New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill

Good afternoon, honourable members. The House is in Committee. Kia ora tātou, nō reira e te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Kia ora.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Kei te pai. Honourable members, the House is in Committee for further consideration of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. When we were last considering the bill in Committee last evening, we had reached a vote on schedule 1.

💬 Hon Member: No.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): This is what I have in front of me—is that not correct? The question is that schedule 1 stand part. All those in favour please say Aye, to the contrary No. A party vote has been called for. [Interruption] Party vote—a personal vote has been called for? Can I just advise that this one here is just a procedural matter. It is not a substantive vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to seek clarification on what the procedural motion is that we are voting on. Is it for the debate to occur—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No.

—or is it for the vote to be held on schedule 1? The reason why I ask this is that these schedules—schedule 1, for example—set out the text for the regulatory concessions, which have a direct connection to gambling because they are the concessions that remove Skycity from the Gambling Act. So I am not sure whether we will have another opportunity to vote on schedule 1 and the content of schedule 1. I guess that is what I am asking.

If I might inform the Committee that during the course of debates, the schedules are part of those debates. I would just like to put this into the record for the Committee. The schedules to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill provide extracts from the agreement between Skycity and the Crown that is implemented by this bill. The extracts contain the specific requirements that have already been agreed upon by the parties. These requirements are given statutory force of law by clauses 6 and 7 of the bill in the context of existing gambling law. Personal votes were held last night on amendments relating to clauses 6 and 7 and to Part 2 standing part. The conscience issues have, therefore, already been addressed. The schedules do not create legal rights or obligations in their own right. The votes on the schedules simply confirm the extracts of the contracts standing part for the purposes of clauses 6 and 7. Therefore, the schedules do not by themselves directly and significantly affect the ability to gamble.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would ask you to consider that given there were personal votes on clauses 6 and 7 because they did concern gambling and the Gambling Act, or at least the concessions that removed it, and, now, the schedules in relation to clauses 6 and 7 also specifically identify increased gambling opportunities that are related directly to the Gambling Act, therefore, schedule 1 and the vote on it ought to be also a personal vote, it being the specific content concerning gambling concessions, on which there has traditionally been a personal vote in the New Zealand Parliament.

Well, I am advised that the votes on the parts already include the schedules, and, therefore, we are dealing purely with a procedural motion. So the question is that schedule 1 stand part.