Cunliffe David: New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5231. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): 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.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: 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.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: 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 3000 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.