Roche Denise: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRoche Denise: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14432. Text is subject to correction.]DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a call my first call for the evening on Part 1 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I am going to concentrate this part of my speech around the economic benefits and I take note of the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern and her discourse around how this deal started out and the lack of transparency around it.At the time when the discussions were first occurring with the Government about the need for a convention centre I was an Auckland City councillor. It was definitely on the table that there should be negotiating between the council the private sector and also the Government to look at the economic benefits of a convention centre.If there is a good economic argument for a convention centre then we would certainly support it but what we are seeing with this bill is an economic argument that has not taken the costs into account. I am not an economist; I do not dabble in that dark art. However any normal person would first do a cost-benefit analysis before agreeing upon a certain course of action that would cost New Zealanders. The costs of this deal are externalised and it is the New Zealand taxpayers who will be bearing those costs while the provider of the convention centre who keeps the convention centre and who keeps the profits of the convention centre also profits from harm that is caused to ordinary New Zealand citizens.The purpose and outline of this bill as it says in clause 3 in Part 1 is that “The overarching purpose … is to provide economic benefits to New Zealanders”. Do those economic benefits include the 5000 convictions last year that were made in respect of people who had gambling problems? That was gambling problem - related crime. The cost of that is not only to the people who were the victims of that crime which was committed to fuel gambling problems but also to us the taxpayers. For every criminal who is convicted and spends a year in jail it costs $91000. We can assume that with an extra 230 pokie machines with an extra 12 automated gambling tables which each have 20 seats and so are in effect another 20 pokie machines per automated table as well as with 60 more tables—Metiria Turei: 40 more.DENISE ROCHE: —40 more tables; I stand corrected—there will be more problem gamblers as a result.It is not going to be solely the convention centre attendees who will be gambling there. We know from all the reports that the Health Sponsorship Council has done and from experts both in New Zealand and internationally that 40 percent of the profits that Skycity will get from those extra gambling concessions will come from people who haveno control over their gambling behaviour. For our Government to say that that is what we will pay that that is how we will pay for this convention centre is morally bankrupt—it is morally bankrupt.The bill does not take into account the economic costs that we will all bear from the suicides from family violence from domestic violence and from child neglect. It does not take those costs into account. These are the things that we need to be looking at if we are going to pass legislation that endangers and it will endanger New Zealand citizens. This is bad lawmaking.If we are looking at job creation we have already heard that the reports that the officials themselves provided have said that the benefits for the country as a whole amount to only 18 jobs. I guess if you wanted to be cynical you could look at the other jobs that have not been taken into account. They include the jobs across the road from the Skycity Casino at the Chow brothers’ brothel. They include the increase in jobs for the budgeting service that will be dealing with the families of the problem gamblers. They include the jobs that will be needed to provide counselling for those who are suffering from problem gambling. They include the jobs in the corrections service. They include the jobs that mop up after problem gambling. If those were the jobs that the Government was counting then at least we would have an honest assessment—an honest cost-benefit analysis—of this deal in its total because what we are seeing is not economic benefits to New Zealanders.I think there has been some comment about the negotiation and how poorly it was done. I think that needs to be taken into account when we are considering the economic benefits. What we have here is a deal that extends the 35-year casino licence by 27 years. Each year of an extension of a licence is worth millions of dollars. We know from Australia that that is something that the Government should have been negotiating. The cost of the convention centre is just over $400 million. Skycity is estimated to recoup the cost within 4 years based on the 25 percent increase in gambling opportunities that these concessions are delivering to it. We have sold ourselves cheaply. Not only have we sold ourselves down the river and our citizens down the tubes because we are carrying the cost of the deal but also we have been incredibly cheap in the licence that we have given Skycity. I guess we should also take into consideration the fact that this Government has not considered the longer-term costs that we will all bear. So over these 35 years we are stuck with it.The Greens have said that we will be looking for ways to minimise harm. We will come to that in the second part of this Committee stage today. My colleague Metiria Turei co-leader of the Greens and I both have Supplementary Order Papers that we hope will get support across the House. If we are to rely on problem gambling as the way for Skycity to be paying for this deal and we are not actually attempting to reduce it then as lawmakers we are being remiss in our duties.One of the things that does concern me I think is the fact that the economic benefits have been so highly ramped up. They have been so inflated beyond what is actually accurate that we have tended to lose sight of what is happening in gambling as a whole. We are tending to put forward legislation that will undermine our Gambling Act to some extent. That is really worrying because the Gambling Act is there solely to reduce harm from gambling. Yet we are seeing an attempt with this legislation the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill to give concessions to Skycity that undermine our position on that. That is one of the reasons why one of our Supplementary Order Papers Supplementary Order Paper 383 talks about that as well.Several speakers on that side of the Chamber have talked about the flow-on economic benefits. In the second reading yesterday we had people from other centres saying that the convention centre will result in additional tourism opportunities in their small towns. Wehave not seen the proof of that. We know that there are other convention centres across the country that will be competing for convention centre attendees. Unlike Auckland people who go to a convention in Queenstown will not be going to a centre that was paid for through the suffering of children.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Oh!DENISE ROCHE: If the member finds that too emotive I suggest he looks at the facts as they were presented by the officials: 6500 children are estimated to be put at risk as a result of this deal Minister. I suggest you take that on board when you cast your vote because it is a conscience vote and we will be wanting you to think with your conscience and to exercise it. It is not just children who suffer. International—