Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1384] 
12. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Is the Government considering legislative or regulatory concessions with respect to SkyCity Casino in order to build an international convention centre; if so why? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Ministry of Economic Development is negotiating with Skycity over the form of a potential commercial agreement. While these negotiations are ongoing it would be inappropriate for me to rule in or out what the Government might finally agree to. If there are any legislative or regulatory changes that are required they will go through the usual public and/or parliamentary process in which that member of course is welcome to engage. However I would say that the overall economic benefit of any agreement would have to outweigh potential negative impacts before the Government would proceed. In the case of the proposed international convention centre we are talking about a $350 million investment that would bring in 1000 new jobs during its construction and around 800 jobs once it is up and running and that would inject $90 million a year into the Auckland economy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Would the Minister consider any of the following concessions inappropriate: increasing the number of pokie machines extending Skycity’s gambling licence or lease reducing taxation on gambling or destroying part of Television New Zealand’s headquarters? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I just refer the member back to the primary question. The Ministry of Economic Development is negotiating with Skycity at the moment and I am not prepared to conduct those negotiations on the floor of the House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given that the South Australian state Treasurer has ruled out “legislative favours for sale” in similar negotiations with Skycity there can he explain why in New Zealand gambling law is for sale to the same company? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I reject the inference that the member makes in that question. I would point out of course that what he is sort of suggesting is that actually if he had applied the suggested Government approach today back 20 years ago we would not actually have the original Skycity the Sky Tower the hotels in Auckland or the 3000 jobs today. So I think the member has to be careful because on the one hand he often asks for the Government to do more to encourage jobs but pretty much every time that the Government is proceeding and looking at things that will create more jobs the Opposition in the form of Mr Cunliffe and others opposes those measures. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has the Minister or any member of his staff ever received a chairman’s card or any other redeemable card or benefit from Skycity? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I would not even know what a chairman’s card from Skycity is. I have received one from Qantas I think as a Minister I am sure or something along those lines yes. I do not think Qantas does gambling or gaming. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Can he advise what economic benefits there could be for an estimated 350 to 500 problem gamblers from an increase in the number of pokie machines at the Skycity Casino that would come about from the development of a convention centre as has been reported today? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Again I am not sure where the member gets his numbers. As I have pointed out in the answer to the primary question negotiations are continuing between the Ministry of Economic Development and Skycity and if there was an arrangement to come to it would come back to this House and to Parliament to review. But I would say that again the important thing is that the overall economic benefit of any proposal has to outweigh the potential negative impacts before the Government will make a decision to proceed. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister explain to the House the difference between a closed-door negotiation with a casino in exchange for selling the law while receiving pecuniary benefits and practices that in other countries could be termed corrupt? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That is out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No one minds the member asking questions about an issue like this. The Minister has made it clear that he cannot talk about negotiations but the inference in that question is completely outside of the Standing Orders on a number of levels and if you were to review  
Hansard 
 because I am not repeating it I am sure that you would be able to see that it is a totally inappropriate question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Earlier in supplementary questions I gave the Minister the opportunity to effectively rule out or deem inappropriate any number of alleged concessions that have been publicly reported as being considered. The Minister has refused to rule out any and has refused in further supplementary questions to rule out the possibility of having received some pecuniary interest. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No no no order! 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Well that’s outrageous! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Order! I am on my feet. The Leader of the House should not be interjecting like that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Throw him out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I say to the right honourable gentleman that I am on my feet and he should not be interjecting either. The question I accept is right on the margins because the question talked about legislation being for sale or law being for sale and asked the Minister to compare that with what might be considered corrupt practice in other countries. I could get on a high horse and rule it out but it is an invitation to the Minister to give a pretty blunt answer back and I do not want to be preventing Ministers from being able to do that. None of the language alleged corruption in New Zealand. There is no reason why a member in this House cannot ask about possible corruption. If the Speaker was to rule that out how is that upholding the rights of members of this House to hold the executive to account? So although the question to me does contain imputations that the Minister may find quite offensive I do not think the Speaker should be ruling it out. I think it is up to the Minister to handle it in the way he sees fit and the questioner may not have much sympathy from the Speaker where he seeks the Speaker’s assistance in dealing with the kind of answer he gets. So I invite the Hon Steven Joyce to answer it in the way he sees fit. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I reject point blank the suggestion of the member in relation to the comments he made in that question including any suggestion of pecuniary benefits which I do find offensive. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can I seek leave to table a document created by the Parliamentary Library depicting the head office and key studios of our State broadcaster which the Minister wants to demolish to make way for more pokies. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Again I say to the honourable Leader of the House this is a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a document created by the Parliamentary Library depicting the artist’s impression of the Minister’s new pokie palace. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think the member has now breached the Standing Orders. To refer to something as a pokie palace I think is just treating the House with—the member had leave to table the first document. I am not putting leave. Because of the way the member treated the House I am not putting leave to table the second one.