New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill

I move, That the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider the bill. This bill could possibly be the most important piece of legislation that this House has had to consider since the last member’s bill of mine that was in this House not that long ago, which I managed to convince this Parliament was in the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders, and which passed into law. I have high hopes that members of this Parliament, once we have a robust debate—and I expect a robust debate but I expect common sense to prevail. I hope that possibly at least one member of a very, very minor party inside this Parliament will allow his initial reaction to this bill to prevail, grab hold of his gumption, not answer that phone, and come down and cast a vote in order to actually see this bill go through to the select committee. Go with your initial reaction, I say to that member, and he knows who he is—he knows who he is.

Just like my last bill, this is not a very substantial document. It is not hard to read. It is not difficult to understand. It is in plain English, so Dr Smith might be quite comfortable reading it and making sure that he does not have any problem with the language of it. The bill does a single thing. It repeals and gives this country the opportunity to go back to a fair and open and transparent discussion around the building of a convention centre in Auckland that would truly benefit New Zealand and New Zealanders. That is what this bill does. It provides this Parliament with an opportunity to undo an act that has been perpetrated on the New Zealand public. I am going to be walking a very fine line, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I know I am, so I will watch you very closely. There are things around what preceded the piece of legislation that this bill seeks to repeal that have given some people cause to reflect and to feel somewhat uncomfortable.

What we are seeking to do here is to repeal the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 and this would stop—this would 100 percent stop—the current plans that are being made by Skycity to build that convention centre. I have no doubt that members of the Government will stand and refer to the cost of stopping where the process is at, at the moment. I have no doubt that that is what the Government will do. But one would have to argue whether good money is worth throwing after bad, because what we have got now—I would argue—is that Skycity has already broken the deal that was entered into with this Government that created that piece of legislation.

The arrangement that was entered into—the contract that was entered into—by Skycity has several clauses in it. One of those clauses is around the size of the convention centre that would be built and the amount of money that it would be built for. Those things have changed, but it was on the basis of that contract that the current legislation, the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013, was brought to this Parliament. It was brought here based on that contract, and the legislation—there is no getting away from what the legislation does—provided 230 extra pokie machines and an extended, exclusive licence to Skycity until 2048. It guaranteed to a private business the protection of this Parliament around its business until 2048. The arrangement was based on this contract over here, and yet the contract has not been delivered. Skycity has already broken that contract.

When this bill was pulled from the ballot in March, the New Zealand Herald quite correctly reported that this bill would pass if two things happened. The first was if Winston Peters won Northland. The second was if the ACT Party supported it. Well, we all know what happened in Northland—we all know what happened in Northland. The Rt Hon Winston Peters steamrolled home, overturned a massive majority held by the National Party, and sent a message—and one hopes regional New Zealand is watching, because it has been received. So that is what happened with point No. 1. So we have No. 1 lined up.

And we have No. 2 available to us, and it will be interesting to hear what Mr Seymour will say with regard to this bill. I hope that Mr Seymour is tired also, just as Northland was tired, of being taken for granted. I hope that Mr Seymour is tired of being taken for granted by this Government. I hope that Mr Seymour is tired of the National Party telling him that life is rosy and everything will be fine if he does what it says, in the same way that it told that to Northland for 70 years and that ended up in nothing. I hope that Mr Seymour is tired of being taken for granted. I hope that Mr Seymour will cast his vote today on his gut reaction—the gut reaction that he has gone on record and has recorded. I hope that he will do that.

Originally, this bill was actually in response to the request by Skycity for more taxpayers’ money. Since then, the design has been changed, which, as I said, is one of the reasons why we feel that the original contract has now been breached and, therefore, the repeal of this Act is quite justified. It has now made the convention centre smaller. The numbers that Skycity says it will be able to bring to New Zealand have changed, although it has confirmed that no new economic modelling has been done since the 2011 report. It is a totally different convention centre from the one that it mooted in 2011, when it edged out, supposedly, four other bids to build the centre, winning on the basis of a promise that it would cost taxpayers nothing but would require a change to the gambling law so that it could—I do not know—get more on its investment, I gather.

We do not know what the economic modelling is of the new centre that Skycity now says it is going to build. It is 19 percent smaller and it is going to have smaller conventions. We also do not know whether, even at the design stage, Skycity will have to come and say to the New Zealand public: “Hmm, sorry, can’t build it for that.” What happens if it gets halfway through and it says: “Hmm, sorry, can’t build it for that.”? We have no confidence that Skycity can actually continue to deliver even the amended criteria that it has put there, and we do not have a signed contract around that amended contract. The original contract and the original deal that brought in this legislation still stands. That is one of the reasons why this bill is here: to give this Parliament an opportunity. Let us put this deal back on the table. Let us put this deal, or arrangement—the possibility of a convention centre for Auckland—back out there into the public domain. Let us actually have a fair and honest process so that we can truly discuss whether that is the best thing for Auckland. Let us have a conversation about that.

There is one other little point too. It is one other little point, and that is around two pieces of overlapping and not quite connected pieces of policy area. What we have on one hand is Skycity with 230 more pokie machines and an extended licence protected by this Parliament until 2048. On the other hand, we have Auckland City with a policy of a sinking lid on pokie machines. So we have a Government that overrode the by-laws of a city, and yet everywhere outside that convention centre there is a sinking lid on pokie machines. Nobody can replace any pokie machines in any RSA or bar, or whatever, in Auckland City. Eventually, that will provide a monopoly for Skycity.

Those two pieces, independent of each other but overlapping in reality, will create a monopoly beyond 2048 that Skycity will have, and it will have it merely because this Government gave it to Skycity. And this Government gave it to Skycity merely because one person would not vote with his gut. One person would not actually take his initial reaction and support legislation—that is, if this gentleman chooses to go down this pathway. So if this gentleman chooses to go down this pathway, it will be upon that basis. So we know where the Government stands—we know where the Government stands. There is one opportunity here for one gentleman to make a difference, to stand up and be counted, and to say: “I’ve had enough of being taken for granted. I will not be taken for granted again. Don’t think you’ve got my vote just for the hell of it. I will stand up for what I believe in and I will allow this bill to go to a select committee.” Kia ora.

I rise to take the first call from the Government benches opposing this bill by the list member from New Zealand First, Tracey Martin. I would like to give her a piece of advice, first of all, to maybe say that she should have protested perhaps that she was not going to take being voted down from her deputy’s role. She should have stood up, but I am not so sure whether that was actually heard in her caucus.

This is a bill that would effectively wreck and ruin all of the Government’s amazing efforts to develop public-private partnerships in Auckland and other parts of the country that are vital to the Government’s Business Growth Agenda to support hard-working families and develop a strong economy for our nation.

This bill, the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill, is nothing more than an attempt by the member for New Zealand First on that side of the House to put a stopper—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I just ask the member to resume her seat. I know that at the beginning of the member’s speech she did invite some response, and she got that response. I think now we will have a bit more decorum and a slightly better tone of interjection, thank you, Mr Mark.

As I was saying, this bill is nothing more than an attempt by the member for New Zealand First on that side of the House to put a stopper on the excellence that will come out of understanding new enterprise, new opportunity, and the growth of modern facilities that can cater to international conferences, without the stress currently on the wider hospitality and event management system.

I would like to quote my colleague the Hon Bill English, back when the original legislation was read in 2013, when he said: “This is a bill that will provide jobs and better incomes for New Zealanders.” That is a fantastic thing—providing jobs for New Zealanders. Paraphrasing my colleagues, we know that there are at least 1,000 people employed in the construction process. The convention centre, when open, will employ 800 people servicing all those who go there when it is up and running.

This International Convention Centre, which the National Government has worked on with Skycity on, will be a great opportunity. Quite simply, the New Zealand International Convention Centre will cater to nearly 3,500 international conference delegates at any one time. If members in this House have been overseas to an international conference where there are thousands of delegates who are actually catered to, and have come back to New Zealand thinking that we do not have one of those—we do actually feel a little bit envious. This is going some way to addressing that need that this country has.

The convention centre is being built to a state-of-the-art design, and it will have state-of-the-art internal facilities, for cost by a private provider that is able to fund the project through Government support in a non-monetary fashion. This is the best sort of deal. This is the sort of contract we should see more of. The Government is not actually spending a cent on this. This convention centre will increase GDP, a great result for a zero-dollar investment by the Government. It will increase GDP by $49 million.

When we talk about the convention centre, we are talking jobs. We are talking growth. We are talking about the revitalisation of the City Rail Link, which I know some members in this House often talk about—public transport. We are talking about our Business Growth Agenda, the plan to get a strong economic growth programme in place that even the Labour Party cannot possibly fault.

To repeal the Act is to shout aloud that we do not want those visitors from overseas to New Zealand, that we do not want stable enterprise, and that we do not want those businesses willing to take the risk of coming to the most remote OCED nation to do business and trade. We are basically turning away people who are wanting to come to New Zealand, to spend money in New Zealand.

This bill talks about protecting New Zealanders from financial liability, and I am a little bit baffled as to what liability this bill is talking about, as under the current deal, actually, we have none. The member’s bill, however, creates a huge liability and it will hurl our Government into debt through legal negotiations, breach of contracts, and general bad faith, actually, on behalf of Parliament. The Government, as the taxpayers’ representative at large, would be liable, and all of New Zealand would lose on that value that the convention centre would offer by trading the non-monetary concessions that were negotiated in favour of Crown liability for the full debt.

We are managing the economy. We do not need $400 million of debt, as much as that member on that side might actually want it. This agreement will put New Zealand on the map as a world-class destination to hold conferences. At the moment we do not have one as such. Our capacity to host business tourism—let us actually get New Zealand talking on the world stage, in all fields. We need to get commercial and societal business into New Zealand, and this convention centre will create a means to do so. We are building a competitive economy. We are getting growth—over 150,000 jobs under the National Government. This project is just one part of that agenda, but it, like all parts, is important to the growth of the economy. [Interruption]

Members have actually sort of pointed out that we are talking about a serious issue here: we are talking about problem gamblers, too. There are problem gamblers in our community. We do know that, and this Government has asked Skycity to make a commitment to the people of New Zealand to actually ensure that it is addressing and implementing the recommendations that we have requested here in this House, to ensure that those who are problem gamblers can get the help that they need without strife or further concern.

Gambling is a nationwide concern. It is an issue that many people are concerned about, particularly in the ethnic communities, because there are quite a few ethnic community people who are, in fact, going to the casinos and have actually been identified as problem gamblers. One of the reasons why people actually become gamblers and get addicted to gambling is often they find that in the casinos they are treated like part of the community when, on the outside, they perhaps feel like an outcast—a feeling not helped by the Opposition’s lack of charity and kindness to ethnic communities, like the Labour Party showed in recent days.

This Government has ensured that to deter problem gambling and money-laundering, Skycity, as part of its responsibility to the people of New Zealand, must take practical steps to address issues of problem gambling. This will include a predictive modelling tool that analyses data to identify players at risk of problem gambling; a voluntary pre-commitment system, where players can elect to restrict the amount of time that they play or the amount that they spend; and doubling the number of host responsibility specialists to deliver 24-hour, 7 day-a-week coverage—people actually there to make sure that those using the services of Skycity can feel safe and that someone is there to support their decision if they choose that they have had enough.

So problem gambling will be an ongoing issue for communities. It is an addiction. No number of machines, pokies, or tables will be too few or too many for the problem gamblers to deal with. The measures are in place to support recovery and help New Zealanders in those situations where they may be in trouble. I say that, because Skycity is not the only gambling venue. Gambling is, in fact, a nationwide issue and concern. It is not just one company’s issue that we should be talking about.

Simply put, this bill by the New Zealand First member and the recommendation to abolish these innovative public-private partnerships is nothing more than just a knee-jerk reaction to a company with diversified interests wanting to move into areas where New Zealand as a whole can actually benefit, that our nation can benefit from. I expect we will hear more about lots of conferences being booked in New Zealand as a result of that—maybe even within New Zealand. Maybe people living in the South Island might possibly like to come up to Auckland, to book a convention. Let us not step back into the past and put New Zealand into debt. Let us get New Zealand on the right path and ensure we have a par excellence convention centre in the nation’s largest city.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the previous member’s speech, a member made several unparliamentary accusations, particularly in breach of Standing Order 120—imputations of improper motives against the member who was speaking at the time. He ought to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

I did not hear those comments. It would have been appropriate at the time to have bring them to my attention. If there were some accusations, as you allege, across the Chamber, it would have been appropriate to bring them to my attention. If the member is asserting that someone has made unparliamentary comments—[Interruption] No, no. If this is a matter where some member feels aggrieved, then I would ask the member concerned, if they feel that they have done something wrong, to withdraw any comments. Is there anyone? I do not know whom the allegation is made against. All right. Well, from now on, if there are allegations and there are unparliamentary comments being made, I ask you to bring them to my attention at the time, and then I can rule appropriately.

The New Zealand International Convention Centre deal is a shoddy deal built on the back of problem gambling. When other bidders were knocked out of this process, the New Zealand International Convention Centre was talked about as hosting conferences of up to five—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am sorry. I do not want these interjections across the Chamber that have got nothing to do with the debate in hand. We have settled that matter. If this continues, then I will intervene at the time. That is the end of the story.

We need to preserve my voice. At the time the deal was struck they were talking about conventions of up to 5,000 people in the main plenary sessions. Now we have a convention centre that is a little over half that size: 2,850 people in the main plenary centre. The size of the convention centre, the world-class, iconic convention centre we were promised, has been halved. It has been halved—and that is since the other bidders were knocked out of the contest. The deal has not been transparent. It was a shoddy deal done behind closed doors between Mr Key and the executives at Skycity.

The Labour Party will support this bill to select committee because we think it needs the transparency of sunlight, the disinfectant of sunlight, on the deal to understand just to what extent the taxpayer has been put over a barrel by Mr Joyce and Mr Key. We know that the taxpayer has been put over a barrel. That was obvious from the start. I predicted it in 2013 and it was reported in the media. The original agreement was so poorly written—it was so poorly written—it was extremely obvious that Skycity would come back and ask for more money. Lo and behold—what happened? Just over a year later, Skycity came back and Mr Joyce was out there peddling the benefits of extra rates or taxes on New Zealanders to fund the centre. That is exactly what happened because that original deal was so poor.

The Auditor-General said the deal was neither transparent nor even-handed. I have never read anything the Auditor-General has said that has been so strong and clear about the actions of the Prime Minister and his Government—neither transparent nor even-handed. That is straight talk and it is accurate. This is a shoddy deal and it has been shoddy from the start. The Government’s own department told it that there would be 8,000 people—more than 8,000 people—affected by problem gambling, because it does not affect just the problem gamblers who are created. Although there will be hundreds more of them, the department says, it affects many other people too. This is a shoddy deal and New Zealanders will be paying for it for a long time to come.

Nobody thinks that an international convention centre is a bad idea. The concern is over the way it has been done. We think that a select committee process will give an opportunity for the real story to come to light, for New Zealanders to understand just how far this has gone and just what a position the taxpayer has been put in by an inept Government that is so out of touch and so arrogant that it thinks it can come back after saying it was a free convention centre and say that the ratepayers of Auckland should stump up. This is a Government that is so out of touch that when that does not happen it says: “We will not remove any concessions but we think Skycity can make the centre 10 percent smaller.” Fine, OK—go for it. Skycity’s bottom line is what it is protecting, not the taxpayers of New Zealand, and that has been true from the start. If we have a select committee process, if this Government does not block it, because it is afraid of the disinfectant of sunlight—and I suspect it will, but we will see—then we will hear the real story behind this deal. It will come out into the daylight and New Zealanders will be appalled. This Government is out of touch and arrogant if it thinks it can block this and that the questions will stop coming, because they will not. New Zealanders are not happy with what has happened here.

Of course, Treasury also advised that the cost-benefit analysis was dubious. It said it had strong concerns—“strong concerns that private benefits to SkyCity will exceed public benefits to New Zealanders”. This deal is from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, of course, which brought us the $140,000 TV screens, the $260,000 sundeck, the reception desk that cost $74,000, the sign out the front for $67,000, and the hair straighteners—that is right. This same ministry negotiated this deal. I do not blame the officials. This is a meddling Minister who directs deals in favour of his Government’s interests and not in favour of New Zealanders’ interests.

The independent report on how many jobs this would create was actually called for by the ministry, and on its website it says it would create a net 18 jobs for the economy at the end of all of this, once building and construction is over. Eighteen jobs—and that was when we had the bigger convention centre. How many now, Mr Joyce? I would be interested in an answer to that. It was net 18 jobs because the jobs are taken out of Hamilton, Taupō, and Rotorua. What are the people in those communities saying? What are they saying—

I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak on this member’s bill. I think it is only appropriate when the bill is introduced that we should reflect on its intention and its content before arriving at a decision whether or not to support it. Alas, it did not take terribly long to determine that this bill is certainly not worthy of support.

Let us look at the intention that was expressed as to what this bill would achieve. The explanatory note purports that the deal the Government struck with Skycity to build the convention centre would expose the taxpayer to risk and that repealing the provisions—that Skycity would build a convention centre with no outlay of taxpayer money in return for some regulatory concessions—reduces risk to the taxpayer. I am afraid the reality is that it would have the absolute opposite effect, because instead of a convention centre being built for an outlay of zero taxpayer dollars in return for those regulatory concessions, the taxpayer would, in fact, be in the gun for the $400 million full value of the centre. It is difficult to see how under any interpretation of English that that somehow places a lesser risk on taxpayers than spending nothing.

Further than that, if we were to pass this particular member’s bill we must also question what would happen to the reputational risk of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government if investors around the world—even our own citizens could not have confidence that a Government of theirs when entering into a commercial agreement would actually honour the terms of the agreement. So there is no question in my mind that the bill does not actually do what it would purport to do. For that reason alone it is not worthy of support. But I look even more broadly than that context and I look at why it is we even have the convention centre—what the impact of removing it or removing the way we can achieve that for zero taxpayer outlay would be.

This is a Government that is working hard to grow the economy, to provide more jobs, and to build opportunities for New Zealanders. This convention centre will deliver growth and jobs to New Zealanders and mainly in Auckland. It is one that would help to place Auckland on the international map for convention destinations and the flow-on impact of that, which we get from Tourism New Zealand, is a greater increase in tourism dollar spend in Auckland. This is because more than half of the convention-goers would have a partner or a spouse with them and the daily spend of groups like that is about $3,000 a head, so we get a higher-value tourist, a greater spend, and Auckland on the map as a destination. It would certainly boost tourism for Auckland and perhaps even more broadly as many tourists, when they visit Auckland, will also pay side visits to the other parts of New Zealand.

The convention centre itself, if we look at other infrastructure of a similar nature that might have been built in the past, would produce a capacity of about 3,150 maximum delegates, spinoff benefits of a projected annual injection into the economy of about $90 million, 1,000 jobs during construction, and 800 jobs ongoing once the convention centre is up and running.

It is worth noting that tourism is already 7 percent of our gross domestic product and this deal that we have reached would help to grow that further. We have heard in recent days members opposite trying to make a lot of noise about how our economy is exposed to one particular area of exports in terms of dairy, which is not performing as strongly at the moment as it has in the past, and they talk about diversification. Well, all the more reason, if they really meant what they were saying, that they would leap in behind and vote against this bill, in support of the deal the Government has done with Skycity to further raise growth in the tourism industry in New Zealand and help to provide that diversification.

The bill simply will not do what it states its intention is. It is a poorly drafted bill, a poorly directed bill, and I do not support it.

I want to thank Tracey Martin for the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill and for the opportunity to vote in favour of it. It has long been Green Party policy to oppose and repeal the New Zealand convention centre legislation. You have to remember that the only reason the original legislation exists in the first place is that Skycity—which had been fighting for some 20 years for more pokie machines, more gambling tables, and an extended licence—finally managed to do a dirty deal with the National Government to make it happen, and the Government had to change the law. The legislation has nothing to do with a convention centre. Let us be really clear. The legislation just sets out how to change the law to give Skycity Casino 230 more pokie machines, 40 more gambling tables, cashless gaming opportunities—

💬 Ron Mark: What do you call that?

—that is right; what do you call that—and a 35-year extension on its licence. That is what the first piece of legislation does, and what Tracey Martin’s bill does is repeal that, and quite rightly. We must remember that Skycity has spent a lot of money and fought the Gambling Commission for many years to get all of those concessions. The content of those concessions—the 230 pokies, the 40 gambling tables, the 35-year licence—essentially creates an entirely brand new casino in Auckland. It is the equivalent of the Dunedin and Queenstown casinos combined. So it is a very significant casino that will now be created in Auckland as a result of the original legislation. And Aucklanders do not want it. Aucklanders do not want a casino that large. They do not want that, and not only did they say they did not want that casino, they have now been locked out of the resource consent hearings for the convention centre that delivers that casino.

Let us remember: the convention centre is simply a cash delivery device to the casino. That is why it is going to do it this way. Skycity will build this convention centre and bring people in. Skycity now has the right to build a 300-bed hotel on highly valuable Television New Zealand land. Those people are going to come in; they are going to stay at Skycity’s hotel; they are going to walk through tunnels to the Skycity Casino, which will be expanded with even more retailers included within those four walls; and then they will go to the convention centre during the day—back past all the retailers within the Skycity envelope to the significantly expanded casino and back to the Skycity hotel. All that this original legislation on the convention centre does is deliver more customers and more money to Skycity.

What does it also deliver? It also delivers significantly more harm to Auckland families and Auckland businesses. For a number of years KPMG was recording gambling as one of the reasons for significant employee fraud. It did this for a number of years until, frankly, we started talking about it in the context of this legislation. It was recording the degree to which gambling—gambling was like fifth or fourth—was increasing, in the reasons as to why people were stealing from their businesses, and stealing from their employers. It was in order to gamble. It is an increasing problem in Auckland. We have seen so many examples of people who have spent hundreds of thousands of other people’s dollars at the casino in order to feed a gambling addiction. What does National, what does John Key deliver to Auckland? They deliver a smaller convention centre and a much bigger casino, which creates enormous problems for the families who live and work in Auckland and the businesses. Tracey Martin is doing the country—and Auckland in particular—an enormous favour, a great deal of good, by forcing us to yet again reflect on the dirty deal that was done between National and Skycity over the convention centre, which was always designed to deliver a larger casino for a longer licence to Skycity. Let us not ever forget that. Thank you.

This bill is an interesting bill. It has been drafted with the full intellectual weight that New Zealand First has. It has three clauses and it has three sentences. In fact, the explanatory note, the clause by clause analysis, I see, has one extra sentence to that. So, clearly, the drafters in the Clerk’s Office have been helpful to New Zealand First by trying to make it look more substantial.

But I have to say that this is an interesting debate. I have been listening very carefully, and having myself previously been the chair of the Casino Control Authority, appointed in 1999 and having retained that position until I came to Parliament, I know something about casinos. One of the things I do not do is I do not gamble in them, unlike, of course, some of the New Zealand First appointees to that board, who did gamble in them all the time, outside of New Zealand, of course. I have to say that I have been listening all about the evils of gambling, and I wonder whether the people who have been calling out about the evils of gambling have themselves not gambled. Have they ever gambled? Would that be on racing, at the TAB, or on pokie machines? What about Mr Clayton Mitchell? That man had so many bars in Tauranga, which he owned with Mr Brad Shipton—you might have heard of him. I bet they had pokie machines too. Well, that is about as much as I will ever bet. That is probably pretty much what happened.

So when I listened to it I thought, gosh, why is it that only some gambling is all right but others are not? I mean, the casino in Auckland has well over 3,000 staff—3,000 staff who otherwise would not have a job. When we are looking at the New Zealand International Convention Centre itself, why should Auckland not have a convention centre? Of course, we cannot afford just to go off and buy it—not like, for instance, the last deal that Labour and New Zealand First did, which was in July 2008. That was the last time they did a real big deal, a business deal. That was when they paid $690 million for KiwiRail—$690 million for KiwiRail—which would have been great if the value had gone up, but, actually, what happened is that just a couple of months later Treasury came out with the facts that it had valued KiwiRail at a mere $369 million.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

What that actually tells me is that when we are talking about doing a deal on the convention centre for the benefit of Auckland and for the benefit of New Zealand, New Zealand First members and Labour members are the last people we should be taking any notice of. The last time they did a deal supposedly for the betterment of New Zealand, they paid $300 million more to the American owners of Toll. That is what they did—$300 million more. I would have to say, if we are going to talk about that, why would you listen to those people?

💬 Ron Mark: Two hundred and forty—that’s what you got.

I see that Mr Ron Mark has got a lot of noise today. It must be because of his new position as deputy leader of New Zealand First, after he very cruelly rolled my good friend Tracey Martin.

Let us talk about New Zealand investment. So many of us actually want to see New Zealand companies do well. [Interruption] Why are they so noisy and have so little to say? Why is that? It is, of course, because that is the combined intellectual brunt of New Zealand First. Having said that, Skycity is a New Zealand company that has been able to register on the Australian stock exchange as well as the New Zealand stock exchange. What it has been able to do as well is, for instance, in 2000 it bought the Adelaide Casino. In 2004 it bought the Darwin casino. This is a New Zealand company that is absolutely in extension mode. I would say, for anybody who wants to—[Bell rung]

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker.

Actually, sit down, Mr Cunliffe. Wait your turn. Having said that, Mrs Martin—and, I think, good on Mrs Martin—said that this is possibly the most important piece of legislation to be voted on in this House. I do not think so. I think it is possibly not the most important, but I have to say I like the fact that she backs herself. I like that, and I would say good on her. She has a marvellous sense of humour, as you would need to if you were a woman in the New Zealand First Party.

But to listen to what we have heard today, I have to say, the arguments are just pathetic. Basically it is that these people in the casino business are making money—oh, gosh, that is dreadful—and employing people and bringing people to New Zealand. Good on them.

What a pleasure it is to hear the honourable member who has just resumed her seat, the Hon Judith Collins. It has been such a long time since this House has been graced with the eloquence of her insults. It has been such a long time since we have been reminded of her first-person knowledge of the art of cruelty, so wrongly ascribed to the internal workings of another party. She did make one very important point, and she is probably, amongst all members of this House, uniquely qualified to speak about casinos. She was indeed, for many years, the chair of the Casino Control Authority, and that is relevant to this bill because the last time that Skycity twisted arms for a sweet deal, guess who signed off on that? Judith Collins, the chair of the Casino Control Authority. So if anybody in this House knows a murky deal, she does. She is the queen of murky deals. It is so clear it is like swimming in milk.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to the allegation and inference raised by that member. There was no murky deal with Skycity. It was actually a hearing under the law, and Labour was—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. [Interruption] Order! These are—[Interruption] Order! Who said that?

💬 Ron Mark: I did.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for making that comment.

💬 Ron Mark: I withdraw and apologise for making that comment.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am coming back to the point of order of the Hon Judith Collins. This is a debate, it is a robust debate, and I am not going to rule what the member said as out of order. Although he has put his own interpretation on the way he sees it, it is not a point that the House needs to concern itself with.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence to the comment made by Ms Judith Collins across the House at me. I ask that she also be instructed to withdraw and apologise.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Which one?

💬 Ron Mark: You know damn well which one.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! When the Speaker is on his feet there is silence. Once again, I did not hear what that comment was, but if the member made an unparliamentary comment I will ask her to withdraw the comment.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I didn’t make one.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): You did not make one. All right. We can only take the member at her word. [Interruption] Order! Look, this is a debate that I know is finely tuned and it has been robust and there are some sensitivities in it. But I would ask you to give consideration to all members and to come back to the substance of what this debate is about.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Hansard records the comment of Ms Collins as an interjection and I present that back to you, what is the course of action beyond that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled. I asked a member whether they made a comment. They said they did not. I take the member at their word. I can only take a member at their word, and that is the end of the matter. So we are continuing with the debate.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a new point of order?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It is. Without rehearsing Mr Mark’s point, which you have ruled on, the question that is asked is, and I am not challenging your ruling, if evidence is presented later—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. I have ruled on the matter, and that is the end of the matter. The Hon David Cunliffe has the floor.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If this is a new point of order—

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Yes, I just need clarification. If Mr Mark objected to me saying “Well, what about the SAS, Ron?”, that is not an unparliamentary comment.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on this matter. [Interruption] Order! I have ruled on this matter. That is the end of it. The next person who brings it up will be out.

I want to take up your invitation to return to the substance of the bill, and I want to hold the torchlight to the claims that have been made by members opposite in the previous two speeches.

This bill repeals the Skycity Casino legislation. It is a simple matter to repeal, and therefore there is no place for gratuitous insults about the length of somebody’s drafting. It is succinct, to the point, and does the job.

Why is the Act being repealed? Labour supports this bill to the select committee because we think that sunlight is the best disinfectant. It needs to be shone on this deal. We do so because we support good business practice. Business in Auckland has been asking itself why, since John Key met with the board of Skycity, miraculously all the other tenderers that were involved in the tender process were suddenly expunged from the books of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and only one tenderer’s tender was entertained. That is the heart of the flaw of this process. That is what this report from the Auditor-General said was unfair and improper.

💬 Pita Paraone: That’s what the Government calls good business.

Well, that is the way National does business. But that is not the way that the decent business people of Auckland or of New Zealand want to see business conducted. I had a very senior chief executive officer say to me, after that occurred: “The rules have changed. How do you get business done in this town? You’ve got to know somebody who knows somebody in the National Party.”

That is no way to grow a strong economy or a fair and decent society. It is not what you know, but who you know. It is not whether the deal stacks up in terms of the numbers; it is whether you give some numbers to members opposite. That is not the way we should be conducting business. That is not my opinion. The flaws in this process are the considered judgment of an independent parliamentary officer—the Auditor-General no less. Members opposite should hang their heads in shame.

Ms Collins devoted half of her speech not to casinos but to railways. The only rails I can think of are the little things that go around a roulette table, but they are not owned by Toll Holdings, so why were we talking about Toll Holdings? The issue here is whether the process employed by the Government and given effect to in the Act is a fair one.

The member opposite claimed that 3,000 jobs would be created. Well, I am sorry but that is not what an independent report said. It said 18 net new jobs—one, eight. Mr Brett Hudson said that this was a diversification strategy by the Government because of the dairy slow-down. Well, here is the news to regional New Zealand. National’s answer to regional development is to suck your tourism business out of Taupō and Rotorua and Christchurch and Queenstown, and put it in Auckland, because poor old Auckland does not have enough business. That is National’s idea of regional development, from the list member who is such a political genius that he lost to Peter Dunne. So my last question—[Interruption] I think that speaks for itself.

This bill, the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill, coming up the Order Paper has been a little bit like Christmas Eve—waiting, waiting, waiting for the opportunity to comment on Tracey Martin’s bill. I cannot help myself but comment that over the adjournment I read a profile of a couple of MPs who genuinely like each other, and I thought that whatever their cerebral shortcomings may be, at least they are decent guys. We just saw from the refusal to stand, withdraw, and apologise for unparliamentary language—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I have ruled on this matter. When I have ruled on a matter, that is the end of it. I do not want it brought up again.

That is not the only privilege we have in this House. There is also the ability to put members’ bills into the ballot. Some of us toil away, research, consult, and work very, very hard in order to submit a decent member’s bill, instead of a single line. Mr Cunliffe said “Oh, well it’s succinct and it achieves the objective.”, and he may generally have a point, except that both of the New Zealand First members’ bills on the Order Paper today have that feature. You have to wonder whether that is not the common and causal element in those bills.

But it also has to be said to the members on my left—allegedly on my right, but today very much physically on my left—that this whole shebang is a disgrace. The purpose of legislation and regulation in respect of gambling is to prevent harm. Suddenly, we learn that some other public policy objective is to be pursued, namely a convention centre justified by the kind of Leontief modelling that would have made Lenin proud—and is it not sad to hear the members who supposedly believe in the market telling us precisely what the multiplier and the GDP and the employment benefits will be of a macroeconomic intervention into the economy.

💬 Hon Member: Slow down, David.

Listen faster; listen faster. And is it not a disgrace to see those principles being abandoned. But not only do I have socialists on my left, but hypocrites on my right, because all them, given the opportunity, would be—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I know what the member is going to say. I got that part. The member will withdraw that last comment. You cannot use a phrase in that context.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is unfair to say that you know what Carmel Sepuloni is going to say.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, well—

She has a vivid imagination and she could have said anything.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Ha, ha! I think I know what the points of order were and I am sure that I have got it right. So I will just ask the member to withdraw the phrase that he used and then carry on.

I withdraw and apologise for calling the members to my right hypocrites, but they are—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No! Look, I have just asked you to withdraw that comment. I will give you one more chance—withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Now carry on, and that is the end of the matter.

💬 Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask you, in the interests of justice and fairness, to please consider what you have just said? That was blatant, deliberate defiance, and I have—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on the matter—[Interruption] The member will sit. [Interruption] The member will sit. Look, you are challenging the decision of the Speaker. [Interruption] Order! I have ruled. The member who was speaking has withdrawn and apologised. I said that next time it would be over. That is the end of the matter. I do not want any further comment on this, because all it is is a challenge to the Chair. We are moving on.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If the member is relitigating this—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I will hear David Cunliffe.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Thank you. This is not a matter concerning trifling with the Chair, nor is it the repeating of the offensive word in the point of order, but a different matter. It appears that the member is some halfway through his speech. He has used a range of devices so far to avoid taking a position on the bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No, that is not a point of order. The member will sit. You are trifling with the Chair.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying, I believe that there is a philosophical inconsistency in picking apart one Government intervention in a deal when the same members, we all know very well, are in favour of rampant Government intervention in the economy, and would have so many of their own projects. For New Zealand First members I have one word, which is “railways”.

In actual fact, this bill would leave the Crown on the hook for, who knows, $400 million in fiscal cost, and it would undermine regulatory stability and New Zealand’s international reputation for regulatory stability. That is why the bill cannot pass. However, in this bill there is a salutary lesson for all members, which is that it is not simply that complex, ad hoc Government intervention is bad when the current Government does it—because that would bring out the “h” word—but that it is always wrong for Governments to mess ad hoc with regulations in place for one purpose, in order to pursue another objective, as the bill that would be repealed did. It is wrong for a Government to use modelling based on Leontief input-output modelling, which tries to anticipate the economic benefits or total welfare of a particular project, to justify a project. The consequences are that we now have a shonky contract leading to the construction of a convention centre that will compete with the Aotea Centre and not provide any of the benefits hoped for in diversifying the range of sizes of convention centres, but, rather, will intensify competition in one particular niche. That is why all of those things are wrong—because they lead to unintended consequences that are ultimately greater than the intended ones. I thank the member for putting the bill forward—sadly, 2 years too late—and let us hope that all members learn the salutary lesson that free markets and free minds beat ad hoc Government intervention any day of the week. Thank you.

It is never too late—never ever too late—because this House has the ability to change the law. That is what our function is. I would like to say to the whole House that we are able to do that in this House.

I am pleased to speak on this bill, and I congratulate Tracey Martin on getting it to this stage. I think it is important that this bill goes to select committee. As my colleague Dr David Clark said earlier, there is nothing like a bit of sunlight on this to expose exactly what is in here, because there is a back story to this. The issue is that things have changed since the legislation was passed. That is what the issue is. So we come here today, and we should be allowing New Zealanders to submit on this bill. They deserve it.

I have heard some concerning things in this debate, particularly around the harm caused by gambling. It is a serious matter. Adding 230 pokie machines—the most insidious form of gambling in this country, I would say, and in the world—is a problem waiting for us, and we have to do something about it. Another part of that story is that Skycity gets to use these machines before the convention centre is even built. It is allowed to. These are changes that we should consider when we vote on this bill, to allow it to go to select committee. That is why I strongly suggest to the members opposite to have a think about the damage and harm that is caused by pokie machines.

I think that in addressing that issue we need to look at measures that address the harm caused by pokie machines. Only a few months ago, when hearing submissions on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3), we heard directly from gamblers, and they shared their story. It is a story about issues that they have to deal with. Adding 230 pokie machines—just one pokie machine can do a whole lot of damage to one person because there are very few mechanisms while they are sitting at that pokie machine. We need to use the technology that exists today to minimise the harm caused by those pokie machines.

That is why I really want to support this bill to select committee, because I think that New Zealanders deserve to have those mechanisms put in place so that there is an intervention within the technology that exists today. I strongly encourage all members of this House to go and talk to organisations that deal with harm caused by gambling.

This convention centre—we were promised an iconic, world-class convention centre. Since the legislation has passed into law there have been a number of adjustments that make the convention centre less iconic, a lot less world class, and, we would probably go so far as to say, not that impressive. The issue for me is that Skycity has received benefits based on the building of an iconic, world-class convention centre. I think that New Zealanders deserve the right to come to select committee and to say whether or not they agree that what we are receiving for the concessions we have made for Skycity—a 35-year licence, 230 extra pokie machines; that price—is worth it. If members vote against this bill they are denying the opportunity for New Zealanders to have their say, and that is why I support this bill.

I want to begin by acknowledging Tracey Martin as the sponsor of this bill. It will be no surprise to her that I will not be supporting it.

💬 Tracey Martin: Oh!

I know, shocker! For not only personal reasons but for constituency reasons, I have found, going throughout my electorate in Tāmaki, that there is support for this New Zealand International Convention Centre for a number of reasons. I will come to that. I think it is important to acknowledge the hard work that Ms Martin has put into this. She is the hardest-working in that party, and I think it is great that her bill has been drawn out and that we get a chance to acknowledge that tonight.

💬 Pita Paraone: What are you after?

The Opposition—I am interested in truth, and it is good that your side begins to wake up and acknowledge some of the great work that your members are doing. But I oppose this bill, as other colleagues have done. Again, on reflection, I cannot help but think that there is a new entertainment troupe that could go to the convention centre, after we have heard some of the deliberations and sharings in the House today. I am not going to mention names, but even in the course of this particular discussion we have had, there were very entertaining, flamboyant qualities. Yes, we do not need a Blue Man Group or whatever at Skycity after this.

The agreement has been signed. It has been signed. It is unfortunate, in some ways, that this bill has come so late and after the fact. The reputation of the Government is incredibly important at any time, and certainly when it comes to anything to do with contracting. Having come from that background myself, your word is your honour, and how you articulate that in a written form is incredibly important. For the Government, the Crown, to repudiate that now, to turn on that, would be unfortunate and goes well beyond just simple costs. But costs themselves are important. The call for a convention centre, and a convention centre of a sufficient size, in Auckland has been there for a very long time. We are fully cognisant that the Labour Party has supported Skycity in the past—paradoxically, also allowing 230 pokie machines as part of the deal. But a convention centre that does not cut the mustard does not actually adequately support Auckland.

The National Party MPs in Auckland, like myself, want to see a convention centre that Aucklanders want, to actually help support our city. We think we have got an incredibly good deal here. Ultimately, for some changes in regulation and, yes, for more pokie machines, we are able to build and develop a world-class convention centre in Auckland. Even the current Mayor of Auckland is supportive of it. As I said a bit earlier, constituents of mine who work in the industry or who are associated with it are supportive of this. It is going to actually be good for the whole of New Zealand, because not every convention will ever be able to be held in Auckland, but through a great convention centre there I think it will actually highlight the convention centres in other places, like Queenstown. New Zealand is a small country; people can travel. So I do not see this as having any implications on the regional sector. I think, in fact, that this will highlight and further enhance New Zealand as a destination for conventions.

The other element around this is that we, as taxpayers, ultimately do not have to put forward one cent for this to be built. The risk is being taken on by a private firm, and I think there is always room for the Crown to stake the taxpayer to engage along with the private sector. This is a very positive step in this regard.

I think the last point that I want to raise, because there has been some sort of philosophical discussion around harms and how we balance those, is that in society there is always harm. There is harm to do with gambling, be it the pokies, Lotto, or horse racing. The quality of a Government is to balance those harms. We do not live in some sort of utopian world. No offence to my colleague from Epsom. The theories that various economists and the like will put forward are all well and nice, but our challenge here is to balance those harms.

So to Ms Martin and others who are supporting the bill, I think we do have the right balance in building this convention centre. We are putting in the checks and balances required around gambling, because we are aware that it causes harm, but we think that the benefits of having this convention centre far outweigh any other concerns, and I oppose the bill.

Tracey Martin, 5 minutes in reply.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you very much. Well, that contribution was interesting. I think it certainly raised the blood pressure in here. We have had interesting dialogue. None of it was particularly surprising, bar one thing. There are a couple of things that I did not know before we started. One is that Judith Collins is my very good friend—and I appreciate that, Ms Collins. I appreciate that, and it is a joy to know. It is a joy to know that something like this can bring two sides closer together. So I appreciate that, Ms Collins. Thank you very much. The other thing that I did not know before I started—well, I kind of did know it, but it has been reinforced for me—was around Mr Seymour’s contribution. So Mr Seymour’s contribution, apart from being somewhat muddled, was that he believes this Act should be repealed. He believes absolutely that it should never have been passed into law. He absolutely, categorically believes that this Government should not have signed that Act, but he will not vote against it. He will not vote to repeal something that he believes is fundamentally wrong. This Act is totally against his party’s principles, totally against his values, but no, no, he cannot bring himself to actually stand up for those things and vote to repeal it.

I want to thank my colleagues from the Opposition. I think that we have had very intelligent debate from this side of the House. Metiria Turei’s contribution was absolutely invaluable. She is right: this has nothing to do with the convention centre. This piece of legislation repeals an Act that gives corporate welfare. My bill would repeal an Act that provides a private business with something that nobody else gets: a protection until 2048—protection that nobody else in Auckland City has got. I challenge the member Mr Simon O’Connor, who, again, is a lovely man, and I am sure that the voters in Tāmaki find him particularly pleasant. I saw a photo of him with a large chocolate Labrador the other day, and, again, I bet you that got lots of favourites.

What I would challenge him on is that I am not confident that he is correct when he says that Aucklanders want this convention centre. Aucklanders voted, through consultation with their local government, for a sinking lid on pokie machines. Aucklanders were consulted by Auckland City in 2009 and 2010, and, across the board, they voted for a sinking lid on pokie machines in the by-laws of Auckland City. And what has happened is that this Government has decided it knows better than the people of Auckland and that it is not going to listen to the voice of Auckland, which said: “We want a sinking lid. We want these things to actually slowly become less and less and less.” It has decided that it is going to strike a deal for an international convention centre.

And this is not about a convention centre. This bill is merely about legislative change that gave somebody an unfair advantage. That is all it is about—that is all it is about. If you read it, it is not very long. No, it is not very long, and I think that is really interesting. We kept it brief for the benefit of the Government. We know that the Government members, particularly the backbenchers, do not normally read the legislation that they have to speak on. We kept it very, very short so that we could have, possibly, some level of understanding by those members who actually had to stand and speak on it. Whoever has handed out the notes that have been passed back and forth along the backbench: well done, very good, nice bullet points, everybody used them. So it is disappointing. That is actually disappointing.

The bill is very simple. It is about removing a protection—a protection for a deal that has changed. Skycity is not going to deliver the deal that it signed on. It is also a concern that Mr O’Connor, Mr Seymour, and Ms Lee tried to suggest to the New Zealand public that there is a $400 million debt here. Well, there is not yet, but when Skycity gets halfway through building the convention centre and then comes back for money, New Zealand, there very well may be one. The question is: if there is debt involved with actually removing this legislation from this Parliament, who struck that deal? The same people who are asking us to trust them because they are such good negotiators for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Sorry, the honourable member’s time has expired.