Robertson Grant: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionRobertson Grant: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14422. Text is subject to correction.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to carry on from where my colleague Mr Mallard left off perhaps with some alteration to the form of language that he used. Part 1 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill is the preliminary provisions and it deals specifically in clause 3(1) with the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill according to this is “to provide economic benefits to New Zealanders by improving New Zealand’s capability to host medium- to large-scale international conferences and related exhibitions through the construction and operation of an international-standard convention centre.” Well there is not a huge amount in that to disagree with. There can be some debate about convention centres and just how much they add to the economy but the notion that an international-standard convention centre would be built in Auckland is not one that members on this side of the Chamber have a great deal of difficulty with.But that is not really the purpose of the bill. In fact clause 3 is quite misleading in beginning with that because it then says “to this end” and then tells us what the bill does and what the bill does is create a situation where one company is favoured above all others in New Zealand. One company is singled out. This is the classic crony capitalism of the National Party—picking off one company and saying: “We’ll do a special deal and what’s more when we do this special deal we will have an agreement with them that totally contravenes New Zealand’s gambling legislation.”I want to make reference to that now. In clause 4(1) we see a definition of “gambling law” that being the Gambling Act 2003 and any regulation related to that Act. In the regulatory impact statement we learnt from officials that they put up as an option the possibility of amending the Gambling Act in order to make the changes that this bill facilitates. The Government decided that it could not because it contravenes the Gambling Act because the Gambling Act is designed to reduce gambling harm. There is no way that even the officials could argue in the regulatory impact statement that this bill reduces gambling harm because it does not; it increases gambling harm. We have had reports from the officials that tell us that there will be up to 5000 to 8000 additional problem gamblers as a result of this piece of legislation. So the Government could not even amend the Gambling Act to do this. It had to create its own legislation for this dodgy deal which goes against the very principles of that legislation.The purpose clause of this bill then goes into the agreement between the Crown and Skycity. As I said on this side of the Chamber the idea of building a convention centre in Auckland is something we could support. But when we look at the Deputy Auditor-General’s report into this what we see is that quite clearly Skycity was treated differently from others who sought to be part of building that convention centre. This agreement that is referred to here in the purpose clause is an agreement that cuts across what is good process and that is exactly what the Deputy Auditor-General said. If you are Ngāti Whātua or Infratil and you were interested in being part of the convention centre this report makes shocking reading because what it shows—Hon Tau Henare: They’re not going to have a Ngāti Whātua room though are they?GRANT ROBERTSON: I would not want to know what you would do in there Mr Henare but what I do know is that Ngāti Whātua were not treated fairly when it came to the building of this convention centre. This convention centre could have been built by an iwi with a huge interest in the Auckland area. But no—John Key came along and he intervened and what this report shows is John Key’s intervention. He got hold of that paper and he wrote on the top of it “Close off the Skycity angle first.” His officials from that moment on worked only with Skycity and held meetings only with Skycity. Theother bidders did not get that opportunity. That is crony capitalism and that is the style of this National Government.The agreement as it is outlined in clause 3(2)(a)(i) and (ii) tells us that the main purpose is “the granting of changes to the regulatory regime applying to the SKYCITY Casino at Auckland;”. It is an innocuous phrase that is actually about adding a huge amount to the bottom line of Skycity above and beyond anything that it might spend in the building of this convention centre because as we go down to the interpretation clause it talks about 30 June 2048 which will be the point at which this agreement will come to its end allegedly although clause 4(1)(d) actually allows the concessions to continue beyond 30 June 2048. Trevor Mallard will probably still be in Parliament part-way through his parliamentary career at that point but that is a very long distance into the future to undertake—Hon Trevor Mallard: Clearly approaching the mid-point.GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes mid-point so there is some time to go. But that is a very long way in the future for these regulatory concessions to be granted. What those regulatory concessions do is expand the number of gaming tables and the number of gaming machines to the extent that we are talking about percentage increases for the whole of the gaming tables in New Zealand of around 8 percent just from this deal. So this is a hugely significant regulatory concession that is noted here.But it is more than that. It goes beyond just a regulatory concession. It actually sets up an unlevel playing field in New Zealand around the gambling industry. That is why the Government could not even manage to amend the gambling law as it is stated in clause 4 of the bill. The purpose of this bill is not just to build an international-standard convention centre; the purpose of this bill is to give Skycity concessions that nobody else has that contravene New Zealand’s gambling laws and that will increase gambling harm and all for what—all for what?If a member of the Government gets up today and tells us that the economic benefits to New Zealanders as they are outlined in clause 3 include employment let us not buy into that for a minute. Let us not buy into that for a minute because from the beginning of this we have had wildly exaggerated claims from the Prime Minister of how many jobs would be created—300 500 900. Well guess what? It is 18—18 jobs. That is what it is worth. The 18 jobs are the great economic benefit of clause 3 of this bill. That is appalling when it is set alongside the massive harm that will be done to families in New Zealand from this—the thousands of extra problem gamblers and their families.When you go into the prisons of New Zealand you will find people who are there as a result of their problem-gambling issues. When you go into mental health institutions in New Zealand you will find people there as a result of their issues with gambling. The irresponsibility of this Government to trade away a law for 18 jobs and a massive windfall profit to Skycity is completely shameful.Part 1 of this bill is the part that misleads New Zealanders by saying that the purpose of this bill is to establish an international-standard convention centre. That could be done without any of the regulatory concessions that are in this bill. That could be done without massively increasing the gambling harm in New Zealand. But no—the National Government made a conscious choice to go after an agreement with Skycity over and above any of the other bidders who might have been able to put their case forward in this bill. That is the wrong way to go about economic development because the name for that is crony capitalism. The name for that is a rort of the system a rort of the process that started at the very top with the Prime Minister and his officials who made sure that Skycity got the inside running.We actually cannot particularly blame Skycity for this. This is a private business that has gone after the best possible deal and outcome for it and its shareholders. The problemis that the other group at the negotiating table the Government was not looking out for its shareholders for the taxpayers. It was not looking out for the citizens of New Zealand; it was just there to do another shabby deal. So on one side of the table you have got the tough commercial negotiators; on the other side of the table you have got a Government that is failing to act in the interest of New Zealanders and is failing to protect New Zealanders from gambling harm.This is not a piece of legislation that supports the values of New Zealanders. It is not a piece of legislation that upholds other gambling law. Part 1 of this bill is just plain wrong. It does not meet the purpose that is stated here and it allows an agreement to be written into law that goes against the interests of New Zealanders.