Robertson Grant: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRobertson Grant: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14446. Text is subject to correction.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to refer to the first clause within Part 2 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. That is where we have a discussion about the regulatory concessions that have been authorised. I particularly want to refer members of the Committee to clause 6(2). It says: “The regulatory concessions prevail if a regulatory concession is inconsistent with any provision of the gambling law and the application of the provision of the gambling law is modified accordingly.” Let us just stop and think for a minute what that clause means. It means that the deal as we have traversed—a dodgy deal done without the proper information going to other applicants with the Prime Minister’s paw prints all over it; an appalling deal done by the Government which is costing the taxpayer costing New Zealanders—trumps gambling law.That is the message the National Government is sending out tonight. The Gambling Act 2003 with its purpose to “minimise the harm caused by gambling” is trashed by a shoddy agreement that lines the pocket of Skycity and that takes away from many New Zealanders money that they can ill-afford to have taken away. That is the point of clause 6(2).The National Government should be ashamed to be supporting a clause that says the will of this Parliament is out the door. The National Government did not even have the gumption to come in and amend the gambling law because it could not because this bill is against the purpose of the gambling law. So instead it overrides that law with an agreement signed in a back room—a deal done with National’s mates is more important to it than the sovereign right of this Parliament to make laws.National should be ashamed of clause 6(2) because the regulatory concessions that are being talked about in clause 6 are not minor. Let us run through them again and make sure people understand what we are talking about here. There is the extension of the licence until 2048. As my colleague Trevor Mallard has said within that period where that licence has been extended there should have been two full reviews of that licence.I had a bit to do with the Gambling Act 2003 as an official or a person who worked in this building and I can tell you that one of the main roles that was to be played in the review process was taking a thorough look at the levels of gambling harm that were being caused. Those two reviews are gone on this licence and that is shameful. There will be 40 extra gaming tables a 17 percent increase in the number of gaming machines that can take more than $20 notes and ticket-in ticket-out cashless gaming. These are the kinds of regulatory concessions that are being talked about here—a huge increase in gaming machines. These are the concessions these are the things that break the spirit of the Gambling Act that clause 6 says are fine.On this side of the Chamber we do not believe it is fine and neither do the officials because the regulatory impact statement makes that absolutely clear. I will read it from paragraph 33: “The proposed gambling concessions raise concerns about a potential increase in the incidence of problem gambling due to the subsequent increase in gambling opportunities at Skycity’s Auckland casino.” David Shearer just said it—if this is all about the high rollers the people who will come to these international conventions from around the world they do not play the pokies. They do not go into places like this to play pokie machines. The people who will be lured in to play those pokie machines will be the people who can least afford it. We know this about pokie machines. Class 4 gambling is the most addictive there is. This bill and these concessions that are now being put in place by clause 6 mean that there will be more pokie machines more opportunities.But then we go on to the question of cashless gaming. There has been a lot of research around the world about the impact that it has to actually put money into amachine—it is an action you have to do. Once you move to cashless gaming to cards to ticket-in ticket-out machines you take away from people the decision that they are going to put money in. Here we are in clause 6 of this bill saying it is OK to have 17 percent more machines that will take higher denominations and that will lead to cashless gaming. Cashless gaming will make problem gambling worse and that is what is put in place with these concessions.Here is something that I do not know whether I ever thought I would see in a regulatory impact statement. This is what the officials said in paragraph 97: “There are aspects of the regulatory concessions that potentially raise the risk of money laundering through Skycity.” Oh well that is just a casual little comment there from Treasury officials—we are looking at money-laundering! This is the result of the ticket-in ticket-out arrangements which do allow for the prospect of people using them to put money in. Trevor Mallard has already raised concerns about the kinds of pressures that can be put on people in a venue like Skycity in the case—the very unfortunate case—of the Chinese student from a couple of years ago. Well here we have got the officials telling us that money-laundering is on the way at Skycity.So there is another risk not accounted for by the Government not defended by the Government. It was simply put into this deal with Skycity which frankly had a ball negotiating this. It has done extremely well for itself and its shareholders. Where was the Government? Where was the Government defending New Zealanders? Where was the Government saying: “No we have actually got gambling laws that are about reducing gambling harm. We have got an Auckland Council that has a sinking lid policy on gaming machines. We are going to defend that.”? That could have been the response of the Government. It could have said: “Actually do you know what? We really want this convention centre built but these regulatory concessions go against the spirit of our laws against what the Auckland Council has been trying to do. We are not going to agree to it. Sorry Skycity it was nice negotiating with you but we are going to go back and talk to the other four people who actually did want to build this convention centre.”But no the Government did not do that because it was neck-deep in this dodgy deal led by the Prime Minister who directed his officials to work with Skycity in a different manner to how other groups who were tendering were being worked with. Meetings were held with the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and information was handed over to Skycity. Again the officials started raising concerns about this—ploughing on went the Government to do this dodgy deal. In clause 6 we now have the sight—the shameful sight—of the regulatory concessions which I have just worked through prevailing above and beyond gambling law. That is a completely shameful position to find ourselves in in this Parliament.It is worth noting on the question of the licence and the licence extending through to 2048 that Skycity has completely done the Government over here. All of the calculations show us that Skycity will make its money back miles in advance of 2048. It has got a great deal here. Not only has it got a great financial deal; New Zealanders are done out of the reviews. Why? Why on earth has the Government decided to not even have the reviews? All right extend the licence as part of your deal but still review it—still give New Zealanders the reassurance that this outfit is operating in accordance with the law; that it is actually doing the problem-gambling harm minimisation initiatives that it said it would.But no we do not even have this review. It is a blank cheque written by the National Government to Skycity against the wishes and values of New Zealanders. Part 2 of this bill is the guts of it. This is where the rubber hits the road. It is time for somebody on the National side of the Chamber to stand up and say why New Zealanders should agree to regulatory concessions that are against the gambling laws that we currently have.Why not have the gumption to come into this Chamber and say: “You know what? The Gambling Act 2003 is wrong. We want to liberalise it.”? That is not what those members have done. They have picked off Skycity and they have said they are going to give Skycity power above and beyond the Gambling Act 2003.Well that is not what I came into Parliament for. I did not come into Parliament to sit here and have a National Government do a backroom deal and come into this House and tell me that the laws that have been previously passed do not matter; that it is just going to do everything by deals and agreements. That is not democracy. That is not how this House is meant to work.