Turei Metiria: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In CommitteeText is subject to correctionTurei Metiria: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 07 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14499. Text is subject to correction.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chairperson. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. This legislation the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill is before the House only because the Government needs to exclude Skycity from the Gambling Act. Do you remember that the Gambling Act expresses an absolute prohibition on the creation of any further casinos and on the expansion in any way of existing casinos? Skycity has for some decades now been fighting the Gambling Commission on its decision to refuse Skycity further licences to expand its business. What Skycity has done through this deal is find an alternative way to get round thegambling law because the gambling law has stopped it from expanding as it would like. It is not like Skycity does not make a huge amount of money—it makes huge profits in any event. It is just greed frankly. This legislation should not be called the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill at all. It is the “Skycity Greed Bill”.It is the “Skycity (Third-largest Casino in the Country Delivery Device) Bill”. That is what this actually is. I do not know whether people will remember in the past around the time of the smoke-free - tobacco inquiry that cigarettes were described as “nicotine-delivery devices”. I do not know whether you remember that—nicotine-delivery devices are what cigarettes are. That is why this legislation and this Skycity deal is essentially a casino-delivery device to Skycity. There would be no legislation in this Committee if there were not this deal which funds the building of a convention centre through the gambling concessions and if there were not the need to get round the Gambling Act. Part of the reason why this bill is structured as it is—rather than amending the Gambling Act for example—is simply that the Government did not want to have the public understand clearly enough and openly that the whole point of this deal was to give Skycity a legislative way of avoiding the constraints and the public health regulations in the Gambling Act.There are what 23 pages of words in this bill but if you took out all of those parts that are related to the Gambling Act and the concessions you are talking about only five provisions—maybe a few more; maybe seven provisions—that are at all related to the convention centre itself because very little of this deal requires any legislative changes. There is a little bit around the flags—the Flags Emblems and Name Protection Act—and there is a little bit around the name of the convention centre but essentially this entire bill is designed to give Skycity a mechanism to get round the Gambling Act. That is because Skycity has wanted for years to significantly expand its business and now it can. Now what it has is the third-largest casino being delivered to it by John Key.The Green Party constructed for members of Parliament and their policy people on the Tuesday just gone an almost life-sized replica of the extra 230 pokie machines 240 automated gaming terminals and 12 gaming tables out here on the parliamentary lawns so that when MPs came to vote this bill and exercise their consciences they would understand exactly what they were voting for. They are not voting for a convention centre. It does not need legislation. They are voting for the reality that that cardboard casino confronted MPs with. It was huge. It took up almost the entirety of the grass out the front of Parliament. The pokie machines had messages from Aucklanders written on them saying: “Please do not pass this bill. Please do not cause my family and friends and my community any more harm.”—genuine pleas to members of Parliament who have a choice on whether to deliver the third-largest casino to Skycity or not. Part of that choice will be made today in the votes that each individual MP will cast.The concessions that have been granted have been laid out. They are extraordinary. We are talking about nearly one extra problem gambler being created as a result of every single pokie machine that will be established so there will be around 200 extra problem gamblers an estimated 8000 being individuals affected by that problem gambling and an extra 6500 children being affected by that problem gambling. The impact of this legislation—which is gambling legislation make no mistake—is that a significant proportion of New Zealanders will be harmed.What we know from all of the papers that have been released so far—and frankly not every piece of advice has been released—is that the economics of this do not stack up. So the Government’s argument that somehow Skycity is entitled to the extensive third-largest casino in the country because somewhere else down the track it will contribute to economic development in New Zealand has been proved false. The only independent report that has been done on any of the economics of this issue showed thatthere will be a net creation across the country of 18 jobs—just 18 jobs. Although there may be lots of arguments around why a convention centre is good in Auckland even if it is another kind of convention centre—Louisa Wall: Let the market pay for it.METIRIA TUREI: That is right. Even if a convention centre does provide limited economic development is it none the less a wise thing to have for other parts of the economy and why do we not all make a contribution to that? Why does the Government not choose an ethical means to fund the building of a convention centre in Auckland? If the Auckland Council thinks it is a good idea it should put in some money. If the Government thinks it is a good idea it should put in some money. If the tourism industry thinks it is a good idea it should put in some money. There are lots of different ways of funding this thing that do not require the cost of it to be borne on the backs of problem gamblers. Maybe that is what we should call this bill—this is the “Problem Gamblers Pay for the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill”. Maybe that would be a more honest title for this legislation because if it were not for the fact that Skycity is getting the concessions as a result of this deal we would not have this legislation before us today.Most of it could be done by an agreement by the Government in a public-private partnership whether we like it or not. You know it would not be the end of the world if the Government was doing a deal with Skycity and it was an economic deal that did not give Skycity these concessions. We might not like it but at least it would be ethical and at least it would be morally explainable. But at the moment what we have here is morally contemptible. It is a morally contemptible piece of legislation that every single MP will be putting their name to if they vote for it.Louisa Wall: Only them.METIRIA TUREI: That is right. If you vote for this legislation you are voting for morally contemptible legislation. You are voting for more children being left in the Skycity car park.Hon Phil Goff: That presumes there’s any morality on that side of the Chamber and that’s a big presumption.METIRIA TUREI: That is a presumption Mr Goff but I am an eternal optimist and I want to believe in the best in people. I want to believe that the Parliament to which I contribute and that is supposed to serve me as a citizen of this country will make decisions based on rational argument evidence and the best interests of the people of this country and more important than anything the children of this country who will inherit it after we are gone. So yes I ask for MPs to take a moral stance to consider the impact of this legislation—which is only about casino gambling and only about Skycity Casino—and to choose to say no to it. There are ethical options available to us. There are other ways of developing a convention centre. There are other economic development options available to the people of Auckland to create jobs and stimulate their economy. There are other ways of providing for the public health needs of families in Auckland. There are ways of supporting Auckland businesses other than putting them at risk of the fraud and theft that will undoubtedly result out of this legislation’s passing.We could call this bill all sorts of things. I have tried to call the whole deal some names in the past actually for which I have got into some trouble.David Shearer: Just stay there.METIRIA TUREI: Yes maybe I should stop now.Iain Lees-Galloway: You didn’t try to call it sleazy did you?METIRIA TUREI: I could not possibly comment on that word. At the end of the day it is our job as members of Parliament to act in the best interests of our whole community and to not provide a financial boon to one company when we all know thatin doing so we cause harm to families and children. It really is that simple a calculation. It requires MPs to genuinely examine their consciences to consider what they are prepared to put their names to and what they are prepared to have their kids and their family accept that their loved ones have contributed to—that they are part of a process that will cause harm and not prevent harm. I urge all MPs to vote against this legislation.