New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: I move, That the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be now read a third time. The third reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill brings to an end the long and involved process to set up and establish an international-standard convention centre in New Zealand. We have long needed such a centre. There has been discussion about it, particularly in Auckland, for over 20 years. We will now be getting one, thanks to the persistence of this Government and thanks to this bill.

This is a bill that will provide jobs and better incomes for New Zealanders. There will be around a thousand people employed in the construction process—not 18, as the Opposition is prone to assert. There will be 800 people servicing the needs of delegates and exhibitors when the centre is fully established. The centre will generate economic growth for all New Zealanders. It will inject an estimated $90 million in additional spending by delegates in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand, and it will increase GDP by $49 million as a result. It will also enhance New Zealand’s reputation as a developed-country destination. The bill will enable the construction of an international-standard convention centre that seats up to 3,500 delegates. We simply do not have a facility of that size and that standard. It will be a new $402 million asset that will consolidate Auckland’s standing as an international metropolitan city and a destination of significance—something that Aucklanders have been keen to achieve for many years. This will be achieved with very little, if any, investment by New Zealand taxpayers. This is another initiative of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda, which is a comprehensive programme of work to build jobs and growth for New Zealanders.

Members opposite have had their credibility tested in opposing this legislation. Skycity will be allowed an additional 230 pokie machines. This is an interesting number. It is the same number granted to Skycity under the previous Government in 2001 for the development of the existing and much smaller Skycity Auckland Convention Centre. In fact, in return for a deal of the same increased number of pokie machines, that Government ended up with a convention centre one-quarter the size of this one. It was welcomed by Helen Clark and Mark Burton at the time. They praised it for helping to bring tourists to New Zealand. Then, they used to know about the benefits of convention centres.

What is more, under the 9 years during which the Labour Government was in power, the number of pokie machines around New Zealand increased by an average of 707 per year—that is, an increase of 707 per year. In the last 5 years the number of pokie machines has been falling, not increasing, by around 500 per year. Opposition members were criticising pokie machines, but under the previous Government the number went up 700 per year with the support of the Green Party—a 700 per year increase in pokie machines. Now that those members are safely out of Government, the number of pokie machines is falling by 500 per year. So I invite them to speak and explain that policy to the House. Where were the Greens in 2001? Were they building fake casinos in Aotea Square then? No, they were not. Were they pulling stunts outside Parliament when pokies were going up at 700 machines per year? No, but once pokie numbers started dropping by 500 a year, then the Greens decided they were against pokies, and, moreover, against the Government under which the number of pokie machines has been dropping by 500 per year. But they were absolutely as quiet as church mice back then.

There is a claim that the bill is constitutionally dubious—that it breaches the principles of equality before the law, or the principle that Parliament is sovereign, or even the Bill of Rights of 1688. Here is the reality: many pieces of legislation confer benefits on a particular party or activity. That is one of the reasons why we have lobby groups. It is called democracy. For example, the Rugby World Cup empowering legislation benefited rugby supporters, as well as New Zealand. Fonterra legislation—backed, as I understand, by these parties—was actually argued as conferring a benefit on the farmers involved. That was the point of it. So there is nothing special about the fact that this legislation gives effect to an agreement. Parliament has considered, for instance, Treaty settlement bills for nearly 20 years. Those bills give effect to agreements made between the Crown and a non-government entity on which the Crown confers considerable benefit. The Government could not function if contracts did not extend past the ending of particular Governments, and Government contracts almost always extend past the expiry of a Parliament. They do that all the time. The Government enters into long-range agreements on construction projects and a whole range of Government services like IT and banking services.

There has been criticism of the compensation provisions of this agreement. The compensation provisions are standard commercial practice. If Skycity breaches certain agreed operating standards, it will be required to pay money to the Crown for non-compliance. If it does not build the centre, it is required to pay back to the Crown the value of the concessions granted to this point.

Let me speak briefly on the issue of problem gambling. The impact on the incidence of problem gambling from increasing gambling opportunities within an existing gambling venue is by no means clear. This was made clear by Professor Max Abbott, who has been well-known to the parliament select committee system for the last 25 years. He stated that in his oral submission to the committee. The Department of Internal Affairs acknowledges that figures around problem gambling are very difficult to quantify, and putting a cost on it is, to use the words of Government officials, “extremely difficult”. It is important to note that the agreement requires Skycity to implement a range of enhanced harm minimisation measures, including a predictive modelling tool that analyses data to better identify players at risk of problem gambling—the Greens claimed in their minority report that Skycity already uses this; like most of their claims, that is false—and a voluntary pre-commitment system where players can elect to restrict the amount of time they play or the amount they spend.

The agreement requires a doubling in the number of host responsibility specialists to deliver 24/7 coverage of people trained to identify problem gamblers, and the introduction of player identification requirements when amounts of over $500 are being put into, or cashed in at, non-restricted areas. These extra harm minimisation areas and anti - money-laundering requirements will become part of Skycity’s host responsibility programme. If in the future the Gambling Commission decides to revoke or amend this programme or require the Auckland casino to have tougher measures, then Skycity must comply. Many things in life have the potential for harm. The Government has done a good job of minimising the harm from this agreement while maximising the economic benefits to New Zealand. In that respect, it is no different in principle from building roads, where people will die in car accidents on roads that did not exist before, but the benefit to the community is significant.

For little, if any, investment by taxpayers, we will get the benefit of an international-standard convention centre, new jobs, improved competitiveness as a tourist destination, an increase in GDP, and attracting more investors to New Zealand. On this side of the House, we are pleased to stand up and take practical steps to build jobs and growth for New Zealand, and we are pleased not to be with those parties that are simply against all jobs and growth and increases in incomes. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

What an unusual third reading speech for a Minister of Finance and a Deputy Prime Minister. I mean, I am sure people out there in TV land understand that third reading speeches are supposed to be where a senior Minister takes a principled approach to summarising the reasons that a Government is doing this or that piece of legislation, summarises the arguments for, and thus convinces the public. But what a bizarre effort. I mean, most of it was talking about the fact that the total number of pokies was falling under Labour’s sinking lid, but, of course, Skycity’s share is rising because this Government does not like RSAs, it does not like the footie clubs, and it does not even like the racing clubs. It does not like community gaming. It likes it only when it is big boys’, wide boys’ gaming at the big end of town, because that is its way.

This Government is not focused on building a productive economy that all New Zealanders can benefit from. It is focusing on feathering its own nest. You have only to read the paper to see how that party feathers its own nest, and it is feathering the nests of the big end of town with this legislation. The name Skycity is entering into National’s hall of shame, alongside Warner Bros, MediaWorks, Rio Tinto, the shabby Snapper 1 deal, potentially Chorus, if Mr Key gets his way, and, of course, the shame we have heard about today with Pike River and the deal that has been cut for New Zealand Oil and Gas, which should have paid out those poor families. These are the companies that my opponent has done his deals with. He has sold the law. He has bailed out big business, and he has acted against the interests of New Zealand families. In the case—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What did you say to them? What did you say to Skycity privately?

What do I say to Skycity? I say this to Skycity: “We will not abide by the compensation clauses of that contract. We will regulate against gaming harm. We will preserve the mana and the authority of the New Zealand Parliament, and we will not do a dirty deal to indemnify money-laundering and profiteering, which Treasury and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment have said are at risk under this deal.” That is what we will say to Skycity, Dr Smith. If you had been so awake, you would have banned shark finning months ago, Mr Smith.

In the case of Skycity, the Prime Minister’s personal style, if we can call it that, is on display for the world to see. Business calls him a map with no compass. He is known colloquially as “Trader John”, and there is nothing—nothing—that he would not trade. Do not take my word for it—do not take my word for it. Read the independent report by the Deputy Auditor-General, because the Prime Minister has been up to his eyeballs in this deal. He kicked it off over a dinner with Skycity executives, and very soon after that he intervened in the departmental process run by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. The Deputy Auditor-General said that the process of Skycity getting the contract to build the convention centre was “flawed”. It was not “transparent or even-handed”. The report established deficiencies on the part of both Ministers and officials. The Ministers, of course, were Mr Key and Mr Joyce—the maestro of business management. Mr Key said that he was totally vindicated by the report. He cannot have read it—he cannot have read it, because there is no vindication in that.

So what has the Government actually agreed to? Well, there is a problem. The public does not know, because the full text of this shady, shabby deal has never been made public. [Interruption] There is an old saying in politics, which is that sunlight is the best disinfectant, Dr Smith.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just tell us what you are going to do.

I just did, Dr Smith. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Table the deal. Table the contract. Let New Zealanders see it for themselves. Minister, if you cannot put up, button up, because this is not something that the New Zealand public is prepared to put up with.

This deal gives Skycity a substantial extension to the term of its licence. It allows for 230 extra pokie machines, 40 extra gaming tables, a further 12 tables, with a swap table that seats up to 20 players, 17 percent more electronic gaming machines, and the famous ticket-in, ticket-out gambling system that allows, in the words of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, potential money-laundering. Do not take it from us—take it from the Minister’s own officials’ warning about potential money-laundering as a result of this shabby, shoddy, stinking deal.

Mr Key met with Skycity repeatedly. He had five meetings in 2009. You can see the minutes. He said: “You’ve got to close off the Skycity angle first, before you involve any other bidders.” I wonder what that meant. In June 2000 he said: “My office has had no correspondence, no discussions, no involvement” in the tendering process. That is pretty hard to reconcile, when he has just instructed his own officials to close off the Skycity deal first. Well, we are learning a lot about the modus operandi of “Trader John”, who would trade the law to a movie company, trade the law to a casino, send the RSAs and the footie clubs down the river, as they endure the sinking lid, while the big end of town, the wide boys in their alligator shoes, they get preferential treatment from this nest-feathering nest of Nats—this nest-feathering nest of Nats. This is a common problem with Governments. It sets in, normally, in their third term, but these folks have it early. They have got it halfway through their second term. That is why their second term will be the last. On the mantelpiece they may have the trophies of Warner Bros, they may have the trophies of Skycity, but they will not have the confidence of the New Zealand public.

What would Labour do? Well, here is the clear message to the business community. Under Labour there will be one set of rules for all again—not one set for John Key’s best mates and another for everybody else. Do you know, a prominent chief executive officer came up to me and said: “You know, the trouble with this Skycity deal is we do not know how to get business done in this town any more. It seems like you’ve got to be a special friend of the Government.” Well, I know they have been out, doing a lot of fund-raising, but that is no excuse for this kind of travesty.

Labour will regulate to prevent gaming harm. We will not compensate for the normal regulatory functions of Government. If the convention centre is half built, we are not going to dynamite it. We are not going to rip up the contract that enforces it. But we will make sure that the proper anti-gaming functions of Government are upheld, and there will be no compensation for the normal processes of Government. That means no guarantee of extra gaming tables, no guarantee of extra pokies, and certainly no guarantee of compensation. We will regulate to protect New Zealanders—we will regulate to protect New Zealanders. I cannot be any clearer than that. If the National Party and its cronies cannot understand that the incoming Labour Government will stand up for the rule of law—the rule of law—and the interests of New Zealand families, then we cannot help them. We cannot help them, because there cannot be a plainer distinction than that.

The folks upstairs and the folks out in TV land understand that this is all about trading and about gambling, but it is gambling with New Zealanders’ futures, not just the Russian roulette at the gaming tables themselves. Let us not gamble with New Zealand’s future. Let us not set a precedent where we will once again sell the law to the big end of town. Let us preserve Parliament’s right to regulate in the interests of all New Zealanders.

What is clear is that we have just heard a speech from the “Yeah, Nah Leader”, who back in 2001 said: “Yeah, yeah, let’s go. Let’s do it.” In 2013 it is: “Nah.” It is “Yes” in the House here: “We are going to do this and that. We are going to make sure that whatever regulation is put in place will not bind us in the future.” But in private sessions, it is: “Nah, don’t worry, we won’t do anything to dynamite this deal.” So we have seen the “Yeah, Nah Leader” talk about the position that is very clear to this Parliament and this country—what it thinks about this agreement.

The other thing that I think is perhaps the most ludicrous statement that I have heard in the speeches in this House regarding this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill is from the Green and Labour members, who say that after $402 million worth of expenditure, of which $315 million is capital cost, followed by an estimated $90 million a year of increased expenditure, only 18 new jobs will be added to the economy. If I was to write that economic prediction, I would be ashamed of those sorts of figures. I have got to say, if this is the number of jobs that the Greens and Labour parties expect from such significant economic activity, heaven help us if they ever gain the Treasury benches.

We need to understand that as we go forward with this bill, when it is enacted we are going to see economic activity in a number of sectors in Auckland and around the country. It is going to affect travel, accommodation, tourism, retailing, arts, and culture. All of these sectors are going to see an increase. We are going to see an increase in GDP in New Zealand and in Auckland, additional new and larger conferences and events, and additional tourism expenditure from high-yield international visitors. We are going to see additional jobs, catalysing investment in other infrastructure and service industries in and around central Auckland. We are going to see the raising of New Zealand’s international reputation and competitiveness as a business events destination. We are going to enable more links between innovative New Zealanders and overseas experts. We are going to attract more investors to New Zealand, adding to Auckland’s reputation as a global international city.

During the select committee stage we heard responses from officials to a number of information requests. We learnt many things. We learnt that the Department of Internal Affairs has a team of inspectors who are located near the casino and have unrestricted access to it. They monitor data from the casino operations, as well as being present in the casino itself. The department also undertakes periodic audits of Skycity’s adherence to the Auckland Casino Host Responsibility programme, the problem gambler identification policy, and the operating standards and procedures that sit below these policies.

We heard reports from Dr Paul Delfabbro, an associate professor at the school of psychology, University of Adelaide, who said that from an international perspective current New Zealand legislation would be considered quite rigorous in the extent to which it emphasises responsible gambling practices—in particular, the requirement for providers of gambling services to have policies that mitigate potential harm as opposed to just actual harm, which is not a feature that is observed in many other jurisdictions. As we went through the process, we heard that New Zealand actually has very robust standards and very high standards internationally. Collectively, he said, the responsible gambling measures provided in both Australia and New Zealand are more rigorous than anything offered in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Asia. The only locations where responsible gambling provisions have progressed to similar levels are in some parts of Europe, most notably in Holland and in Switzerland.

I think that New Zealanders can be assured that Skycity Casino has one of the best Host Responsibility programmes in the world, and, leveraging off the agreement between Skycity and the Government, this bill lifts the bar on harm-minimisation obligations. Not only do we see these higher levels of obligations and harm minimisation, which will continue to address problem gambling, sinking lids around this country will mean that we will continue to see a net reduction in pokies, but we will have an international convention centre that will put Auckland on the map and generate economic activity and growth for Auckland and the regions beyond that city. I commend this bill to the House.

Jonathan Young, who just resumed his seat, chaired the select committee that considered this legislation, the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. What Jonathan Young did not explain to the House was why he refused the Opposition the right to question the Department of Internal Affairs, the Department of Health, or Treasury by having them before the Commerce Committee to determine what the real impact of this bill would be—not the narrow impact that allows Skycity a generous $400 million subsidy to build an international convention centre, but the cost to New Zealand of extra gambling machines and extra gambling tables, which those officials would have explained to Mr Young and to the select committee would cost this country dearly by accelerating the problem of gambling addiction in this country.

I listened with amazement to Bill English, who moved that this legislation be read a third time—Bill English, whose own Treasury department said this bill will be of immense private benefit to Skycity but of very little public benefit to New Zealand. It is no wonder Bill English and Jonathan Young did not come into this House to tell the truth about what this bill will actually do, but, rather, glossed over the problems and tried to present this as a huge benefit to New Zealand. It is not that. This is a bad piece of legislation, which has been passed through incredibly bad process and should not be passed by the House through this third reading today.

This is not about an international convention centre. If we need an international convention centre, according to this right-wing Government, which believes in the free market, then, surely, market forces will allow for the funding of an international convention centre. But, no, apparently this convention centre, which will be of so great a value to New Zealand, can survive only if it has the benefit of an enormous subsidy to Skycity: 230 extra gambling machines and 40 additional tables.

Bill English tried to tell the House that the gambling machines accelerated under a Labour Government. I want Mr English to look back at the provisions of the 2003 Gambling Act, because that Act caused a turn-round in the otherwise growth of gambling machines and gambling tables by setting a policy whereby the number of gambling machines would reduce, as they did, from a peak of 23,000 before that Act to around 14,000 today. The Gambling Act was about harm minimisation. The reason why this bill is a stand-alone piece of legislation and not an amendment to the Gambling Act is because this bill contradicts the very essence of the Gambling Act, which is to minimise harm. This bill actually reverses the sinking lid on gambling machines for Skycity and gives it an incredibly privileged position, which will last through to 2048. I cannot remember when we last moved legislation through this House to create a privileged position for a private sector, profit-making enterprise that would be locked in for 35 years—and that is what this legislation does. It is a gift to Skycity that will keep on giving for 35 years through to 2048.

I say this: the Government is doing this because it thinks it can get it cheap and it thinks it can provide positive benefit to its own cronies. Where does the National Party meet every election night? It meets at Skycity. Where does it get its funding from? Is anybody from the National Party prepared to stand up and deny that Skycity is a major funder of this National Party at election time? Is any one of them prepared to make that statement? Of course they are not prepared to make the statement.

The fact is that something that should have been through an open, competitive tendering process that was transparent to everybody was done as a dirty, dodgy deal behind closed doors. It was done over a couple of bottles of wine and a fine meal, no doubt supplied by Skycity. John Key met with them twice and he left there giving them a gold-plated deal—a gold-plated deal. John Key was the one who instructed officials not to deal with the other tenderers, but to give preference to Skycity. That might be fine if you are a wide boy working as a currency trader; it has no place as a proper process in the public sector. In fact, it is a disgrace. So disgraceful was it that the Auditor-General thought that she needed to have a look at this, so she held an inquiry. The currency trader tried to pre-empt her. A couple of days before the report was due to be delivered, John Key said publicly, no doubt at his post-Cabinet press conference: “This report totally vindicates me.” That is simply untrue.

The Deputy Auditor-General’s report, when it came out, did anything but totally vindicate John Key. In fact, the Deputy Auditor-General said she had found deficiencies in the role of Ministers and in the role of the officials. She said this: “we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent and even-handed.” That is moderate language. That is language becoming a Deputy Auditor-General. But the intent of that language was, in fact, very clear. What the Deputy Auditor-General was saying was that this was wrongly done and it was cronyism and that is, indeed, what this process represents. It was biased, it was done in secret, and it was not on a level playing field. That sort of conduct has no place in a democracy and a country that is proud of the lack of corruption, or the low level of corruption, that exists within it. The Prime Minister of this country was saying that it is OK to do a deal behind the scenes, it is OK to look after your mates, it is OK to cut other people out by not having a level playing field, and it is OK to give private benefit to a major multinational profit-making commercial enterprise at the cost of those who suffer from gambling addictions.

This clearly increases the harm from gambling. This document was read by the Ministers who have pushed this bill through the House. It is called the regulatory impact statement, and what does it tell us? It says: “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.” The Government, in passing this legislation, was told by its own officials that it was actually promoting the most damaging form of gambling there is in this country.

There is not a member in this House who has not gone and watched those poor unfortunate people who bend over those machines for hours at a time. They do not move, they feed the money to them, they suffer from gambling addiction, and this regulatory impact statement says that as a result of this Government’s legislation that it is trying to ram through today there will be another 8,000 families who are affected by gambling addiction. Of those, 6,500 people will be children. They are people like the woman in my electorate who goes down and spends her benefit on the gambling machines. This will feed the problem that she and thousands of others suffer, and that Government will come back and blame that woman, take away her benefit, further punish her kids, when actually it is supporting the cause of the harm in the first place, and that is intolerable.

I want to say that this bill is dodgy. I want to say that this bill will result in more gambling harm. The evidence is there in black and white, given to the Government before it did it. This bill should not proceed.

I am very proud of the Green Party and my colleagues who have led the opposition to this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where were you in 2001?

If Dr Smith is referring to the gambling legislation that was eventually passed in 2003, the Green Party voted against that legislation. You should check your facts. I would note that the whole debate from National on the sale of this deal to New Zealanders has been littered with falsehoods and lies—littered with falsehoods and lies. We can start from the very beginning, from the very start of the process, when John Key, Steven Joyce, and their officials went out seeking tenders for building the convention centre in Auckland.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member made an assertion about the Ministers responsible for this bill, including my colleague Steven Joyce, and specifically used the word “lies”. That is not a parliamentary phrase.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand the point of order and I was listening very carefully. What the member said was that the process was littered with untruths and lies. It was not attributed to an individual. I know it is a fine line, but this House has been quite clear that all members are honourable members. I would caution the member that she will bring disorder if she skirts around the areas that the member is doing. I am not ruling against her on this occasion, but I caution her to be very careful with her words.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It started from the very beginning when the tenders went out and five tenders, I understand, were returned to the officials. Of the five tenders, the Skycity tender was the fifth. It was the one that failed most of the criteria that the officials had put out. Yet it was Skycity and its tender that went to John Key, and John Key wrote: “Check with Skycity first.” He got his officials to go off to talk to Skycity, to have meetings with Skycity’s people, to talk to them about their tender, to talk to them about what they could do to improve it. The Government then changed the criteria to make it even easier for Skycity to meet the threshold test, because from the very beginning John Key and Steven Joyce wanted to deliver to Skycity the new casino that Skycity wanted. For 10 years Skycity has been fighting to get a new casino, and it finally found the mechanism to do it—by offering to build John Key his monument, the convention centre, in exchange for the concessions that would deliver to Skycity the third-largest casino in the country.

So right from the very beginning there were mistruths and secret deals being done by this Government through its process. The only reason that that became public after nearly 1 year, I think, of the negotiations was because the Green Party put in a complaint to the Auditor-General and asked her to investigate. It took them 6 months to work through the papers, even to decide whether or not to investigate, and after 6 months of investigation—initial investigation—the Auditor-General did look at this deal and did come back with a finding that it was neither even-handed nor transparent. It was neither even-handed nor transparent. John Key broke the confidentiality arrangements with the Auditor-General and went out around Christmas time of that year, saying: “She’s not going to find me guilty of anything. She’s going to say that it’s all fine. I’m vindicated.” What happened was that 2 months later the report came out saying it was neither even-handed nor transparent. There were problems with the process because the process was dirty from the start. It was National and the officials and the Ministers who were wanting to keep all of that secret, but we got that exposed through the Auditor-General process, and rightly so.

What are some of the untruths and misleadings that have come out as a result of John Key having now got the deal signed with Skycity, spent all this money getting it ready so that its tender would be accepted, and accepted its tender to build this convention centre in exchange for the third-largest casino? He then has to sell it to the country. So what does he do to sell it to the country? All sorts of dodgy stuff is going on to sell it to the country. Let us start with the jobs, shall we? We end up with a report, which the Government relies on—it says so in its regulatory impact statement—that there will be 800 jobs after the casino is built and 1,000 jobs in its construction. There is not a single piece of evidence. There is no document that the Government has, or, at least, that it has released, that shows those numbers—not a single one. Why? Because, actually, that information comes from Skycity. The Government is relying on Skycity’s numbers to justify this deal and to try to sell this to the country.

What does the evidence say? What do the independent financial reports say? There might be around 350 jobs in construction. There might be around 300 jobs maybe in the operation of it—certainly not the 800 and the 1,000 that Steven Joyce and John Key and now Bill English talk about. But do you know what the independent financial analysis of this deal shows? It shows that there will be a net increase to the country in jobs of just 18—just 18. And the Government has refused—it refers to this report, actually—to acknowledge the numbers of the only independent financial assessment of the results of this deal, because it wants to sell this deal to the country so badly that it is prepared to inflate the numbers from just a few hundred to thousands and thousands across the country. It is simply not true.

Who in the Government disagrees? The Government is saying, of course, that this is all fine and perfectly rational and that it has lots of evidence to show that this is a good deal and that the harm minimisation measures that it is putting in place will be effective in reducing the harm that will be caused by the increased gambling. Actually, that is not the truth either. That is just another set of spin. The Government is not telling the truth when it says that these harm minimisation measures will work. Who do we turn to for that evidence? We turn to the Ministry of Health; we turn to the Department of Internal Affairs—those agencies that are responsible for assessing whether or not these measures will work. What does the Ministry of Health say? It says that the measures are effectively useless. It says that the voluntary pre-commitment is effectively useless. It says that the harm minimisation measures that the Government is trying to sell to the country will not reduce harm.

What else does it say? It says that 8,000 New Zealanders will be affected—badly affected—by this deal. And on top of those 8,000 New Zealanders another 6,500 children will be badly affected by this deal. That is the evidence that the Government has, but it will not talk about this to the public. It will not ask for the cost of that social harm, so it can say that it does not know what it will cost. It will not ask for more detailed evidence about the impact of gambling harm on families, so it can pretend that if it does not have the information, it does not count and it does not matter. It is another major spin, another mistruth, perpetrated by this Government in order to sell this deal to the country.

Then I think the last and the worst of the mistruths that this Government spins is that it comes at no cost. The Government says to New Zealand: “This deal doesn’t cost you anything, taxpayers. You’re all fine. You don’t pay a cent and you get this wonderful convention centre.” That is a lie. It is a lie. It is a lie because the cost is borne by taxpayers. I tell you who bears that cost. Those who will bear the cost are not just the 8,000 individuals who will be badly affected or the 6,500 children but the hundreds of New Zealand businesses that we know will suffer from serious fraud and theft as a result of gambling addiction caused by the increase in gambling opportunities from this bill. It will be the community organisations, the playcentres, the marae, and the community groups that work so hard to support New Zealanders across this country. They will be the ones who pay when we know that more than 50 percent of the crime that these groups, these charities, suffer is to feed gambling addiction and gambling harm. We know that the fraud that businesses will suffer will be what pays for this deal. So when the Government says that it is at no cost to New Zealanders, it is telling New Zealanders a lie.

The Green Party has been very clear from the start that we are opposed to this deal. It is morally contemptible. It is a dirty, dodgy deal. It should never have occurred in this way. We welcome Labour’s commitment to opposing this. We make this commitment to New Zealanders. We will continue this fight. This convention centre has not been built yet. The agreement that Skycity has with the Government has not yet been fulfilled. It still needs to do a great deal more before a single sod is turned or a single new pokie machine is put into that building. We will fight this deal all the way, and we welcome every New Zealander who will join us. Thank you.

Out of the 11,219 non-governmental international associations conferences organised in the world in 2012, only 45 were held in New Zealand. This is partly because we do not have the facilities to host the larger conferences. Larger conferences are important to our economy not only because they contribute to our tourism, as my colleagues mentioned earlier, but also because they would bring us non-quantifiable benefits, such as fostering commercial links between international and New Zealand businesses and supporting innovation and knowledge transfer between international delegates and New Zealanders. This Government is delivering what the tourism industry and business sector have been asking for for years. This is one of the initiatives of the National Government to build a more competitive and productive economy.

Skycity’s current Host Responsibility programme has been recently described by Associate Professor Paul Delfabbro as one of the most rigorous in the world. The programme will be augmented with new measures, including a predictive model created by Focal Research Consultants, which analyses loyalty data as a tool to identify players who are at risk from gambling harm.

The 230 new pokie machines is the same number granted to Skycity under the previous Labour Government in 2001 for the development of the existing but much smaller Skycity Auckland Convention Centre. Here is what Labour Minister the Hon Mark Burton said on the 2001 agreement: “Skycity’s $140 million investment into this facility will give it the capacity to compete for a whole new range of prestige events. 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.” As late as 2007 the then Labour Minister of Tourism, the Hon Damien O’Connor, said that an international convention centre “can offer enormous potential for generating demand in shoulder and off season periods. They can generate high expenditure, include leisure travel add-ons and don’t clash with high demand in peak seasons.”

The New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill will deliver jobs and growth for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in the third reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill, and I would like to perhaps provide a historical overview of how this whole piece of legislation has got to the House today. Initially, we were advised that Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, required a larger convention centre than it already had. The existing one was located at Skycity and was built back in the early 2000s, and we were told that if Auckland was to secure much larger international conferences and conventions, it would need a considerably larger venue.

Early in the National Government’s term of 2008 to 2011, the Government sought expressions of interest for building a larger convention centre. Five organisations tendered for the new convention centre. Four were declined. Of the four, one was Ngāti Whātua, the local iwi in Auckland, who were prepared to put forward land holdings in the Auckland area controlled by Ngāti Whātua, in the downtown area adjacent to the historic railway station and to the large Vector Arena, which seats 12,000 people. It could have perhaps been a wonderful link to Vector Arena and the historic railway station and could have provided a wonderful international centre on local iwi land. Again, we hear this talk about the Government working with iwi and working with the Māori Party. That particular proposal, which would have brought in major landholders in Auckland, was dismissed.

A second submission was made by the Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund, owned by Morrison and Co., which had a major cornerstone investor, being the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. That organisation, again, wanted to invest significant funds into the Auckland convention centre and exhibition centre, and it was turned down. Instead, at the time the Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund said that it was disappointed it had to take its money elsewhere, and it—a New Zealand fund, with investment from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, which is owned by New Zealanders—invested in the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. So what a shame that New Zealand superannuation funds have ended up going offshore to support the funding of the Melbourne convention centre, while those very same New Zealand superannuation funds have not stayed in this country in perpetuity for ongoing funding from that.

The Auditor-General then did a report in February 2013 as a result of concerns being brought to the Auditor-General’s attention over the process when Skycity was awarded the tender. The Auditor-General concluded that Skycity got special treatment in talks around the International Convention Centre after the Prime Minister personally intervened and had meetings with Skycity. The Auditor-General’s office determined that Skycity was treated very differently to others tendering for the contract. The report concluded and stated that Mr Key personally penned his note on the briefing paper, calling a halt to wider business consideration being prepared—“we should close off the Skycity angle”, wrote John Key in his own handwriting on the notes given to Cabinet. Mr Key was personally briefed on options for the convention centre at a dinner with Skycity board members and executives on 4 November 2009. On the same day as Mr Key’s dinner with Skycity, a Treasury official warned officials about process and probity. The same warning was conveyed to Mr Key in a briefing note on 12 November 2009.

The Auditor-General found a range of deficiencies in the advice that the Ministry of Economic Development provided and in the steps that officials and Ministers took leading up to that decision. I quote from the Auditor-General: “The quality of support that was provided fell short of what we would have expected from the lead government agency on commercial and procurement matters.” Secondly, the Auditor-General stated that there were “inappropriate considerations”, and, further, that there were “connections between political and business leaders.”

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did not.

This is the report from the Auditor-General, Mr Smith, so please do not deny it, or you are denying a report of the Auditor-General. Further, Treasury, in its report, said that Treasury made it clear that it “was not convinced by the cost-benefit analysis” presented by Ministers. Treasury expressed “strong concerns that private benefits to SkyCity will exceed public benefits to New Zealanders.” I am quoting from Treasury reports. It said that there were “strong concerns that private benefits to SkyCity would exceed public benefits to New Zealanders.” John Key personally cut a backroom deal for Skycity to build a $350 million convention centre in exchange for the casino getting another 230 pokie machines and a 35-year licence—until 2048. Can you imagine anyone in this country getting such a sweet deal as to get a licence through until 2048 with, basically, carte blanche from this Parliament? It increases the number of pokie machines from 1,647 to 1,877. This is a prime example of the Government cuddling up to its buddies and selling off our laws to the highest bidder, while ignoring the social cost of problem gambling. It makes you wonder what other dubious deals to sell off the country are being hatched by Mr Key.

Official party donation returns also show that United Future and John Banks, during his 2010 Auckland mayoralty campaign, both received funding from Skycity—both United Future and John Banks. The National Party received $60,000 from Skycity management in 2005, while United Future received $12,000 in the same year. These three parties that received donations from Skycity are the same ones that can ensure that this John Key deal gets a majority in this Parliament today. The very same people who have received funds from Skycity will be voting on this bill and putting it through today. The National Party has also pumped money into Skycity, which it has used as a venue for party events. The National Party used Skycity for its campaign launch in 2005, it was the election night headquarters for John Key in both 2008 and 2011, and there have been many other meetings of the National Party held at Skycity. Again, one would question how much money passed hands to have access to those venues, or were they at favourable, buddy rates to secure the goodwill of both sides?

It is also disappointing, having come from local government, where local government throughout New Zealand has tried to put a lid on the number of pokie machines, which are affecting our society, and which are one of the major concerns in many communities. I was looking today at some of the different council policies, but all over New Zealand local authorities have sinking-lid policies, including the Auckland Council, the Nelson City Council, the Hamilton City Council, the Christchurch City Council, the Hastings District Council, and many, many more. It is interesting that those communities do receive returns from those pokie machines, but it is interesting that at the same time in the community, those gaming trusts give 37 percent of the proceeds from those gaming machines in their communities back to the community—37 percent.

By contrast, the pokie machines in Skycity return only 2.5 percent of their takings in the way of community grants. That is a shocker. So although Mr Key says “Oh, well, don’t worry, because on one hand the number of pokie machines is reducing around New Zealand in different communities and under different authorities while we are giving out another 230 in Skycity.”, they are not the equivalent of 230 machines, because the funds going back to the community are only 2.5 percent from Skycity, not the 37 percent that goes back in other places all over New Zealand. That is another shocking result of this John Key deal.

New Zealand First does not support this bill. We think that this is absolutely what we call a “John Key shonky deal”. This will go down in the annals of history in terms of being one of the sleaziest deals that this Parliament has ever put legislation through on—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about Owen Glenn.

—and for ever and a day the likes of Nick Smith and others of his ilk will remember the day that they sold out New Zealand law and sold out the principles of this Parliament in order to do deals with their mates and to sell out to the gambling industry.

I will take just a short call on this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I do have sympathy for the constituent whom Mr Goff referred to—the lady who was having to pick up her benefit and then go and cash it and use it on a pokie machine. I do not know whether that pokie machine was at Skycity or whether it was at a local venue in her own community. Of course, she is going to need some treatment and that is going to have to be combined with her taking some personal responsibility for her own rehabilitation.

The point is that we have taken a decision in this country and in this Parliament. Every party that sits in this Parliament has decided that we will not ban pokies, we will not ban alcohol, and we will not ban the ability to go to the races or to do some sports betting. We have decided that we are not going to penalise the people who do this responsibly just because there is a small group of people who form an addiction. We have decided that instead of banning those things, we will try to find a way to help them and wrap some support around them. The only solution for this that I saw contained in the minority report written by the Labour Party on the bill was to apply another tax: a levy on international travellers. That is the last thing that we need to be doing when we are a small country at the bottom of the world, trying to attract more visitors to our country and trying to grow our tourism sector.

So actually having an international convention centre is critically important to our future. It is critically important that we are able to grow our tourism sector. It is important that we are able to create more jobs. During the Committee stage I spoke about my own electorate of Rodney, where there are a lot of businesses, a lot of boutique lodges and other accommodation, which are going to benefit from us being able to attract more international visitors through this international convention centre. I am very happy to recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I can understand why that member, Mark Mitchell, wants to take only a short call on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. The Government is on the back foot here. It is defending its decision to pay for a convention centre off the backs of problem gamblers. The excuses that come out are not fooling New Zealanders. New Zealanders do not want a convention centre funded off the back of problem gambling.

John Key, of course, is up to his eyeballs in this deal. No doubt the members opposite have been instructed to keep this debate as short as they can, because it is a pretty uncomfortable place for the Prime Minister to be. It was all kicked off over dinner with the Skycity executives. We know that he said that at this dinner they discussed a possible national convention centre and they “raised issues relating to the Gambling Act [2003],”.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Get out of the gutter!

Mr Smith is claiming that by quoting the Prime Minister, I am in the gutter. I find that deeply ironic, because it is his Prime Minister across there who is in this dirty deal up to his eyeballs. He told officials to cancel their business case study and close off the Skycity options. His Ministers and officials repeatedly met with Skycity while holding off other tenderers. No one but Skycity was ever going to secure this deal. This was a deal done in a way that was not transparent. New Zealand businesses across the country are looking to this Government and asking “Why?”. New Zealand businesses are sick of a Government that does deals with its mates, where the playing field is not level.

The Deputy Auditor-General investigated this deal, and even before the report was released the Prime Minister, John Key, was telling everyone he had been cleared and was “totally vindicated”.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: He was.

But it was not true.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, it was.

The Deputy Auditor-General, Phillippa Smith, said at the Finance and Expenditure Committee that her report established deficiencies on the part of both Ministers and officials. If Mr Smith wants to claim that that is being “totally vindicated”, that is very revealing about his view about what constitutes vindication. The Deputy Auditor-General says that this is a dirty deal, and not “transparent or even-handed”—“flawed” was the word the Deputy Auditor-General used. She used “flawed”, not “transparent or even-handed”. That is not total vindication on this side of the House. It may be on that side of the House. I think that reveals more about the values on that side of the House.

This casino deal lines up with other deals we have heard about: the Warner Bros deal, the MediaWorks deal, and the Rio Tinto deal—handing over $30 million without even asking for a jobs guarantee.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Every one of them is about jobs.

Oh, that is not true, Mr Smith. We know it is not true because Rio Tinto, for example, started restructuring the very next day—the very next day. There was no jobs guarantee. Bill English said that he did not even ask for any kind of jobs guarantee. Chorus is up next, of course—we will see. This Government will go on doing deals for as long as it is here and as long as it can.

I found Jonathan Young interesting in his contribution to this third reading debate. He referred to one or two submitters who were in support. They were certainly a minority around that table. Jonathan Young, as the chair of the Commerce Committee, along with the other National MPs, blocked officials coming in to give further evidence on health consequences. He blocked Treasury from coming in. He blocked the Department of Internal Affairs from coming in. He blocked the Problem Gambling Foundation coming in. The members of Parliament who requested additional information were frustrated—frustrated—by the National members of Parliament who did not wish for further evidence on the problems and harms that will be caused by this bill, because they simply did not want to know about them.

The Tourism Industry Association was one of the few who presented in favour of this bill, but it was pretty nervous and it trod a very careful line. I suspect that was in part because when the association was asked whether gambling harm was the best way of paying for this, it was uncomfortable and did not want to answer that question, and in part because across the industry there is a mix of consequences. We know from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and its independent report that just a net 18 jobs will be created across the economy. That is because there will be a few jobs created in Auckland, but they will be sucked out of places like Taupō, so Louise Upston across there will have to answer to her constituents as to why the convention business in Taupō is down. It is a direct result of this bill. It is a direct result of this bill that the National MPs are behind. Todd McClay will have to answer why business for conferences in Rotorua is down. David Bennett will have to answer why business for conferences in Hamilton is down. It is because this is a convention centre that will draw business from elsewhere in the country. That is why there is only a net 18 jobs created—because business is being sucked out of the regions by a Government that is neglecting these regions. That is not atypical. It is all about Auckland and Christchurch. Even they are struggling because of the Government’s reluctance to tackle the big issues, but other places are struggling more, and the Government does not seem to care.

We know that a convention centre may not be a bad idea in and of itself, but nobody thinks that paying for it by problem gambling is the answer. It is a bad deal for all New Zealanders. The Government originally tried to sell this as an economic development initiative. I think that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report has embarrassed the Government. There is no doubt about the just net 18 jobs across the economy. The reason the deal is so bad, of course, is because the Government put itself over a barrel. It did it itself. It shut down the process to competitive bidders. It got rid of transparency. It said: “We need to get the deal done because we’ve put our political futures on the line here.” That is where the Government found itself. Of course, Skycity is not stupid. It is run by smart business people. They said: “We’ve got an opportunity here. The Government has put itself over a barrel. Let’s write our own blank cheque.” And so they proceeded to.

The Government very hastily dropped all of the things that would have been good for New Zealanders in terms of covering off the risks of problem gambling. It decided not to write any of that stuff into law. It is there in the loosest of forms. None of the measures that the National members have been crowing about are actually written in the legislation. The Government got rid of the clauses in the original negotiating documents that would have allowed the New Zealand Government to claw back lost GDP if the centre was not run properly. It got rid of the clauses that said that the New Zealand taxpayer could have got back lost tax revenue if the centre was not run properly. The Skycity people were having a field day. They said: “Oh, we don’t like this clause, we don’t like that clause—strike them out. Put one in, in fact. Put one in that says if gambling laws change, we’ll see the upside, no matter which way they change.” Two clauses were drafted to make sure that that would play either way. Skycity has got a fantastic deal out of that. There is no doubt about that, of course.

A professor of marketing at Bond University in Queensland—a friend of the Skycity chief executive, Nigel Morrison—who has worked as a consultant on casinos on five continents says that the deal was a clear win for Skycity. He said: “He’s a friend, but if you want to quote me you can: ‘Morrison did an excellent job negotiating with authorities.’ ” The 27-year licence extension is labelled as “icing on the cake”. So Skycity Casino gets 230 pokie machines and an extension on its licence until 2048 in return for building the International Convention Centre. But even if you put the horrors of problem gambling to one side, comparison with any overseas valuation tells you that the taxpayers of New Zealand have been short-changed. Treasury was absolutely spot on—spot on—when it said that the public costs will flow to private gain once the centre is paid off.

Of course, there may be worse to come. The negotiations are not over. If the initial proposal exceeds $402 million, there is a special clause in the agreement that allows the Government to hand over more cash to Skycity—more cash. And that is going to be negotiated when? In election year. So taxpayers should watch out. The Government has left itself open to close off this deal, to put more money Skycity’s way. It is already one of the worst deals in Australasian history, and this Government is trying to save its own political skin with it. But in the meantime, ordinary New Zealanders are looking on and saying: “This is one deal too far. This is a Prime Minister who is riding roughshod over the law and over transparent process. We are sick of it.” They are getting sick of this Government. They are getting sick of the deals with the big end of town, and ordinary New Zealanders are saying: “This is enough. This agreement should not go ahead. These people can and must be stopped.”

That is why the National Government is falling out of favour with New Zealanders. That is why people are looking elsewhere for political leadership. That is why the people on the street are stopping me and saying: “We cannot wait for a Labour-led Government.”, because ordinary New Zealanders are sick of a Government with its hands off the wheel that is doing dirty deals and is abandoning ordinary New Zealanders.

For years the tourism industry and the business sector have been asking for investment into a world-class international convention centre in New Zealand. Here we have the opportunity to see one built. The Labour Party, driven by the Green Party, has decided to highlight the issue of gambling, which will take part in the convention centre as part of its activities. Many of us here do not like the idea of gambling. We do not gamble. But the Labour Party, driven by the Green Party, ignores the fact that the number of pokie machines across New Zealand since National has been in Government has dropped substantially. Furthermore, in the next 3 or 4 years the number of pokie machines across New Zealand is going to continue to drop, as it has in the last 4 or 5 years.

So gambling is an issue about the centre but it is not the key issue. The key issue is a new convention centre for New Zealand—one that will cost $402 million to construct, and one that will cater for 3,500 international conference delegates at any one time. It has got to be recalled that as the Labour Party opposes this bill, the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill, driven by its friends in the Green Party, it also opposes oil and gas exploration, which has occurred in Taranaki successfully for 100 years. It also opposes, driven by the Green Party, irrigation in the South Island. It opposes, driven by the Green Party, the expansion of dairy farming right across New Zealand. The Labour Party at every turn has opposed the development of marine farming and aquaculture. In fact, you find that it does not really matter what the private sector puts up to drive the economy and to create jobs, the Labour Party, now driven by the Green Party, will oppose it. That is a very sad state indeed.

I support this convention centre. I wish those involved in it well.

Carol Beaumont—5 minutes.

Well, this is the last chance for those across the House. This is it—the third reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. It is the last chance for members opposite to listen to their consciences. I understand a number of members opposite have concerns about gambling. Some of them have actually said quite explicitly that they are concerned about gambling harm. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, for example, talks about the scourge of gambling in his community. In the Asian community, in the Pacific community, in working-class households, we know that there is harm. This bill will increase gambling harm. Labour is saying that it will certainly regulate to prevent gambling harm. Colleagues across this side of the House are extremely concerned about the communities that will be affected by gambling harm as a result of this dodgy deal.

This bill and the agreement that it seeks to implement are inconsistent with the widely agreed and well-established objectives of harm minimisation in the Gambling Act. Furthermore, it is also inconsistent with the established sinking-lid policy of the Auckland Council, which has actually reduced the number of pokie machines. One of the contributions I recall during the passage of this bill was a member opposite standing up and saying “Oh no, you know the number of pokie machines has decreased under this Government.” Well, it was nothing to do with the Government’s action. It was everything to do with the Auckland Council’s sinking-lid policy. So we know that the deal itself introduces a huge number of additional gaming tables and electronic gaming machines and a whole range of new and increased opportunities for gambling harm.

Harmful gambling has major costs. Obvious and immediate to people is the loss of the money that they gamble away, but that then leads to other consequences. It leads in some cases to the loss of their homes, to family breakdowns, and in some cases to suicides and murders. It also increases the ability of dodgy lenders to target people. I know well from my own experience in talking to people about loan sharks of the involvement of people like that in targeting problem gamblers and providing them with further money for them to gamble away. In some cases that is absolutely criminal activity. I spoke to one man who had actually been held against his will, had his passport taken, been physically harmed, and had threats made against his family because of debts that he had racked up because he was a problem gambler at Skycity.

This will just increase that. In doing that, this bill provides the opportunity for the casino to continue to have licence renewals through until 2036 and removes the Gambling Commission from that process and thereby cancels the requirement to consider an independent casino impact report in each of those years. Supposedly, and listening to some of the speakers this afternoon, this is about the economic benefits of this deal—that this international convention centre is worth this harm. Well, actually, a lot of us have got a lot of questions about this process.

Certainly there was no transparent evaluation process for this so-called economic development initiative. There was no competitive bidding process because it was a shonky deal done by members opposite, starting from the Prime Minister and through to some of his other senior colleagues. There were others. I remember my colleague Jacinda Ardern speaking—I think it was in the Committee stage—about the number of other players who were interested in promoting a convention centre.

Nobody across here is necessarily concerned about the idea of a convention centre for Auckland if the numbers stack up. But it should have been a level playing field for people to bid for that, and it was not, because this was a shonky deal that was done. Even Treasury expressed strong concerns about the figures that were used and that private benefits to Skycity will exceed public benefits to New Zealanders. Certainly Ministers have undervalued the worth of additional pokie machines, gaming tables, and the 27-year extension to the exclusive licence given to Skycity. At the same time, of course, there has also been a decline in the number of international arrivals for conferences. So we are concerned also about the numbers.

When this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill comes to the vote this afternoon for its third and final reading, I implore members across the House to vote against it. I am deeply saddened to be in a Parliament that will make a law that will cause its own citizens harm, and that will increase the prevalence of problem gambling in my city of Auckland. That will have an impact on individuals, on families, on our communities, on businesses, on not-for-profits, and, by the Government officials’ own account, will also have an impact on around 6,500 children, who will be directly affected by problem gambling arising from the increase in gambling opportunities in this legislation.

I am ashamed that this bill is being passed when the proper and full economic analysis has not been done, and when even the Treasury advice says that the benefits to Skycity from the gambling concessions in this deal outweigh the public benefits of building an international convention centre. We know that with the extension of Skycity’s gambling concessions, it will be the taxpayer who will carry the cost for the coming years, not Skycity. So the increased problem gambling, social and community harm—which includes family violence, suicide, and child neglect—and crime, including loan sharking and money-laundering, and the increase in costs associated with mopping up will all be paid for by the taxpayer.

I am deeply disheartened that the Government has been entirely focused on its backroom deal to the point where it has trampled over due process. Democracy was trampled on, transparency was trampled on, and accountability was trampled on. The Government deliberately misled other organisations, like Ngāti Whātua and The Edge, which had also tendered to build the International Convention Centre. They were misled during the tender process, and they were not even going to ask for gambling concessions around this.

I am deeply disturbed that the Government can sell us out so cheaply. In exchange for the $402 million convention centre, we will not even own that convention centre, and this legislation will give Skycity 230 new pokie machines, 40 gambling tables, and 12 automated tables with 20 seats each. I forgot to mention that as well as that, Skycity will welcome money-launderers into its arms with the ticket-in, ticket-out system that it is seeking to introduce. I cannot fathom how we can be such poor negotiators that we cannot even negotiate a cost-neutral deal. I guess we have to ask why a Government would allow for those costs—which, in terms of this deal, are another 8,000 or so people harmed by problem gambling—to be not only uncosted but ignored so totally.

One of the submitters on this bill said that if one single person was harmed at all by this deal, then the price was too high, and he is right. What kind of Government thinks it is OK to deliberately create human misery with its legislation? Do we need a convention centre so badly that we would harm our own citizens to get it?

The independent economic projection from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research says that there will be only 18 jobs created as a result of it, and for that we will get 6,500 neglected children. Physicians are guided by the principle “First, do no harm.” I call on politicians across the House to do the same and vote against this bill.

The Opposition parties in this House like to call the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill a dodgy deal. Well, I say that the only dodgy deal is the deal done between the Greens and Labour to conspire against New Zealanders, who want to see jobs, who want to see investment, and who want to see greater tourism come into this country. That is the only dodgy deal. If the other side really cared about New Zealanders, it would be supporting this bill. It would be supporting it because it means hundreds of millions of dollars of extra investment into this country, it means hundreds of jobs for New Zealanders, and it means huge tourism opportunities for this country. The Labour Party members and the Green Party members like to say that they are holier-than-thou and that they actually care about those issues, but the complete opposite is the case. The other side of the House is not supporting New Zealanders. The other side of the House likes to talk big when its actual record is completely the opposite. This Government is doing for New Zealanders what members on that side of the House wishes they could do.

If they want to talk about records and if they want to talk about their own views on gambling, well, they should actually look at the numbers and the statistics. They want to go on about gambling harm—well, actually, the average annual increase in pokie numbers when Labour was in office was 700 per year. The average decrease per year in pokie numbers in New Zealand since National has been in office has been 550. So if the Labour Party wants to be holier-than-thou—[Interruption] That is right, Mr Williamson—an average increase of 700 per annum under Labour; an average decrease of 550 per annum under National. But listen to the other side, and they will be telling you that we are the evil ones.

We are bringing jobs, we are bringing investment, and we are bringing tourism to New Zealanders. That is what New Zealanders want. Members on the other side should be the ones who are ashamed of themselves.