Hipkins Chris: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionHipkins Chris: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14465. Text is subject to correction.]CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to take my first of what I am sure will be many calls on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I listened very carefully to the comments of the Hon Steven Joyce. I was listening very carefully to hear his defence of the bill and I did not hear one. What I heard was a whole lot of labels and a whole lot of bandying about of slogans where he basically talked about all of the people whom he did not respect. Well I want to say to Steven Joyce that there are some things that I do not respect as well. I do not respect a Government that is willing to trade off the misery of other people. I do not respect a Government that is willing to transfer wealth from the people at the bottom of the socio-economic heap to the people at the top. No doubt about it that is what this Government is doing and that is what this legislation does. It trades off the misery of people who suffer from problem gambling it trades off the misery of all of the people who are associated with them and it transfers money to the people at the top of the economic heap. That is what this legislation does and I have no respect for that.Steven Joyce talked about the convention centre deal back in 2001 and he asked where the Labour Party was then. Well the Labour Government changed the law as a result of that decision. That was not a Labour Government decision; that was a decision made by the chair of the Casino Control Authority. Who was that? Who was the person who made that deal? Who was the person who signed off the last deal with Skycity? Anybody want to hazard a guess? Who was that person? It could be Judith Collins. It could have been Judith Collins who signed off that deal. That deal was signed off by Judith Collins and was opposed by the last Labour Government and the Labour Government changed the law to stop that happening again. That is the reason why we are in the Chamber tonight debating this legislation. National cannot do another dodgy deal like the one Judith Collins did back in 2001 without changing the law because the Labour Government closed that loophole. The Labour Government closed the loophole and that loophole is why Steven Joyce is here today pushing legislation through in order to open it up again so that those members can do another dodgy deal which plays off the misery of problem gamblers to build another convention centre.The Labour Government changed the law in I think it was about 2003 to ensure that the legislation was robust and to ensure that we balanced up all of the various interests that we needed to balance up when it came to debating and considering issues around gambling. This Government is changing the law. It is changing the law about that. If the Government was so proud of its casino deal and if it thought that this was the best that the taxpayer could get why did it shut out all of the other potential applicants? Why did it say that it did not want to hear from anyone else who might want to build a convention centre? It was going to shut them out completely and it was going to dealwith only Skycity. If it is true that the Government thinks that this is the best possible deal that New Zealanders could get why is it that it was not willing to hear from anyone else? I ask why it was that the Government stopped any of the other potential operators of a convention centre from being able to put forward their proposals because that is exactly what this Government did.I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I believe that this bill is in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce and he is in the Chamber.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes that is correct. If the Minister is in the Chamber he must be in the chair.CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you Mr Chair. There was a time in the National Party when there were limitations. There was a time in the National Party when it had high ethical and moral standards. National may have been willing to trade things off on economic grounds which it has always been willing to do and it may have been willing to effectively accept that there are poor people and rich people and that there are different opportunities but there were limits to what National was willing to do. There were limits. It still subscribed to a set of values. Those values have been woefully absent on that side of the Chamber in this debate. National is willing to trade off the problem gamblers in order to reward people at the top of the economic spectrum. Once upon a time that would have been a bridge too far for members of the National Party. Tonight what they are demonstrating in this conscience vote when every member of the National Party has the opportunity to listen to the voices of their constituents—to go out there and listen to the voices of the community—and they have an opportunity to cast their own individual votes on this legislation is that they are turning a deaf ear to all of the very legitimate concerns that are being raised by the people in their community.I think that that is very very disappointing. I think it is very disappointing because National members are doing one of two things. National members who are willing to vote for this legislation are doing one of two things. They are either turning a deaf ear to the concerns or knowingly and willingly voting against the interests of the people in their constituencies. I think particularly of those National Party members who represent some of the constituencies around the Auckland area. I think of Sam Lotu-Iiga who as far as I know has not spoken on this legislation tonight. I may have—