Seymour David: New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5233. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): This bill the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill coming up the Order Paper has been a little bit like Christmas Eve—waiting waiting waiting for the opportunity to comment on Tracey Martin’s bill. I cannot help myself but comment that over the adjournment I read a profile of a couple of MPs who genuinely like each other and I thought that whatever their cerebral shortcomings may be at least they are decent guys. We just saw from the refusal to stand withdraw and apologise for unparliamentary language—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I have ruled on this matter. When I have ruled on a matter that is the end of it. I do not want it brought up again.DAVID SEYMOUR: That is not the only privilege we have in this House. There is also the ability to put members’ bills into the ballot. Some of us toil away research consult and work very very hard in order to submit a decent member’s bill instead of a single line. Mr Cunliffe said “Oh well it’s succinct and it achieves the objective.” and he may generally have a point except that both of the New Zealand First members’ bills on the Order Paper today have that feature. You have to wonder whether that is not the common and causal element in those bills.But it also has to be said to the members on my left—allegedly on my right but today very much physically on my left—that this whole shebang is a disgrace. The purpose of legislation and regulation in respect of gambling is to prevent harm. Suddenly we learn that some other public policy objective is to be pursued namely a convention centre justified by the kind of Leontief modelling that would have made Lenin proud—and is it not sad to hear the members who supposedly believe in the market telling us precisely what the multiplier and the GDP and the employment benefits will be of a macroeconomic intervention into the economy.Hon Member: Slow down David.DAVID SEYMOUR: Listen faster; listen faster. And is it not a disgrace to see those principles being abandoned. But not only do I have socialists on my left but hypocrites on my right because all them given the opportunity would be—Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I know what the member is going to say. I got that part. The member will withdraw that last comment. You cannot use a phrase in that context.DAVID SEYMOUR: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is unfair to say that you know what Carmel Sepuloni is going to say.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No well—DAVID SEYMOUR: She has a vivid imagination and she could have said anything.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Ha ha! I think I know what the points of order were and I am sure that I have got it right. So I will just ask the member to withdraw the phrase that he used and then carry on.DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw and apologise for calling the members to my right hypocrites but they are—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No! Look I have just asked you to withdraw that comment. I will give you one more chance—withdraw and apologise.DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw and apologise.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Now carry on and that is the end of the matter.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you in the interests of justice and fairness to please consider what you have just said? That was blatant deliberate defiance and I have—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on the matter—[Interruption] The member will sit. [Interruption] The member will sit. Look you are challenging the decision of the Speaker. [Interruption] Order! I have ruled. The member who was speaking has withdrawn and apologised. I said that next time it would be over. That is the end of the matter. I do not want any further comment on this because all it is is a challenge to the Chair. We are moving on.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): If the member is relitigating this—Hon David Cunliffe: No.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I will hear David Cunliffe.Hon David Cunliffe: Thank you. This is not a matter concerning trifling with the Chair nor is it the repeating of the offensive word in the point of order but a different matter. It appears that the member is some halfway through his speech. He has used a range of devices so far to avoid taking a position on the bill—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No that is not a point of order. The member will sit. You are trifling with the Chair.DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying I believe that there is a philosophical inconsistency in picking apart one Government intervention in a deal when the same members we all know very well are in favour of rampant Government intervention in the economy and would have so many of their own projects. For New Zealand First members I have one word which is “railways”.In actual fact this bill would leave the Crown on the hook for who knows $400 million in fiscal cost and it would undermine regulatory stability and New Zealand’s international reputation for regulatory stability. That is why the bill cannot pass. However in this bill there is a salutary lesson for all members which is that it is not simply that complex ad hoc Government intervention is bad when the current Government does it—because that would bring out the “h” word—but that it is always wrong for Governments to mess ad hoc with regulations in place for one purpose in order to pursue another objective as the bill that would be repealed did. It is wrong for a Government to use modelling based on Leontief input-output modelling which tries to anticipate the economic benefits or total welfare of a particular project to justify a project. The consequences are that we now have a shonky contract leading to the construction of a convention centre that will compete with the Aotea Centre and not provide any of the benefits hoped for in diversifying the range of sizes of convention centres but rather will intensify competition in one particular niche. That is why all of those things are wrong—because they lead to unintended consequences that are ultimately greater than the intended ones. I thank the member for putting the bill forward—sadly 2 years too late—and let us hope that all members learn the salutary lesson that free markets and free minds beat ad hoc Government intervention any day of the week. Thank you.