Faafoi Kris: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14434. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the chance to speak to Part 1 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. In his comments during his contribution Mr Young talked about the benefits in terms of this deal and addressing unemployment. He said that this Government has been willing to sign this deal to make sure that there are employment opportunities for New Zealanders. Well I would ask Mr Young and other members of the National Party why they have not intervened to this extent when there have been job losses in the previous 5 years of their Government—that is to sign a deal of this nature to the point of signing away a $402 million convention centre to create employment for New Zealanders. Where was the Government when the train yards down in Dunedin were in grief and those Hillside workers were looking for some hope from this Government? Where was the Government? It was nowhere to be seen at all washing its hands clean of a problem with people losing their jobs. But here the Government member over there Mr Young was quite happy to say that the Government would intervene to do a deal with Skycity to make sure that there are employment opportunities to address the unemployment problem that we have here in New Zealand.A number of people have mentioned in this debate that a convention centre for New Zealand might be a very good idea and that it might be able to draw the likes of international trade shows to New Zealand bringing international visitors here to New Zealand. But the question that we on this side of the Chamber have is did we have to sell off to a huge effect our ability to regulate gambling and also to make laws here in New Zealand in order to do that? We on this side of the equation and on this side of the Chamber say that we did not have to.This is a conscience vote. There are some members on the other side of the Chamber who do come from constituencies where gambling harm does hit disproportionately hard. I am speaking about members such as Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and I do acknowledge that he has had a family death. But besides that Sam has a responsibility as a member of Parliament to represent his community. The officials who were advising the Commerce Committee on this did point out in point 86 of the regulatory impact statement that the increase in the number of pokie machines will hit the likes of Māori and Pasifika communities harder. I know that Mr Lotu-Iiga represents Maungakiekie where there is a very high percentage of Pasifika people. So I think that this being a conscience vote Mr Lotu-Iiga should look at the harm that this bill will have on the Pasifika and Māori communities within his electorate and choose wisely when we are asked to vote on this bill.As other members have pointed out in this debate on Part 1 the deal that has been signed between the Crown and Skycity will see over 230 more machines. The deal between the Crown and Skycity will extend its licence for another 27 years inAuckland—a city that I must say has the highest Pasifika population in the country—and will allow another 40 extra gaming tables. The deal goes on to give many more concessions to Skycity in response to building the convention centre.Unfortunately in all of this the Pasifika community will be hit very hard. I do call on the consciences of other Pasifika members on the other side of the Chamber to think very wisely about the impact that this will have on our communities and the harm it will cause to families—and as Denise Roche says to the children in those families—by signing off this deal. By signing off this deal we are saying that we are OK with harm in those communities—we are OK with harm in those communities. So for the Pasifika members on the other side of the Chamber I make a special plea to you to think very wisely before you do vote on this issue.I turn now to some of the machinations of how this agreement—or dodgy deal—came about between Skycity and the Government. In fact if I were sitting in the Skycity boardroom at the moment I would be very happy. The Government has completely and utterly sold out in terms of the deal because what Skycity gets for the cost is a great deal. We have sold ourselves short here because the Government has sold out in a big way. Mr Young was talking about the spin-offs in terms of addressing unemployment. We get nowhere close to a good deal in terms of employment Mr Young and I know that in the Commerce Committee which that he chairs there was some research done by the Institute of Economic Research prepared for the Minister in the chair the Minister for Economic Development that showed that because of the diversion of investment only 18 more jobs—not 1800 not 18000 just—Carol Beaumont: Not even 180.KRIS FAAFOI: Not even 180. Just 18—one-eight—more jobs will be created under this deal. So this Government is playing up very highly the gains of employment from the deal but it is quite clear from the evidence presented before the select committee that they simply do not exist.Just turning to some of the politics around this Mr Key the Prime Minister was kind of crowing that this was a good deal. He said that he was totally vindicated when the Deputy Auditor-General investigated how this deal came about. But let us just dig a little deeper because always with this Government it is the details that catch it out. That is not exactly—Chris Auchinvole: Ha!KRIS FAAFOI: —how the Deputy Auditor-General came to be. For the benefit of Mr Auchinvole who giggled because maybe he does not know what the Deputy Auditor-General said I say that the Deputy Auditor-General said that the process of Skycity getting the contract to build the convention centre was—Chris Auchinvole: I didn’t giggle—guffawed!KRIS FAAFOI: He said it himself. I think he said “flawed”. The Deputy Auditor-General said it was flawed and not transparent or even-handed. The report established deficiencies on the part of both Ministers—so I think we are talking about the Minister in the chair and the Prime Minister—and officials. That is not exactly pertaining to the Prime Minister being totally vindicated by the Deputy Auditor-General’s report. It is another instance around the Skycity deal where the Government has been more spin than reality.We have heard from David Clark who talked about an expert from a university in Australia—I think from Bond University—who said that Skycity got an incredibly good deal. It shows you just what bad negotiators they are on the other side of the House. It shows you just what bad negotiators they are on the other side of the House because not only was it a bad business deal but it was bad for our communities—not just in Aucklandbut right around New Zealand. It showed that this Government would quite easily and happily sell out in the interests of doing a deal to build a convention centre.There will be 280 more pokie machines and 40 more gaming tables for pretty much zero. I note the harm that that will do to I think it was 8000 more Aucklanders as a result of this convention centre and the increase in the licence to Skycity going ahead. This deal will do harm. It will do harm to the communities in Auckland.I just want to finish with a plea again to the Pacific Island members on the other side of the House. It is patently obvious that gambling harm hurts our community more so we will be disproportionately affected by the increase in these pokie machines and these gaming machines and the extension of the licence that is given to Skycity. It is our community that will get hit harder. So in order to prevent that happening the members on the other side have an opportunity to stop that today. They can just simply vote against this piece of legislation. So to Alfred Ngaro and to Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga I say do the right thing for your community because if you do not sure you will have your political reputation within your party intact—you did the right thing within your party—but you sold out your community.