Ardern Jacinda: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11993. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I rise and speak as a resident of Auckland but also a resident of central Auckland the place where this eventual convention centre will reside. I rise also as someone who lives in the area where Skycity is the most significant employer in terms of numbers. It was absolutely irresponsible of that member opposite to claim that not building a convention centre under the auspices of Skycity would have led people who are currently employed to losing their jobs. That was an outrageous statement to make. It is also outrageous to try to claim that this was the only option on the table. Let us not be naive. Labour has been opposed to this casino deal from the beginning. We have never been opposed to a convention centre being built. There is a very important distinct difference there. Of course this side of the House wants to see decent economic development. Of course this side of the House wants to see Auckland thrive tourism grow and people being offered opportunities that a potential convention centre could bring. Did we want that to happen off the back of harm and misery? No and that is why we oppose this deal.Also we cannot be naive and pretend that this was the only offer on the table. That seems to have been somewhat lost in this debate. In fact before the Prime Minister had a chat with Skycity and realised that it was interested to the point that it might not cost him a pretty penny there were several other deals on the table including one fromNgātiWhātua and another from The Edge. Auckland Council put forward a proposition that we had the Aotea Centre which could be better utilised and we could expand the footprint of that centre. We could transport the arts side of the Aotea Centre to the St James—a beautiful jewel in the Auckland crown that is in desperate need of restoration. It is something that the people of Auckland have been crying out to happen for years and while it sits and crumbles in the centre of Auckland we had a proposition on the table that could have seen a beautiful trade-off that would have allowed a convention centre and for that jewel in the crown of Auckland to be restored. Instead the Government bought a crown of coin machines for Auckland. That was the trade-off that that Government decided to make.I have been interested in the debate that we have recently seen around inequality. According to the OECD measures theGini coefficient New Zealand is the most unequal it has ever been. One of the points that the IMF makes around inequality is that countries that live with deep inequality tend to have Governments that start making decisions on behalf of those who are most powerful rather than on behalf of the good of the country and the economy and that is exactly what this deal represents. It was made on behalf of those who are powerful rather than those who cannot vote—in particular kids. The Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty points out that problem gambling is correlated with child poverty and in fact it exacerbates it. That is a point that has been made time and time again by the Problem Gambling Foundation and any expert who works on child poverty issues. If you want to support those who are mostvulnerable you do everything you can to remove problem gambling and in particular pokie machines.Any Government that argues that it is happy to simply minimise harm I think is making a ridiculous argument. It is like saying that you would rather raise the speed limit knowing people would die and then simply minimise the harm by putting more gurneys in a hospital. It is a flawed argument and it is a point that is right to have been made before now. Any Government that argues it would rather make that trade-off is trying to put power before people. This comes back to my main point. This deal demonstrates I believe the stark difference between National and Labour. We both want jobs—yes. We both want economic development—yes. But Labour would have conducted an open and transparent process that would ensure a convention centre that was a place of pride not harm and was about people not pokies.Debate interrupted.