gambling”, is trashed by a shoddy agreement that lines the pocket of Skycity and that takes away from many New Zealanders money that they can ill-afford to have taken away. That is the point of clause 6(2).

The National Government should be ashamed to be supporting a clause that says the will of this Parliament is out the door. The National Government did not even have the gumption to come in and amend the gambling law, because it could not, because this bill is against the purpose of the gambling law. So instead it overrides that law with an agreement signed in a back room—a deal done with National’s mates is more important to it than the sovereign right of this Parliament to make laws.

National should be ashamed of clause 6(2) because the regulatory concessions that are being talked about in clause 6 are not minor. Let us run through them again and make sure people understand what we are talking about here. There is the extension of the licence until 2048. As my colleague Trevor Mallard has said, within that period where that licence has been extended there should have been two full reviews of that licence.

I had a bit to do with the Gambling Act 2003 as an official, or a person who worked in this building, and I can tell you that one of the main roles that was to be played in the review process was taking a thorough look at the levels of gambling harm that were being caused. Those two reviews are gone on this licence, and that is shameful. There will be 40 extra gaming tables, a 17 percent increase in the number of gaming machines that can take more than $20 notes, and ticket-in, ticket-out, cashless gaming. These are the kinds of regulatory concessions that are being talked about here—a huge increase in gaming machines. These are the concessions, these are the things that break the spirit of the Gambling Act, that clause 6 says are fine.

On this side of the Chamber we do not believe it is fine, and neither do the officials because the regulatory impact statement makes that absolutely clear. I will read it, from paragraph 33: “The proposed gambling concessions raise concerns about a potential increase in the incidence of problem gambling, due to the subsequent increase in gambling opportunities at Skycity’s Auckland casino.” David Shearer just said it—if this is all about the high rollers, the people who will come to these international conventions from around the world, they do not play the pokies. They do not go into places like this to play pokie machines. The people who will be lured in to play those pokie machines will be the people who can least afford it. We know this about pokie machines. Class 4 gambling is the most addictive there is. This bill, and these concessions that are now being put in place by clause 6, mean that there will be more pokie machines, more opportunities.

But then we go on to the question of cashless gaming. There has been a lot of research around the world about the impact that it has, to actually put money into a machine—it is an action you have to do. Once you move to cashless gaming, to cards, to ticket-in, ticket-out machines, you take away from people the decision that they are going to put money in. Here we are, in clause 6 of this bill, saying it is OK to have 17 percent more machines that will take higher denominations and that will lead to cashless gaming. Cashless gaming will make problem gambling worse, and that is what is put in place with these concessions.

Here is something that I do not know whether I ever thought I would see in a regulatory impact statement. This is what the officials said in paragraph 97: “There are aspects of the regulatory concessions that potentially raise the risk of money laundering through Skycity.” Oh well, that is just a casual little comment there from Treasury officials—we are looking at money-laundering! This is the result of the ticket-in, ticket-out arrangements, which do allow for the prospect of people using them to put money in. Trevor Mallard has already raised concerns about the kinds of pressures that can be put on people in a venue like Skycity, in the case—the very unfortunate case—of the Chinese student from a couple of years ago. Well, here we have got the officials telling us that money-laundering is on the way at Skycity.

So there is another risk not accounted for by the Government, not defended by the Government. It was simply put into this deal with Skycity, which, frankly, had a ball negotiating this. It has done extremely well for itself and its shareholders. Where was the Government? Where was the Government defending New Zealanders? Where was the Government saying: “No, we have actually got gambling laws that are about reducing gambling harm. We have got an Auckland Council that has a sinking lid policy on gaming machines. We are going to defend that.”? That could have been the response of the Government. It could have said: “Actually, do you know what? We really want this convention centre built, but these regulatory concessions go against the spirit of our laws, against what the Auckland Council has been trying to do. We are not going to agree to it. Sorry, Skycity, it was nice negotiating with you, but we are going to go back and talk to the other four people who actually did want to build this convention centre.”

But no, the Government did not do that, because it was neck-deep in this dodgy deal, led by the Prime Minister, who directed his officials to work with Skycity in a different manner to how other groups who were tendering were being worked with. Meetings were held with the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and information was handed over to Skycity. Again, the officials started raising concerns about this—ploughing on went the Government to do this dodgy deal. In clause 6 we now have the sight—the shameful sight—of the regulatory concessions, which I have just worked through, prevailing above and beyond gambling law. That is a completely shameful position to find ourselves in, in this Parliament.

It is worth noting on the question of the licence and the licence extending through to 2048 that Skycity has completely done the Government over, here. All of the calculations show us that Skycity will make its money back miles in advance of 2048. It has got a great deal here. Not only has it got a great financial deal; New Zealanders are done out of the reviews. Why? Why on earth has the Government decided to not even have the reviews? All right, extend the licence as part of your deal, but still review it—still give New Zealanders the reassurance that this outfit is operating in accordance with the law; that it is actually doing the problem-gambling harm minimisation initiatives that it said it would.

But no, we do not even have this review. It is a blank cheque written by the National Government to Skycity against the wishes and values of New Zealanders. Part 2 of this bill is the guts of it. This is where the rubber hits the road. It is time for somebody on the National side of the Chamber to stand up and say why New Zealanders should agree to regulatory concessions that are against the gambling laws that we currently have. Why not have the gumption to come into this Chamber and say: “You know what? The Gambling Act 2003 is wrong. We want to liberalise it.”? That is not what those members have done. They have picked off Skycity and they have said they are going to give Skycity power above and beyond the Gambling Act 2003.

Well, that is not what I came into Parliament for. I did not come into Parliament to sit here and have a National Government do a backroom deal and come into this House and tell me that the laws that have been previously passed do not matter; that it is just going to do everything by deals and agreements. That is not democracy. That is not how this House is meant to work.

I rise to support the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I would like to follow up on the speech of the previous speaker, Grant Robertson. Throughout its 35-year extension of its casino licence Skycity Casino will continue to be subject to existing and any new casino laws and regulations. In the event that Skycity Casino fails to meet its obligations as set out in the terms of its licence, its licence could be suspended or cancelled under the current Gambling Act. The agreement will not change the operation and enforcement of the existing gambling regime.

According to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment the size of the international business events market is growing. The International Congress and Convention Association estimates that there are approximately 19,000 non-government international association conferences organised in the world on a regular basis, with approximately 11,219 held in 2012, compared with 10,070 in 2011, and 9,120 in 2010. Last year only 45 of these events were held in New Zealand, partly because of New Zealand not having the right facilities to attract large conferences. I have talked to a number of conference organisers, and they find it hard to believe that New Zealand is unable to host such conferences. It is clear that we have been missing out on many opportunities for the growth of our economy.

Casinos in New Zealand were first introduced over two decades ago. Research shows that there is indeed a link between the availability of gaming machines and opportunities to gamble and the incidence of problem gambling. However, the research does not demonstrate a direct causal relationship between an increase in gaming machines and a commensurate increase in problem gambling incidents. The 230 new pokie machines is the same number granted to Skycity Casino under the previous Labour Government in 2001 for the development of the existing and much smaller Auckland convention centre.

Under the agreement Skycity Casino will have to introduce a number of preventative measures to reduce the risk of problem gambling—measures such as a predictive modelling tool that conducts analysis of data to identify players at risk of problem gambling, as well as a voluntary pre-commit card system where players can elect to restrict the amount of time they play or the amount they spend. Skycity Casino will also have to introduce player identification requirements when amounts over $500 are being put on to or cashed from ticket-in, ticket-out machines in non-restricted areas, as well as doubling the number of host responsibility specialists to deliver 24 hours a day, 7 days a week coverage. These actual harm minimisation requirements will become part of Skycity Casino’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 of the Government.

The National Government has been working hard to build a more competitive and productive economy. The New Zealand International Convention Centre is just one of the Government’s around 350 initiatives to create jobs and grow our economy for all Kiwis. The centre will be a major asset for New Zealand and will generate significant spin-off benefits, including a projected $90 million annual injection into the economy, an estimated 1,000 jobs during construction, and 800 jobs once it is up and running. So it is expected to attract about 33,000 more conference delegates to New Zealand each year.

To conclude my speech I would like to quote Mr Brett O’Riley, Chief Executive of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development. Mr O’Riley says: “The International Convention Centre will be a positive signal to investors who we know are already interested in hotel development, and are analyzing future demand trends.” Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Chair.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: He just got here.

Of course. Yes, excellent choice. I am pleased to take a brief call on this unfortunate piece of legislation, the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I think there is one thing that we can be sure about: if this bill passes, we can be sure there will immediately be an increase in visitor numbers to Auckland. Even before the convention centre is built, every casino operator and every gambling operator around the world will be coming to Auckland to ask Skycity: “How did you negotiate such a sweetheart deal where you cannot possibly lose?”, because that is the nature of this legislation. Skycity cannot lose on this legislation. The regulatory concessions are very carefully set up in clause 6 to ensure that any regulatory or legislative change can work only to the advantage of Skycity.

You have got to give it credit, in a perverse sort of a way, for having achieved that. It will be the poster boy of the gambling industry internationally for having pulled off this incredible coup and for having got this extraordinary set of concessions from a Government that is basically giving Skycity an open ticket. It is not even having a dollar each way. Skycity is guaranteed to win, whichever way future legislation goes. It is a win-win deal for Skycity. It is a lose-lose deal for New Zealand, for people with gambling problems, and for the social services, which will have to pick up the residue, the mess, that this increase in gambling and problem-gambling behaviour will leave behind.

I think it is very instructive to go back to the feasibility studies that were conducted between 2007 and 2009, over that period. All of the international evidence says that building convention centres in the current era, in the current situation, means that you will never recoup your cost of capital. You might make money on the operation of such a thing, but the capital investment is sunk. You simply cannot generate enough income to pay for that, which is why the Ministry of Economic Development feasibility study recommended some sort of public-private partnership: the public sector, which could meet some of the capital cost with the trade-off, obviously, that there are wider benefits attracting people to the region—tourists who will come and spend money outside the convention centre—and a private operator.

Ngāti Whātua would have been an ideal partner, for example. It is an entity that has cash and that has land already. It is an organisation that is not going anywhere, and that is not looking for a short-term return. Instead, it did not have an opportunity to put a bid on the table, to put up a business case. Unfortunately, it was trumped very early in the piece by this extremely shoddy deal that enables an operator, Skycity, to come in with a guaranteed win—better odds than any casino anywhere in the world has or would ever offer.

I would like to speak to some of the Supplementary Order Papers and some of the changes we would like to see made to this legislation. I take Mr Mallard’s point made earlier that this bill is probably irredeemable in a sense, but we must endeavour to at least make it somewhat less bad than it is. Clearly our first—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Why don’t you say what I said?

I am much more polite than you, Mr Mallard. Yes, sir.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Polish it up.

Polish it? Well, yes. We will not go there just now. Supplementary Order Paper 379 in the name of our co-leader Metiria Turei suggests that we do away altogether with clause 6 because that is the clause that is basically the win-win. It ensures that Skycity cannot lose and that it can ignore any legislative change if it is to its advantage, or it can accept if it is to its advantage. There is no way it can lose in any future change in the gambling legislation. This shoddy document overrides the gambling law, which everybody else must obey, but Skycity can gratefully accept any changes to it that are to Skycity’s advantage—though it is actually hard to see how any law could improve on the deal it has already cut. Our Supplementary Order Paper 379 suggests we do away with that clause and at least put Skycity on something like an equal footing with other gambling operators, other casino operators, and introduce just a tiny element of risk. At the moment, this deal is absolutely risk-free for Skycity.

We might assume that it is planning to build this thing in the spirit of altruism to give the people of Auckland a gift—a convention centre that may in time attract more visitors, high-dollar-spend visitors, which would do our tourism industry no harm. But, call me cynical, I do not think it did this in a spirit of altruism. It knows very well that the return on the extra gambling capacity that it is being gifted by this legislation will very quickly recoup the capital cost through its gambling machines, through the extra capacity that this entitles it to. That is a very unfortunate situation. Every business ought to accept a little bit of risk. It stimulates and it motivates good thinking and good business practice. There is no risk in this deal for Skycity.

Supplementary Order Paper 385, again in the name of Metiria Turei, suggests we should introduce compulsory pre-commit cards. I am a person who has never entirely understood gambling. I can think of many more interesting and exciting ways of wasting money than poking it into a machine or hoping that a particular card is going to come up.

💬 Dr David Clark: Motorbikes.

I will not go into what those ways happen to be, but the fact is that motorcycles might be high on that list, yes. If Skycity, or any casino operator, is genuinely committed to reducing the harm associated with gambling, does it not make sense to insist that people must make a decision when they are still thinking clearly, before the heat of the moment, the excitement, the adrenalin, or whatever else it is that attracts people to gambling and locks them into spending much more than they can afford? Would you not want people making that decision up front? “Tonight I will spend $100.”—which somebody else might spend at a movie, at a club, at a theatre, or whatever it might be. Making pre-commitment compulsory would ensure that people would make the decision when they are thinking relatively clearly, before they get into the excitement, the heat of the moment, at which point all bets are off and they start spending way beyond their capacity and way beyond what they can afford.

There is a proposal from the Department of Internal Affairs, in fact, that all gaming machines should display the odds of winning and how long a gambler has been playing. We know from the literature and from observation that people do completely lose track of time, and, of course, the environment is very carefully managed to ensure that people lose track of time. The lighting, the absence of any clocks or any other record, the music, and in many cases the provision of food, alcohol, and all of the comforts of home ensure that people completely lose track of how much time they are gambling for and how much money they are spending, until they reach the point of no return. By then they have cleaned out their bank accounts and maxed out their credit cards, and that is when the trouble starts. That is when the criminal behaviour starts. People start stealing from their employers, from their families, from friends, or whoever it may be.

In that sense, we have a further proposition: that Skycity should actually be liable. I refer now to Supplementary Order Paper 378—that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act should have a new section to extend the definition of “unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity” to Skycity. It is peculiar that if people—through fraud, through outright theft, or through whatever means—illegally obtain money and gamble that money, and even if they are prosecuted, convicted, and pay whatever price they pay, again the only winner in that is the casino. It bears no cost for that. It may have a very shrewd idea of who the people are who seem to have endless amounts of money—people who are laundering money, people who are spending the proceeds of crime, and people who have defrauded and stolen cash from employers, from their families, and from friends—and yet the casino has no responsibility to manage that.

We think that inserting something into the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act would put a little bit of discipline around Skycity and perhaps incentivise it to be a bit more thoughtful. Again, if it was carrying any risk around this behaviour, which currently it is not, that would be a considerable discipline to put on it. It is simply unacceptable that the means by which people spend money that has been illegally gained, people laundering money—the entity, the casino, that enjoys the profit of that carries none of the risk and none of the responsibility for endeavouring to see that that does not continue.

I will just return to the point that we have been accused of being anti - convention centre per se. I do not believe that there is a strong feeling opposing the idea of a convention centre in Auckland. Why would you? There are arguments from within the tourism sector that it would be an asset, that it would attract visitors to Auckland who otherwise may not come, and that there is an international market. It is a line call. If somebody wants to make the business case and put their own money on the line to ensure that happens—

I want to pick up where my colleague Grant Robertson left off. I want to focus on clause 6 in Part 2. Part 2, of course, is called “Substantive provisions”, and that is for real. That is true. These are, in fact, the substantive provisions of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill in Part 2. Grant Robertson drew people’s attention to clause 6(2), which details, as he said, that “The regulatory concessions prevail if a regulatory concession is inconsistent with any provision of the gambling law,”. So the regulatory concessions, which we will pass into law if this bill goes ahead, become law and they supersede the gambling law. But just in case the Government has not quite skewed the bill enough in favour of Skycity, it backs that up with clause 6(3), which says: “Despite subsection (2),”—the one to which I have just referred—“the provision of the gambling law prevails if its application would be more favourable in relation to SKYCITY Casino than the regulatory concession.” So if we have got it wrong and we have not put enough in there in regulatory concessions that supersede gambling law and that work in the favour of Skycity, do not worry, because we will make the law apply if it is more favourable. Talk about belts and braces for Skycity! Who would not want to go into a deal with this Government if you can walk out with a deal of that sort? It is just extraordinary. The law does not prevail unless it is better for Skycity, in which case it does prevail. So every which way, Skycity wins. That has got to be one of the most pernicious things I have ever seen in legislation that this Government has put up, and there have been some bad ones.

I want also to talk about clause 7, because this is talking about clause 7.3 of the agreement, which has the force of law. I just want to draw that to members’ attention because this says that “Clause 7.3 of the Agreement as set out in Schedule 3 of this Act has the force of law to the extent necessary to give effect to the regulatory concessions and to the Agreement.” So here we are tonight, in the Committee stage addressing a piece of legislation that will become law and that will encapsulate an agreement and put it into law if and when it is passed. That piece out of the agreement, clause 7.3, I want to spell out for members of the public. I know that others have talked about the numbers of machines and the numbers of gambling tables and so on, but I just want to labour this point again.

Here is the agreement. Here are the nuts and bolts of the agreement that Skycity has procured with this Government. First of all it says: “Notwithstanding anything in condition 5”—well, we have not quite got condition 5, because we are only talking about clause 7—“the Licence Holder may install and operate in the Gambling Area, in addition to the gaming machines specified in condition 5, up to 230 additional Single Terminal Gaming Machines.” That is another 230. Then it goes on to say: “the Licence Holder may install and operate … up to 40 additional gaming tables.” So that is 40 more gaming tables on top of what it already has, and 230 additional single terminal machines on top of what it already has. Then, in addition to the gaming machines already talked about “the Licence Holder may install and operate … up to 240 additional Automated Table Game terminals …”. So here are another 240, or “up to 12 further gaming tables, if each such gaming table is substituted for 20 of the Automated Table Game Terminals …”. It goes on to say that “at no time shall the number of Single Terminal Gaming Machines in the Gambling Area exceed 1877.” This number is truly astonishing. The size of this is truly astonishing.

I want to emphasise the size of this because of the fact that the Government has taken out any requirement to measure gambling harm. In fact, the harm minimisation provisions are abandoned, and there was not allowed to be any representations to the Commerce Committee debating this from the Ministry of Health or anybody else who might have talked about gambling harm.

I want to just punctuate that comment with a little story from a woman in Nelson, whom I admire greatly. We will call her Irene. Irene has twice, in my hearing, spoken up as a problem gambler, as she has advertised a tool kit for problem gamblers put out by the Problem Gambling Foundation. I have been to launches of that tool kit at which she has spoken. She has spoken honestly and heart-rendingly about the harm that gambling did to her and to her family and her home as she squandered every mortgage payment, every pay packet, and everything that came into that house on a hopeless, futile, but addictive behaviour. She is a hero. She has stood up and been heard by the people in Nelson, who campaigned to get pokie machines taken out of one pub—pokie machines taken out of one pub. They contradicted the council, which said: “No, we’re OK—we’ve got the sinking lid thing.” And the people said: “Well, we don’t want the pokie machines here in our community.” The council listened to that in the end. The pokie machines were dismantled and they are no longer operating inside that community.

But does this Government listen to people? Does this Government care about those families who are going to be harmed by this vast array of opportunities to feed some delusory hope that is inspired by an addiction that needs treatment, not an opportunity for people to squander the little that they have. So this Government has deliberately made itself deaf and blind to those representations from the people who are to be harmed by this facility and by the people who would represent them—those who know about addictive behaviour, who know what harm it does, who know what is required in order to assist people to break addictions, and who know how very difficult that is. This Government has paid no attention at all to the welfare of people—no attention at all.

So do not give us this nonsense about high rollers. Do not give us this nonsense about economic development and economic benefit for the country. This is just stark dealing, which is the kind of thing that the Prime Minister has been adept at in the past, in his former career. It is not his right to strike deals that harm the citizens of this country. It is not his right. His responsibility is to defend the people of this country, not to expose them to harm and disregard any procedures or monitoring that might assess harm in the future. He has abrogated his responsibility because he prides himself as a deal-maker. Well, a deal-maker might be fine in the corporate sector; that is not how to run a country. It might be how to run a company, but it is not how to run a country. Time and time again, that accusation can be sheeted home to this Prime Minister. The dealing—the shonky dealing, the “behind closed doors” and “talk to your mates only” kind of dealing—that the Prime Minister is used to is not what the citizens of this country require or expect from their Prime Minister.

I have a number of Supplementary Order Papers in my name that are changes and amendments to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill that we—

💬 Dr David Clark: Very good ones.

Thank you very much. I do appreciate my colleagues who have indicated to us already—Labour, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, Mana, Brendan Horan—that they are all voting in favour of these Supplementary Order Papers. Each individual member is voting in favour of, I understand, at least most of these—I do not think in favour of all of them, but at least most of them, which is great news.

So I do want to be able to describe them for the Committee because I do think that there is still an opportunity for members who are considering supporting the bill to change their view. That is because it is a conscience vote on these issues, particularly on the Supplementary Order Papers we have put forward, because they concern the issues of gambling, and gambling has traditionally been a conscience vote in this House. We appreciate that the Speaker has agreed that a conscience vote will be held on a number of these provisions and these Supplementary Order Papers.

My colleague David Clendon has described a couple of the provisions already, particularly clause 6, which is the provision that authorises the regulatory concessions. They have been described: the 230 pokie machines; the 240 automated gaming table terminals, which operate very similarly to pokie machines; the additional gaming tables; plus the ticket-in, ticket-out technology and the extension of the licence of Skycity. In cashless gaming, there have also been a number of concessions.

Clause 6 as set out says that the regulatory concessions will apply even where the Gambling Act prohibits them. So there are absolute prohibitions in the Gambling Act that say no more pokie machines at casinos, but because this bill says that Skycity can have another 230, then this legislation will take precedence. Clause 6 also says that if there are any decisions of the Gambling Commission or provisions in the Gambling Act that give Skycity a benefit, then Skycity gets the advantage of that.

So Skycity suffers none of the controls—this is what clause 6 is about—of gambling harm minimisation that are built into the Gambling Act and that have already been passed in this House and accepted by the community as the right way to manage the harms caused by gambling and casino gambling. It does not suffer any of those constraints, but it gets all of the advantages. So as my colleague David Clendon has said, there is absolutely a win-win for Skycity in clause 6. We do not believe that that can be justified at all, even according to any kind of deal-making that John Key wants to engage in, and certainly not from a public health point of view.

So we have three Supplementary Order Papers that deal with that. Two will amend clause 6—Supplementary Order Papers 377 and 379—and one, Supplementary Order Paper 380, inserts a new clause 6A, to the effect that Skycity cannot retain any of the concessions in the legislation if the contract is terminated. At present, it is quite possible for some termination event in the contract to occur—for example, if it is unable to get its resource consents or where there is a Treaty of Waitangi claim that stops it from being able to proceed—but the regulatory concessions apply, effective immediately. Those concessions will continue to apply and Skycity can continue to get the benefit of those concessions even if there is a termination of the contract. It is not clear in the legislation that that is not the case.

So we want to make it absolutely clear that if the contract is terminated for any reason, then those concessions, if they are already in place, are gone. There is no justification for Skycity being able to keep its 35-year licence and being able to keep 230 more pokie machines if the contract itself is terminated. This is just another one of the little examples in the bill of how there has been a real failure to make sure that the public interest is protected at every step of the way. We can help to remedy that if this bill is passed.

An additional Supplementary Order Paper we have, Supplementary Order Paper 381, concerns clause 7. Again, this is about the regulatory concessions. What our amendment will do is delete clause 7, because clause 7 provides for the regulatory concessions to effectively have the force of law. The regulatory concessions are part of a deal. They are not expressly included in the legislation. They should not, therefore, have the force of law. The reason I think that they do have the force of law in the deal in the way that it has been written is that Skycity—and John Key and Steven Joyce have agreed with this—wants those concessions to be absolutely locked in. That is why it is unclear about what will happen to those concessions if there is a termination of the contract.

So in addition to it being unclear around what should happen if the contract is terminated, there is a further locking-in of those concessions, and of the money that Skycity will make from those concessions. Skycity is not getting 230 extra pokie machines and a 35-year licence just because it just wants to; it is getting this because that is going to make it hundreds of millions of dollars, at least 40 percent of which will come from problem gamblers, who are harmed as a result of having spent that money. So this is because there is money in this. The Government has allowed Skycity to lock in, as tightly as possible, the regulatory concessions so that under almost any circumstance, Skycity can keep the benefit of the deal, keep the value of those concessions, and continue to make more and more money off the backs of problem gamblers.

My colleague David Clendon also talked about another one of the Supplementary Order Papers that we have, Supplementary Order Paper 385, and that is the one around harm minimisation measures. They also go to the regulatory concessions. There is no doubt in all of the evidence, despite what the National Government’s advisers have written as notes for their MPs, that if you increase the number of pokie machines, if you increase the number of automated gaming table terminals—which is 240 for Skycity—and if you increase the number of gaming opportunities, then there will be an increase in gambling harm. That is all of the evidence. International evidence and evidence from New Zealand shows that that is the case.

The whole point of the Gambling Act, of course, was to stop the increase in gambling harm by stopping the increase in gambling opportunities. That is why the prohibitions in the Gambling Act are so strict. It then becomes critical that if there is going to be this deal that then gives Skycity this significant financial opportunity by increasing gambling opportunities on its site, there must be even stricter controls on problem gambling to make sure that the risk of problem gambling is significantly reduced. That is a fair quid pro quo.

Under any circumstances, when you are doing a deal like this or any other kind of deal, you would look to balance out the interests. If John Key really believes that Skycity is so desperately poor that it urgently needs more machines to help it maintain its business, then part of the responsibility that John Key has as Prime Minister is to also address the public interest in reducing the harm that would be caused by that increase. So that is why you should have stronger measures as a result of this legislation, not softer ones.

The problem is, of course, as we know, that the harm minimisation measures in the agreement are soft measures. So let us take the voluntary pre-commitment technology that was mentioned earlier. Our Supplementary Order Paper 385 will require pre-commitment technology in all pokie machines to be mandatory, with a strict time line for when it needs to be introduced. The best analogy I have heard about pre-commitment technology is that it is like a seatbelt. Not everybody is going to need one. You do not necessarily need one all the time, but there is no point in having one in your car if you are not going to use it. We know that the risk of injuring oneself in a car accident is reduced if one wears a seatbelt. Therefore, we have made it mandatory for everyone in New Zealand to do so, and we have just increased the mandatory provisions for young children because it helps to significantly reduce the risk.

This is what mandatory pre-commitment technology does for problem gamblers. It significantly reduces the risk that any individual person will develop a gambling problem. But if it is only voluntary, like this current agreement requires, it will not work, because the people who need it the most—

What the Government has tried to do with this legislation is frame the argument around whether or not we should have a convention centre. That is an argument in its own right. It is not what the debate on this bill, the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill, is about. There could well be a good argument for a convention centre, but if you are going to set up a convention centre, this is not the only way, it is certainly not the best way, and, actually, it is not an acceptable way to fund that convention centre. Labour does not oppose having a convention centre, but we oppose the process and we oppose the implications and the consequences of the Government acting in the way that it has.

What I object to first of all about this deal is that it was a dirty deal carried out by the Prime Minister in contravention of the ethical, transparent, open, and fair processes that one would normally associate with the public sector. The Prime Minister did not take simply a casual approach to his involvement in this; he himself met twice with Skycity. He had his chief of staff meet with Skycity. His staff met on five occasions with Skycity, and the Prime Minister issued an instruction. The instruction was to put on hold any dealings with other bidders for the convention centre until he worked out a dirty deal with Skycity. That is not proper. That is not correct. It is wrong. It is so wrong that the Deputy Auditor-General decided that she would hold an inquiry into how this was carried out.

John Key, breaking ethics again, long before the report came out, said: “This report will totally vindicate me.” That was the language that he used—“This report will totally vindicate me.” It did nothing of the sort. Instead, the Deputy Auditor-General said that there were clear deficiencies on the part of Ministers and officials. She used very considered language, but the meaning is very clear. Listen to this. The Deputy Auditor-General said that “… we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.” That is the Deputy Auditor-General’s considered language. What it meant was that, in effect, she was saying that the Prime Minister was doing a dirty deal for his cronies, and that is exactly what this deal represents. It is a mark of shame on this Government.

The second concern that I have about what this bill encompasses is that it binds this Parliament for 35 years. It gives special privileges to Skycity that will last until 2048. I warrant this: you will not be here in 2048, Mr Chairman. I will not be here. In fact, there will not—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I might be.

Well, maybe Trevor Mallard. He has incredible longevity. But I warrant this: there will not be a single member of this House in this Chamber while this deal continues to provide benefits to Skycity. There will not be any of the officials who are currently working here. It is unprecedented that a Government would enter into a deal that gives privileges for 35 years and tries to lock it in so that any future Parliament that looks back at this deal will say: “This is crazy. This cannot in any way be justified.” It makes it really hard for Parliament to get out of that deal. In fact, it puts a financial penalty on the taxpayer when this contract is replaced, as it most certainly needs to be.

This Government will be remembered in the same way that Robert Muldoon is remembered for what he did about superannuation in 1976. This National Government will be remembered for a deal that was wrong, a deal that was inappropriately negotiated, a deal that was a millstone round the necks of New Zealanders, and a deal that will cost them just to get out of it.

I want to say that the critical clause in this bill is clause 6(2). It reads: “The regulatory concessions prevail if a regulatory concession is inconsistent with any provision of the gambling law, and the application of the provision of the gambling law is modified accordingly.” That is very clear language that says that this dirty deal prevails over the provisions of the Gambling Act 2003, which will cover every other institution and individual that is involved in the business of gambling. This is a special deal for Skycity.

But what I object to most about this is that it ignores the costs of gambling. I have got in my hand the regulatory impact statement. It says right up front in the beginning that “the potential impact this may have in increasing the incidence of problem gambling and its associated harm for New Zealand society …” is a key concern. On the front page it tries not to quantify that, but it does it later on in the report. This is the impact of the deal that every one of those National members is seeking to impose on New Zealand. It makes this point in paragraph 85 of the regulatory impact statement by the Government’s own officials: “most of the money spent on gambling in New Zealand is spent on gaming machines, and substantial proportions of it by people who play machines frequently. New Zealand studies have found that gaming machines are associated with harm more often than any other form of gambling.” There it is in black and white—a very clear statement that the Government is imposing on New Zealand another 230 gambling machines that its own officials have told it cause more harm than anything else. On top of that is the bonus of another 40 gambling tables.

In section 91 of that report it does quantify the impact of that. As a result of this bill there will be more than 8,000 New Zealanders who will suffer problems as a result of someone else’s gambling. It will have an impact. Mr Chairman, you have seen it. Every member in this Chamber who has gone into an institution that offers gambling machines will have seen the poor, pathetic people stuck on those machines for hour after hour, as they spend the housekeeping money and they spend the money that they should be spending on their kids. Officials from the Ministry of Health and the Department of Internal Affairs said that it would have that sort of impact. In fact, the Department of Internal Affairs said it would affect something like 6,000 children.

The great irony of this is that those people on the benches over there will be the first to condemn the unfortunate individuals who suffer from gambling addiction for spending their money and depriving their kids, and then they will take away the benefits, which will hurt the kids further, as all the while they increase the millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars of profit that Skycity will make out of people who cannot afford it, to fund Skycity and its exorbitant profits. If you want an international convention centre, either it pays its own way or you put the bill on those who benefit most from it. You do not put the bill on the backs of those individuals who cannot afford to be gambling but who are trapped by the nature of the machines that are set up particularly to keep people feeding money into them. It is rank hypocrisy to condemn the victims of gambling while you reach dirty deals that increase the number of machines that increase the incidence of problem gambling. That is what the officials say about that.

The other point that I want to make about this is that the economic benefits of this programme have not been demonstrated. The members of the Commerce Committee from the Opposition wanted to have Treasury, the Department of Internal Affairs, and the Ministry of Health come before the select committee to spell out what the costs and the benefits of this programme might be. In the true spirit of National Party democracy, the chair denied the right of select committee members to hear from those officials to challenge the nonsense that Steven Joyce talked about—1,800 jobs. But we actually read the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research paper that says the figure was wrong. He did not know where to put the decimal point. Do you know what the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research says? The real number of jobs—net long-term—was 18, Minister Joyce. You were out by a factor of about 100 percent—18 jobs permanently, not the 1,800. That is a factor of 100 percent.

It is my pleasure to speak for the second time this evening on this Part 2 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. This is where we get into the guts of the deal—the regulatory concessions. I think it is worthwhile to have a look at those regulatory concessions once again, because, essentially, this deal is a memorial to greed and to deprivation. The regulatory concessions include, as we have heard, 230 extra pokie machines and 12 automated tables with 20 seats at each. So that is 470 pokies, effectively, plus 40 gambling tables. It also includes a 27-year extension to the existing licence, and it calls for a couple of concessions, I guess, around the technology for paying for gambling, and that includes ticket-in, ticket-out.

I have no idea why the Government agreed to this. Also, it ensures that 17 percent of those machines can accept money denominations of $20 notes and higher. This is money for jam for money-launderers. They love this stuff. They absolutely love it. It came through in the advice that was offered to the Commerce Committee that if you want to prevent crime, if you want to reduce crime, then do not do this, because this is how the P cooks launder their money. They are going to be having a field day with this. But at least the police—who will be working harder than ever because of the increase of problem gambling from the increased number of gambling machines and gambling opportunities—will know where to find the P cooks. They will be in the casino, the casino that will be paid for by the cost that we will all bear as taxpayers through problem gambling and through crime.

If this Government were serious about a deal for a convention centre, and if it were serious in negotiating with a good corporate citizen, then that good corporate citizen would not negotiate and the Government would not allow an increase in crime as a way of paying for a convention centre that is supposedly—

💬 Mike Sabin: Social harm from gambling but none whatsoever from cannabis.

—to benefit the economy for all New Zealanders. It is not going to do that, Mr Sabin. Skycity is laughing all the way to the bank, and we as a Parliament, we as MPs, look like fools because we are the ones who will have to agree to this ridiculous deal, with no handbrakes on it whatsoever, to reduce harm from gambling.

The ticket-in, ticket-out technology is one of the best ways to increase money-laundering. It is also one of the best ways to increase problem gambling. One of the Supplementary Order Papers that my co-leader Metiria Turei has put up is around reducing harm from gambling. If we were serious about wanting to reduce gambling harm, then we would take on board the restrictions that we are attempting to place on Skycity and the way it deals with problem gamblers, in order to reduce the amount of harm that we have in our communities. If we do that, it may well impact on Skycity’s profits, but that should not be part of the deal. Supplementary Order Paper 385 suggests that there will be mandatory pre-commitment cards for everyone, and Metiria Turei has already described them as the seatbelt. The other measure is real-time player tracking. In the concessions that were negotiated, Skycity says that it will provide some measure of host responsibility, which will include predictive modelling. Predictive modelling is not player tracking. Player tracking works only if you actually intervene in what is going on. The player tracking that Skycity already has is called the loyalty cards. That player tracking, that predictive modelling, ensures that Skycity will contact people who have developed a gambling problem, who have spent all they have got, and attempt to lure them back to the casino so they can spend more, so that Skycity can make more money. This is the corporate citizen that—

I have to say, when I was listening to the debate tonight, there is a very straightforward question for the members of the Opposition—a very straightforward question for the members of the Opposition. Where were they in 2001? Where was Trevor Mallard then, with his anger and his upset? Where was Phil Goff? Why were they not winding up Helen Clark and saying “Don’t you dare, Prime Minister. Don’t you dare support that horrible convention centre deal with the Skycity Casino.”? Where were they then? They did not say a word. And with that knowledge, we all know that what they have been getting themselves wound up about tonight means absolutely nothing. It is pure rubbish politics—“I did not care 10 years ago. Now that I am on the other side of the House, I care passionately and deeply.” That is what they are saying. Trevor Mallard in 2001—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member cannot say that. These are debating points [Interruption]—no—and the member cannot use the words “You’re a liar.” [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. There is a Speaker’s ruling on page 42 that says you cannot call someone a liar. I ask the member to desist from now on. [Interruption] I am the ruler in these matters, and there will be no further discussion.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You indicated that what the Minister said was a debating point. It is a matter of the record of this House—how I voted on that bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order! The point I raised was that you used unparliamentary language, and that is what I asked you to desist from doing.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s a matter of fact.

The matter of fact is that the Labour Party was in Government in 2001, when a deal was done with Skycity to build a convention centre in Auckland in return for additional pokie machines, and Trevor Mallard was silent. I did not see any protests from Trevor Mallard. I did not see him crossing the floor. I did not see him doing anything to indicate concern about this, and that is why everybody should ignore his false anger tonight. He is a specialist in false anger, just like his friend Mr Goff. Where was Mr Goff in 2001, when Mark Burton and Helen Clark were getting positively excited and passionate about the new convention centre in Auckland? They were nowhere, because they were not at all concerned at that point. But, miraculously, when they are on the other side of the House, they are concerned.

Where were the Greens? Where were the cardboard cut-outs of the gambling machines in 2001, Greens? Where were you then, Greens? You were nowhere. You were not part of it in 2001. You were quiet as church mice, sitting—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Don’t bring me into it.

Sorry. The Greens were quiet as church mice, sitting quietly. Auntie Helen said it was all OK. “We will not be concerned about this. We will get something back for this.”—that is where the Greens were in 2001. We should ignore all their protestations tonight, because they had none when it counted. When they were supporting a Government, the Labour Party and the Greens were quiet, and that is why this should be ignored. That is why all this false outrage, all this excitement, and all this standing up to claim the speaking slot is all a pantomime. It is a pantomime, and it is time it was called tonight. It is a pantomime from the Opposition. Those members are lions in Opposition and they are absolute lambs when they are in Government, and tonight we have seen it. Tonight we have had the proof.

Not only that but they were poor negotiators. They have been having the Government on, saying that the Government was taken for a ride. Well, in 2001 the deal was for the same number of pokie machines and a convention centre one-quarter of the size. That is where they were at in 2001. It was the most appalling deal that this Government—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Judith Collins did the deal.

It does not matter. You were the Government, Trevor. Trevor was in the Government. You were in the Government at the time. Where was the law? Why did you not change the law, Trevor? Why did Labour not put through a law to stop it happening? That is the question I have for you, Mr Mallard, and you did not do that because you did not object then. You were quite happy then, and today it is suddenly the worst thing in the world. Well, Trevor, I have no respect for you for making those comments. I have no respect for you, at all, because it is the most appalling thing to oppose something so vehemently now when you actually allowed it to occur in 2001. It is sanctimonious claptrap—sanctimonious claptrap—and it is time this debate was brought to a conclusion.

The other thing is—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Calm down. The member once again—Speaker’s ruling on page 42 says you cannot say “Tell the truth.” I will ask the member again to not use that unparliamentary language in the Chamber.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister himself just used the phrase “Tell the truth.”, so I ask you to call him to order, as well.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, if that is the case, I did not pick that up. [Interruption] Order! When I am on my feet, there is quiet. The Speaker’s ruling on page 42 is very clear. You cannot use unparliamentary language. I ask you to respect that ruling. This is a robust debate, and I am happy with that. Everyone is going to get their say on this—they have had a big say so far—but let us keep it seemly and keep the language correct.

There are some very straightforward questions for the Opposition to answer. Why is it such a bad thing now when it was not back then? For the Greens, why are the Greens running a debate now when they were not back then?

💬 Grant Robertson: Judith Collins.

No, you cannot hide behind—

💬 Grant Robertson: No!

Where was the law, Grant Robertson? When you were in Helen Clark’s office, where was the law saying that we will not be doing this? Where was that then? You did not have one. You did not change the law to stop it happening. You actually went and supported it.

Worse than that, Labour members not only did not stop it but they went out and celebrated it. Mark Burton went to the opening, as Minister of Tourism. He celebrated the success. He said what a wonderful thing it was. Helen Clark said what a wonderful thing it was to see that investment by Skycity in the convention infrastructure in New Zealand. Grant Robertson hates it because, conveniently, he has now become an opponent. Grant Robertson has become an opponent to Skycity, which is very convenient given that half the caucus was in the hospitality box at Skycity, saying that everything was OK. But he is now an opponent. That is why I cannot respect you in this debate, Mr Robertson, because in 2003—

💬 Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I appreciate that the Minister is quite emotional about all this, but on several occasions he has said that he has no respect for you, and I find that to be abominable in this Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am listening very carefully to those points, and I will rule on them appropriately at the time.

That is why you cannot have respect for these people in this debate. In 2001 and 2003 this party to my left was not only quiet but was in favour of exactly this sort of deal. Its members did speeches on it—they did absolute speeches—and here he is now, Grant Robertson, absolutely denying it. He is in denial. He is a Skycity convention centre denier. That is the reality of where Grant Robertson is today.

So over the course of this debate we have had incredibly small amounts of anything that is actually related to the bill. All we have had is a rerunning of all the hypocrisy between the Labour Party and the Greens and everybody who opposes this thing but who were quiet in 2001 and quiet in 2003.

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence at the description of the Green Party as hypocrites, which was made by the Minister, when we voted against the Gambling Bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I have heard the points you have made. The Minister did not use the word “hypocrite”; he said “hypocrisy”, and that is a word that has been accepted. I appreciate the point you make. The Minister has 3 minutes remaining.

Just to refresh Mr Robertson’s memory, these are the lines that Mark Burton used in—

💬 Denise Roche: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would just like to make the point that the Minister was factually incorrect about this.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, that is not a point of order. All you are doing is interrupting the flow of the debate.

The Greens are feeling their silence from 2001, I feel. Here is what Mark Burton said—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I know what is going to happen. No one can comment on a ruling that I have made, so let us carry on in a seemly manner without getting into these sideshows that we are having.

Mark Burton said in 2001: “Skycity’s $140 million investment into this facility will give it the capacity to compete for a whole new range of prestige events.” That does not sound like somebody opposing it to me. He went on to say: “The potential gains from this are widespread—not only for”—

💬 Grant Robertson: Is this the same deal? No—this is a whole different deal, and you know it, Steven.

Oh, it is a whole different deal. This is a National Party deal, as against a Labour Party deal. Oh, of course! How silly of me! This is the hypocrisy that we are talking of. This is what Mark Burton said: “The potential gains from this”—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know you have ruled on this matter very recently. What he has done then is label a party as hypocrites. He said about a party “This is the hypocrisy.”

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That is exactly what he said. He pointed to members—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! He talked about the hypocrisy of the policies—he did not say anyone was a hypocrite—and that is an acceptable use of that phrase. I have already ruled on that this evening. The Hon Steven Joyce has the call, with 2 minutes remaining.

Thank you. As I said, Mr Burton’s comments—the Hon Mark Burton, the Minister of Tourism for a Labour Government at the time—were that “The potential gains from this are widespread—not only for Skycity, but for the Auckland city and region, the tourism industry, and the whole of New Zealand.”

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: People have died as a result.

Unfortunately, Trevor Mallard was not around at the time. He was not around at the time. I did not hear this in 2001, Trevor. I did not hear what I am hearing now. In 2001 Helen Clark—the saintly Helen Clark—the Prime Minister, said: “In Auckland, Sky City has pumped $140 million into its new Convention Centre, and Auckland City has rebranded and upgraded its conventions facilities”. It has been pleasing to see”—pleasing to see—“continuing investment in the quality of our tourism infrastructure.” Labour once again are the “Yeah, Nah, Yeah Party”. Its members are not debating any of the points tonight. They are trying to deny their history. That is fine. They can do that. But the New Zealand public sees it for what it is.

I am looking forward to taking, I hope, all four of my calls as one of the members of the Commerce Committee, and, of course, I would be happy to take them consecutively as I have something of an argument to develop. But, as ever, I am dependent on your grace and favour, Mr Chair. On that select committee I have had the dubious pleasure of reading a number of the draft agreements and the negotiating documents, and I would like to talk a little about them because they go into the agreement, which is the substantive thing that is referred to throughout Part 2 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I want to discuss the agreement, what it is, what it could be, and the way in which New Zealand taxpayers and New Zealand members of the public are disadvantaged in the course of this legislation.

Before I do that, I want to touch briefly on some of the earlier comments. Most recently, obviously, Mr Joyce, as the Minister for Economic Development, spoke. There is very little one can say about his contribution other than that it was mostly heat and had very little light. On that occasion the Minister appeared to be all mouth and no trousers.

I want to engage more substantively with an earlier contribution because it was a more substantive contribution. That was the contribution of Mr Jian Yang earlier in the debate. It was the first of only two National contributions so far. Its members are struggling to articulate what is on their consciences, I suspect. That member referred to the Tourism Industry Association’s submission. I was on the select committee that heard that submission and I have to say that the Tourism Industry Association’s representative became decidedly uncomfortable when questioned about whether he was comfortable with the deal being funded off the back of problem gambling. Mr Mallard asked several pertinent questions on that front, and the representative of the Tourism Industry Association was very reluctant—very reluctant—to commit himself to that proposition. I guess that the Tourism Industry Association’s submission was a line call for it because there would be some more jobs in the sector. But what it did not represent, of course, in that submission were the potential job losses in Taupō, in Hamilton, in Rotorua, and in other centres that are recorded in the independent economic analysis, which suggests that jobs will flow out of other areas of the economy and to that centre that is being built.

💬 Iain Lees-Galloway: More jobs out of the regions.

So that is more jobs out of the regions—that is quite right—as my colleague says. It is a two-speed economy, where Auckland is going ahead to some extent but the rest of New Zealand is being left behind. Unfortunately, all of us are worse off with the pressure that that places on Auckland house prices and on various other things going on in that city, such as job pressures, while the rest of the economy suffers and everybody is dragged down.

I come back to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill itself, other than those contributions that have been made. The agreement is mentioned right through the clauses and right at the start of the substantive provisions, right up front. Clause 6(1) states: “The regulatory concession shall be operative at the times and on the conditions that apply to the regulatory concessions in the Agreement.” Everything in the substantive provisions refers back to the agreement. Clause 6(2) states: “The regulatory concessions prevail if a regulatory concession is inconsistent with any provision of the gambling law, and the application of the provision of the gambling law is modified accordingly.” That subclause is the one that says that Skycity wins—Skycity wins every time. It trumps gambling law. This agreement that has been signed trumps gambling law. Clause 6(3), which follows that subclause, says: “Hang on. If things turn out the other way round and it’s actually advantageous to apply the provisions in gambling law, then Skycity wins again.” Skycity wins both ways. This is the ace up both sleeves, this provision and this agreement.

It is an agreement where the Government has put itself over a barrel—over a barrel of its own making. That is because it was a political deal, because the Prime Minister committed to one of the parties that was wanting to bid for the deal early on. He was forced into a corner.

The Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward in the name of Metiria Turei and Denise Roche get to some of these points in the proposed law. They delete some of these clauses, make them inactive, and try to introduce some fairness for the citizens of New Zealand. I congratulate those members on putting forward a really, really good set of Supplementary Order Papers, ones with which I personally will be agreeing. I will be supporting them in my conscience vote when it comes time during the voting on the legislation.

I want to focus back on the agreement and the concessions made by the Crown during the course of the negotiation of that agreement. Those papers are on the website of the Ministry of Economic Development, so members of the public can access them. During the early stages of the negotiation we see the Crown trying to cover off those options that you would expect it to cover off in the interests of the taxpayers, the voters, the citizens, and the communities of New Zealand. Early on we see the potential for a blowout in costs. In the final agreement it gets to a point where this is to be negotiated over time. Over the stages of development of the proposal, the Government can shovel further cash to Skycity if the proposal as it is drafted turns out to cost more than the $402 million currently budgeted. The agreement says that Skycity and the Government can agree to design modifications or walk away from the deal, or either party may pay the other cash. They can just hand cash over if it comes to that. We know who will be in the stronger bargaining position in the election year. We know that Skycity will be laying its cards out. It will probably be supplying the numbers just like it did for the original agreement. There was no independent analysis, and part-way through the deal Mr Joyce himself brought in extra negotiating muscle, recognising the bad deal that was going on for the Government. He brought extra negotiating muscle in, and still too much was given away.

The bad news, of course, is that it does not stop there. Treasury warns that the conference market has peaked and that the chances are that, in time, in the future, New Zealand may receive fewer international conferences. In part, of course, that is because of the rising price of jet fuel. We know that world travel is becoming more expensive and that people are staying local—they are becoming more environmentally conscious. That is one of the challenges that will be faced.

The Government here—this Government—has given away the ability to recoup costs if the convention centre is not marketed effectively. It had in its earlier negotiating documents the hope and the sensible measure of saying that if the convention centre was not operated properly, it could claw back some of the GDP loss that would accrue. It also had a clause in there saying that it could recoup some of the tax revenue that was lost. It could actually say: “Skycity, you’re not doing your job correctly. We will take back some of what we might have expected to have had, had you done your job correctly.” So if that conference business does not eventuate, the taxpayer has no comeback.

The incentives are on Skycity to set up a white elephant. Once it has built the centre—assuming that it builds the centre and it all goes ahead—it has no strong incentive to run it in a highly serviced fashion and to advertise it widely, because it has got the concessions it wants. It has got the gambling machines, it has got the cash flow, and it has got the licence extension. The convention centre becomes just a cost centre for it. It is incentivised to minimise that cost. The worst-case scenario—the very worst-case scenario for the Crown, actually, not necessarily for Skycity—is that the Crown takes over the running of Skycity. That is what happens if Skycity chooses not to run a white elephant that loses it money once it has got the gambling concessions. It can hand the centre back over to the Crown just like Chorus, sending the debt back to the taxpayer. There the Government goes again, socialising the losses and privatising the gains. This is another example of that, and it is written right here in the agreement that we are debating in the Committee. The Government has negotiated away the rights, which it ought to have, to ensure that the casino is run correctly—sorry, not the casino; it gave up running the casino correctly a long time ago—that the conference centre is run in the interests of New Zealand. It has watered down its negotiating position.

In the select committee we heard that class 4 gambling is the worst, the most addictive. The pokie machines that are proposed to operate as a part of this deal are the worst kind of gambling. We heard from academics, some of whom travelled from abroad to present to the committee. The one example that really stands out in my mind was a Scandinavian country that chose to ban pokie machines. The very interesting thing was that when they banned pokie machines, gambling dropped off not just across that area of business but across all types of gambling, and that is because problem gamblers are attracted to, and are driven by, the adrenalin that runs with those pokie machines. That spurs them on to other gambling and other types of gambling—those types of gambling that do not affect people in the first instance and do not necessarily make people problem gamblers. This deal, unfortunately, sets up a situation where problem gamblers fund the building of the convention centre, but—

I move, That the question be now put.

There are still a number of Supplementary Order Papers on Part 2 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill that I want to describe for members in the Chamber. I very much appreciated the comments from individual MPs in the Committee that they will be voting for at least some of these Supplementary Order Papers, and I invite members who are considering voting for the legislation to also vote for these Supplementary Order Papers, at least some of them. Some of them do go to the heart of the deal—for example, the removal of the regulatory concessions. But a number of them are designed to improve the legislation to make sure that should the deal proceed and the legislation go ahead, that in exchange for Skycity getting 230 more pokie machines, there are genuine harm minimisation measures put in place.

I will refer to those harm minimisation measures again; they are set out in Supplementary Order Paper 385. The reason I refer to them again is that the advice of the Ministry of Health to the Minister for Economic Development concerning the harm minimisation measures in the deal was that they will not work. There is an argument as to whether or not they are new. They certainly do not appear to the Greens to be new, and in some cases the Ministry of Health has said that that is the case; they are not new measures.

The Ministry of Health has also said that these measures will not reduce gambling harm. It has said that some of them are worse than useless, in effect. Given that there is going to be a huge amount of concession given to the casino to expand its business and to increase its gambling opportunities and therefore problem-gambling harm, we should take advice from those who are directly involved in managing that harm. The Ministry of Health is the Government agency that is responsible. It is saying that the harm minimisation measures are not going to work, that they will not make any significant difference to the harm that will be caused by the extra gambling opportunities. I believe that if the Minister is refusing to take the advice of the Ministry of Health, and if the Minister is refusing to give the proper balance between the concessions that are given to Skycity and the public interest in reducing problem-gambling harm, then it is the responsibility of Parliament to do so for the ministry.

Given that we have the opportunity tonight to vote according to our conscience, as opposed to along party lines, we have the opportunity—each individual MP in this Committee—to say that we want to have stronger controls because we believe that problem gambling is a serious issue; that it is right for a Government, for a Parliament, to regulate to help protect against increases in problem gambling; and that we would like to see more stringent measures, and here are some that can be chosen by individual MPs to be put in place. So it is not about opposing the deal itself; it is about making sure that the public interest versus the concessions that Skycity gets are properly balanced.

We are very careful to make sure that there are different kinds of opportunities in these Supplementary Order Papers for members to individually consider whether each individual change is one that they are prepared to support because in their own conscience they believe that it is the right thing to do. There are a number of members, particularly National members—John Banks, even—who have in the past expressed extreme concern about the impacts of gambling, who represent communities that are particularly affected by gambling. We talked yesterday about Asian Family Services, which is particularly concerned about the impact on its community, and Pacific Island communities who are particularly concerned because they too bear the brunt. It gives the opportunity for those MPs who represent those communities to put in place stronger harm minimisation measures for those communities and yet still vote for the bill, if that is what they want to do. There are those opportunities because of the conscience vote. We have provided MPs with those opportunities and hope that they take them up.

I was very disappointed with the Minister’s contribution earlier. It was really just about shouting at everybody. It did not address the fact that there are some evidential holes in the justification for this legislation, such as where the numbers of 1,000 construction jobs and 800 convention jobs come from, given that the information that is used to justify those numbers in the regulatory impact statement does not say that. Of course, we then hear again another misrepresentation of the facts from the Minister, who has been accusing the Greens of voting for the—

I am happy to take my first of what I am sure will be many calls on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I listened very carefully to the comments of the Hon Steven Joyce. I was listening very carefully to hear his defence of the bill, and I did not hear one. What I heard was a whole lot of labels and a whole lot of bandying about of slogans where he basically talked about all of the people whom he did not respect. Well, I want to say to Steven Joyce that there are some things that I do not respect as well. I do not respect a Government that is willing to trade off the misery of other people. I do not respect a Government that is willing to transfer wealth from the people at the bottom of the socio-economic heap to the people at the top. No doubt about it, that is what this Government is doing, and that is what this legislation does. It trades off the misery of people who suffer from problem gambling, it trades off the misery of all of the people who are associated with them, and it transfers money to the people at the top of the economic heap. That is what this legislation does and I have no respect for that.

Steven Joyce talked about the convention centre deal back in 2001 and he asked where the Labour Party was then. Well, the Labour Government changed the law as a result of that decision. That was not a Labour Government decision; that was a decision made by the chair of the Casino Control Authority. Who was that? Who was the person who made that deal? Who was the person who signed off the last deal with Skycity? Anybody want to hazard a guess? Who was that person? It could be Judith Collins. It could have been Judith Collins who signed off that deal. That deal was signed off by Judith Collins and was opposed by the last Labour Government, and the Labour Government changed the law to stop that happening again. That is the reason why we are in the Chamber tonight debating this legislation. National cannot do another dodgy deal like the one Judith Collins did back in 2001 without changing the law, because the Labour Government closed that loophole. The Labour Government closed the loophole, and that loophole is why Steven Joyce is here today, pushing legislation through in order to open it up again so that those members can do another dodgy deal, which plays off the misery of problem gamblers, to build another convention centre.

The Labour Government changed the law in I think it was about 2003 to ensure that the legislation was robust and to ensure that we balanced up all of the various interests that we needed to balance up when it came to debating and considering issues around gambling. This Government is changing the law. It is changing the law about that. If the Government was so proud of its casino deal and if it thought that this was the best that the taxpayer could get, why did it shut out all of the other potential applicants? Why did it say that it did not want to hear from anyone else who might want to build a convention centre? It was going to shut them out completely and it was going to deal with only Skycity. If it is true that the Government thinks that this is the best possible deal that New Zealanders could get, why is it that it was not willing to hear from anyone else? I ask why it was that the Government stopped any of the other potential operators of a convention centre from being able to put forward their proposals, because that is exactly what this Government did.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I believe that this bill is in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce and he is in the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, that is correct. If the Minister is in the Chamber, he must be in the chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There was a time in the National Party when there were limitations. There was a time in the National Party when it had high ethical and moral standards. National may have been willing to trade things off on economic grounds, which it has always been willing to do, and it may have been willing to effectively accept that there are poor people and rich people and that there are different opportunities, but there were limits to what National was willing to do. There were limits. It still subscribed to a set of values. Those values have been woefully absent on that side of the Chamber in this debate. National is willing to trade off the problem gamblers in order to reward people at the top of the economic spectrum. Once upon a time that would have been a bridge too far for members of the National Party. Tonight what they are demonstrating in this conscience vote, when every member of the National Party has the opportunity to listen to the voices of their constituents—to go out there and listen to the voices of the community—and they have an opportunity to cast their own, individual votes on this legislation, is that they are turning a deaf ear to all of the very legitimate concerns that are being raised by the people in their community.

I think that that is very, very disappointing. I think it is very disappointing because National members are doing one of two things. National members who are willing to vote for this legislation are doing one of two things. They are either turning a deaf ear to the concerns or knowingly and willingly voting against the interests of the people in their constituencies. I think particularly of those National Party members who represent some of the constituencies around the Auckland area. I think of Sam Lotu-Iiga, who, as far as I know, has not spoken on this legislation tonight. I may have—

I move, That the question be now put.

I would like to speak briefly on some of the Supplementary Order Papers on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill that we have put forward that do deal with harm minimisation. In the regulatory concessions, as we have heard, the deal includes a nod towards harm minimisation, including increasing the number of Host Responsibility staff that Skycity will have on the floor. Currently, it has three, and it is going to very generously double that figure to six to cope with the extra 230 pokie machines and the extra 12 automated gambling tables, which have 20 seats each, as well as the 40 extra gambling tables. So it is going to have six people who will be responsible for checking to make sure that people are not harmed by the gambling that is taking place on those gambling machines.

The interesting thing, though, is that it has not done very well so far. It has not done very well, because, as we know, 40 percent of all the profits that Skycity makes comes from people with problems with their gambling—with no control over their gambling. So increasing the number of staff that it has on the floor is not going to do much at all to reduce gambling harm.

As well as that, Skycity has introduced as part of the concessions the ticket-in, ticket-out system, which, as I have said before, is money for jam for money-launderers. However, that is one of the things that it is wanting to introduce. But that means that there are fewer staff actually dealing with money, so there are fewer staff on the floor anyway looking at what is going on in terms of being able to identify people who are experiencing difficulties with their gambling behaviour.

Some of the Supplementary Order Papers that we have put forward, which my colleague co-leader Metiria Turei has already discussed, are about the harm minimisations around real-time player tracking and mandatory pre-commitment cards, but another one, in my name, is about the hours of opening. I have Supplementary Order Paper 386, which is about ensuring that no gambling takes place between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. This, to some extent, is not a big issue. In fact, Skycity should just do this voluntarily, without it being in legislation, because the only type of gambling that occurs between 4 in the morning and 8 in the morning is problem gambling. The person who is standing in front of a pokie machine, crying, at 4.45 a.m. is not crying from happiness. You can be sure of that.

If we consider that inside a casino it is dark, you cannot see the sky, one does not know what time of the day it is, there are no clocks, and there are maybe three people lurking about somewhere, or possibly six, although they have to cover a 24-hour day, who may be able to identify that this person has a problem—but we are not banking on that; well, maybe Skycity is banking on that, but we are not banking on that—as a way of being able to identify somebody who is experiencing difficulty with their gambling, then giving a small break in the gambling, between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m., means that that gambler can go home and actually have a think about what is happening to their lives.

The 24-hour operation and the opportunity to gamble 24 hours a day is one of the reasons why two out of five people who regularly use pokie machines become addicted. The absolute opportunity, and this is a 24-hour opportunity, to spend everything they have got, plus more—

💬 Barbara Stewart: To win back the money they’ve lost.

—and to carry on playing in order to win back the money they have lost, as my colleague over here says, and to keep going—these are very scary things that happen to people when they are in a casino.

If we are doing a deal—which we are; this Government is doing a deal with Skycity—that will increase the opportunities for gambling harm, then we should be ensuring that we have pieces of legislation inside this deal that reduce, and attempt to put some controls and some breaks on, the voracious desire to make a profit out of people’s misery.

We also have Supplementary Order Paper 378, relating to the proceeds of crime. In previous speeches I have talked about the fact that casinos are basically a magnet for crime. They are places where money can get cleaned so it can be—

The Hon Damien O’Connor. Twenty years in Parliament—congratulations.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I appreciate that, and I thank you for the opportunity. It is 20 years ago today that I entered Parliament, and I am privileged to be given the opportunity, I guess, to say a few words on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. Can I say that I rise to speak against a couple of the amendments put up by the Green Party. I know that the amendments are well intentioned, but I will explain why I do so.

The first is that we are a party that has a conscience vote, and I appreciate the opportunity given to each and every one of us by the leadership on this issue. I will choose to use that vote not to oppose Labour’s general position, that it opposes this bill, but it is to say that I do not believe that the passage of the Supplementary Order Paper 385 is the right thing to do. What it would do, in bringing in harm minimisation measures, is ease the conscience of those people in the National Government who think that they can pass this through and then feel a little bit more comfortable because there are harm minimisation measures. Well, no—each and every one of us is using our conscience to speak on this on the basis that we want the best outcome. There is an old saying, you know, “If you don’t use it, you lose it.” Well, that does apply to the National members, because if you do not use your conscience, you have probably already lost it. What Labour members say is that we will choose to use it for the right intentions, in the ways that each and every one of us thinks are appropriate.

The other Supplementary Order Paper that I will not support is Supplementary Order Paper 382. The idea that the Government can step in and dictate what sort of conventions can take place, to me, is going one step too far. If the convention centre is going to be built, then all and sundry can come and use it. Once again, it is no good feeling that we are a little bit more sacred, or we have done less to harm the people of New Zealand, by having a higher standard or a moral threshold for the kinds of conventions that can come in here. Let us face it: if this bill comes into being, we may have conventions on anything from dentistry to armaments—who knows? Be that on the conscience of those people who have allowed this to occur.

If I could go back to a speech made earlier in the Committee about the harm caused to individual New Zealanders by unemployment, I accept that, and I think that to be out of a job is a terrible, terrible thing. It does affect the health of individuals. It does affect their outlook, their positive attitude, and it affects the well-being of their children, but, actually, not as much as someone who is addicted to gambling. The National member Jonathan Young spoke of terrible things—about suicide, about inferior health, and about other things that are associated with unemployment. I accept that. I think Jonathan Young is absolutely right. But if you have a look at what happens to the 6,500 children who will be affected by the additional gambling opportunities that this convention centre will offer—“offer” is the right word, not force on people; we accept that. However, addictive gambling is a disease. As a former Minister, I had evidence brought before me time and time again that the addictive nature of pokie machines is far greater than that of racing because of the cycle time involved in the opportunities that people participate in. So let us not steer away from the reality of the harm that more pokie machines brought into Skycity will do to the people of Auckland.

That is why, coming back, Mr Chairman—and I thank you once again for the opportunity—to the Supplementary Order Paper, I do not think that I should ease my conscience by voting for a harm minimisation measure when, in fact, I believe we should not have the new opportunities for gambling in the first place. So the National members who might feel a little easier if this Supplementary Order Paper goes through should not be freed from their guilt, should not be freed from the pangs of conscience—if they still have one—and should understand full well that if they vote for this, harm will occur to people in Auckland, to children in Auckland, that need not occur. That is why—

I move, That the question be now put.

There are a number of amendments that we will be dealing with. If someone wishes to have a personal vote, I will consider those personal votes. If you look at Standing Order 141, the process is that “A personal vote may be held following a party vote if a member requests one and the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote is so close that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result.” As I mentioned during Part 1, the Speaker has agreed that there will be personal votes on some parts of Part 2. So I will put the party vote and if someone requests a personal vote then I will consider it at the time. There are a number that fall into that category.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 6 be agreed to.