Dyson Ruth: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14360. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. Normally when I take a call I say that it gives me pleasure because it does. It is a privilege to be in this Parliament. But this is one of the saddest bills that I have seen debated. It is made even sadder actually because my understanding is that at the end of this debate we will be having a personal vote. That is pretty rare in this Parliament and I think that it will be pretty challenging for some members of this House to vote in support of this bill when in their own conscience and their own heart they know that it is wrong. I would really urge them to reflect on the fact that it is not just your constituents whom you need to go back to and front up to. It is not just your party hierarchy that you need to go back to front up to and explain your actions to. Actually in the end it is your own conscience. It is your own reflection in the mirror that you see in the morning that you have to justify your actions to and this legislation and the shonky deal that it turns into law cannot have any moral justification. It is an outrage.If there is a good debate to be had in this Parliament—and by crikey I hope there are lots of them; I have been party to many of them and I hope there will be many many more—and if there is a contentious issue then it is my view that it is the responsibility of the select committee and indeed the Minister to make sure that all the information about that issue is presented. You know so what if some people do not like it? That is not the point. It is so that you can have a well-informed debate based on the facts. Well that is what the Commerce Committee looking at this bill sought to do. The advisers on this legislation are from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. They are quite literally the same people who have been negotiating with the Skycity people over this deal. How could they possibly give robust advice to the select committee? It felt as if they were compromised and they certainly acted as if they were compromised in some of their advice.So the select committee members—well the Labour and Green members anyway but not the other members—quite properly said that we needed a broader range of advice. We wanted advice from Treasury about the financial implications of this deal. We wanted advice from the people from the Department of Internal Affairs. They are the people who run the gambling regulatory regime in New Zealand. They should know what is going on in this space. And we wanted advice from the Ministry of Health because after all the gambling problem is a public health issue. So that is what the select committee said. Ithink that it should be commended. That was good thinking. That is looking at the breadth of issues that are implicated and are impacted on by this legislation.What did the National Party members do to that proposal? Did they say: “What a good idea. We want well-founded well-informed robust debate.”? No they did not. They said: “No. We are blocking any attempt to have that breadth of advice to the select committee.” I think that is a disgrace. Hiding information and hiding advice from a select committee is something that should not be tolerated by this Parliament. Of all the members of Parliament who chair select committees or have positions of responsibility Jonathan Young did that and I am stunned. I am not wont to praise National members of Parliament; I think it is damaging to both their and my reputation. But actually I think quite highly of Jonathan Young and this is a huge disappointment. It is a major detriment to the quality of the debate that we are able to have. What we ended up with was a select committee that just had so-called Public Service independent advice from the very department officials who had negotiated the deal with the Skycity people in the first place. That is the first issue I want to raise in regard to a shonky process leading to a shonky outcome.The second point I want to make is one that both Jonathan Young and Trevor Mallard have commented on. I was alerted to this by Jonathan Young after I mentioned it at an earlier stage of this debate. I feel tricked by his advice because it is about the people who worked for organisations that had contracts with the Ministry of Health. They could not make a submission on this legislation solely because of their contracts as public health supporters and advisers or as those who offer treatment to people who have a gambling addiction. Those people were not allowed to make a submission. Jonathan Young corrected me when I said that before. He said: “That’s not true. We did have those organisations represented.” What we did not have—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. [Interruption] Order! The member’s time has expired.