New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill

Here is what Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development Chief Executive Mr Brett O’Riley has to say regarding the convention centre: “We are delighted with the opportunities this will bring to the region. It will allow Auckland to compete strongly against other international cities and secure major conventions that we would otherwise miss out on.” Also, Business New Zealand Chief Executive Phil O’Reilly said: “New Zealand, as one of the most remote tourism destinations on earth, needs facilities and attractions of world standard.” So this is a good deal for New Zealand. It will create jobs, boost tourism, and bring significant benefits both to Auckland and to the New Zealand economy. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

I understand that the next call is a split call.

I rise to take a call on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill, the Government bill here. I want to appeal to the House to put politics aside and do the right thing for the community. The people of Māngere strongly oppose the bill for the following reason: the harm of gambling is real.

💬 Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: In Manukau East?

Absolutely. I dare say my colleague there is absolutely right. Throughout Manukau, the feeling is the same. Throughout the Manukau region, the feeling is that the harm is real. Any member in this House who believes that it is not real is either blind or just ignorant of the reality out there in our community. All they need to do is talk to the Salvation Army. All they need to do is talk with the communities on the ground that are having to deal with the harm. People in this House need to know that the sole reason for the existence of casinos and pokie machines is to exploit and prey on the vulnerable. They make money, but not for the community.

Let me just read out part of the regulatory impact statement given to the Government: “The key concern … is the potential impact this may have in increasing the incidence of problem gambling and its associated harm for New Zealand society. … Research shows there is a clear link between the availability of gaming machines and opportunities to gamble and the incidence of problem gambling.” The region of Manukau has always known this. In 2003 we carried out research into the social harm on the people of Manukau, and the research revealed that $91 million was what it cost that region each year in terms of the social effects of gambling. It also said that the number of people affected by problem gambling is virtually unknown, although it is about 15 to 20 percent of the population. By and large, it is a hidden problem. But Australian research found that the net gain in jobs and economic activity from gambling is small, as the money involved is simply being diverted from spending in other areas. Again, the Australian research showed that the national cost of problem gambling is greater than the taxes raised by the Government from gambling activities.

As my colleague Trevor Mallard said earlier, it does impact on family relationships. It does impact on people losing their homes. It has impact on people—some commit suicide because they have lost virtually everything. It is addictive. Despite what we say, that there are avenues to help problem gamblers, the reality is true that those avenues are just not helping our communities. It is wrong for this Government and for any future Government to think that by increasing casinos we can provide benefits to the community. It has been argued that jobs are created—certainly. But the reality is that these are low-value, low-paid jobs, and that is not the kind of New Zealand the community wants. The community deserves quality jobs. The community deserves a living wage. That is what the public have been arguing for.

Again, I would appeal, particularly to the Government members, to put politics aside and do the right thing. The way is open for you to conduct a conscience vote, and I would ask members, particularly those who live in the Manukau region—Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, Alfred Ngaro, and Claudette Hauiti—to do the right thing for the community and vote against this bill. I would ask them to use their conscience. I know that Jami-Lee Ross does not have a conscience, and I know that Mr Bakshi will not have a conscience. They are going to vote in support of this bill, despite the harm that happens in our community.

But the most important thing—and members of the House will be fully aware of this—is that this a bad, stinky deal, hatched and consummated on the dinner tables at Skycity. Like my other colleagues have said, this is a deal that undermines the credibility of this country of ours. In passing this bill, what this Government does is it ushers in a new, dark era of dirty politics with its mates. I will be voting against this bill.

Tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise to take the second call for the Greens on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. It is no secret that we have been opposed to this bill since we first uncovered the dodgy dealings that have resulted in the legislation we are discussing today. The Greens have a proud history of opposing mining on schedule 4 land, opposing deep-sea oil drilling, and opposing fracking, and we oppose this deal because it favours another nasty extraction industry, one that hoovers money out of the pockets of those who can least afford it, and, just like the worst frackers, it leaves a hell of a mess. We all live with the consequences and we all bear the costs.

And what are the costs? Well, we do not know. We have some clues. The regulatory impact statement says that there will be increased problem gambling from the 230 extra pokies and more tables. There will be increased risk of suicide and domestic violence. There will be more kids going hungry and kids being neglected and left in cars. We know that there will be increased crime as a result of increased gambling opportunities. We know that there will be more thefts of businesses and charities to fuel gambling. We know that there will be more gangs, more P dealers, and even some international criminals laundering their money at the extended casino.

In terms of cost-benefit analysis, that really has not been done. The Government keeps stating that there will be jobs and there will be benefits to the economy, but, actually, the losses and the social harms that we will all pay for have not been factored into the equation. I ask the Government to do the maths. I query the overstated economic benefits. The research undertaken by the Australian Productivity Commission shows that casinos suck the money out of the surrounding areas and take it away from restaurants, from theatres, from shops, and the surrounding area. It will basically concentrate all that money at the Skycity venue.

Yesterday I went to a talk by Robert Wade, from the London School of Economics and Political Science. He was talking about inequality. He showed a graph representing the ever-widening income gap between the very rich and the very poor, and showed how most of the wealth in Anglo countries is concentrated with the wealthy. Here, the top 1 percent of income earners own 16 percent of New Zealand’s total wealth, compared with the bottom 50 percent, who own just 5 percent of the wealth. He explains how this comes about by the policy directions that Governments take that ensure that wealth stays with the wealthy. He talked about the money empathy gap, where those who benefit from the Government policy directions, who have lots of money, develop less empathy for those without money, considering those on low incomes even as feckless. He also talked about the need to get rid of the big money from the political system, and to stop political parties taking donations from big businesses. Does that sound familiar?

This legislation illustrates very, very clearly everything he said. We have a deal on the table here that will deliver a convention centre in Auckland and it will increase inequality in Aotearoa New Zealand. We do not have to do this deal. We really do not. If we really need a convention centre, publicly funding this would cost in the vicinity of $20 million per year over 35 years. That equates to less than $10 per year per taxpayer. We would own that convention centre. We would control that convention centre. We would avoid the increased social harm that will certainly come with it under the Skycity arrangement. We would also avoid a 35-year compensation clause that unconstitutionally chains future Governments to providing profits for Skycity Casino’s shareholders. I call on all MPs across this House to ditch this bill.

Every single day New Zealand is in competition with the rest of the world. Every single day visitors are getting on planes to go and visit other parts of the world, and we are part of that competition every day. New Zealand needs an international convention centre. We are too small to stand still. I commend this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill to the House.

This debate has concluded. The Speaker has determined that the vote will be a personal vote. Following the personal vote, there may be two other procedural votes. These will be cast as party votes. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question as to the select committee, is it a question as to which select committee?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It is a procedural—

That is quite an important decision, and there is certainly a view amongst some of our members that the Government Administration Committee, which has had a lot of experience dealing with conscience votes, is a better committee to deal with the bill, but that is a divided opinion. The ruling has been previously given to us, I think, as far as the substantive vote. We were expecting that a conscience vote would apply on the later questions, as well. I just want to check with the Greens as to whether notice was given to them that we would be denied a conscience vote on the subsequent motions. We have not, and it certainly has been our expectation that a conscience vote would apply on all these questions. If any part of it, frankly, is a conscience vote—and the Speaker has been, I think, partly fair, because he has done only this stage, but we will look at other matters later on—the question I have got is where the precedent is for votes on conscience issues, as this is, for subsequent motions to be denied a similar conscience vote.

I thank the member for that contribution. If we look at Standing Order 139, it states: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue, the Speaker will permit a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.” He has already announced, and I have announced here, that we are going to accept that on the substantive motion. A bill, if it is passed—and I make the point that it may be—must go to a select committee. It is a procedural matter. The Government has the opportunity to decide which select committee the bill goes to. That is a procedural matter, just as the report-back time is. The Speaker has determined that those two votes, should there be votes, will be on a party basis. That is the position that I am also endorsing now, and that is where we are going to.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there are effectively two points of order that have been raised by your explanation. In fact, whether or not a bill goes to a select committee is not a decision of the Government; it is a decision of the House. Equally, it is a decision of Parliament which select committee it goes to. Again, that is not a decision of the Government; it is a decision of this House, and there are procedures for amendments, which—

I hear what the member is saying. If the select committee that is nominated is not the select committee that the House decides that it should go to, there can be a split vote or members can vote against it on a party basis. The opportunity for the House to decide is simply in the hands of the House. That is why we treat it as a party vote.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just seeking clarification. Is this a ruling the Speaker has made on the question of the vote on where this bill should go, or would the Speaker reconsider this matter he has raised if a member called for a personal vote?

No, no. I have already ruled that these are procedural matters. We are having a personal vote on the substantive motion, which I am now going to put. Some member, once I have put it, can call for a personal vote, and that is fine. But if this is passed, when we come back and we look at the select committee and the report-back time, those are procedural matters and will be treated as party votes, as I have explained.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you ruling that a member cannot call for a personal vote? The Standing Orders, as I look at them, certainly leave the option of calling a personal vote open to members.

Yes, Standing Order 141, “Personal vote following party vote”, says: “A personal vote may be held following a party vote if a member requests one and the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote is so close that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result.” So you are right in terms of asking for one. I have ruled that it will be a party vote, but Standing Order—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You were a bit premature.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well, I said that maybe there would be a vote. Right at the beginning I said that there may be one. Standing Order 141 covers that point.

Members, the question is that the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be considered by the Commerce Committee. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it? A party vote? [Interruption] I have already ruled that these are procedural matters. Someone has asked for a party vote, and we will have a party vote.

The question was put that the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee.

on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: I move, That the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be reported to the House by 14 November 2013.

I move an amendment to that motion. I move, That the word “November” be replaced with the word “December”. This is an attempt by the Government to shorten the process in this area and to get this bill through before Christmas. The people of New Zealand deserve to have the full 6-month period at a select committee in order to have proper debate, proper submissions, and proper discussion on this. The attempt by the National Government to ram this legislation through is, in my opinion, something that is shameful, and it is caused by its embarrassment. This is a matter that the House needs to consider really carefully. It is a matter on which I am sure that thousands of New Zealanders will want to properly prepare submissions. We do not want to have a rushed period for those submissions; we want people to prepare them properly and to have them lodged, and for the select committee—albeit the wrong select committee, but the House has decided on that—to move its way around the country, and we want there to be proper opportunity for that to happen.

What has happened in the past on some of this sort of legislation—and I know that my colleague Mr Flavell knows that with his legislation—was that there were a lot of people who wanted to be heard and wanted to be heard more extensively, and who were not able to be heard because of the time frames put on the committee, especially because of the leadership of the chair of the Commerce Committee. I do want to say that I think it is vital that there be an adequate time frame for this discussion to occur at the committee. And although members opposite might argue as we go forward that there has been a lot of notice about the possibility of this and time for people to prepare their submissions, the point that I would make is that it is as recently as Monday that some of the information was made publicly available. And it is my understanding—

Order! I refer the member to Standing Order 286. Although a member may move an amendment, there is no debate on the question of amendment. So I am going to put the question.