Volume 694 Week 58 - Wednesday 6 November 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 694 Week 58 - Wednesday 6 November 2013[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14391. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 6 November 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MotionsNew York City Marathon 2013—Congratulations to Rt Hon David Carter SpeakerHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I seek leave to move without notice or debate a motion congratulating the Speaker on his performance in the New York City Marathon.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for such a course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Thank you all very very much.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I moveThat the House notes the superb performance of the Speaker in the New York Marathon and hopes that in the future he can go under 4 hours.Mr SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye to the contrary No. The motion is carried unanimously and please note that I abstained!Motion agreed to.Questions to MinistersInsurance—Proposal for State-owned Company1.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that a publicly-owned insurer is a “dumb idea”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: The Minister stands by all his statements that he has made about the idea of a taxpayer-owned insurer. In addition to calling it dumb he also said the idea was stupid and crazy. Furthermore he stands by another part of his statement in the House yesterday which was: “A billion-dollar impost on New Zealand taxpayers arises exactly from financial institutions taking too much risk and loading it on to the Government. That is why his proposition is stupid.” He particularly stands by this other part of his statement: “we want to avoid the taxpayer having to take the kinds of risks that have destroyed public finances in other developed countries. That is why the Government taking on even more insurance risk than it currently holds is crazy.”Hon David Parker: Is he calling Ross Armstrong the former president of the National Party dumb for supporting a publicly owned insurer like KiwiAssure?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Are you referring to the former Labour Party first mover Ross Armstrong? That is right. Look I have been here for 5 years now but I must admit that I have not actually met Ross. Possibly the Minister of Finance has but I suspect he is not actually getting the advice from Ross Armstrong at this point in time.Hon David Parker: Is he calling the 850000 customers of Kiwibank the vast majority of whom would like to have a New Zealand-owned insurer—is he calling those hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders dumb?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I cannot put words in the mouth of the Minister of Finance but on behalf of the Minister of Finance I say that what I think he is calling dumb is the idea that you would want to take on a whole lot more risk on behalf of taxpayers. Private sector insurers are paying out $20 billion as a result of the Christchurchearthquakes and the only question is how much of that $20 billion would Mr Parker like the taxpayers to take on.Hon David Parker: Was it a dumb idea for John Key to say that he was considering an investment by the Crown in Chorus on the same day Steven Joyce and the Minister of Finance were saying that investments like that would be a radical shift into a State-controlled economy reminiscent of the 1970s?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Generally when the Opposition fires out a gag that misfires because it is incorrect and the quote is wrong it does not come back for another smack the next day. The reality is the Prime Minister did not say that. He just did not rule out options and you are the ones—the Opposition—who are trying to put words in his mouth.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he calling Adam Hamilton Sid Holland Keith Holyoake John Marshall and Robert Muldoon—the last four being former National Prime Ministers—dumb for supporting a State-owned insurer?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The difficulty for the member is that we are 40 years on from the last of those Prime Ministers. I appreciate that the member is not but the rest of the world is and in a modern open economy where New Zealand does well more State-controlled influence in the economy would only damage the New Zealand economy at a time when it is performing very well relative to the rest of the developed world and frankly performing better every month.Hon David Parker: Is he calling the editors of thePress theSouthland Times theDominion Post and many others who have written editorials supportive of Labour’s KiwiAssure dumb?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I must have read a different paper. I read theDominion Post and also theNew Zealand Herald which is the one that the member forgot to mention. I think theNew Zealand Heraldcomment and I am not quoting verbatim said something like “Let us hope this thing is forgotten as quickly as it has been thought up.” TheDominion Postsat there and said “Oh we don’t know about this—sounds risky.” or words to that effect. The reality of this half-formed half-baked proposal is that all it would do is create significant additional fiscal risk for New Zealand taxpayers at the very time when the world has worked out that that sort of fiscal risk can be highly damaging to economies to families and to any people in a country.Rt Hon John Key: Not only has he seen any reports on establishing potentially a new State-owned insurance company but also has the Minister of Finance seen any reports on what was the last political party to actually sell a State-owned insurance company?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister of Finance will have no responsibility for that.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Point of order the Hon Gerry—[Interruption] Order! This is a point of order. It is entitled to be heard and will be heard in silence.Hon Gerry Brownlee: We had an interesting ruling yesterday that suggested that the Prime Minister could not be asked a question that related to advice from officials if that advice related to a privately owned company. I think that is a ruling that will need to be looked at in the future but what would appear to have happened here is that we have a question from the Opposition asking whether or not the Minister agrees with its proposition that it is a good idea to set up a State-owned insurer. He is now simply being asked the question in reverse which is whether there has been an incidence of a Government selling a State-owned insurer. That surely cannot be out of order.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the Minister is making. I had a look at theHansard yesterday. As the Deputy Speaker found yesterday the Speaker needs to quickly ascertain whether he thinks it is within the responsibility of the Minister towhom the question is asked. I have determined that it is not. I have ruled the question out of order and that is the end of the matter.Hon Gerry Brownlee: In reaching—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I certainly want to hear the supplementary question.Hon Gerry Brownlee: In reaching his conclusion that a State-owned insurer being established by any future Government would be a dumb idea did he consider any past actions by a Government relating to the sale of a State-owned insurer?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes of course you would do that and the Minister of Finance has. Of course there was a time in the past when we had a State-owned insurer and it was of course sold by a Government—Rt Hon John Key: Really?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes. In 1990 actually it was sold by a Government. In fact a Labour Government sold it at that time which makes it slightly weird that Labour is asking to create another one now but that is entirely consistent with its “yeah nah yeah” approach—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough of the answer.Irrigation Projects—Treasury Analysis2.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements regarding Government policy?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Dr Russel Norman: Does he stand by his statement that “The Government supports irrigation because of its potential for significant economic advantages.” and how does he reconcile that statement with advice from Treasury which in examining the proposed irrigation schemes came to the conclusion that they generally promised poor to average rates of return?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Dr Russel Norman: With reference to his answer to my last supplementary question then how does he reconcile that support with the fact that Treasury when analysing irrigation projects came to the conclusion that these projects generally promised poor to average rates of return?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not seen the specific advice—that would have been sent to other Ministers—but what I can say is that there have certainly been projects where irrigation schemes have made a significant economic difference to New Zealand. As we know with the South Island probably one of the fastest ways actually to lift economic growth in the South Island would be to ensure that there is irrigation. A huge amount of water that falls on the South Island from snow or rain basically pours out to sea and if that was stored it would allow for greater development of the South Island as would be true in parts of the East Coast of New Zealand.Dr Russel Norman: How could it be economically prudent for a Government to spend up to $400 million—which is the number that has been floated—to support the irrigation projects that are on the agenda currently when Treasury analysed the projects and came to the conclusion that these projects generally promised poor to average rates of return? How could it be economically prudent to support such a project?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said I have not seen the specific advice but what I can say is that it is important to understand that although the Government is prepared to put in up to $400 million it is actually as an equity player. So over time there is the expectation that cash would be returned. But if the member really wants to get into following and being a worshipper of Treasury advice—and that would be a great thing if the member decides he wants to do that—then he should go and ask Treasury what it thinks of his barmy idea about power.Dr Russel Norman: Given that Treasury came to the conclusion that “farm gate analysis indicates that irrigating the proposed areas would (in aggregate) constitute a loss-making investment” how can it possibly be economically prudent for the Government to put hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money into a loss-making investment?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well as I say I have not seen the specific analysis but over a long period of time there is no question I think that if there is greater irrigation in the parts of New Zealand where there is a shortage of water that will have a significant impact not only on the GDP of New Zealand but overall on the jobs and opportunities. That member as we now know is a weekly participant on theFarmingshow. I know that because David Cunliffe gave it the one-finger salute and decided—Mr SPEAKER: Order! This has very little to do with the answer required.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the Treasury papers from the Official Information Act request with all the Treasury papers for the Prime Minister’s benefit about irrigation.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a volume of Treasury papers I take it?Dr Russel Norman: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There was objection.Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the broader economic effects that the Prime Minister referenced in his answer to the last question is he aware that in Treasury’s analysis of the broader economic effects it found that those broader economic effects arose principally from the stimulatory effects of the construction activity—so it was the construction activity alone or principally that produced the broader economic effects—and if you could construct anything and produce those kinds of stimulatory effects why is the Prime Minister proposing to spend the money on these projects?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Maybe the answer to this question lies in the valuation of a property that has access to water and irrigation. If it is solely of economic benefit to both the farmer and the country to build an irrigation project and not actually use it then maybe the member would like to explain why farms that are irrigated sell for so much more and have so much greater economic productivity. I think the member can sit there if he likes and probably misrepresent Treasury—I do not really know I have not read the research—but the bottom line is that New Zealand would be well served if it advances irrigation. I encourage the member to go on theFarmingshow on which he now has replaced David Cunliffe and tell the farmers exactly what he thinks.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister honestly trying to tell the House that his approach to economic development is to identify things that the Prime Minister would just like to build—because he thinks they are good things—and that regardless of the analysis that is conducted by Treasury whose job it is to analyse these proposals he just happens to like those proposals so he is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on them?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me make this challenge to the member then. We will go over to Treasury and we will ask on a scale of one to 10 how much it dislikes these things. If it dislikes irrigation more than it dislikes his power programme we will stop our programme. But if it dislikes his power programme more will he campaign on stopping his? I do not think so.Economy—Business Confidence and Employment3.Hon TAU HENARE (National) to theMinister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy—and especially on further signs of improving economic momentum and increasing business and consumer confidence?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: I have received a number of reports providing further evidence of good momentum in the New Zealand economy and of improving confidence. For example Treasury this week issued its monthlyEconomic Indicators outlook for October. It said that the positive outlook for the economy was reinforced by the latest trade data which confirmed that the recovery from last summer’s drought is under way. It also highlighted rising net migration inflows buoyant business sentiment in the September quarter and other surveys reporting increases in confidence and activity. The Government is supporting these positive developments through its economic programme and especially through the Business Growth Agenda which is focused on creating the conditions for businesses to invest grow and create new jobs.Hon Tau Henare: What does Treasury’s monthlyEconomic Indicators report say about business confidence among New Zealand firms and their intentions to hire more workers?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Treasury says that business confidence in the economic outlook has risen to the highest level in many years. It pointed to the Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research which showed that firms experienced an improvement in their own activity over the September quarter and that even more businesses believed that activity would increase further in the December quarter. The survey reported modest employment growth but hiring intentions were rising strongly and are positive. Activity in the manufacturing sector in particular continues to increase. This is supported by ongoing strong numbers in the Performance of Manufacturing Index.Hon Tau Henare: How is the higher business confidence being reflected in other economic indicators especially in respect of the employment markets?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The household labour force survey and the quarterly employment survey both came out today. They confirmed that increased business confidence is being translated into more jobs and higher employment. The household labour force survey showed that employment was up by 1.2 percent in the quarter. As an annual figure that is 53000 more people in work or a 2.4 percent increase for the year. At the same time unemployment dropped from 6.4 percent to 6.2 percent. Obviously we are very keen to see that come down further but the trend is encouraging and better than in many other developed countries around the world. It is also pleasing that the Māori employment rate rose over the year. It is now also worth noting that the “neets” rate—that is young people not in education employment or training—fell over the quarter from 12.1 percent to 11.4 percent which is the lowest level since December 2008 before the global financial crisis.Hon Tau Henare: What do official employment statistics show about recent movements in incomes relative to the cost of living and how is this assisting families to get ahead?Andrew Little: Real wages are stagnant.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I know I am going to disappoint Mr Little who is always talking the place down. The quarterly employment survey shows that average ordinary time hourly earnings rose 2.6 percent over the year and were up from 2.1 percent in the previous quarter. This compares with inflation of 1.4 percent for the year meaning that people in work—and there are more of them—have the conditions to make steady and consistent gains in their incomes. Adding in a long run of low mortgage interest rates these are very helpful conditions for families and households to get ahead. It is also worth noting that not only are average hourly earnings up but the number of hours being worked has increased as well. Paid hours are up by 2.7 percent over the year. Theseimproving figures flow from careful Government policies that support growth and jobs being translated into real-world situations for New Zealand families.Broadband Ultra-fast—Infrastructure Pricing and Contract with Chorus4.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Ministers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Hon Shane Jones: Has he advised Minister Joyce to inform Chorus that it has taken its own financial risk and parking up dividends to its owners and managing its own debt is a better option than fabricating to the market a possible insolvency thus hoping to get corporate welfare from the Minister for Economic Development?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not aware of any conversations that Minister Joyce has had with Chorus. In fact I am now very recently advised that he has not had any conversations with Chorus. But what I can say for the benefit of the member if he is interested is that the Government is now assessing the situation. It is not a matter of whether there is corporate welfare or otherwise. The Government is committed to the long-term build of ultra-fast broadband and in the course of time the Government will assess all of the options available to it and decide what the next course of action is.Clare Curran: Why is he his former Minister Steven Joyce and his current Minister for Communications and Information Technology Amy Adams so surprised at the Commerce Commission’s decision to drop the copper price given that Steven Joyce’s 2011 telecommunications company legislation clearly stated that there would be a 3-year moratorium before the move to a cost-plus model for wholesale copper pricing which the Commerce Commission is now implementing and that Chorus’ first prospectus clearly stated this as a risk as did the regulatory impact statement for the Government’s only 2011 law?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Gosh the member is a long way back these days.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Point of order—[Interruption] Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very direct question about policy. You ruled the Prime Minister out of order in an earlier answer today and he has now repeated the very thing you had ruled him out of order for in an answer that followed. I ask you to make sure that the Prime Minister adheres to the Standing Orders.Mr SPEAKER: And I will certainly do my best to make sure that the Prime Minister adheres to the Standing Orders. His start of the answer was unsatisfactory. I told the Prime Minister so. The question has now been asked and I invite the Prime Minister to answer it.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I think it is very fair to say that no one back in 2011 actually predicted that there would be such a dramatic fall in copper prices. In fact my understanding is that the member believed that copper prices would go up not actually go down. So that fall has certainly caught the market by surprise. There were many many analysts who looked at the situation as a result of the legislation that was brought in and in fact at the contract that Chorus signed and not one analyst actually noted that there was a significant likelihood that there would be such a dramatic decrease in the copper price.Clare Curran: I seek leave to table page 204 of Chorus’s first prospectus which clearly sets out its awareness of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need any more description. I just want to clarify whether that document is clearly available if members want it.Clare Curran: It is an old document. It is difficult to access.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis—[Interruption] I think that members have the ability to access that if they want it.Clare Curran: Can he assure this House that neither Steven Joyce nor his ministry provided any kind of guarantee at the demerger of Telecom that has led Chorus to believe that its profitability would not be adversely affected by the legislated move to cost-plus unbundled bitstream access pricing?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My advice is that the Minister made no such assurance.Clare Curran: In light of the statement by Chorus yesterday that it would “discuss with the Crown whether Chorus was still a credible UFB partner in the way intended at demerger …” does he believe that all parties—all parties—tendering on the ultra-fast broadband contract did so on an equal footing; if they did not will he sack Steven Joyce as the Minister responsible for that debacle?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This will come as a huge disappointment to the member but no I will not be sacking Steven Joyce any time soon. It is very important to understand—[Interruption]—any time soon. I am feeling good about it. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister now has a right to answer the question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What the member is clearly demonstrating is that she is not committed to the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband. I really look forward—Clare Curran: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very precise question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! It was not a very precise question. It was quite a long question that included a comment around whether a Minister would retain his job or not.Hon Shane Jones: When Minister Joyce told Parliament: “These new broadband networks will provide an economic step change as we leapfrog many of our competitors …” did he add: “We will probably need to bail out a sharemarket company and twist the regulatory framework of the Commerce Commission.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that firstly it is very important to understand that there is no bailout taking place. The Government has a strong commitment to ultra-fast broadband. The Government now has to look at the implications for the ultra-fast broadband programme as a result of the Commerce Commission’s ruling. If the member is basically telling New Zealanders that he does not support the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband that is going to be a great discussion to have in 2014.Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister assure this House that neither he nor “Mr Fix-it” will—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Can I ask the member to rephrase his question.Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister and multi-millionaire former businessman—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I now invite the member to ask a question in line with the Standing Orders and if he does not do so this time we will be moving on.Hon Shane Jones: Can the Prime Minister and the Minister for Economic Development assure or guarantee this House that his Government will not bail out this share market company but rather will enforce the contract and not give in to their protestations for corporate welfare?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I can say is that it is highly likely that the Minister of Communications and Information Technology will have a little more to say about this tomorrow. She is likely to be able to give an indication of how the Government will now try to understand fully the ruling from the Commerce Commission and the possible alternatives and options available. But the Government is committed to ultra-fast broadband. The interesting thing with ultra-fast broadband is that it is going to be rolledout—both through the Rural Broadband Initiative and with fibre—up in that member’s part of the world which happens to be one of the few parts of New Zealand that is actually not going ahead economically at the rate that the Government wants. Actually I just wonder whether next year that member will be strutting his stuff telling the good people of Northland that they do not deserve ultra-fast broadband. If they vote Labour they will be on old technology.Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My area is not actually in the grid that is going to get this broadband outreach.Mr SPEAKER: That is not even remotely accurate as a point of order.Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting—Appointment of Sri Lanka to Chair5.Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to theMinister of Foreign Affairs: What advice has he received on the call from Amnesty International opposing the appointment of Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa as Chair of the Commonwealth for the next 2 years and host of next week’s Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): I have received a range of advice on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) and the issues raised by Amnesty International. The decision to accept Sri Lanka’s offer to host and chair CHOGM was made collectively by Commonwealth countries in Perth in 2011. By offering to host CHOGM the Sri Lankan Government knows that it is opening itself up to scrutiny on human rights and reconciliation issues. It is the New Zealand Government’s position that the most constructive thing that New Zealand can do is to engage and use the opportunity to examine progress. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be visiting the north of Sri Lanka during CHOGM next week to do precisely that.Hon Peter Dunne: Has the Minister seen the various reports of human rights abuses occurring in Sri Lanka and has the Government sought to make any expression of concern about those issues to the Government of Sri Lanka in advance of next week’s CHOGM?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Minister receives a range of advice on those issues. He has visited Sri Lanka twice this year and he does raise those very points with Sri Lankan officials and politicians when he engages with them.Hon Peter Dunne: What is the Minister’s reaction to claims that New Zealand’s overall approach to the Sri Lankan issue is a softly softly one linked to its wider campaign for a seat on the United Nations Security Council?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I completely refute that assertion.Earthquake Commission—Public Confidence and Auditor-General’s ReportHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): My question is to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission and asks—[Interruption] Are you OK? Are you all right?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please just start his question again without responding or interjecting himself.6.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to theMinister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Does he still believe that New Zealanders can have confidence in EQC?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission): Yes. In 2013 18315 claims have been made to the Earthquake Commission from throughout New Zealand. So far over $7 million has been paid in settling those claims.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How can New Zealanders have confidence in the Earthquake Commission when the Auditor-General has confirmed the Earthquake Commission’s inability to communicate with its claimants stating: “Homeowners have experienced inconsistency in information and long periods without specific information” and “a lack of certainty while waiting for repairs”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Auditor-General has been engaged in the Earthquake Commission process from the outset largely at my request so that we did get good information and an acceptable assessment of how that performance was going. The Earthquake Commission has in fact improved that performance quite considerably. It has repaired over 46000 damaged homes in Christchurch and paid out in excess of $6.3 billion to Cantabrians to date. Further the latest survey from the Earthquake Commission has got an 86 percent satisfaction rate on those repairs.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh yeah. What about the people you didn’t survey?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Point of order the honourable—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh no I had better answer. It will be easier if I answer.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he believe that the Earthquake Commission—to quote him in this morning’sPress—is doing “pretty well” given that the Auditor-General notes that 3 years on the Earthquake Commission was not completing repairs to properties with vulnerable occupants any faster than the repairs to other properties and that the reason for this provided by the Earthquake Commission was that 3 years on the “process for prioritising the vulnerable has yet to … bed in”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well the member can sit over there and say that we are 3 years on. The reality is—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The Auditor-General said that not me.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well that is right. The Auditor-General is closeted here in Wellington doing a distant observation. The reality is that the decay curve on the seismic activity in Canterbury has shown a settled pattern only for a bit over 12 months. So yes there has been a fair bit of time elapsed but do not forget that the Earthquake Commission was directly responsible for fixing up over 170000 houses. So I think my comment that it has done pretty well is a reasonable one. The other thing of course is that I well remember the member who is asking the question predicting that we were going to see real estate values drop through the floor in Canterbury. That has not happened largely because of the efforts of the Earthquake Commission.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he believe that the Earthquake Commission is doing “pretty well” given that the Auditor-General notes that 3 years on—and she is capable of counting 3 years—“some contractors were accredited and inducted before criminal credit and conflict of interest checks became a routine part of the accreditation process” that “the issuing of performance improvement notices … to contractors has not been centrally recorded for most of the programme” and that “the controls for ensuring compliance with the building code are not consistently followed;” and that the reason given for this by the Earthquake Commission 3 years on was that these checks had only recently been implemented?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member is quoting selectively from the Auditor-General’s report and it is available for anybody to read and to put into the right context. In the early days there may well have been contractors accredited who did not meet some of the strict criteria that are there now and have been there for the vast majority of the last 3 years. There are 1287 accredited contractors employing thousands of people and to characterise them in the way that Mr Cosgrove has is completely inappropriate.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that my word has been questioned I seek leave—and it is a recent document; I accept that given your recent rulings—to table page 33 of the Auditor-General’s—Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need to hear any more. That document is very available if members wish to further inform themselves.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will he now acknowledge 3 years on the genuine ongoing difficulties and struggles that the people of Canterbury are having with the Earthquake Commission given that he has in the past brushed these issues aside and questioned their validity in light of the Auditor-General publishing a 100-page report detailing evidence and facts independently illustrating the Earthquake Commission’s ineptitude?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It does not matter how many flowery words the member might throw into his question to try and make it seem a little more reasonable and direct. The fact is that the Earthquake Commission is dealing with a very big problem in Canterbury. There are 170000 houses that need to be dealt with. It is getting on with that task extremely well. In addition to that it has done land assessments on over 180000 individual properties and has settled literally thousands and thousands and thousands of contents claims as well. The Auditor-General has noted a condition that existed in the Earthquake Commission at a point in time. The Earthquake Commission is committed to improving its performance. Frankly every statistic that can be amassed around the Earthquake Commission does indicate a reasonable performance. I think it is worth noting that the old Department of Building and Housing did a survey on building work that was done while that member was the Minister and found that 69 percent of people had a satisfactory outcome with their contractors. The Earthquake Commission has consistently been at the 80 percent mark and as high as 91 percent and is currently at 86 percent. It is a very good performance.Housing Affordable—Options Paper and Cost of Building Materials7.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to theMinister of Commerce: What steps is the Government taking to introduce more competition into the housing construction market?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): One of the five main contributors to the high cost of construction in New Zealand as identified by the Productivity Commission last year is the cost of building materials which can be as much as 30 percent higher than in Australia. That is why the Minister of Housing and I have released theResidential Construction Market Study—Options Paper. This paper sets out options to introduce more competition into the housing construction sector which can bring down the costs of home building materials. The options include proposing increased transparency simplified compliance changes to anti-dumping duties and tariff concessions which can bring down the costs of new-home building materials.Mark Mitchell: How will these options help to increase competition and lower the cost of building materials?Hon CRAIG FOSS: More competition in the building construction sector can lead to more choice and lower costs for consumers. Submissions to the market study earlier this year raised concerns that it was difficult for good quality and new products to come into the New Zealand market. The paper outlines options that could be made with changes to the regulatory framework and to promote competition to make it easier for these quality products to come to the New Zealand market. More choice and more competition is a win-win for all of New Zealand.Phil Twyford: After all the tough talk from the Minister of Housing scapegoating local councils for his failed housing policy will the Government now be brave enough to tackle the vested interests holding back competition in the building supplies market?Hon CRAIG FOSS: This Government certainly has the courage to deal with the crisis of housing that was inherited in 2008 by this Government where building construction costs had increased by almost double particularly in the period 2002-08. The suite of measures we are undertaking—freeing up land supply Resource Management Act reform reining in council contribution rates halving interest rates for New Zealanders and investing in skills and productivity—is the courage of conviction to help New Zealand families address their building construction costs.Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he would tackle the vested interests in the building supplies market. He did not address that question.Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to go back and look at his question it certainly has been adequately addressed.Sexual Offences—Pre-trial and Trial Processes8.JAN LOGIE (Green) to theMinister of Justice: When she said in response to whether the pre-trial and trial process precludes some sexual violence victims from complaining “quite clearly it does not” did she mean that few sexual violence victims are deterred from complaining by the process itself?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): That member has misquoted herself from yesterday. The question she asked was: “Is justice denied to sexual violence survivors if the current pre-trial and trial system precludes them from making a complaint?”. Now she is trying to suggest that she put in the word “some”. Quite clearly the answer which I see from yesterday was that it does not for all victims because some people do in fact proceed with complaints they go right through the court process and the accused is found guilty. I am happy to table that member’sHansard if she cannot remember what she said.Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no need for that.Jan Logie: Thank you for the clarification Minister. Does she agree that the system at least contributes to the Ministry of Justice finding that only 9 percent of sexual violence offences are reported to the police and to the widespread view of lawyers and police that the process is “not healthy for complainants”?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think we can all realise that anybody who lays a complaint of rape is going to go through a very difficult time and that is why we have gone to such efforts to make sure that there is in fact a tremendous number of support mechanisms around these victims both male and female. I think we need to labour that point that not all victims of sexual abuse are women. In fact young men older men and people who are vulnerable can be subject to this abuse.Jan Logie: I seek leave to table a statement by defence lawyer Paul Dacre saying that he would never advise a member of his family to participate—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Enough of a description has been made. Leave is sought to table that statement by a lawyer. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Jan Logie: Will she consider a specialist sexual violence court and an alternative process for sexual offence cases both of which received “very strong support” from judges lawyers sexual violence support services and the public who submitted on the Law Commission’s work on alternative trial processes?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As the member has relayed it it is a very finite sort of question that she has asked. In fact this is a very complex issue. I am happy to run through with her the differences between an adversarial and an inquisitorial method ofjustice and why it would be wrong to completely change our system of justice in relation to one particular sort of offence and not to another. I know that there is work going on in the Ministry of Justice to deal with some of the issues that have been raised and we are constantly looking at ways we can help victims of sexual abuse to be able to come forward and to get the help they need.Jan Logie: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That did not address my question. I gave—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I listened very carefully to the question and the answer in my opinion certainly addressed the question. If it is not to the satisfaction of the member the member can use supplementary questions.Andrew Little: Why did the Minister say in answer to a question from me yesterday that she would not implement the recommendation of the Law Commission in March this year when that recommendation modifies the cross-examination process for victims of sexual offences merely by requiring questions to be posed to the victim to be lodged with the trial judge in advance of the trial?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually that was not the question the member asked yesterday.Andrew Little: Yes exactly that is what it was.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No he referred to the recommendations about particular sorts of evidence.Andrew Little: I’ve got the transcript Minister.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have got the transcript too and that is not actually—the member was confused in his question and of course I have already said that we are looking at this issue.Andrew Little: Does she accept that the way trials of sex offences are conducted is often intimidating to victims that changes need to be made to ensure that sexual crimes can be prosecuted and that this can be done without compromising the fundamental principle of criminal trials that a defendant is entitled to hear in full the allegations being made by his or her accuser?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I would say to that member that actually the most traumatic thing for a rape victim is being raped and then to have to go through a process to have their day in court and to hold their accuser to account is a very difficult—Andrew Little: So you don’t want to change anything.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is actually really abusive to have that sort of language from that member. But having said that—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was asked and the Minister is entitled to answer.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —not only is it very important that we consistently look at how we can make it less difficult for victims to come forward to have their day in court but also we need to be able to preserve the fairness of a trial because we will not and we should not encourage miscarriages of justice.Jan Logie: Is it true that although she is not to blame for the system the Law Commission the Ministry of Justice and her predecessor Simon Power have outlined multiple ways to make it better for victims; if so will she please put this work back on the Law Commission’s agenda so that she can properly consider the options?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am happy to give that member a briefing but I am also happy to answer her question. Actually there are lots of things that we both the ministry and I are doing and working on at the moment relating to these matters. But I am not going to take a holus-bolus approach that attempts to impose an inquisitorialsystem into our adversarial system for certain matters. As that member is now so interested in victims I wonder why it is that her party never voted for the public safety—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not going to assist the order of this House.Jan Logie: I seek leave to table the summary of the Law Commission’s alternative trial processes outlining three proposals—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The summary of any document from the Law Commission will certainly be available to all members.Interislander Ferries—Aratere Malfunction9.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for State Owned Enterprises?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How on earth can he have confidence in this Minister when just last night the ferryAratere had one more event in a disastrous line of events—[Interruption]—“Big Ears”—and lost a shaft and a propeller putting the lives of people on board at risk?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the matter is an operational matter for KiwiRail. We actually do not know what happened but an inquiry will now be undertaken by the Transport Accident Investigation Commission. But I am advised that there was no risk to passengers or crew.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that theAratere’s stabilisers do not work properly that the radar has in the past failed that the ship flexes in rough seas—in fact it now porpoises through the water—that the cargo doors do not close properly and that even the toilets do not often work?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I am not aware of those matters. I am aware that around $45 million was invested in extending theAratere in 2011 to increase its capacity in order to facilitate the movement of freight. As I said I am advised that there was no risk to passengers or crew last night.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When is the Prime Minister going to become informed about what his Ministers are not doing and that in fact more than $50 million was spent on extending the ship so that it could carry more freight yet the problems are so great that it cannot carry any more freight now than it did originally?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that the member is making a great many statements that may well in the course of time be proved to be not correct. I am aware that the chief executive of KiwiRail has given the Minister his assurance as to the maintenance of the ferries and the priority of passenger safety.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When will the Prime Minister become informed about what his Ministers and the head of KiwiRail are not doing—[Interruption]. No I am putting a complaint to you because you are the Minister. You should know what you are doing in this Cabinet—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member cannot bring me into this debate. The member may now ask his question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am trying to ask my question. Your job is to stop that turkey—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I know very well what my job is. I will give the right honourable gentleman one more chance to ask a supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: At what stage—[Interruption] At what stage—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: “At what stage”—would the member please ask his question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: At what stage will they shut up?Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to ask his question I invite him to do so. I will not give him another opportunity.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wish to do that. I wish to be heard. At what stage will the Prime Minister recognise the threat to public safety and shipping created by theAratere and the numerous incidents fire his Minister in charge fire those responsible at the head of KiwiRail and call in experts to sort out this now $132 million lemon once and for all?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said at the start of my answer to this question from the member we are unsure about exactly what happened but there is a full inquiry and in the fullness of time that inquiry will be made public. The member is making a lot of statements that I am pretty sure in the fullness of time will not actually be supported as accurate. I say to this member that if he thinks the Minister for State Owned Enterprises should resign because a propeller came off the ferry then maybe he should have resigned as the leader of New Zealand First when he himself lost a man overboard.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The unparliamentary nature of that comment would have been very obvious but the response is that we do not prop up crooks like he does.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. The member asked a fairly provocative question and he got a fairly provocative answer.Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence and ask that the member withdraw and apologise.Mr SPEAKER: I cannot see what the member could have possibly taken offence at.Prison Facilities—Redevelopment10.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to theMinister of Corrections: What recent announcements has she made on the redevelopment of prison facilities?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): I recently announced that Auckland Prison (Maximum Security Division) is to be completely rebuilt to provide a more secure safe and modern facility. The maximum security wing is the only one of its kind in the country and houses this country’s most dangerous and most difficult prisoners. However it is now 45 years old and is becoming increasingly expensive to maintain and it simply does not have the capacity to deliver specialist rehabilitation and mental health services. The wing will be designed built financed and maintained under a public-private partnership but the Department of Corrections will continue to manage the prison’s day-to-day operations.Jacqui Dean: What unique features will the rebuilt maximum security wing have to allow corrections staff to better manage prisoners?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The rebuild will improve the conditions for staff so that they can work more effectively with prisoners to lower their security classification. The new building will also house a specialist mental health unit for prisoners with severe to moderate needs which will provide care to offenders who currently have to be transferred back and forth from the Mason Clinic. This in turn will ease pressure on the Mason Clinic for the wider population. The facility which is scheduled to open in mid-2017 will be a world-class maximum security unit will put public and staff safety first and will allow corrections to more effectively manage these very dangerous prisoners.Jacqui Dean: What other upgrades has she announced to prison infrastructure?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Today I announced that $81.3 million is being invested to upgrade another five prisons to improve their safety and security and to provide better facilities for prisoner rehabilitation and training. Major infrastructure works will soon begin at Invercargill Whanganui and Tongariro prisons with work already under wayat Waikeria and Rolleston prisons. Not only will the investment we are making in these five prisons improve their security but also we are making sure that they are in the best possible position to help the Government achieve its target of reducing re-offending by 25 percent by 2017.Jacinda Ardern: Is her target to improve the safety of corrections officers by 50 percent through initiatives like this ambitious enough when it is not even getting her back to rates before she came into office with serious prisoner assaults on staff having almost doubled in the last 3 years?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I think it is a bit rich for an Opposition member from the previous Labour Government to address a question on the issue of prisoner safety to this Government which has spent millions of dollars has put in place an external advisory group to work with staff on staff safety and has put out and set a target to improve staff safety when the previous Labour Government did absolutely nothing over 9 years to address the concerns around staff safety.Christchurch Recovery—Housing Availability11.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to theMinister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that the housing situation in Christchurch is “a challenge not a crisis”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) on behalf of theMinister of Housing: Yes. Although as a result of the Christchurch earthquakes there was significant loss in that housing stock building consents are now at a 37-year high with almost 600 new dwellings and with 29 new homes being consented every day since September. The challenge is being met.Phil Twyford: How many affordable homes will be built in Christchurch given that Gerry Brownlee says that the Government is already well on the way to delivering more housing in Christchurch at a scale and time line that equals Labour’s plan?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do wish that the member would quote my colleague accurately. He said that we are ahead of the curve as far as the potential plan from the Labour Party is concerned.Phil Twyford: Does he agree with New Brighton resident Sue Davidson when she says that they have been forgotten and why after 3 years has the Government never proposed anywhere in Canterbury the kind of innovative hands-on approach that Labour has announced for New Brighton?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Although I do not have responsibility for the regeneration programme in the suburb of New Brighton in Christchurch what I can tell the member is that there have been discussions going on for a very long time about urban renewal in Christchurch. What we have seen in the last few days from the Labour Party is a desperate attempt to get on the bus and start claiming that in 18 months’ time should it be the Government it may do something. By then they will be able to see the action well and truly started.Phil Twyford: With the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment estimating a shortfall of 7000 homes in Christchurch why is he refusing to get behind Labour’s plan to build 10000 affordable starter homes in Christchurch when all of the evidence points to a crisis at the affordable end of the market?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As I said earlier when answering a question as the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission it does not matter how many times you put emotive and flowery language into questions because the reality of the facts that are presented is far more important. Rents in Christchurch for example remain significantly cheaper than they are in Auckland. There were also 1100 houses available on the TradeMe website as of this morning. So when there is so much stockstill available but a recognition that we do have to replace a good number of the nearly 8000 houses that have been red-zoned and we have got a programme to do it and we are seeing the consents coming through at a rate of about 5000 a year I say of course that the challenge is being met. It is not a crisis; it is a challenge.World War I Centenary—Commemorations and National War Memorial Park12.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to theMinister for Arts Culture and Heritage: How does the Government intend to mark the centenary of the First World War?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): The Government has developed a comprehensive programme called WW100 to mark the First World War. WW100 has a very strong digital presence and I know that Mr Grant Robertson will be delighted to visit the website—ww100.govt.nz—because he is a 21st century guy and also on Facebook and Twitter. The centrepiece will be New Zealand Memorial Park in Wellington which will be opened on Anzac Day in 2015. Funding has been allocated for national and local centenary projects. The Government is also supporting the Auckland War Memorial Museum’s Cenotaph database which will provide a page for every New Zealander who served in the First World War. There is also an international component. Heritage trails in other countries will tell the stories of New Zealand’s involvement in battles from Gallipoli to Western Europe.Chris Auchinvole: How is the National War Memorial Park progressing?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Brilliantly. The Minister of Transport and I recently visited the trench that will take State Highway 1 underground at the Buckle Street part of the park. Construction is 3 days behind schedule which is a fantastic achievement for such a major project. It is a huge credit to Mr Brownlee his transport officials and those in the New Zealand Transport Agency.Urgent Debates DeclinedInterislander Ferries—Aratere MalfunctionMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the state of the interisland ferry service following the ferryAratere suffering mechanical problems in Cook Strait last night. TheAratere’s mechanical problem of yesterday is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However KiwiRail’s response is ongoing. Surveyors are ascertaining the damage the remedies and the time frame for theAratere resuming service. A Transport Accident Investigation Commission inquiry has also been opened.The big hurdle to get over in an urgent debate application is whether the matter has reached the stage where the business of the House should be set aside. The test is a high one. Every incident cannot be the basis for a debate even though on the face of it the incident may be significant. I am not convinced that I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.General DebateHon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business. What we have is the “Yeah Nah Labour Party”. We have a wishy-washy party with a wishy-washy leader that does not know what it stands for or what it really means. What we have is the “Yeah Nah Labour Party”. It cannot decide where it stands and cannot decide what it means. Labour wants to be the “Assure Party”. What it is actually is the “Unsure Party”. Labour does not know what it stands for. You have got to say that at least the Greens know what they stand for and that is against anything that will actually mean jobs and growth. DavidShearer may have been the “Yeah um” leader but now we have the “Yeah nah” leader. There is no doubt about that.Let us take the man ban—take the man ban as one example. Labour turned round and said: “Yes yes we want a man ban. We want a man ban.” and then: “No no no yeah yeah no no no we don’t want a man ban.” Then of course we have just had the weekend when it came back again and said: “Yeah yeah yeah we will.” So it is “Yeah nah yeah.” We have got one for that.Let us take Cunliffe who does the “Yeah” to one audience and then “Nah” to another audience. Inside the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions conference we had “Yeah” to the living wage and “Yeah” to paid parental leave. Then quite frankly he stepped outside and went: “Oh nah. Oh nah—yeah nah. Yeah nah. Yeah we kind of want them but we’ll just back-pedal here faster than Shane Jones does with a remote. Yeah nah we actually didn’t mean it or maybe at some stage if we can get to it.” Cunliffe is telling one audience “Yeah” but then again he does owe the unions remember. So one message to the unions—in fact David Cunliffe might be at the meat workers’ union now instead of in Parliament and showing that he actually owes it something and that that is where he should be.Labour’s position on big big projects is: “Yeah nah. Yeah we sort of want jobs and that rhetoric sounds good so yeah we’ll go on about jobs. But nah nah we won’t actually support anything or vote for anything that means growth or that means jobs for real families.” In fact let us take the classic example of that which is the New Zealand International Convention Centre. It is the topic of the week. Let us take the convention centre. Labour said: “Yeah nah yeah nah we won’t be voting for the convention centre. Yeah nah we don’t support jobs. We don’t want $400 million dollars that taxpayers won’t have to pay. Yeah nah we don’t want more tourism. Yeah nah we don’t want to see those jobs coming in.” Unless of course Labour is speaking to Skycity itself then it is: “Oh yeah yeah. Actually if we’re in we won’t roll back the contract. Actually if we’re in the word on this side is yeah nah.”Cunliffe says: “We didn’t mean what we actually said.” Let us just quote from him here when he said to Skycity: “Do you want it straight from the shoulder? Here it is. We will not rip up the contract. We will not throw out the terms of Skycity’s gaming licence.”—yeah nah. Yeah nah.His rhetoric this week the “Yeah no” on what he is doing—in one breath on that convention centre he has most certainly done the “Yeah nah”. His response to the unions right now—and let us remember who he is responsible to. Let us take trade. Trade is a goody is it not? When he was in Government he said: “Oh yeah we need more trade. Yeah we’ll support trade. Free trade is good for the country. Free trade is good for jobs for Kiwis.” But now that the unions have got him wrapped round their little finger it is: “Nah nah—well maybe. Yeah nah yeah nah maybe we’ll support free trade. No we don’t think we will now.” because the unions are actually pulling the strings not the “Yeah nah” leader who quite frankly is so wishy-washy.Let us take superannuation. David Cunliffe says: “Yeah we want people to work harder. Yeah we want people to work longer. Nah nah not now the unions are actually running things. Nah it doesn’t sit quite as well so we’ll just backtrack hugely on that one as well.” as he is kind of moving along.Take national standards. In 2012—just last year—we had it quite emphatically from the Labour Party: “No we will not cancel national standards.” Now that the unions are pulling the strings it is: “Yeah nah. Yeah nah.” Just last weekend we had the leader saying that he would scrap national standards: “Yeah nah. Yeah nah. We’re not really sure exactly where we stand on those things as well.”So let us contrast that to the National Party which stands for something. What will the public be saying next year to Labour? “Yeah nah.”Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I move for an extension of time. The more the public hear of this the better for us.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): Stop the press. Stop the press. We have just seen and heard the New Zealand parliamentary equivalent of that European zoo news story—the cross between the zebra and the donkey.They are worried. They are worried on the other side of this House. They are worried. We see it in their faces. They know it in National. Labour is on the move. We are energised. We are confident. We are cohesive. We are buoyed by a fantastic conference. The media caught the mood. The media got it. Vernon Small from the Fairfax Group said that David Cunliffe “hit all the right notes … a new state-owned insurer to appeal nationally as well as to earthquake-weary premium-payers in Christchurch and a flawless delivery.” In theNew Zealand Herald John Armstrong said that David Cunliffe’s conference speech was “a tour de force in terms of tone content and delivery.” Thank you David. What a conference. David Cunliffe successfully laid out his and Labour’s vision for New Zealand: to build a future for all an economy that works for all New Zealanders a fair and just society where all live in dignity an environment we protect and a nation we can be proud of.All the while National is increasingly out of touch and failing New Zealanders. There is a two-speed economy where many especially in the regions are left behind; widening inequality; an incompetent anti-democratic Government; and crony capitalism with corporate welfare for the connected few at the expense of the people. National is so flat. This week it is mired in yet another controversy born of Steven Joyce’s incompetence. This time it is Chorus and ultra-fast broadband—“Mr Fix-it” now spelt that other way. It is yet another instance of economic mismanagement by National. John Key’s response is to undermine the regulator and consider more corporate welfare.Labour is on the move. As John Armstrong said “The buzzword of the conference was ‘energised’” and he is right. Already many polls show Labour and our potential MMP coalition partners ahead of National and its shabby discredited allies ACT whose John Banks is in the dock for electoral fraud and Peter Dunne who having lost his party was dumped for leaking a Government report.We announced a significant move to use the successful Kiwibank model for insurance. I have not got time to dwell on that but suffice it to say how shrill Mr Joyce was when he was sent out to head the spin. And how dumb of Mr English to call the idea dumb insulting hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders his former president Ross Armstrong and editorial writers across the country.I want to end on Canterbury housing. Given the abject failure of National on housing in Auckland I should not have been surprised to find how incompetent its efforts in Christchurch have been. But I really was surprised because at one level what we announced was so simple. The “Human Wrecking Ball” is so blunt. He is great at demolition but he lacks the subtlety to govern to stop the waste of short-term rentals and to give building affordable housing a boost in the devastated suburbs in Christchurch East. We caught National flat-footed and it was so easy because it is ideologically opposed to doing this sort of thing.On the front page of thePress—two-thirds of the front page—the banner headline was “New era for New Brighton?”. It is about practical help for Christchurch in partnership with the council. And how did Nick Smith and Gerry Brownlee both missit? It is so obvious. It is because they are so ideologically opposed to affordable housing. They cannot blame the Resource Management Act this time because it is already in the Christchurch plan. It is already there; they just did not find it.KiwiBuild will deliver it. This is how good Governments govern. We use the power of the State to make a difference. We caught the National Government flat-footed. Nick Smith’s lame response in thePress on Monday was: “The Government has also made early steps to investigate affordable housing areas in the city.” Five years after being elected and 3 years after the quake National has been caught not just flat-footed and not just stumbling but plain lame—lame.Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Labour is not on the move. I will tell you what: Labour is so disappointed with those figures that are out today. It is so depressed about those figures out today because the economy is growing. Those figures out today prove it. The Opposition finance spokesperson David Parker knows that the economy is moving and unemployment is on its way down from 6.4 percent to 6.2 percent. That is fantastic when you consider all of the issues that this Government has had to deal with. The unemployment rate was 7.2 percent a year ago. Our policies are making a difference. Our policies are really getting cut-through. Of course when you consider that our economy is growing by 2.5 percent and then you have a bank like Westpac out there forecasting 4 percent next year it is no wonder that the Labour Party is depressed.For Mr Parker to get up here and say that Labour is on the move from its conference—I cannot believe it. The only thing that I heard that came out of its conference was the man ban. The only thing that came out was that it is back talking about the man ban again and half of the male members in the Labour caucus are really worried about that.Of course the business confidence which Mr Parker did not want to talk about is at an all-time high over the last 14 years. He forgot to mention that. Those members on the other side of the House do not trust business but over here we do. The business confidence surveys are backing this Government.What I want to also address this afternoon is the importance of regional infrastructure and investment the importance of innovation and how we are going to continue to grow our exports. Importantly when you think about the Opposition and I thought this article in theNew Zealand Herald recently summed it up really well you have Russel Norman over there objecting to pretty much everything—in fact he did. He objected to everything: the Trans-Pacific Partnership Skycity the Ruataniwha Water Storage project deep-sea oil exploration the Denniston mine the Pūhoi to Wellsford motorway saying Steven Joyce is agreeing with everything and then saying on the monorail that the Minister of Conservation still has to decide on that one—the list goes on.Then you had Mr Cunliffe in the middle where he could not decide anything—weasel words. Paula Bennett is exactly right: “Yeah nah yeah nah we are not really sure.”Let us think about the project just up the road from me Transmission Gully. Labour is not quite sure whether it should back that or not. Then you move up into my neck of the woods the Kapiti Expressway and Labour is opposed to that. How are we going to get the region of Manawatū-Whanganui which needs a bit of a kick-start moving up? We are going to need to invest in decent infrastructure. But our opponents over there are against the 1000 jobs to be created in my electorate when the road is built. They are against it.Then you move on to water storage projects. We know that the Greens over there are against it. We could tell from their questioning today from Russel Norman. Then you get into the “Yeah nah.” over on the other side. They are not quite sure. On one handyou have got David Cunliffe saying “Yeah nah.” but then you have Ruth Dyson recently in the paper talking about the Ruataniwha Water Storage project where she said that the Government would be irresponsible to proceed with this scheme. So once again “Yeah nah.” They are not really sure about investing in the regional economy. They are not sure about the $4 billion of exports that decent water storage and irrigation projects would create.The other thing that is really important is investing in innovation. We need to invest in innovation. That is why we are investing in the Primary Growth Partnership. It is a very very successful innovation project. There are 16 projects and $684 million invested by industry and backed by the Government. You had David Shearer when he was the leader out there saying that increasing spending on innovation is a crucial step for the New Zealand economy. So on that side of the House you should have them supporting the Primary Growth Partnership but they want to attack it negatively. They want to attack investment in our primary industries. I cannot believe it. They should be out there supporting it.Then we move into trade. Then we move into trade. Phil Goff knows the importance of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Phil Goff should stand up in his call this afternoon and say that Labour is going to back and support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Will Mr Goff say that this afternoon? Well we look forward to Mr Goff standing up this afternoon and saying that Labour is going to back the Trans-Pacific Partnership worth $2 billion in exports. I bet he does not.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a good place to start—will Labour members stand up and say they will support the Trans-Pacific Partnership? “Yeah nah.” When they are talking to the farmer audience they will say yes; when they are talking to their union audience they will say nah. The one thing that is interesting about that which both of my colleagues left out is that the best response to Labour members is to say “Yeah right!”.Let us have a look at what Labour members have said out in the provinces. They have been up in Taranaki just recently. The soon-to-be new leader of the Labour Party the Hon Shane Jones visited Taranaki and he said: “Look we’re not frightening to business. We’re not frightening to growth. We like the primary industries. We like the provinces and we’re here to help.” Of course he had in tow with him the once wannabe and long-since-disappeared Andrew Little as a co-pilot.Let us have a look at what Labour members said when they were in Taranaki: “We’ll promote growth in the primary sector. We’ll promote growth in the development of the province.” But the problem is of course that in provincial New Zealand we have seen a maximum exodus to Australia we have seen a huge decline in economic growth and we have seen a massive loss of jobs. I thought I had better go and research that so I went and got Venture Taranaki’s latest paper which it has just released. What does it say? The rate of population growth is up the economic outlook is up employment numbers are up the employment participation rate is up and the employment outlook is up. But numbers are up in terms of the skills shortage. Well that is a negative. Skills shortages are up—there is something for Labour to hang on to.The paper goes on to say that natural increases in population are up long-term international arrivals are up house values are up house sales are up values for residential construction consents are up and the number of dairy cattle is up. Labour members will probably see that as a negative. They will probably see more dairy cattle as a negative. The number of farms for sale is up port activity is up and the number of 18-year-olds with National Certificate of Educations Achievement level 2 or equivalent is up.Something seems to be wrong with the “Yeah nah—yeah right!” approach here because the story Labour is putting forward is quite different compared with the facts. In fact just recently we saw that Taranaki was leading in all of the statistics: economic growth the average wage and in terms of opportunity going forward. The question then is why. Well here we go. Once again Labour members have said that they will be totally supportive of the primary sector. Well in Taranaki—and it will come as a surprise to Labour members—we have the dairy industry. On the one hand they say: “Yes that’s a good thing and we should encourage it.” but on the other hand they will say: “Well actually we’re too dependent on it.” Well there is another industry in the Taranaki as well: the energy industry. On the one hand they say that it is wonderful but on the other hand they say: “We’ve got to be careful with where we go looking for oil and drilling for oil.”But there is a third industry and it was once as big and that is the meat and wool sector. Labour members know that internationally New Zealand lamb already has a very high brand value. You can go to supermarkets or restaurants anywhere in the world and be told that New Zealand lamb is a very sought-after product. We know that internationally it is fetching about half the price it could. So what is Labour’s response to that? That is the first question I would ask. What is its policy on that?I look forward to hearing from Labour members because if they are concerned that the dairy industry is too dominant in the economic drivers of the New Zealand economy why not lift some of the others? Why not bring some of the others up to the dairy industry’s level? I think that probably Sir Ralph Norris’s response in the recent report on the Fonterra scare sums it up perfectly. He said: “New Zealand society is often described as egalitarian. It has never had a European style inherited aristocracy.” As the son of a sharemilker I am very pleased about that. But the problem with that is that Labour will not support winners. It is called the tall poppy syndrome the “Yeah nah syndrome” or if you like the “Yeah right!” syndrome. Economic growth from Labour is I think summed up perfectly by saying “Yeah right!”.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): It has been very rare for me to follow two positive speeches—one by the Hon Nathan Guy and the other by Shane Ardern—talking about positive things. It is my pleasure to participate in the general debate today. We have been celebrating Diwali in our Parliament since 2005. As we celebrate Diwali today in Parliament once again I feel proud to reside in a country that values all cultural diversity. May I also share that we are a small nation. However we have close to 100 nationalities living in this beautiful country. The reason for this of course is the very welcoming and open attitude of New Zealanders. All migrants play a very important role in building trade and cultural ties between their native countries and their adopted country which is New Zealand.I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Indian Space Research Organisation on the successful launch of the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle flight C25 into Mars’ orbit. With this successful launch India has entered a group of select countries with its first Mars mission announced as a success.In the past month or so I have had the opportunity to travel across New Zealand to attend Diwali celebrations. It was wonderful to see that in most of the places I visited the majority of people attending Diwali celebrations were not of Indian origin; rather these were New Zealanders who have embraced and open-heartedly accepted Indian Kiwis. I could see people enjoying the food the dances and the cultural performances and buying ethnic dresses for themselves and their children.Another wonderful example of New Zealanders having positively embraced Indian Kiwis is in our sports teams. Ish Sodhi a Kiwi Indian cricketer was recently included in the Black Caps squad and represented the New Zealand cricket team againstBangladesh. Before Ish we had Dipak Patel and Jeetan Patel both cricketers of Indian Kiwi origin who represented New Zealand. It is my dream to see a person of Asian ethnicity make it into the mighty All Blacks one day.Ethnic communities have educated us about new ways of living and doing things. These may not necessarily be what we are used to. It is the difference of other eating patterns lifestyles and social behaviour and it gives New Zealand its international flavour. This is a very positive lesson that I learnt long ago. It is not right. It is not wrong. It is just different. I choose to live and learn from this statement.The Christchurch earthquake was no doubt a tragic and unforgettable event in the history of this country. However the best thing for me to see each time I visit Christchurch is how different cultures and communities help each other and continue to do so without any prejudice. As I visit different parts of New Zealand I continue to hear great things that New Zealanders share with me on the work of this National Government. While the Opposition continues with negativity the growing reality is that the average New Zealander is positive about the direction that the leader of the National Party the Rt Hon John Key is taking us in. Ordinary New Zealanders are very happy with the progress we have made. When the rest of the world lags at subzero levels of growth we manage to average about 2 percent.The recent survey by the Bank of New Zealand reveals that business confidence at present is at the highest level in decades. There are no doubts in my mind that the migrant community of New Zealand has contributed to our nation’s growth and business confidence. The recent media release by Statistics New Zealand confirms that employment growth continues in the labour market. The employment rate rose to 64.4 percent and unemployment fell to 6.2 percent. Over the September 2013 quarter the number of people employed rose by 2.4 percent in the household labour force survey. Demand for workers from established businesses rose by 1.9 percent in the quarterly employment survey.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): And now back to the future. I have spent a bit of time in Canterbury lately and I am convinced that one of the great failings of this Government is the Canterbury rebuild. It has been a case of too slow too little and woefully lacking in execution. It has been 3 years since the first Christchurch earthquake—3 years—and the rebuild is only just beginning. That is unbelievable. Three years of waiting. The people of Canterbury have just endured their third winter since the earthquakes and too many people in Canterbury are putting up with a housing crisis that has seen them paying hundreds of dollars every week to rent a caravan or to squash a family into a sleepout or someone’s spare room. It is totally unacceptable.Rents are up 25 percent in Canterbury since December 2011. House prices are the highest and the most unaffordable in any city outside Auckland. The Government’s own officials say that up to 7400 people in Canterbury are officially homeless. Nick Smith and then Gerry Brownlee today got up in this House and said that there is no housing crisis in Canterbury; there is just a challenge. Well the challenge is for the people of Canterbury putting up with a Government that has demonstrated two massive blind spots when it comes to the Canterbury rebuild.The first blind spot has been Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith’s oversight if you could call it that. It might be that affordable housing is a technicality for National. It might be that it is a minor matter for National but the Government has completely overlooked affordability when it comes to the rebuild. There are houses being built on the outskirts of the city on new greenfields land in developments like Wigram Skies and Prestons Road but few if any of them are affordable for ordinary Cantabrians. This is a huge gap in the rebuild and Labour will plug that gap. We will deliver 10000affordable starter homes for first-home buyers over 4 years—high-quality affordable homes for first-home buyers.The other big blind spot of this Government’s approach to the rebuild is that it is a lot better at demolition than it is at building. The “Human Wrecking Ball” Gerry Brownlee gave himself wartime powers to compulsorily acquire new land. He has used those powers mostly to demolish not to build. The great Lyndon Johnson once said that any jackass can kick down a barn but it takes a craftsman to build one. That says it all about Gerry Brownlee’s approach to the Christchurch rebuild. This is why the rebuild has been so slow—Gerry Brownlee thinks that demolition and hope is a rebuild plan. That is why Labour has announced the formation of the New Brighton Community Revitalisation Project. We will back the efforts of local residents in New Brighton. We will back the local business community. We will work with the council. We will consolidate the old retail area in New Brighton which has fallen on hard times and we will turn that community into a vibrant modern character beachside suburb with hundreds of new units of affordable housing.New Brighton is a microcosm of many other parts of Canterbury. It is a community that has been knocked around by the earthquakes. It has fantastic natural assets including an amazing beach. It is close to the Avon-Ōtākaro river precinct. What is missing is a Government prepared to roll up its sleeves and back the efforts of the local community. I cannot believe that this National Government has missed New Brighton as an opportunity to revitalise that community and help rebuild the kind of place where Cantabrians want to live to work and to play.Labour’s approach is creative. It is hands-on. We announced a package of announcements on the weekend including KiwiAssure and including the smart use of empty but habitable houses in the red zone. We promised 10000 affordable starter homes in Canterbury over 10 years and we will get behind the efforts of local people in New Brighton. We will work with the Christchurch City Council with the private sector and with the community to revitalise New Brighton. Thank you.Hon TAU HENARE (National): I first want to pay my respects and condolences to Lotu-Iiga Lotuatamaiti Sam Lotu-Iiga’s father who passed away suddenly this week and also to Peter Fatialofa the former captain of Manu Samoa. They were two sons of Samoa so my condolences go to both families.Twenty years ago today—it sounds like a song—on 6 November 1993 I entered this House. Today is the 20th anniversary of that. I want to thank first of all the Rt Hon Winston Peters of New Zealand First for giving me my shot at politics. And no it was not my second party: it was my first.I have been in for 6 years I was out for 6 years and I have been in for 8 years. I know it sounds like a lag and I know it sounds like a prison sentence—a prison term—but in 20 years I have seen them come and I have seen them go. I have seen changes and I have seen things that stay the same. There has been one constant in all of those 20 years: Labour has no idea. It never did have an idea and it never will have an idea. Just imagine if it ever got the reins of power to drive the ship. If it was a captain of a ship it would spend like a drunken sailor.But that is not all. See there is nothing wrong with spending like a drunken sailor if it is your own money. But the fact of the matter remains that when you spend like a drunken sailor and it is not your money it is the taxpayers’ money and then there is something seriously wrong. It was pork barrel politics then and it is pork barrel politics now.Before he went away Mr Twyford got up in this House and he said: “In the great words of Lyndon Baines Johnson”—I could not believe my luck. There was the biggest racist bigot from Texas that the United States has ever known. In fact what he did wasto send the world into the Viet Nam War and this from Phil Twyford the member of Parliament in my own area. I am shocked and I am horrified. The message to children out there is when you go home tonight read about who Lyndon Baines Johnson really was. He was the one who sent people to the Viet Nam War. He was the one who—oh so this is the great Lyndon Baines Johnson. Therein lies the answer to the question. Can these guys deliver? Can these guys run the ship? Absolutely not. And you know why? Do you know why? Because they rely on old outdated models like Lyndon Baines Johnson for their thinking. That is where the thinking of Mr Twyford comes from.Look I do not know. Let us take Skycity. Labour railed against the Skycity deal but on the other hand took tickets from Skycity to go to the rugby. Let us take a look at the man ban. It does not know whether it is Arthur or Martha. For goodness’ sake! Labour wants it both ways—50c here and 50c there. Do you know why? Because it does not have an idea. It never had an idea. In fact what it is doing is apologising for stuff it did 20-odd years ago. But really—Dr Cam Calder: They want to do it again.Hon TAU HENARE: Labour wants to do it again. So what it is going to do is have KiwiAssure. It will get this thing up and running and then what is the bet that it will sell it? For goodness’ sake! For goodness’ sake. We have been there we have done that we have bought the T-shirt and we ain’t voting Labour again.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin by congratulating you Mr Speaker on your New York City Marathon run and by saying that it is an excellent example to the rest of the House. I want to acknowledge Tau Henare and all the rest of the 1993 intake for their 20-year anniversary today. It feels like just the other day that Tau and I were newbies in this House. I have stayed with the same party actually while I have been in the House because I backed a winner to start with. I did not need to change parties to stay in Parliament but I still acknowledge the 20-year contribution that Tau and others have made.I want to congratulate the Labour Party on showing its support for Canterbury by having its annual conference in Christchurch. When it was first suggested those of us from Canterbury took a bit of a deep breath and said: “Woah! This is a big ask. How is Canterbury going to cope with this? How will the Christchurch Labour team handle that?”. Of course we were worried frankly that not a lot of people would come to Canterbury. It is a lot easier for the majority of the population who live north of Hamilton to go to a conference in Auckland. We were overwhelmed by the number of delegates who came to our city. People came because they wanted to support Canterbury but actually I think there was another side. They came because they knew that this was going to be a weekend of exciting debate of fresh ideas and of a clear vision for an alternative to the current Government.We want a Government that is in touch with people and that understands the needs and aspirations of and the future chances for New Zealanders and we want a Government that will give every New Zealander a stake in that future. That is what Labour talked about on the weekend and that is what we want to deliver next year. The whole conference was so energising. We had some great debates. We always do. The media were not up to the bigger-picture issues. They just shared the more contentious I suppose issues with people but I know that the debates on the floor of our conference were challenging and exciting.It does put Labour in stark contrast with the current Government. We have seen so many examples of the out-of-touch and frankly arrogant performance of the John Key - led Government that people particularly in Canterbury but I know all over the country are really asking: “What does it take to make this Government connect with the people? What does it take to make it listen to the people? What does it take to make itunderstand?”. A recent example is Gerry Brownlee with a very very harsh report from the Auditor-General about the performance of the Earthquake Commission in Canterbury and Gerry Brownlee brushes it off. He says: “Oh everyone seems pretty happy.” Well he may not have been outside his own home in Christchurch because people are not happy with the performance of the Earthquake Commission and they are not happy with the performance of insurance companies. People are feeling threatened and bullied. They are being given low-ball offers and they feel as if they have very little alternative. They are feeling powerless against the weight of insurance companies.That is why people in our city were so excited at Labour’s proposal to have KiwiAssure an insurance company that puts people first that is service-focused and that says: “Our customers are the most important part of our business.” That is what we want in Canterbury. We are fed up with insurance companies that forget that we have paid premiums to them for years for cover. When we need that response from them we expect to get what we paid for. That is not what many people are getting. We want to make sure that the business of the insurance company is about the people and their needs. We have heard the criticism from the National Party and the insurance industry just the same way as we heard that very same criticism from the National Party and the banking sector when we proposed to introduce Kiwibank and what a success that has been. We need guarantees of security. We want a business that invests in New Zealand and New Zealanders first above profit. That is what KiwiAssure will do in the same way as Kiwibank has done.National wants to sell off the profitable industries that New Zealanders have built up. We want to invest in them for the future of New Zealand and for the future of New Zealanders. Thank you.Dr CAM CALDER (National): To evoke an old Spike Milligan song Labour is walking backwards for Christmas. And not only back for Christmas—right on back to the 1970s. We are hearing alarming echoes of Soviet Union statist policies in the form of a State-run insurance company and a State-controlled electricity market. Free trade—and we have got one of the proponents of it over there. I have got to pay credit to the member Mr Phil Goff who negotiated the free-trade agreement with China. Free trade has long been a bipartisan agreement but now the current leader is questioning Labour’s support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership while Labour’s ex-leader is saying “Labour should continue to back it.” But what the leader the dithering David Cunliffe is saying to one audience he might not be saying to another audience. “Will we back it? Well maybe yeah—nah nah.”Labour is painting a picture of itself as a party bemused befuddled bewildered and becalmed and certainly as one that is unfit to govern. With Labour at the helm New Zealand’s ship of State would veer dangerously on to the rocks of higher borrowing higher spending and higher taxes—the very policies that pushed New Zealand into the global financial crisis 6 to 12 months before the rest of the world. A Labour Government supported by the Greens would be an absolute disaster for New Zealand in stark contrast with the steady considered prudent financial management that has characterised the National-led Government’s stewardship of the country’s finances over the last 5 years. This principled and pragmatic Government continues to work relentlessly for the benefit of every New Zealander adjusting the mesh in many areas and at a multitude of levels. It has succeeded in cushioning vulnerable New Zealanders from the ongoing effects of the worst economic conditions in decades and one only has to look at the situation abroad to realise how fortunate we are in this country.Over the years the Government’s prudent financial management of the nation’s finances has received ringing endorsements from stars in the world economic firmament. It has been noted that reducing our exposure to overseas debt markets asmuch as possible whilst as I mentioned before still cushioning vulnerable New Zealanders from the harshest edges of the ongoing global financial crisis—we are doing that. Our considered fiscal stewardship means that New Zealand’s economy is performing better than the US the UK Germany the bulk of the eurozone and of course Japan. The effects of the drought earlier in the year have largely been shrugged off and we are witnessing a continued upturn in the non-agricultural sectors as well meaning that the New Zealand economy is set to go for a substantial acceleration of growth in the second half of this year and beyond.Growth is occurring as we have heard across a range of sectors in addition to construction and housing. Consumer spending is growing at an increasing space with spending on services particularly strong over the June quarter. Manufacturing and services activities surveys have put in consistently strong readings over this year. China’s insatiable demand for our primary products means our export earnings are looking very healthy.It is gratifying that the expansion is becoming more consistent across the region. My colleague here mentioned Taranaki—many of us call it “Taradise”—where the twin pillars the black and white pillars of oil and milk are propping up the economy and causing it to grow hugely. In fact it is leading New Zealand as we speak.This is a Government that is getting results for all New Zealanders. Our focus has been on growth that is sustainable and built on higher savings and earnings rather than ever-more-increasing debt and greater consumption. As I have noted previously our prudent policies have been praised by Peter Orszag President Obama’s previous Director of the Office of Management and Budget. He praised New Zealand as standing out in the world as the only country that has coupled additional economic stimulus with medium-term fiscal consolidation. Not surprisingly huge numbers of New Zealanders report suffering nightmares at the thought of our measured approach being replaced by an economy measured by a coalition of money-printing Greens and a Labour Party bereft of strong leadership dithering and dodging and answerable only to its union masters.Other support of the Government’s economic management has come from the IMF’s Managing Director Christine Lagarde who praised the Government’s economic policy Business Growth Agenda and described the New Zealand economy as being very stable very promising and a lot better than other parts of the world. The IMF endorsed New Zealand’s balanced and pragmatic economic management and confirmed that the Government’s economic plan strikes the right balance between supporting growth and eliminating public debt.Imagine what the report might have been if New Zealand’s economy were managed by a dithering and dysfunctional pick-up team of a not-quite-sure-where-we-are-going anti - free market Labour Party and the red-Green money printers. The New Zealand economy is in very good health and it needs a National Government to stay that way.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I would just like to start my speech today with a mihi to a great New Zealander whose anniversary of passing is today and that is Mr Rod Donald. The Green Party owes Rod Donald a deep debt of gratitude as does the country. Indeed without the work of Rod Donald and others we would not have MMP and many of us would not have the opportunity to represent the real constituencies that need to be represented in this House. Rod was an extraordinary man an extraordinary contributor and he helped the Green Party become the positive visionary grounded and successful party that we are now. I think that if he was with us today he would be proud to see that we have become a strong and positive force in New Zealand politics with a great future ahead of us and with a clear transformative idea of where we need to go.This week there is more good news as the National Government likes to say but this time it is good. This week we had another Green success and that success related to an interesting story. All the MPs in Parliament about 6 months ago received this little gift which was a type of health product for handwashing. I read the label and on the label I found a chemical that is very very dangerous to human health and to the environment. To its credit when I challenged the company that sent us this gift Health Basics and said that this chemical triclosan is a risk to human health and the environment it withdrew the chemical. That was an incredibly positive thing to do. The company has also looked at its other products in terms of making them safer. So today I am celebrating the opportunity that that company has taken up of listening to the Green Party when we said that our health and the environment should not just be “greenwashing” but must be made real.However we cannot do that product by product and company by company. Much as I applaud Health Basics which did this—this excellent work by Health Basics—there are over 150000 chemicals yet to be identified but thought by the World Health Organization to be endocrine disruptors which is what triclosan is. These products are in our toothpastes our underarm deodorants and many of our antibacterial soaps. For the citizen who is reading the label and finding these chemicals that actually create endocrine disruption affect muscle performance are deadly to aquatic life and in chlorinated sewage water turn into dioxin from this one product triclosan—we cannot expect the citizens to know this.So there is a role for the regulator and my challenge today is to the Minister for the Environment. Instead of having the Environmental Protection Authority laboriously requiring citizens to prove that chemicals are unsafe or me as an MP who just happened to know about this and to find the company and challenge it it would be excellent if the Minister for the Environment stepped up on this issue and changed the Environmental Protection Authority model for assessing chemicals. I have asked the Minister and the chief executive officer of the Environmental Protection Authority to reassess triclosan immediately—we need it out of our products—but also to change the way in which all chemicals are assessed so that we follow the European modern model which is precautionary and which requires companies to prove safety not people who have been affected by chemicals or people like me who have concerns about individual chemicals to actually prove that they are dangerous.We need to change the burden of proof and this is something that I having asked the Minister and the Environmental Protection Authority to do am hoping they will listen to me about. We cannot keep talking just about safety in the workplace. The Minister introduced a very good programme and a bill is coming up around safety in the workplace with chemicals. But what about safety in our homes? There is nothing more precious than the way in which we treat our environment and the way in which we treat our bodies. If we do not take an opportunity like this one to clean up our chemical practices we will continue to have degraded waterways the creation of dioxin and people with health issues that are often creating hormone dysfunction.This is a very serious matter which I am delighted to say we managed to get some progress with this company on. It shows you that if people get the information and if the Government will provide a decent framework we can have healthy homes. But in the meantime there are thousands of chemicals out there in daily life—in our shampoos in our soaps in our underarm deodorants—that are directly going into our bodies and are disrupting our endocrine systems and causing health issues. We are not a healthy population and products are not necessarily safe until somebody raises the issue. We have a responsibility to make change.One of these issues that I have been working on for a long time is the issue of dioxin. It is terrifying to think that triclosan can create dioxin in our sewerage systems and wastewater simply by being washed down out of the household water and plumbing system. People do not know these things. We need to make change.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): We have heard a very effective argument from the Government side in this general debate that the Opposition the Labour Party in particular is becoming the “Yeah Nah Yeah Party” of New Zealand. I would like to reflect on a conference that I attended over the Labour weekend ironically in Tauranga. It was an Institute of Information Technology Professionals New Zealand conference at which I saw exactly that approach acted out in practice.We had Gareth Hughes representing the Green Party. He made a very clear argument against having a national security apparatus in New Zealand. It is something I would utterly disagree with and I think that on this side of the House we are very strong proponents of bringing in appropriate measures to secure our people and our IT networks from attacks from those who would wish to harm us. But Gareth on the other hand made a very clear argument against that approach. He said that we do not need a Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) we do not need the New Zealand SIS we do not want the police involved in counter-terrorism activity and in fact he did not think we should be cooperating with friendly allied nations like the United States the UK and Australia on intelligence gathering. That is an approach I utterly disagree with but at least he had a clear approach and he was outlining what he thought.The Labour Party on the other hand was represented by its recently demoted information and communications technology associate spokesperson who laid out a very peculiar approach. She did not say that Labour was going to repeal what we were doing instantly. She did not say that it was going to actually have an active programme of its own that it would bring in to replace the amendments to the GCSB legislation and the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill—the “TICCS Bill”—which passed yesterday. So Labour has no alternative in place. There would be a royal commission of inquiry a series of inquiries and over a period of time we would be left vulnerable while it goes through a process of consultation and persiflage. I think that we have seen in that particular example a very clear case of Labour adopting the “yeah nah yeah” approach to security. It is a shame because previously that was a party that took the security of this realm very seriously.Over the weekend we had the Labour Party conference in Christchurch. As a strong royalist and a former member of the Monarchy New Zealand group—in fact a former vice chair of Monarchy New Zealand—I was interested to see that one of the remits one of the policy discussions that it was having was on republicanism. Again it was a bit ironic because David Cunliffe walked into the conference to the song “Royals” from Lorde who is a wonderful New Zealand artist—an award-winning platinum-winning New Zealand artist and that is a great song. The lyrics to that song go something along the lines of “Let me be your ruler”. Well I think the New Zealand public will be saying to Mr Cunliffe: “Yeah nah.” to that next year because I think the New Zealand public by and large are utterly supportive of the Queen as our head of State—an absolutely incorruptible person a person who has no desire for higher political office and a person who has no need for financial gain. It is a system that is not broke and does not need fixing.In fact we saw Her Majesty promoting a wonderful New Zealand product just yesterday when she wore the beautiful blue pearl brooch that came from Christchurch that the Prime Minister gave her promoting a great New Zealand company. I think thepunters of New Zealand the public and certainly we on this side of the House are very clear that our approach to that is: “It ain’t broke so don’t fix it.”Others in this House may have a different view. I have heard from Green members that they are very strongly opposed for a range of reasons. But it seems that the Labour Party approach on this is like almost everything else it is doing at the moment. It is: “Yeah nah maybe. Well let’s kick it to a policy committee for further discussion. We might have a referendum in due course when the Queen dies.” It is all very much death by consultation rather than having a clear position that the New Zealand public can understand when we go into the next election campaign.Another issue that I heard at the information technology conference in Tauranga was on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This is something that on this side of the House we have been clear on. We are utterly supportive of liberalising trade with our most important trading partners like the United States like South Korea and like Japan. We already have a pretty open market in this country. For instance the Inland Revenue Department is looking at a new computer system. It is going to open that up to procurement from others overseas. Our companies our bright IT firms should have the ability to get into Government procurement roles in America and elsewhere. Thank you.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): This Government is out of touch. This Government is failing New Zealanders. This Government is not listening to anybody. It is tired and it is old and it is on its way out. It is not listening. That is easy to tell because on issues such as asset sales or the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation or even on something as effete as charter schools the Government is not listening to what people are saying about those issues. People in New Zealand do not want charter schools they do not want their assets sold and they do not want their privacy invaded at will by surveillance agencies.This Government looks after only its mates. It does not matter whether we look at Skycity or Rio Tinto or Chorus or even at education—again another $3 million to bail out Wanganui Collegiate School. We can see even from the little gestures—although $3 million is quite a lot to a school—that the Government is looking after only its mates.But let us have a look at the ruin that is happening within the National caucus. Look at who is going. Chris Tremain has announced that he is going. All of those real estate signs could not save him. Chris Auchinvole has announced that he is going. Phil Heatley has said that he is going. Paul Hutchison has said that he is going. Cam Calder has said that he is going. There is something about rats and sinking ships here that is really beginning to ring true—that is really beginning to ring true. Colin King is being challenged in Kaikōura. I do not think he will see this place again.But look at the next tactic. Bill English and Murray McCully are going on the list only. They are not going to represent those constituents whom they are meant to have represented for a long time but given that neither of them live in their electorates that is debatable. However the point about Bill English and Murray McCully going on the list only is that they are clearly lining themselves up to exit without precipitating by-elections which are a bit inconvenient for the party as soon as a nice little diplomatic sinecure comes on to the horizon. As soon as the offer of a job comes on to the horizon we will not see Bill English or Murray McCully for dust. They will be able to exit easily as soon as a diplomatic post comes up.Labour wants to build a future that all New Zealanders can benefit from not just a few. It wants an economy that works for all New Zealanders—a fair and just society where everybody can live in dignity. This is not new. This is stuff that Labour members have always stood for and that the National Party has never enunciated.We want an environment we can protect and a nation we can be proud of. We will protect the environment so that our water quality is restored our unique biodiversity is strengthened and not threatened and our endangered species are protected preserved and restored. We will lead a country that is able to wean itself off fossil fuels so that we do not have to drill and frack everything for short-term economic gain and long-term permanent environmental destruction. We will build a future that is focused on smart technologies on renewable energy on the quality and skilled jobs that those industries require and on decent living wages that go with high-skilled jobs.We will repeal the Government’s attacks on the Resource Management Act. We will restore it to its original function of regulating planning and development with the environment in mind not the developer’s profit. We will put the people back into public decisions instead of increasing the number of non-notifiable Resource Management Act processes—Hon Simon Bridges: You haven’t been talking to Shane Jones lately.Hon MARYAN STREET: —or slipping Supplementary Order Papers in after the select committee has reported back Mr Bridges. We will build people back into public decisions. We will rebuild New Brighton. We will do the things that real people need for real lives.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.New Zealand International Convention Centre BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): It is appropriate that the Minister of Police is in the chair for this because what we are discussing is the greatest money-laundering operation in the history of New Zealand the Skycity Casino.Hon Tau Henare: That’s right. You accept the tickets. You would go to the rugby but you won’t support them.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No no I have an interruption. I just want to acknowledge that it is Tau Henare’s 20th anniversary in Parliament today. I remember when he was first a member of Parliament. He was tall he was slim he was handsome and he was modest. He is still tall. He is still tall. I do congratulate the member and the other members whose 20th anniversary it is. And of course Mr Chairman you are tall and you were modest. You are still modest. I do not think it is fair to say that you were ever slim. Fit maybe—fit maybe. But shall we get back to the bill?The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Please do.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think it is fair to say that I was responding to a non-verbal interjection on your part. Going back to the bill the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill I want to focus on a couple of parts of the bill. The first is in clause 4(2) where it says: “It is the intention of Parliament that the provisions of this Act are interpreted in a manner that best furthers the agreements expressed in the Agreement.” What that says is that it does not really matter what we are passing; the agreement is going to count. That is the attitude of this Government to the law of this country and especially with regard to this bill that just stinks. It does not matter what is in the bill; it is the agreement that counts. So it does not matter what dirty deal the Government does; the Parliament cannot override it because it is the agreement that counts and that overrides the law of the land. I just want to say that I would be surprised if that worked in a superior court in New Zealand. In my view I think that in the end a court will go to the legislation rather than override the legislation with an interpretative clause like this but it just shows the attitude of Steven Joyce that he would attempt to do such a thing.I want to just remind people what that agreement referred to in that clause clause 4(2) is. It is the agreement to increase the number of gambling machines in New Zealand massively at Skycity. That is the agreement that will cause New Zealanders to lose their homes. That is what Skycity does now. It entices people into gambling and many of them lose their homes. Many of them lose their families.Hon Tau Henare: But that’s OK for you to take tickets to the rugby.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Tau Henare might not care about that but a number of people also lose their lives. That member knows that many people commit suicide every year as a result of the losses that they incur at Skycity. That member knows that the gangs and the moneylenders murder people who owe them money who borrow it at Skycity—Hon Tau Henare: Ha ha!Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member laughs. The member laughs. He only has to go to look at the evidence in the case of the body in the suitcase that was fished out of Auckland harbour. That young man was targeted in Skycity by moneylenders. He borrowed money from them he got more from them than he could repay he did not repay and they killed him put his body in a suitcase and dumped it in Auckland harbour. It is the extension of that sort of behaviour that members opposite are voting for. They might not care. They say: “Oh it is just another Chinese student.” Members on this side care notwithstanding who it is. It does not matter who it is. No one should end up owing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to corrupt moneylenders and people who end up murdering as part of their enforcement activities.And what are we doing here under clause 4(2)? We are giving legal effect to an agreement that will result in people losing their houses. It is well documented. Members opposite know it. Members opposite know that families are destroyed as a result of problem gambling—the very type of which is caused by this sort of 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week operation that the members opposite want to make worse. Members opposite do not care about the destruction of families that occurs as a result of the inability of Skycity and others to curb problem gambling. And it is the very agreement in clause 4(2) that we are giving force to that members opposite know is going to be the cause of these further problems.I see that clause 5 binds the Crown. Well I want to say that it might bind the Crown for now. It might bind the Crown for now but I do want to remind the Committee of the fact that the Crown cannot bind itself into the future. When there are decent gambling laws in New Zealand—and they are inevitable—the Crown will be unbound from this legislation because that is the way that our parliamentary system works. You cannot bind a future Government. I think everyone on this side of the Chamber is committed to a decent review of gambling laws and anyone who suggests that this law which takes out not one but two reviews of the casino licence could survive a decent review is fooling themselves. Anyone who thinks that is absolutely deluding themselves. Therefore people opposite have just got to know that these sorts of arrangements that are embodied in this bill cannot possibly continue.The Labour Party has looked at the possibility of doing multiple amendments and trying to fix this bill up. And I want to say that we will support the Green amendments. We will vote for them. But we have come to the conclusion that this bill is so bad that it cannot be improved to the point of being acceptable. It is like the old saying that you cannot polish a turd.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! That is unacceptable and the member will not use that term again.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: This bill is rubbish and it does not matter what adjustments you make to it it cannot be improved to the point of being acceptable. There is nothing that one can do that allows for the extension of gaming the extension of thehighest turnover of any sort of gaming—the highest per table turnover in the country—and what is more the highest pokie machine turnover in the country. That is absolutely unacceptable—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.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I am very pleased to take the first of a number of calls on this legislation the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I have a number of amendments to this bill in Part 2 but here in Part 1 I am particularly concerned about the purpose clause and the apparent overarching purpose of this legislation which is to provide economic benefits to New Zealanders. We have had a very close look at the economic benefits from the papers that have been provided to us and I can tell you now that I do not know whether Mr Key and Mr Joyce deliberately misinformed the House over the number of jobs that would be created but they certainly did misinform the House. There is no paper that is available to anyone but them—perhaps they are still keeping that one secret—that describes the number of jobs as they have said. They have claimed 800 jobs as a result of the final convention centre and they have claimed 1000 jobs that will be created as part of its construction. This is supposedly part of the great economic benefit to New Zealanders from this deal. Well let us just have a look at the information that has been provided.They first relied on the Horwath report. There is nothing in the Horwath report that describes those numbers of jobs. They then relied on the KordaMentha report that was produced earlier this year. That report does say that it looked at the economic benefits. It does not describe 800 jobs in the convention centre or 1000 jobs in the construction phase—Hon Trevor Mallard: They relied entirely on Skycity for information.METIRIA TUREI: That is right Mr Mallard. The report says: “The financial analysis of both the NZICC and the regulatory concessions are based on an Excel Model dated 18 April 2013 … prepared by SkyCity.” So the KordaMentha report was based entirely on information from the one organisation that is about to get hundreds of millions of dollars of benefit from this deal. Still that report does not talk about 800 jobs in the convention centre or 1000 jobs in its construction.Then we look to the Government’s own information that it provides to the public to help inform the public around the economic benefits of this deal and we go to the regulatory impact statement which provides that information. We see here actually the description of the 800 jobs and the 1000 jobs. It says here in paragraph 9 of the regulatory impact statement that “(… around 800 people) would be employed by the convention centre with up to 1000 workers employed in the construction phase.” and then there is a little note footnote 8 on the regulatory impact statement. So let us look at footnote 8 to see where the evidence is that shows that there will be 800 jobs and 1000 jobs. That little footnote refers to two things. It refers first to table 1 in a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report and it also refers to information that has been supplied to the Government by Skycity. It says “(… received from a leading NZ-based contractor)” but it does not provide the paper it does not provide the name of that contractor and it does not provide the evidence.Let us have a look first at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research paper that the regulatory impact statement refers to as justification for this misleading—and I stillthink deliberately misleading—statement around job creation. What does the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research paper say? Oh it does not say 800 jobs in the convention centre. It does not say 1000 jobs in the construction of the convention centre. Actually it says that there will be 380 full-time jobs in construction and 340 full-time equivalents once the convention centre is operating. So somehow Skycity has created out of who knows what—thin air—an additional 160 people who will apparently be working at the convention centre and an extra 600 people have been invented by Skycity and agreed to by the Government as evidence to back up this claim of 1000 jobs in construction. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead New Zealanders on the economic impacts of this deal. John Key and Steven Joyce have spent months and months and months telling New Zealanders that there are thousands of jobs in this convention centre and yet the only piece of genuinely independent advice that this Government has and the only genuine advice that it has released to the public says that they are not telling the truth. There simply are not the jobs that they claim.So what are we giving up here? What are we giving up in exchange for this misinformation about job creation? I can give you some numbers of some other people who will be affected by the legislation—people who will not have any choices about how they are involved people who will actually be harmed by this legislation. They are the 6500 children who the Government’s own papers say are likely to be harmed by the problem gambling that is caused by this deal—6500 children. Those children do actually exist. They are not the made-up people—the made-up workers—whom Skycity and the Government have been talking about. They are children whose lives will be affected and in some cases very damaged for most of their lives as a result of this deal.Where do they sit? Where is the analysis of the economic impact on them the social impact on them from this deal? Actually there is not any. The Government looked to KordaMentha for some of this information. KordaMentha said that it was not engaged to assess the social harm of this deal. The Minister for Economic Development himself has said that he sought no advice on the economic harm that could be caused by this deal. I do not know whether he is telling the truth frankly because there have been so many mistruths told around this deal. Maybe he did seek the advice and is not prepared to release it. Maybe he did not seek the advice because he does not want to know. All he has been prepared to talk about are the mistruths around the job creation and not the reality for the 6500 children who his own advisers have said will be affected by this legislation. Where is their voice here? Is it only the Opposition that cares about the 6500 New Zealand children who could be affected by this bill? There is no way that it is justifiable to claim any kind of economic benefit from this deal when the numbers of jobs are being deliberately made up and spread around the country and when the real numbers of the people actually affected are being ignored by the people who are making the decisions.There is a whole range of economic advice that comes from this legislation and out of the papers that have been released and all of it flies in the face of the statements made by the Government. Even if we just want to look at comparisons we have comparisons for example with convention centres overseas. The 3500 capacity convention centre in Sydney employs only 200 full-time equivalents not the 800 that Steven Joyce and John Key are claiming. Melbourne’s 5000 capacity convention centre employs just 133 people full-time. It has 270 casual workers and 130 full-timers and yet Steven Joyce somehow thinks that a smaller centre here in New Zealand is going to employ 800 people. He is actually interested in the deal being done not in the reality for New Zealanders and for Aucklanders. He is not prepared to tell the country the whole story around the genuine economic impacts and the genuine economic harm. Why does he mistrust New Zealanders so much? Why does he believe that New Zealanders are too stupid to identify these failings these mistruths in what he has said? Why will he not tell the truth? If it issuch a good deal why keep information secret? Why not tell New Zealanders the truth about the jobs? Maybe New Zealanders will think that it is still worth it if there are 340 jobs not 800. Maybe they will. What is the harm in treating New Zealanders like they are intelligent people who can make a genuine assessment about the effects good and bad of this convention centre? Why put all this spin and mistruth over it? It is because there is an inherent mistrust by this Government of New Zealanders and New Zealanders’ ability to assess the information and to make an intelligent decision about what they think is necessary.We do not want a Government that does that. We do not want a Government that treats New Zealanders in such a shabby way. We do not want a Government that is going to put 6500 children at risk for at best 18 new jobs in the New Zealand economy. That is what the research actually says. That is what the table that the Government has referred to actually says. There will be 18 new jobs in the New Zealand economy—JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I do find it incredible when I hear that figure of 18 new jobs. I do think that those members of the Commerce Committee who were there on the last day of hearings will recall the gentleman who came in and refuted those figures. I think that is important to actually acknowledge. Horwath HTL in its report when it analysed the benefit of having a convention centre—which I believe Auckland Council wants to have and I think that the Labour Party wants to have as we certainly do—said that there would be an estimated increase of $85 million in tourism-related expenditure per year. It is very hard to think that $85 million extra could be spent and create only 18 new jobs.Think about the tourists who will come to Auckland City and to this nation for a conference or a convention that may be 3 or 4 days long but who might like to stay for 10 days or 2 weeks. They might stay not just in Auckland; perhaps they might go to Rotorua or maybe down to Queenstown and certainly to Taranaki to visit that beautiful place down there. They are going to be spending money. They are going to be spending money in cafes in shops and in retail centres. They are going to be needing transport. They are going to be needing accommodation. All of these are spin-offs for our economy throughout our nation as we see extra people come to this nation. That is why the purpose clause of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill says: “The overarching purpose of this Act is to provide economic benefits to New Zealanders”—New Zealanders out there who work in tourism and in hospitality and who are retailers in our nation.It is quite easy just to become singularly focused on a few single issues. Let me just talk about why this is important. We want to see employment grow in our nation. We are already seeing the lift happen which is fantastic and I think New Zealanders can be encouraged that the financial stewardship of this Government going through 5 very difficult years is starting to see some benefits roll through in our economies.Dr David Clark: Five long years.JONATHAN YOUNG: Five great years—5 great years after 9 bad years. We are starting to see this economy fire up. What I think we need to understand is that it is hard decisions like this that can create employment opportunities that can better people.I want to just touch on a few points because the economic well-being of this country is very important to every single one of us. I talked yesterday—and I want to raise it again—about the issue and the social harm of unemployment. We need to understand that the people who have unemployment particularly long-term unemployment struggle immensely. They have very poor social outcomes. They suffer depression loss of confidence and poor health and they can become suicidal. Let us not negate that. Let us not negate that. Let us not just ignore that because unemployment is an issue that we want to address in this country.As I read yesterday—and let me read it again—fromPolicy Quarterly November 2010 Clair Mills from the University of Auckland said in her article “Health Employment and Recession” that “Increasing unemployment is associated with a wide range of adverse social outcomes particularly when prolonged.”Carol Beaumont: What has that got to do with this bill?JONATHAN YOUNG: What has this got to do with the bill? This bill is about the economic development and growth of this nation. It is about job creation—far more than the 18 jobs that these people on the other side keep parroting on about. It is hard to think that you could have $85 million come into a country per year and you would get 18 jobs out of that. Come on—use your common sense and realise that it is going to feed through our economy and that we are going to see people all over this nation who are going to receive the benefit.It is also important to see in clause 3(2)(a)(iii) in Part 1—that point there which you see in the bill underlined—where it is stated in the “Purpose and outline” of the bill is that there is an “imposition of obligations on SKYCITY to adopt certain harm minimisation and anti-money laundering mechanisms;”.Kris Faafoi: What a sop.JONATHAN YOUNG: That is not a sop. In fact there are people in Australia and New Zealand who are the experts in this field who say that this obligation placed upon Skycity creates an opportunity to address some of the harm by having new technologies and new tools available to mitigate and address the harm issues.We need to also understand when you look at the issue of harm regarding pokies in particular that 70 percent of the harm happens outside of casinos. There is a huge amount of gambling that takes place with online gambling which has no surveillance and no support for people who get hooked up in that. What we see here is a development of some technologies and some tools that as they develop and are brought to bear on the situation can bring some recognition of harm and bring some result of being able to address these issues that I think all of us do not want to see happen when it comes to harm in people’s lives.As we come to this outline here once again I say that one of the big issues in our country that we want to overcome is unemployment and we must have steps that are going to create economic activity and growth. I believe that we can get the balance right in this. It is a difficult balance but we can get it right and we can ensure that people come through this and get employment and get work in the construction hospitality tourism and retail areas in our society. Thank you.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is interesting to follow that member Jonathan Young who chaired the Commerce Committee on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and to hear some of the claims that he was making which I wish to refute now. One in particular is that the number of jobs—18—was refuted in that select committee. It may have been refuted per se—somebody may have said: “I don’t accept that number.”—but there was certainly no evidence presented that was convincing to say that the independent research by the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research was not in fact dead on the mark. That independent research said that conventions would be drawn from other places in the country and that regions further around outside Auckland would suffer as a consequence of this centre being built—that they would lose jobs as a consequence of this centre being built. The New Zealand Institute for Economic Research as an independent body estimated that there would be a net 18 jobs created by this legislation at a cost of $402 million—$402 million—and most of that paid off the back of problem gambling.This is an appalling bill. This is an absolutely appalling bill. Its purposes as they are laid out in the bill itself are difficult to argue with. If we look at Part 1 it says that “Theoverarching purpose of this Act is to provide economic benefits to New Zealanders …” by providing some capability to host these conventions. Who could argue with that on the surface? It is just that when we dig into it it does not quite stack up. It does not stack up. The Government would not hear that. It would not hear about the harm. At the select committee a ragtag group of MPs blocked submissions. They blocked the officials from the Department of Internal Affairs from coming who had shown in the official papers that were released that they had expertise on this matter. They blocked the Ministry of Health officials the people who understood gambling-related harm from coming to speak to the committee. They blocked the Gambling Commission and its people who deal with this stuff who are at the hard end and who understand the gambling-related harm that will fund the building of this convention centre from coming to the committee. And they blocked Treasury officials for goodness’ sake from coming to this committee most probably because Treasury was very clear that the public benefits did not accrue in the amount that one would expect and that the private gain would far exceed those public benefits. Treasury is normally right there with the Government fighting hand in hand but this time the committee did not want to hear from Treasury’s officials. There was a majority on the committee that blocked those officials. All those MPs who blocked it had in common a little “N”—a little “N” lapel badge. It was an “N” for “Not listening” and beans in their ears—beans in their ears I say.That is unfortunate because if the Government really believed in this legislation—if it really believed that this was the way to go—it would not have tried to bury it. It would not have tried to hide the officials. It would not have stopped people from being critical. It would have let all of the facts come out into the open. It would have let the debate proceed. But instead it tried to shut down the debate in the select committee time after time after time. When later on one of my Green colleagues asked whether we could perhaps just have some updated advice from the Ministry of Health some advice that looked at the bill now that it had been changed and now that more facts are out in the open that too was blocked. They were not even asking to have the officials come there but for a simple piece of advice advising on health concerns and that was blocked by members of the select committee. That is a shameful thing. I say shame to those members of the committee who blocked us from getting advice on the harms that will be caused by this legislation.No one in this Parliament I do not think—and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—thinks that building an international convention centre is of itself a bad idea. Having the ability to host conventions is a reasonable proposition. It is simply the fact that the proposal is to pay for this convention centre through problem gambling that really has us uncomfortable. It is a conscience vote I understand but I would be very surprised if it was not very strongly opposed on this side of the Chamber. This Government is pushing a very bad deal on New Zealanders. The papers that have been supplied and the regulatory impact statement indicate that 8000 people effectively will be harmed by these changes through the impacts of problem gambling. That as we have heard is for the creation of just a net 18 jobs in the economy. Of course there will be a confidence variant around that number of 18 jobs. It might be lower than that. It might be a few higher. It might actually be none in which case we will see that this language in the purpose clause right at the start of the bill which talks about providing economic benefits to New Zealanders will not hold up to the light of day.The other thing I want to say about these economic benefits that are outlined at the start of the bill is that they have been questioned in the debate that has ensued in the media. We have an article on Stuff by Matt Nippert that draws attention to the way these things are handled in Australia. Over there they tend to make sure they get independent advice. They do not get all of the facts and figures about the benefits from the person whois bidding for the contract; they go and get independent advice on the economic benefits so that a fair decision can be made about the worthiness or otherwise of the tender. An expert on these things Mr Kale from Bond University said that Skycity got an incredibly good deal out of the Government. He said that it is a clear win for Skycity. He said of Mr Morrison that “He’s a friend but if you want to quote me you can say: ‘Morrison did an excellent job negotiating with authorities.’ ” The estimate that was in the documents supplied by the Crown shows that the deal ends up at $68 million in Skycity’s favour and that is a risk premium.But that is not the worst of it because it is actually more than that. If we look at the overseas examples in Australia the estimates for this kind of deal are much higher. We see in Sydney that there was an outfit called Echo Entertainment Group which paid $700 million for a licence extension the likes of which we have Skycity paying about $90 million for. There is a huge discrepancy there. That pattern is replicated across Australia. For exclusive rights to run this kind of pokie outfit the Australians demand much more money for the taxpayer but that gets away from the very fact that this is actually a moral issue. It is the harm that is caused that is the bit that I think most people in this Parliament object to. Putting this convention centre on the back of problem gamblers will have serious impacts on our communities. It will cause deaths suicides and murders the likes of which Mr Mallard referred to earlier. We know this because the evidence says that that is what happens and it is highly quantifiable internationally. There is a huge literature around the impacts of problem gambling.This is a terrible bill. The way it is outlined in the beginning might lead us to think that it had economic benefits of a significant nature that were somehow worthy of taking the risk of running with it but we know that that is not actually the case because the case simply does not stack up. The independent research has not been done that would say that was the case. The Government has got itself into a political corner and now it feels that it must get the deal through to try to save face to try to show that it is doing something to stimulate the economy because it currently has the worst economic record of any Government in the last 50 years and that record is shameful.It is a Government that is struggling. New Zealanders are waking up—well they woke up long ago but they are getting frustrated I should say with the lack of progress by this Government when it had the circumstances following 9 years of surpluses from a Labour Government to actually build New Zealand into the kind of country that we all want to live in with a chance for no one to be left behind. But instead we have the rich getting richer the poor getting poorer and those who are really at the bottom getting more debt lumped on them through gambling debt. That is the vision of this Government—a visionless Government. It is making deals. It is trying to get this legislation through but it will lead only to more harm for New Zealanders who are struggling the most. I personally will be opposing this bill because I do not feel that in my conscience I could support it.There ought to have been a transparent process around it. We know from the start that Mr Key met with the Skycity people and gave them the inside running on the legislation. That also meant that the taxpayer did not get a look-in through a fair process of having other tenderers bid for it to see what else might have been on the table. That means that the Government put itself over a barrel in the negotiation process. It had only one party that it was talking to. That party spelled out the terms and the Government is sitting there with its head down bearing it swallowing and trying to get on with the job. It is a shameful day for this country. It is a shameful piece of legislation. We should not be having it go through this House. I say to those members opposite that I hope they examine their consciences and I hope that some of them are willing to cross the floor particularly those who live in electorates where this gambling harm will hit the hardest. I think of SamLotu-Iiga and others in the Auckland constituencies who know very well that the communities they represent will be harmed by this legislation.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to give a contribution on this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. It is something that I feel really strongly about as someone who is resident in the area where this convention centre will exist. I fear that in all of the debate the overall principle the debate around the existence of a convention centre or not has definitely been blurred by the Government. So I want to come back to that original question because the Government has continually maintained this line that the choice was either trade off the gambling harm issues to get the convention centre or nothing—or nothing. It has maintained that the choice was economic development via the Skycity convention centre and a bit of gambling harm on the side or potential job losses and net economic loss to the country on the flip side. That is completely wrong and that is completely misleading.The rest of the country could be forgiven for having just that small view of this entire picture because the Government did not talk about the other options on the table because in reality the Prime Minister never really considered them. In fact the Government probably never really considered them but they existed.In fact many months ago now I put in an Official Information Act request for what some of those options were. I had a personal interest in some of them because some of them may have led to quid pro quos that could have been a net benefit to the city in which I live including the Aotea Centre deal. I want to go through some of those so that the public know that they are not forced into the ridiculous situation of choosing harm for the sake of 18 jobs when actually we could have had the convention centre without this dodgy deal.Back when it was originally floated that the Government was interested in a convention centre that there was a belief that there was a gap in the market there was an opportunity for some other options to be raised. At that time probably the most seriously considered options were from the likes of Ngāti Whātua who had some plans for land that they owned—I believe on the waterfront was where they were originally thinking. There was the potential for them to then partner with the council and the Government in the development of a convention centre there.The other option that got a little bit of air time—a little bit of air time—was the idea that we have the entire Aotea Centre in the middle of Auckland City operated by The Edge. Some might say it is an underutilised resource but it is a resource that in recent times has had significant investment in it. There is a recognition that at the moment that centre is fulfilling quite a specific job—that it does house for instance Opera New Zealand and the Royal New Zealand Ballet and so on—and that if you did pitch the Aotea Centre to be an international convention centre you may need to provide some alternative facilities. So the idea that was put forward was that we could turn the Aotea Centre into an international convention centre give it the alterations that it would require—and it would require some—and at the same time restore the St James Theatre to pick up the alternative role that that convention centre therefore would no longer be able to provide.I see only win-win in a suggestion like that. We would not have had to pass law in this Parliament to allow for additional pokie tables to come into play in order to have that deal. We would not have had mass protest from the public who know what we are trading off in this Parliament today off the back of that deal. But that is not the deal that the Government chose to select. So be under no illusion that this was the only option on the table. It was not. Be under no illusion that the only way we could have had economic development and jobs was through this trade-off. It was not. That in my mind exposes how dodgy this deal is because there were other options.I want to speak a little bit to clause 3 in Part 1 the “Purpose and outline”. It says that “(1) The overarching purpose of this Act 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; (2) To this end the Act—” and then it follows on giving the agreement with Skycity. As I have already said it is very unusual to have to pass a law to build a convention centre in this way. That therefore implies that the economic benefits were of course attached only to the Skycity deal.That is why I want to reflect on the process that we went through in order to get Part 1 in the first place. In order to find that I would like to go back to some of the statements that were made in the lead-up to this even before this got to the Commerce Committee because we did have some analysis of the process that we went through in order to get to this place. Let us perhaps go through that process in which we established the economic benefit.In August 2009 there was a feasibility study as to whether or not a new international convention centre would be of value. It was for the Ministry of Economic Development and Auckland City Council. It was at that time that I heard the vague discussions about this potential deal. It was in that same month that John Key was briefed on the study’s findings and officials recommended that there was a business case that sat around it. That was in August 2009. We know that by the end of August officials had been made aware of a proposal being developed by Skycity to expand its own convention facilities. Key then writes by hand when they were talking about the proposals and looking at feasibility that “We should close off the Skycity angle first.” He handwrites that “We should close off the Skycity angle first.” If that does not indicate that there was already an ingrained preference before any of this had gone anywhere I do not know what does.We know that by the end of that year by 4 November John Key had had dinner with members of the Skycity board and he says that they discussed a possible national convention centre. They raised issues relating to the Gambling Act 2003. That is an interesting point because we are debating now the very amendments that the Prime Minister was already talking about back at the end of that year 2009.But here is a really important point: the tender process had not started. Expressions of interest were not called for until March the next year but already the Prime Minister was having discussions and talking about regulatory trade-offs with Skycity. If regulatory trade-offs were part of what the Government was interested in entertaining in order to have the convention centre built was that part of the tender process? Were any of the other interested parties told that if they were interested they could perhaps put forward a package that was not just about building a facility and doing up the St James Theatre? For instance Vector Arena might have been interested in building another facility in exchange for some regulatory trade-offs in electricity. But did Vector know that this was an option? It absolutely did not because this was a deal just for Skycity specifically. We know that from the time line that has already been exposed.Hon Trevor Mallard: Auckland Airport.JACINDA ARDERN: Auckland Airport may have wanted to do that—there were a range of parties—but we never knew about that. The other parties did not even know about that.In that same month when the expressions had gone out the Government suggested that the current arrangement with Auckland City Council to follow up the jointly funded feasibility study must end even though $250000 had already been set aside for the feasibility study. In May we then had the open tender process. By September Skycity was asking the Government about buying some of the land required in order to go ahead with the convention centre it was proposing.I actually could go on. I have got pages and pages more of the time line. But as you can see before the convention centre tender process had even closed Skycity was talking to the Government about buying land to build its convention centre. Before the tender process had even opened the Prime Minister was talking about amendments to the Gambling Act. It is no wonder that the Deputy Auditor-General said of the process: “We do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.” I am going to read that again; I think it is an important point. The Deputy Auditor-General said: “We do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.”This side of the Chamber does not just throw around the words “dodgy deal” for nothing. We say them because the evidence exists. Mr Joyce may lurch in his chair with what appears to be laughter—I cannot be quite sure—but these are the facts that are before us. We know from the time line—we so rarely see what could be anything other than a smug smile from the Minister; it is hard to know. We based what we have said around the tender process on the facts the evidence the Cabinet papers and the process and all of it leads us to the impression that it was a dodgy deal. But it did not have to be this way. We could have had the convention—DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a call my first call for the evening on Part 1 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I am going to concentrate this part of my speech around the economic benefits and I take note of the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern and her discourse around how this deal started out and the lack of transparency around it.At the time when the discussions were first occurring with the Government about the need for a convention centre I was an Auckland City councillor. It was definitely on the table that there should be negotiating between the council the private sector and also the Government to look at the economic benefits of a convention centre.If there is a good economic argument for a convention centre then we would certainly support it but what we are seeing with this bill is an economic argument that has not taken the costs into account. I am not an economist; I do not dabble in that dark art. However any normal person would first do a cost-benefit analysis before agreeing upon a certain course of action that would cost New Zealanders. The costs of this deal are externalised and it is the New Zealand taxpayers who will be bearing those costs while the provider of the convention centre who keeps the convention centre and who keeps the profits of the convention centre also profits from harm that is caused to ordinary New Zealand citizens.The purpose and outline of this bill as it says in clause 3 in Part 1 is that “The overarching purpose … is to provide economic benefits to New Zealanders”. Do those economic benefits include the 5000 convictions last year that were made in respect of people who had gambling problems? That was gambling problem - related crime. The cost of that is not only to the people who were the victims of that crime which was committed to fuel gambling problems but also to us the taxpayers. For every criminal who is convicted and spends a year in jail it costs $91000. We can assume that with an extra 230 pokie machines with an extra 12 automated gambling tables which each have 20 seats and so are in effect another 20 pokie machines per automated table as well as with 60 more tables—Metiria Turei: 40 more.DENISE ROCHE: —40 more tables; I stand corrected—there will be more problem gamblers as a result.It is not going to be solely the convention centre attendees who will be gambling there. We know from all the reports that the Health Sponsorship Council has done and from experts both in New Zealand and internationally that 40 percent of the profits that Skycity will get from those extra gambling concessions will come from people who haveno control over their gambling behaviour. For our Government to say that that is what we will pay that that is how we will pay for this convention centre is morally bankrupt—it is morally bankrupt.The bill does not take into account the economic costs that we will all bear from the suicides from family violence from domestic violence and from child neglect. It does not take those costs into account. These are the things that we need to be looking at if we are going to pass legislation that endangers and it will endanger New Zealand citizens. This is bad lawmaking.If we are looking at job creation we have already heard that the reports that the officials themselves provided have said that the benefits for the country as a whole amount to only 18 jobs. I guess if you wanted to be cynical you could look at the other jobs that have not been taken into account. They include the jobs across the road from the Skycity Casino at the Chow brothers’ brothel. They include the increase in jobs for the budgeting service that will be dealing with the families of the problem gamblers. They include the jobs that will be needed to provide counselling for those who are suffering from problem gambling. They include the jobs in the corrections service. They include the jobs that mop up after problem gambling. If those were the jobs that the Government was counting then at least we would have an honest assessment—an honest cost-benefit analysis—of this deal in its total because what we are seeing is not economic benefits to New Zealanders.I think there has been some comment about the negotiation and how poorly it was done. I think that needs to be taken into account when we are considering the economic benefits. What we have here is a deal that extends the 35-year casino licence by 27 years. Each year of an extension of a licence is worth millions of dollars. We know from Australia that that is something that the Government should have been negotiating. The cost of the convention centre is just over $400 million. Skycity is estimated to recoup the cost within 4 years based on the 25 percent increase in gambling opportunities that these concessions are delivering to it. We have sold ourselves cheaply. Not only have we sold ourselves down the river and our citizens down the tubes because we are carrying the cost of the deal but also we have been incredibly cheap in the licence that we have given Skycity. I guess we should also take into consideration the fact that this Government has not considered the longer-term costs that we will all bear. So over these 35 years we are stuck with it.The Greens have said that we will be looking for ways to minimise harm. We will come to that in the second part of this Committee stage today. My colleague Metiria Turei co-leader of the Greens and I both have Supplementary Order Papers that we hope will get support across the House. If we are to rely on problem gambling as the way for Skycity to be paying for this deal and we are not actually attempting to reduce it then as lawmakers we are being remiss in our duties.One of the things that does concern me I think is the fact that the economic benefits have been so highly ramped up. They have been so inflated beyond what is actually accurate that we have tended to lose sight of what is happening in gambling as a whole. We are tending to put forward legislation that will undermine our Gambling Act to some extent. That is really worrying because the Gambling Act is there solely to reduce harm from gambling. Yet we are seeing an attempt with this legislation the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill to give concessions to Skycity that undermine our position on that. That is one of the reasons why one of our Supplementary Order Papers Supplementary Order Paper 383 talks about that as well.Several speakers on that side of the Chamber have talked about the flow-on economic benefits. In the second reading yesterday we had people from other centres saying that the convention centre will result in additional tourism opportunities in their small towns. Wehave not seen the proof of that. We know that there are other convention centres across the country that will be competing for convention centre attendees. Unlike Auckland people who go to a convention in Queenstown will not be going to a centre that was paid for through the suffering of children.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Oh!DENISE ROCHE: If the member finds that too emotive I suggest he looks at the facts as they were presented by the officials: 6500 children are estimated to be put at risk as a result of this deal Minister. I suggest you take that on board when you cast your vote because it is a conscience vote and we will be wanting you to think with your conscience and to exercise it. It is not just children who suffer. International—CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to call Kris Faafoi. He is on the Commerce Committee. We are going to hear Kris Faafoi.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the chance to speak to Part 1 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. In his comments during his contribution Mr Young talked about the benefits in terms of this deal and addressing unemployment. He said that this Government has been willing to sign this deal to make sure that there are employment opportunities for New Zealanders. Well I would ask Mr Young and other members of the National Party why they have not intervened to this extent when there have been job losses in the previous 5 years of their Government—that is to sign a deal of this nature to the point of signing away a $402 million convention centre to create employment for New Zealanders. Where was the Government when the train yards down in Dunedin were in grief and those Hillside workers were looking for some hope from this Government? Where was the Government? It was nowhere to be seen at all washing its hands clean of a problem with people losing their jobs. But here the Government member over there Mr Young was quite happy to say that the Government would intervene to do a deal with Skycity to make sure that there are employment opportunities to address the unemployment problem that we have here in New Zealand.A number of people have mentioned in this debate that a convention centre for New Zealand might be a very good idea and that it might be able to draw the likes of international trade shows to New Zealand bringing international visitors here to New Zealand. But the question that we on this side of the Chamber have is did we have to sell off to a huge effect our ability to regulate gambling and also to make laws here in New Zealand in order to do that? We on this side of the equation and on this side of the Chamber say that we did not have to.This is a conscience vote. There are some members on the other side of the Chamber who do come from constituencies where gambling harm does hit disproportionately hard. I am speaking about members such as Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and I do acknowledge that he has had a family death. But besides that Sam has a responsibility as a member of Parliament to represent his community. The officials who were advising the Commerce Committee on this did point out in point 86 of the regulatory impact statement that the increase in the number of pokie machines will hit the likes of Māori and Pasifika communities harder. I know that Mr Lotu-Iiga represents Maungakiekie where there is a very high percentage of Pasifika people. So I think that this being a conscience vote Mr Lotu-Iiga should look at the harm that this bill will have on the Pasifika and Māori communities within his electorate and choose wisely when we are asked to vote on this bill.As other members have pointed out in this debate on Part 1 the deal that has been signed between the Crown and Skycity will see over 230 more machines. The deal between the Crown and Skycity will extend its licence for another 27 years inAuckland—a city that I must say has the highest Pasifika population in the country—and will allow another 40 extra gaming tables. The deal goes on to give many more concessions to Skycity in response to building the convention centre.Unfortunately in all of this the Pasifika community will be hit very hard. I do call on the consciences of other Pasifika members on the other side of the Chamber to think very wisely about the impact that this will have on our communities and the harm it will cause to families—and as Denise Roche says to the children in those families—by signing off this deal. By signing off this deal we are saying that we are OK with harm in those communities—we are OK with harm in those communities. So for the Pasifika members on the other side of the Chamber I make a special plea to you to think very wisely before you do vote on this issue.I turn now to some of the machinations of how this agreement—or dodgy deal—came about between Skycity and the Government. In fact if I were sitting in the Skycity boardroom at the moment I would be very happy. The Government has completely and utterly sold out in terms of the deal because what Skycity gets for the cost is a great deal. We have sold ourselves short here because the Government has sold out in a big way. Mr Young was talking about the spin-offs in terms of addressing unemployment. We get nowhere close to a good deal in terms of employment Mr Young and I know that in the Commerce Committee which that he chairs there was some research done by the Institute of Economic Research prepared for the Minister in the chair the Minister for Economic Development that showed that because of the diversion of investment only 18 more jobs—not 1800 not 18000 just—Carol Beaumont: Not even 180.KRIS FAAFOI: Not even 180. Just 18—one-eight—more jobs will be created under this deal. So this Government is playing up very highly the gains of employment from the deal but it is quite clear from the evidence presented before the select committee that they simply do not exist.Just turning to some of the politics around this Mr Key the Prime Minister was kind of crowing that this was a good deal. He said that he was totally vindicated when the Deputy Auditor-General investigated how this deal came about. But let us just dig a little deeper because always with this Government it is the details that catch it out. That is not exactly—Chris Auchinvole: Ha!KRIS FAAFOI: —how the Deputy Auditor-General came to be. For the benefit of Mr Auchinvole who giggled because maybe he does not know what the Deputy Auditor-General said I say that the Deputy Auditor-General said that the process of Skycity getting the contract to build the convention centre was—Chris Auchinvole: I didn’t giggle—guffawed!KRIS FAAFOI: He said it himself. I think he said “flawed”. The Deputy Auditor-General said it was flawed and not transparent or even-handed. The report established deficiencies on the part of both Ministers—so I think we are talking about the Minister in the chair and the Prime Minister—and officials. That is not exactly pertaining to the Prime Minister being totally vindicated by the Deputy Auditor-General’s report. It is another instance around the Skycity deal where the Government has been more spin than reality.We have heard from David Clark who talked about an expert from a university in Australia—I think from Bond University—who said that Skycity got an incredibly good deal. It shows you just what bad negotiators they are on the other side of the House. It shows you just what bad negotiators they are on the other side of the House because not only was it a bad business deal but it was bad for our communities—not just in Aucklandbut right around New Zealand. It showed that this Government would quite easily and happily sell out in the interests of doing a deal to build a convention centre.There will be 280 more pokie machines and 40 more gaming tables for pretty much zero. I note the harm that that will do to I think it was 8000 more Aucklanders as a result of this convention centre and the increase in the licence to Skycity going ahead. This deal will do harm. It will do harm to the communities in Auckland.I just want to finish with a plea again to the Pacific Island members on the other side of the House. It is patently obvious that gambling harm hurts our community more so we will be disproportionately affected by the increase in these pokie machines and these gaming machines and the extension of the licence that is given to Skycity. It is our community that will get hit harder. So in order to prevent that happening the members on the other side have an opportunity to stop that today. They can just simply vote against this piece of legislation. So to Alfred Ngaro and to Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga I say do the right thing for your community because if you do not sure you will have your political reputation within your party intact—you did the right thing within your party—but you sold out your community.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I moveThat the question be now put.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I want to address another part of clause 3 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and that is the part that is the tricky way that the Government has got around not amending the Gambling Act. It is worthwhile remembering that the Gambling Act says that there will be no more casinos there will be no increase in the space that casinos can use for gaming machines and there will be no more machines or gambling opportunities at casinos. The Gambling Act essentially provides a blanket prohibition on any expansion of any casino.As was described by my colleagues in Labour any attempt to change the Gambling Act for just this one business—for Skycity—runs completely contrary to the entire purpose of the Gambling Act. So in order to get around this absolute prohibition for just Skycity this one business in the gambling industry the Government has had to do a lot of wording machinations and a bit of management here and there. In clause 3(2)(a)(ii) it discusses the purpose of the agreement and it provides for “the granting of changes to the regulatory regime applying to the SKYCITY Casino …”. That is how the Government is using this legislation to avoid the prohibitions against expanding the casino business in the Gambling Act.Many Auckland businesses I understand are actually rather frustrated and quite angry at the extent to which Skycity has been given this special privilege by the National Government by Steven Joyce and John Key. The Government gives Skycity this extra-special deal—worth billions of dollars actually—through this tricky legislative mechanism to try to avoid the prohibition in the Gambling Act. But what is really important and concerning to us with that is that the purpose of the Gambling Act is to place constraints on gambling operations. Casinos were allowed eventually to operate in New Zealand and part of the social contract that allowed casinos to come to New Zealand was that there would be constraints on them: constraints on how large they would be and constraints in terms of regulation to minimise problem gambling as much as possible. That was the social contract. That is the deal—that they can operate in this country as a legitimate business as long as they adhere to the law.What we have had with Skycity over the last I do not know more than a decade is Skycity continually challenging the Gambling Commission and continually challenging the Gambling Act provisions in an attempt to expand its business. It has time after time I understand taken the Gambling Commission to court to try to get the Gambling Commission’s rules changed so that Skycity can expand its business. Time and time again the Gambling Act provisions which place an absolute prohibition on the expansionof its business have won out. Every single time Skycity has not been able to get what it wanted. It has not been able to breach the social contract that casinos have with New Zealanders which allows casinos to operate legitimately here with some kind of social licence.Then along comes John Key who has a few dinners with the Skycity top bosses and suddenly the entire social contract is blown out of the water. The whole social contract—the social licence that Skycity Casino has to operate in New Zealand—is destroyed over a couple of fancy dinners and a couple of bottles of fancy wine with John Key because John Key wants a monument to his prime ministership when he eventually goes after the next election. Skycity finally found the guy who would give it the deal for which it has been fighting for years which was to get outside the Gambling Act. That is what clause 3 says. It is a “get out of jail free” card for Skycity Casino to avoid the controls that society placed on casinos and the controls that are placed on Skycity.Those controls are primarily designed to protect New Zealanders from the harm from casino gambling—gambling in general but casino gambling in particular. They were agreed to because it is globally acknowledged that casino gambling causes harm that pokie machines are designed to be addictive—they are designed expressly for the purpose of hooking people in and creating an addiction. There is widely known research around the world. So there is a need for legislation to try to curb the harms and that is what the Gambling Act does. But we have now—Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I want in this part of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and in this contribution to focus on National Party members and ask them to examine their consciences. [Interruption] Steven Joyce the promoter of the John Key casino extension giggles. He giggles at the thought of a National Party member having a conscience and I think that is disgraceful. He is not an experienced parliamentarian but most people know even if they have just read the history of the country that the National Party has a tradition of allowing its members to have a conscience vote. Members opposite say that we went to the election on the issue. Well I think that to a certain extent some of them did. Some of them did go to the election. John Key certainly went to the election on a convention centre. But I remind them of the people of integrity of the National Party of the past who notwithstanding going to the election on an issue had the courage to stand up and say no.I refer the members to Ralph Hanan. Ralph Hanan was a former Mayor of Invercargill from memory. He was a Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General in the Holyoake National Party. His party led by Holyoake went to the election in 1960 and promised to undo the suspension of capital punishment that had been instituted by the previous Labour Government. Ralph Hanan said: “Notwithstanding the fact it is my role to introduce this bill because that is my obligation as a Minister who is part of the Holyoake Government my conscience will not let me vote for it.” What that man did was he introduced a bill and he voted against it.I ask Jonathan Young where his conscience is. Mr Young knows absolutely that this bill and in particular the interventions in clause 4(2) are an area where the agreement which is not even specified in the bill—so what we have in here is a bill that specifies an agreement and says that the interpretation should be based on the agreement. But is the agreement available in the legislation? No it is not—no it is not. National has not even bothered because it is trying to keep it all secret. It is trying to say in clause 4(2) that this Parliament should interpret the agreement as overriding the legislation notwithstanding the fact that it is not prepared to put the entire agreement into the schedule of the bill.National has cherry-picked it. It has picked up a clause here and a clause there that it wants to have highlighted and it has made those in the schedule of the bill. But theimportant part of the agreement signed by Steven Joyce and initiated over drinks by the Prime Minister is not in the bill. I say to Jonathan Young shame on you.Jonathan Young: Website Mallard.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Since when in the history of the Parliament of New Zealand have you been told that you go to a website—according to Jonathan Young—for something that overrides a letter of the legislation? For goodness’ sake! What sort of “Mickey Mouse” Parliament are we talking about? Chris Auchinvole’s head is hanging in shame at the interjection. I would ask Jonathan Young how many people he is prepared to have die as a result of this legislation. One? Ten? Fifteen? How many extra people are going to be murdered as a result of not paying their debt? How many more bodies in suitcases of people who could not pay their debt are going to be found in the Auckland harbour?NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. [Interruption] A party vote? [Interruption] No we are not accepting personal votes on Part 1. In Part 2 there will be—Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to refer you toMcGee. Sorry this is somewhat unanticipated so I will have to go to the particular part.McGee makes it absolutely clear that gambling issues are areas where there is a traditional conscience vote. I do accept that it is the right of the Chair to decide when a personal vote occurs but I ask you to examine the precedent that you are setting for something that is a gambling issue. I want to point out that in this bill—for example looking at the purpose clause of the bill; the interpretation clause especially clause 4(2); and clause 5 of the bill which binds the Crown—every single one of those clauses involves extra gaming.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for the points that he has brought up. There is an agreement from the Business Committee—I do not know whether the member is aware of it—that there will be personal votes allowed on Part 2. Here is the letter that has gone to all parties. It is dated 5 November. There is an agreement that says that Part 1 will be done by party vote and that Part 2 will be done by way of a personal vote on a conscience matter. That is the decision of the Speaker that is the decision that I have ruled on and we will now have a party vote which has been called for.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a new point of order? Because I have actually ruled on the previous point of order.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have heard your ruling. Are you ruling that the Business Committee agreement can strip from a member their right to have a personal vote? Can you show me the Standing Order that allows that?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am referring to Standing Order 139: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue the Speaker will permit a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.” The issues about conscience matters are in Part 2; they are not in Part 1. So the points that have been made—and I refer the member to the decision of the Business Committee and the Speaker’s letter to the parties which I am upholding and so on that basis I have ruled. I am not going to entertain it further Mr Mallard because I have ruled. I have ruled on what the Speaker has determined. Mr Speaker has determined that it is an agreement of all parties on the Business Committee and it is not for me to actually deviate from that. At the end of the day—[Interruption] No hang on. At the end of the day it is at mydiscretion. I have ruled that Part 1 is to be done on party vote as per the Speaker’s instructions and that Part 2 is to be done by way of a personal vote on conscience matters.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I moveThat the Speaker be recalled in order to contest the ruling you have just made.Motion agreed to.House resumed.Speaker RecalledThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Mr Speaker you have been recalled on the basis that a closure motion was put. I accepted the closure motion and put it to the Committee. At that stage the Green Party asked specifically for a personal vote. I denied a personal vote and subsequently I have used the letter that you have written to the parties as it is your prerogative to do stating that Part 1 because they are procedural matters would be on the basis of a party vote if a party vote were called for and that Part 2 because they are conscience matters if a personal were called for a personal vote would be allowed. I have quoted the letter from your office signed by you on 5 November which states the position quite clearly. On that basis the ruling that I made was that we would accept a party vote on Part 1 but not a personal vote. That is the decision and the ruling that I made.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think it is fair to say that Mr Tisch has summarised the situation well. I have now received a copy of the letter that you sent to the party whips. I do want to point out that nowhere in this letter does it say that Part 1 will be treated as a party vote. What it does is indicate that certain matters will be treated as conscience issues.One of those in the dot point at the top of page 2—and I am researching this relatively quickly—is changes to the regulatory regime for gambling and the application of proceeds of gambling. I refer you in Part 1 to clause 4(1) which defines “regulatory concessions” and brings them into the Act. From just a very brief reading of your letter it is clear that in fact that amendment at least comes within the ambit of your letter and therefore should allow for a personal vote. So that is No. 1. I apologise. It is not a matter that I was aware of before or I would have brought it up. I have just read your letter and compared it with the bill.The next point that I want to make is the indication from the Chairman that he had been directed by you. That is actually a quote. “The direction of the Speaker” were the words used by the Chairman of the Committee. Of course that cannot be because you I am sure would give guidance and not direction in these matters because otherwise the right of the Chair in following the debate to act as he sees would be fettered.I turn to the last point and I do want to say that we might have been if you like one vote premature in calling for a personal vote. There might be a good debate around—I think we can have a debate around whether the closure motion is a personal vote or not. It might be that there could be an argument as far as the closure motion is concerned to do with Government business and getting it through that those votes might be a party vote. But given the ruling from the Chairman that this is part of Part 1 as opposed to a procedural motion it might be worth considering it as a package.The last point that I would make is that if one looks through these definitions we go to “licence” in clause 4(1) and we also go to the legislative implementation of the agreement which is not counted in the schedules. So if one looks at clause 4(2) that is the clause that gives effect to the agreement and therefore is a major operative clause in the extension of gambling and the implementation of those provisions.My submission to you is that this part includes three or four provisions that change gambling andMcGee and other learned people who have written on the matter have made very clear in the past that gaming provisions are matters of conscience. I am asking you to rule that your letter stands and that that is guidance but not direction to the Chairman and that it would be appropriate for him to review his mistaken assumptions as to the effect of this part in relation to the letter that you have provided.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I just want to indicate that the Chairman did not indicate to the Committee that he was in any way being directed by you Mr Speaker. What he did make very clear for the guidance of the Committee was that you had after discussion in the Business Committee written to members to indicate that all parties had agreed on the procedure that was to be followed. There is no doubt in my mind that the Chairman was simply upholding the intent of that letter and the agreement that was reached by all the other parties. I also want to indicate that in this instance we were dealing with a procedural motion and the suggestion that anything other than a party vote should be taken on a procedural motion is I would have thought quite extraordinary.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): We too have seen the letter. It is our understanding in the Greens that unless we call for a personal vote no such vote will be held. There has been no express indication from the Chair or from any other official as to which parts of the legislation may or may not be considered appropriate for a personal vote. So we are in no position other than to call for a personal vote at every opportunity so that those personal votes will be held. If there is no indication then we may well unduly miss the opportunity to hold a personal vote which we consider as very important. So without further indication we have no choice but to continually call for a personal vote in these circumstances.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Firstly I think that you did a good thing in providing guidance to all parties about how as the primary presiding officer of this Parliament you would see this bill being dealt with where there is clearly disagreement among parties about what should be a conscience vote and what should not.I have to say that we have heard from some speakers this afternoon on this point who were not present at the Business Committee yesterday where this matter was further discussed and it would be unfair and unreasonable to suggest that there had not been a discussion about which parts are most likely to attract the personal vote requirement or to see that called for. There were some understandings reached and I think that one of the difficulties that we are faced with now is that although that Business Committee has functioned extremely well for the last 5 years in my opinion we might be at a point where it is going to start turning on itself. I would ask that perhaps some of those who have spoken this afternoon speak to their representatives who were at the Business Committee to get a better understanding of exactly what I understood to be agreed positions.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): The first thing I would like to do is say that I think I received an indication from Mr Tisch that he did not use the words “Speaker’s direction”. If that is the case if he did not use those words I apologise. I thought that he had. The second point that I would like to make is that there is no provision in Speakers’ rulings or in Standing Orders for the Business Committee to remove the right of an individual member to vote on a personal vote on a conscience matter. You cannot trade away amongst senior members the right of individual members to have personal votes.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I made no such suggestion but the member Trevor Mallard has huge experience in this House and also in theBusiness Committee and knows the sorts of agreements that can be reached there. No one is suggesting that anyone’s rights are cut off but on a procedural motion it would seem rather unusual to expect there to be a personal vote unless there was some compelling reason for there to be so.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just ask whether the Chairman wishes to make any further comment. Can I thank all members for their contribution. I thought long and hard about the letter that I sent out and in actual fact if you follow a previous gambling bill that was before this House a member’s bill in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell we on that occasion followed a very similar system to what I have established today. I took substantial advice from the Clerk in determining whether Part 1 was largely procedural and on the basis of that advice that was my conclusion.I then sent a letter out that I think is relatively specific to members and I appreciate that at the time the Hon Trevor Mallard recalled the Speaker he had not actually seen a copy of that letter. But that letter quite specifically says that I will allow a personal vote on the second part. I refer members to Standing Order 139 which states: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue the Speaker will permit a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.”I can assure all members of the House that I respect the role of the Chairman and I certainly did not instruct Mr Tisch in any way. Having said that I say that this matter was discussed at the Business Committee. I was personally not at the Business Committee yesterday and I think it would be a very dangerous situation having followed the way this House has evolved over a period of time as we have adjusted Standing Orders to our electoral system if at any time the working and the consensus arrangement of that Business Committee were put at risk. On this occasion there will be adequate opportunities for people to cast personal votes where I have determined that there is more of a gambling issue at stake rather than a procedural matter. So on this basis I adhere to the ruling made by Mr Chairman and the House will return to being in Committee.In CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Preliminary provisions(continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Committee is resumed. I had accepted a closure motion from a Government member so the question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.Hon Trevor Mallard: Personal vote.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will not accept a personal vote. A party vote has been called for. I will accept a party vote.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Motion agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The question is that Part 1 stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. [Interruption] The Ayes have it. A party vote is called for. I will ask the Clerk for a party vote.Hon Trevor Mallard: Personal vote.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are having a party vote—it has been called for. I am giving a party vote.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Substantive provisionsThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to the debate on Part 2 and this includes debate on schedule 3.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): This is the substantive part of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and the part of the bill that we expect to debate today and through tomorrow if the Government decides to put it up again. What this part does is put into place the regulatory concessions. What it does is put part but not all of the contract into law. What it does is take out a number of the obligations of the Gambling Commission. It puts in and takes out some obligations of the Secretary for Internal Affairs.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think it is fair to say that we had just got started and I was beginning to remind members about the precedent set by that honourable National member Josiah Hanan a former member for Invercargill and the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General in the Holyoake Government. On a matter of party policy following the 1960 election he put a bill into the House as the Minister in charge to reintroduce capital punishment and then he had the courage of his convictions to vote against that bill because he knew it was wrong. My challenge to National members opposite is to apply their consciences in the same way and notwithstanding what their leader said on the hustings and the pressure he has put on them in their caucus to stand up for what they believe in. I cannot believe that members like Jonathan Young truly believe that the lost family homes the lost marriages the suicides and the murders that will flow from this bill are in fact an appropriate thing for a National Party person to be voting for.I want to say that even in my time in the House there used to be a tradition of independence of thinking in the National Party and the ability to vote according to one’s conscience in a way that I think for many years—in fact for most of the party’s history—has been wider and more flexible than in the Labour Party. But under Steven Joyce and under John Key that traditional ability to think for oneself appears to have gone. I have made it clear to the House in the past that I voted for the introduction of the original casino legislation. Members opposite might say: “Shame on you!” but the point is that I then looked at the evidence. I listened to submissions and I read what people had to say and I had the courage of my convictions to reverse my position and to vote against the final reading of the bill because I thought that was the right thing to do. I challenge members opposite to find their consciences.The next point I want to make is one that might be described as being “only in New Zealand” or in some other banana republic and that is the position of the Hon JohnBanks with regard to this legislation. People will remember without going into any of the detail that a prima facie case has been established against Mr Banks for not declaring donations from Skycity. What do we have now? We have had in this House as recently as this afternoon a vote by the Hon John Banks in favour of the very people who gave him a donation that he attempted illegally—at least on a prima facie basis—to hide from the country.In any other country in the world in any other proper democracy in the world a person would say that the matter is before the court and they do not expect him to—well I think an honourable person might resign but I do not expect Mr Banks to do that. What I do expect the member to do is to say that it is not appropriate because of a vestige of integrity to vote in favour of the people who gave him the donation which he then hid from the public.This is the part of the bill that effectively tips over the sinking-lid policy of the Auckland Council with regard to pokie machines. I think it is fair to say it is uneven. Manukau led the way as far as the sinking lid was concerned but it is now across Auckland and working relatively well. We heard from Jonathan Young and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga how well it was working generally across Auckland. I did have to point out to them of course that most of their colleagues when the sinking lid was introduced voted against it. They were not supportive of it then. They are supportive of it now. But what this particular part of the bill does is tip that on its head and it means that we will get the opposite effect. We will have a massive increase not just in the numbers of pokie machines but in the turnover from those pokie machines because machines within casino set-ups that are open 24 hours a day 7 days a week sometimes with queues to those machines have a much higher turnover than would otherwise be the case.I would like to refer to the schedule. This is an interesting bill. Missing from the schedules that are attached to the bill is most of the agreement which should be in the bill and which we are saying overrides the letter of the law in this case. How the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General can sit in the chair and say that this is adequate legislation I do not know. But what is clear is that things that are allegedly on a website somewhere on the Department of Internal Affairs site override the letter of the law in this bill. Well that is just wrong.But there is some stuff in here and I just want to refer to the first of it and that is clause 7.2 of the agreement” in schedule 1 and clause 7.2(a) of the agreement and the fact that “The initial term of the Venue Licence is extended from its current expiry date of 1 February 2021 to 30 June 2048.” The two reviews that were meant to take place during that time—massive reviews massive and important—are gone. The ability of the Government to re-tender to make decisions as to having another operator come in maybe on an exclusive basis or maybe to have a competitor is wiped. It is gone as a result of something that is sitting in a schedule of this bill and that is just wrong.And there are lots of other things. We know that people lose too much money because they fire $20 notes into machines and get credits. What does this bill do? It increases from $20 to $100 the size of the notes that are allowed to be fired into the machine one after another and another again and another and another and another. So people can flick away tens of thousands of dollars in $100 notes so that they can get their credits which they then generally go on to lose because that is what happens when people—Iain Lees-Galloway: The house always wins.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well the house does always win and I tell you what. The house has won exceptionally well out of this deal because it was playing poker with people with their eyes shut.You know I have criticised the officials for some stuff but I do want to give the officials praise because I think the advice that the officials kept on giving to Ministers was: “You’re being done over here—you’re being done over. The house is beating you. You should not accept this deal.” I believe that the officials from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Enterprise passed on the Treasury advice as to the private benefit of this to Skycity. I believe that they had honesty and integrity and gave the right advice to the Ministers. I do criticise them for not showing the same independence at the Commerce Committee.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I have spoken on this bill the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill before and I have to say that each time I do this I realise more and more that this is an abhorrent piece of legislation. It is wrong in so many ways. It is wrong morally. It is wrong in the way that the process was followed. But I just want to say as perhaps many people in this House have not gone there that when you go to that casino and you walk through that main gambling area where all the pokie machines are stacked up you see that the people who are putting their money into those machines are not the high rollers whom we are trying to attract from overseas.These are the people from my electorate and from South Auckland and from west Auckland who cannot afford to give away their savings their salaries and their benefits into those machines. To think that this bill—this Act—will bring about another 230 of those machines it obviously can only mean that more of those people are going to be trapped. As my colleague Trevor Mallard just said those machines are no longer just the simple machines where you put money into them; they are machines that operate on cards. They are machines where many of them at more than $20 at a time can fleece you and take that from you which is basically preying on those people who are unable to ensure that they able to step back from that and say: “No I can’t do this any more.” That is the real worry about this convention centre: it is being built on the backs of those people. There is the harm that it is doing to those families and to those people who are unable to resist putting their savings through those machines—230 extra machines. Those machines are programmed to take more money off people faster.When this agreement was being talked about many months ago I spoke to somebody who was a former senior employee of Skycity. I said to them: “What’s the deal going to look like?” and he said: “Well if it was me what I’d be looking for is an extension of my gambling licence by about 10 years I’d be looking for a lot more pokie machines and I’d be looking for the pokie machines that are able to take money off people much faster than the ones that we’ve got currently.” Well Skycity certainly got a really good deal out of this because it ticks all the boxes. But even he—even he—was shocked by the fact that it was a 35-year licence rather than the 7 or 8 years that he anticipated and even he was shocked by KordaMentha’s conclusions about how much money was coming back to Skycity. I believe that that amount has been grossly underestimated and other analyses that I have seen seem to demonstrate that it is actually well under what Skycity is likely to make from this deal.That is one part of it—the ability to take more money off people faster more money off the people who can least afford it more money to line the pockets of Skycity for 35 years. But the other part of it of course is how this deal actually came into being. Although this is all part of Part 1 I want to touch on the fact that the deal was done without the other companies that were tendering for this contract having the same information that Skycity had. So instead of the Skycity deal being a Skycity deal and it being a Vector deal or a Ngāti Whātua deal or an Infratil deal with their having an ability to actually put up a proposal that might have satisfied the Government they never even got that opportunity. They did not even know that the rules had changed. SoSkycity was set up right from the very beginning. That is why the Auditor-General said that the process lacked transparency it was not even-handed it was flawed and there were deficiencies on both the part of officials and on the part of Ministers and to say that somehow this arrangement this deal has totally vindicated the Ministers of course is absolute nonsense.The other part of this is what exactly we are getting out of it: the convention centre. At the moment most of us would support having a convention centre but Treasury documents and Treasury analysis would indicate that actually the peak for a convention centre of this type may have actually passed and the economic returns that we are expected to get are actually going to be somewhat lower than what we expect.But I want to come back to the issue of the harmful effects because most of the problem-gambling organisations that I have spoken to talk about problem gamblers being in the order of about 40 percent of those people who are pulling the levers or pushing the buttons of those pokie machines—40 percent. It means that there will be a huge increase in the number of people who are actually going to be going to the Skycity Casino and being involved in that addictive behaviour. As we have tried in the past to decrease the number of pokie machines and we have heard all about the issues and the problems at the bowling clubs and the rugby clubs around Auckland that are slowly but surely decreasing—some would say that we need to do that more quickly but they are certainly decreasing in number—here we are increasing to dramatic effect the number and going in the other direction. Let us remember that those machines at the rugby clubs the bowling clubs etc. give about a third of their income back to the community whereas Skycity gets to pocket that income and it pays about 2 3 or 4 percent of its returns back to any sort of community fund.This is not just bad for the people who are addicted to gambling and are sitting there putting their money and their life-savings into it supporting and backing and financing a convention centre that I have to say is based on some pretty dubious economics but it is also not giving anything back to the community whatsoever. On top of that the number of jobs that were supposed to be created by this which Grant Robertson talked about in his earlier intervention is grossly—grossly—exaggerated by this Government in terms of what it is going to be producing. Any analysis of what has happened in Australia with regard to the numbers of jobs created by these casinos will tell you that they are nothing like what the Government is proposing. In fact the figure will possibly be well below 100 and many of those jobs are actually going to be for cleaners or bar workers in the lower-paid proportions of our community.Do not get this wrong. This is not about economic development in the grand scheme of things that Steven Joyce has always talked about; this is about furthering the profits of a city through the back-door deals of Ministers and more specifically the Prime Minister. This is a shonky deal. It is a dishonest deal. It takes money from the pockets of ordinary New Zealanders. It creates harm in our society and that is why when most New Zealanders look at this deal they know that this is wrong. They feel that they have been duped and wronged by this Government in ensuring that this sham gets put into our city. It is in the middle of our city. It takes up several blocks—several blocks—of land where people are going to be going in in their tens of thousands and putting their money into machines money that they can ill-afford to spend. So this is why I feel particularly aggrieved by this happening in my city. When I go through that hall and I see the sorts of people who are putting money into those machines and I see the sorts of people who are going to be putting money into those machines in a multiple increase on what we have today then that is why I am standing here with my colleagues and absolutely opposing this deal.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to refer to the first clause within Part 2 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. That is where we have a discussion about the regulatory concessions that have been authorised. I particularly want to refer members of the Committee to clause 6(2). It says: “The regulatory concessions prevail if a regulatory concession is inconsistent with any provision of the gambling law and the application of the provision of the gambling law is modified accordingly.” Let us just stop and think for a minute what that clause means. It means that the deal as we have traversed—a dodgy deal done without the proper information going to other applicants with the Prime Minister’s paw prints all over it; an appalling deal done by the Government which is costing the taxpayer costing New Zealanders—trumps gambling law.That is the message the National Government is sending out tonight. The Gambling Act 2003 with its purpose to “minimise the harm caused by gambling” is trashed by a shoddy agreement that lines the pocket of Skycity and that takes away from many New Zealanders money that they can ill-afford to have taken away. That is the point of clause 6(2).The National Government should be ashamed to be supporting a clause that says the will of this Parliament is out the door. The National Government did not even have the gumption to come in and amend the gambling law because it could not because this bill is against the purpose of the gambling law. So instead it overrides that law with an agreement signed in a back room—a deal done with National’s mates is more important to it than the sovereign right of this Parliament to make laws.National should be ashamed of clause 6(2) because the regulatory concessions that are being talked about in clause 6 are not minor. Let us run through them again and make sure people understand what we are talking about here. There is the extension of the licence until 2048. As my colleague Trevor Mallard has said within that period where that licence has been extended there should have been two full reviews of that licence.I had a bit to do with the Gambling Act 2003 as an official or a person who worked in this building and I can tell you that one of the main roles that was to be played in the review process was taking a thorough look at the levels of gambling harm that were being caused. Those two reviews are gone on this licence and that is shameful. There will be 40 extra gaming tables a 17 percent increase in the number of gaming machines that can take more than $20 notes and ticket-in ticket-out cashless gaming. These are the kinds of regulatory concessions that are being talked about here—a huge increase in gaming machines. These are the concessions these are the things that break the spirit of the Gambling Act that clause 6 says are fine.On this side of the Chamber we do not believe it is fine and neither do the officials because the regulatory impact statement makes that absolutely clear. I will read it from paragraph 33: “The proposed gambling concessions raise concerns about a potential increase in the incidence of problem gambling due to the subsequent increase in gambling opportunities at Skycity’s Auckland casino.” David Shearer just said it—if this is all about the high rollers the people who will come to these international conventions from around the world they do not play the pokies. They do not go into places like this to play pokie machines. The people who will be lured in to play those pokie machines will be the people who can least afford it. We know this about pokie machines. Class 4 gambling is the most addictive there is. This bill and these concessions that are now being put in place by clause 6 mean that there will be more pokie machines more opportunities.But then we go on to the question of cashless gaming. There has been a lot of research around the world about the impact that it has to actually put money into amachine—it is an action you have to do. Once you move to cashless gaming to cards to ticket-in ticket-out machines you take away from people the decision that they are going to put money in. Here we are in clause 6 of this bill saying it is OK to have 17 percent more machines that will take higher denominations and that will lead to cashless gaming. Cashless gaming will make problem gambling worse and that is what is put in place with these concessions.Here is something that I do not know whether I ever thought I would see in a regulatory impact statement. This is what the officials said in paragraph 97: “There are aspects of the regulatory concessions that potentially raise the risk of money laundering through Skycity.” Oh well that is just a casual little comment there from Treasury officials—we are looking at money-laundering! This is the result of the ticket-in ticket-out arrangements which do allow for the prospect of people using them to put money in. Trevor Mallard has already raised concerns about the kinds of pressures that can be put on people in a venue like Skycity in the case—the very unfortunate case—of the Chinese student from a couple of years ago. Well here we have got the officials telling us that money-laundering is on the way at Skycity.So there is another risk not accounted for by the Government not defended by the Government. It was simply put into this deal with Skycity which frankly had a ball negotiating this. It has done extremely well for itself and its shareholders. Where was the Government? Where was the Government defending New Zealanders? Where was the Government saying: “No we have actually got gambling laws that are about reducing gambling harm. We have got an Auckland Council that has a sinking lid policy on gaming machines. We are going to defend that.”? That could have been the response of the Government. It could have said: “Actually do you know what? We really want this convention centre built but these regulatory concessions go against the spirit of our laws against what the Auckland Council has been trying to do. We are not going to agree to it. Sorry Skycity it was nice negotiating with you but we are going to go back and talk to the other four people who actually did want to build this convention centre.”But no the Government did not do that because it was neck-deep in this dodgy deal led by the Prime Minister who directed his officials to work with Skycity in a different manner to how other groups who were tendering were being worked with. Meetings were held with the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and information was handed over to Skycity. Again the officials started raising concerns about this—ploughing on went the Government to do this dodgy deal. In clause 6 we now have the sight—the shameful sight—of the regulatory concessions which I have just worked through prevailing above and beyond gambling law. That is a completely shameful position to find ourselves in in this Parliament.It is worth noting on the question of the licence and the licence extending through to 2048 that Skycity has completely done the Government over here. All of the calculations show us that Skycity will make its money back miles in advance of 2048. It has got a great deal here. Not only has it got a great financial deal; New Zealanders are done out of the reviews. Why? Why on earth has the Government decided to not even have the reviews? All right extend the licence as part of your deal but still review it—still give New Zealanders the reassurance that this outfit is operating in accordance with the law; that it is actually doing the problem-gambling harm minimisation initiatives that it said it would.But no we do not even have this review. It is a blank cheque written by the National Government to Skycity against the wishes and values of New Zealanders. Part 2 of this bill is the guts of it. This is where the rubber hits the road. It is time for somebody on the National side of the Chamber to stand up and say why New Zealanders should agree to regulatory concessions that are against the gambling laws that we currently have.Why not have the gumption to come into this Chamber and say: “You know what? The Gambling Act 2003 is wrong. We want to liberalise it.”? That is not what those members have done. They have picked off Skycity and they have said they are going to give Skycity power above and beyond the Gambling Act 2003.Well that is not what I came into Parliament for. I did not come into Parliament to sit here and have a National Government do a backroom deal and come into this House and tell me that the laws that have been previously passed do not matter; that it is just going to do everything by deals and agreements. That is not democracy. That is not how this House is meant to work.Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to support the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I would like to follow up on the speech of the previous speaker Grant Robertson. Throughout its 35-year extension of its casino licence Skycity Casino will continue to be subject to existing and any new casino laws and regulations. In the event that Skycity Casino fails to meet its obligations as set out in the terms of its licence its licence could be suspended or cancelled under the current Gambling Act. The agreement will not change the operation and enforcement of the existing gambling regime.According to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the size of the international business events market is growing. The International Congress and Convention Association estimates that there are approximately 19000 non-government international association conferences organised in the world on a regular basis with approximately 11219 held in 2012 compared with 10070 in 2011 and 9120 in 2010. Last year only 45 of these events were held in New Zealand partly because of New Zealand not having the right facilities to attract large conferences. I have talked to a number of conference organisers and they find it hard to believe that New Zealand is unable to host such conferences. It is clear that we have been missing out on many opportunities for the growth of our economy.Casinos in New Zealand were first introduced over two decades ago. Research shows that there is indeed a link between the availability of gaming machines and opportunities to gamble and the incidence of problem gambling. However the research does not demonstrate a direct causal relationship between an increase in gaming machines and a commensurate increase in problem gambling incidents. The 230 new pokie machines is the same number granted to Skycity Casino under the previous Labour Government in 2001 for the development of the existing and much smaller Auckland convention centre.Under the agreement Skycity Casino will have to introduce a number of preventative measures to reduce the risk of problem gambling—measures such as a predictive modelling tool that conducts analysis of data to identify players at risk of problem gambling as well as a voluntary pre-commit card system where players can elect to restrict the amount of time they play or the amount they spend. Skycity Casino will also have to introduce player identification requirements when amounts over $500 are being put on to or cashed from ticket-in ticket-out machines in non-restricted areas as well as doubling the number of host responsibility specialists to deliver 24 hours a day 7 days a week coverage. These actual harm minimisation requirements will become part of Skycity Casino’s host responsibility programme which is monitored constantly by experienced and professional Department of Internal Affairs inspectors. The Gambling Commission is also required to review this every 2 years. It involves a wide range of independent experts in those reviews. The method of review is entirely up to the commission which acts independently of the Government.The National Government has been working hard to build a more competitive and productive economy. The New Zealand International Convention Centre is just one ofthe Government’s around 350 initiatives to create jobs and grow our economy for all Kiwis. The centre will be a major asset for New Zealand and will generate significant spin-off benefits including a projected $90 million annual injection into the economy an estimated 1000 jobs during construction and 800 jobs once it is up and running. So it is expected to attract about 33000 more conference delegates to New Zealand each year.To conclude my speech I would like to quote Mr Brett O’Riley Chief Executive of Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development. Mr O’Riley says: “The International Convention Centre will be a positive signal to investors who we know are already interested in hotel development and are analyzing future demand trends.” Thank you.DAVID CLENDON (Green): Thank you Mr Deputy Chair.Catherine Delahunty: He just got here.DAVID CLENDON: Of course. Yes excellent choice. I am pleased to take a brief call on this unfortunate piece of legislation the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I think there is one thing that we can be sure about: if this bill passes we can be sure there will immediately be an increase in visitor numbers to Auckland. Even before the convention centre is built every casino operator and every gambling operator around the world will be coming to Auckland to ask Skycity: “How did you negotiate such a sweetheart deal where you cannot possibly lose?” because that is the nature of this legislation. Skycity cannot lose on this legislation. The regulatory concessions are very carefully set up in clause 6 to ensure that any regulatory or legislative change can work only to the advantage of Skycity.You have got to give it credit in a perverse sort of a way for having achieved that. It will be the poster boy of the gambling industry internationally for having pulled off this incredible coup and for having got this extraordinary set of concessions from a Government that is basically giving Skycity an open ticket. It is not even having a dollar each way. Skycity is guaranteed to win whichever way future legislation goes. It is a win-win deal for Skycity. It is a lose-lose deal for New Zealand for people with gambling problems and for the social services which will have to pick up the residue the mess that this increase in gambling and problem-gambling behaviour will leave behind.I think it is very instructive to go back to the feasibility studies that were conducted between 2007 and 2009 over that period. All of the international evidence says that building convention centres in the current era in the current situation means that you will never recoup your cost of capital. You might make money on the operation of such a thing but the capital investment is sunk. You simply cannot generate enough income to pay for that which is why the Ministry of Economic Development feasibility study recommended some sort of public-private partnership: the public sector which could meet some of the capital cost with the trade-off obviously that there are wider benefits attracting people to the region—tourists who will come and spend money outside the convention centre—and a private operator.Ngāti Whātua would have been an ideal partner for example. It is an entity that has cash and that has land already. It is an organisation that is not going anywhere and that is not looking for a short-term return. Instead it did not have an opportunity to put a bid on the table to put up a business case. Unfortunately it was trumped very early in the piece by this extremely shoddy deal that enables an operator Skycity to come in with a guaranteed win—better odds than any casino anywhere in the world has or would ever offer.I would like to speak to some of the Supplementary Order Papers and some of the changes we would like to see made to this legislation. I take Mr Mallard’s point madeearlier that this bill is probably irredeemable in a sense but we must endeavour to at least make it somewhat less bad than it is. Clearly our first—Hon Trevor Mallard: Why don’t you say what I said?DAVID CLENDON: I am much more polite than you Mr Mallard. Yes sir.Hon Trevor Mallard: Polish it up.DAVID CLENDON: Polish it? Well yes. We will not go there just now. Supplementary Order Paper 379 in the name of our co-leader Metiria Turei suggests that we do away altogether with clause 6 because that is the clause that is basically the win-win. It ensures that Skycity cannot lose and that it can ignore any legislative change if it is to its advantage or it can accept if it is to its advantage. There is no way it can lose in any future change in the gambling legislation. This shoddy document overrides the gambling law which everybody else must obey but Skycity can gratefully accept any changes to it that are to Skycity’s advantage—though it is actually hard to see how any law could improve on the deal it has already cut. Our Supplementary Order Paper 379 suggests we do away with that clause and at least put Skycity on something like an equal footing with other gambling operators other casino operators and introduce just a tiny element of risk. At the moment this deal is absolutely risk-free for Skycity.We might assume that it is planning to build this thing in the spirit of altruism to give the people of Auckland a gift—a convention centre that may in time attract more visitors high-dollar-spend visitors which would do our tourism industry no harm. But call me cynical I do not think it did this in a spirit of altruism. It knows very well that the return on the extra gambling capacity that it is being gifted by this legislation will very quickly recoup the capital cost through its gambling machines through the extra capacity that this entitles it to. That is a very unfortunate situation. Every business ought to accept a little bit of risk. It stimulates and it motivates good thinking and good business practice. There is no risk in this deal for Skycity.Supplementary Order Paper 385 again in the name of Metiria Turei suggests we should introduce compulsory pre-commit cards. I am a person who has never entirely understood gambling. I can think of many more interesting and exciting ways of wasting money than poking it into a machine or hoping that a particular card is going to come up.Dr David Clark: Motorbikes.DAVID CLENDON: I will not go into what those ways happen to be but the fact is that motorcycles might be high on that list yes. If Skycity or any casino operator is genuinely committed to reducing the harm associated with gambling does it not make sense to insist that people must make a decision when they are still thinking clearly before the heat of the moment the excitement the adrenalin or whatever else it is that attracts people to gambling and locks them into spending much more than they can afford? Would you not want people making that decision up front? “Tonight I will spend $100.”—which somebody else might spend at a movie at a club at a theatre or whatever it might be. Making pre-commitment compulsory would ensure that people would make the decision when they are thinking relatively clearly before they get into the excitement the heat of the moment at which point all bets are off and they start spending way beyond their capacity and way beyond what they can afford.There is a proposal from the Department of Internal Affairs in fact that all gaming machines should display the odds of winning and how long a gambler has been playing. We know from the literature and from observation that people do completely lose track of time and of course the environment is very carefully managed to ensure that people lose track of time. The lighting the absence of any clocks or any other record the music and in many cases the provision of food alcohol and all of the comforts of home ensure that people completely lose track of how much time they are gambling for andhow much money they are spending until they reach the point of no return. By then they have cleaned out their bank accounts and maxed out their credit cards and that is when the trouble starts. That is when the criminal behaviour starts. People start stealing from their employers from their families from friends or whoever it may be.In that sense we have a further proposition: that Skycity should actually be liable. I refer now to Supplementary Order Paper 378—that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act should have a new section to extend the definition of “unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity” to Skycity. It is peculiar that if people—through fraud through outright theft or through whatever means—illegally obtain money and gamble that money and even if they are prosecuted convicted and pay whatever price they pay again the only winner in that is the casino. It bears no cost for that. It may have a very shrewd idea of who the people are who seem to have endless amounts of money—people who are laundering money people who are spending the proceeds of crime and people who have defrauded and stolen cash from employers from their families and from friends—and yet the casino has no responsibility to manage that.We think that inserting something into the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act would put a little bit of discipline around Skycity and perhaps incentivise it to be a bit more thoughtful. Again if it was carrying any risk around this behaviour which currently it is not that would be a considerable discipline to put on it. It is simply unacceptable that the means by which people spend money that has been illegally gained people laundering money—the entity the casino that enjoys the profit of that carries none of the risk and none of the responsibility for endeavouring to see that that does not continue.I will just return to the point that we have been accused of being anti - convention centre per se. I do not believe that there is a strong feeling opposing the idea of a convention centre in Auckland. Why would you? There are arguments from within the tourism sector that it would be an asset that it would attract visitors to Auckland who otherwise may not come and that there is an international market. It is a line call. If somebody wants to make the business case and put their own money on the line to ensure that happens—Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I want to pick up where my colleague Grant Robertson left off. I want to focus on clause 6 in Part 2. Part 2 of course is called “Substantive provisions” and that is for real. That is true. These are in fact the substantive provisions of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill in Part 2. Grant Robertson drew people’s attention to clause 6(2) which details as he said that “The regulatory concessions prevail if a regulatory concession is inconsistent with any provision of the gambling law”. So the regulatory concessions which we will pass into law if this bill goes ahead become law and they supersede the gambling law. But just in case the Government has not quite skewed the bill enough in favour of Skycity it backs that up with clause 6(3) which says: “Despite subsection (2)”—the one to which I have just referred—“the provision of the gambling law prevails if its application would be more favourable in relation to SKYCITY Casino than the regulatory concession.” So if we have got it wrong and we have not put enough in there in regulatory concessions that supersede gambling law and that work in the favour of Skycity do not worry because we will make the law apply if it is more favourable. Talk about belts and braces for Skycity! Who would not want to go into a deal with this Government if you can walk out with a deal of that sort? It is just extraordinary. The law does not prevail unless it is better for Skycity in which case it does prevail. So every which way Skycity wins. That has got to be one of the most pernicious things I have ever seen in legislation that this Government has put up and there have been some bad ones.I want also to talk about clause 7 because this is talking about clause 7.3 of the agreement which has the force of law. I just want to draw that to members’ attention because this says that “Clause 7.3 of the Agreement as set out in Schedule 3 of this Act has the force of law to the extent necessary to give effect to the regulatory concessions and to the Agreement.” So here we are tonight in the Committee stage addressing a piece of legislation that will become law and that will encapsulate an agreement and put it into law if and when it is passed. That piece out of the agreement clause 7.3 I want to spell out for members of the public. I know that others have talked about the numbers of machines and the numbers of gambling tables and so on but I just want to labour this point again.Here is the agreement. Here are the nuts and bolts of the agreement that Skycity has procured with this Government. First of all it says: “Notwithstanding anything in condition 5”—well we have not quite got condition 5 because we are only talking about clause 7—“the Licence Holder may install and operate in the Gambling Area in addition to the gaming machines specified in condition 5 up to 230 additional Single Terminal Gaming Machines.” That is another 230. Then it goes on to say: “the Licence Holder may install and operate … up to 40 additional gaming tables.” So that is 40 more gaming tables on top of what it already has and 230 additional single terminal machines on top of what it already has. Then in addition to the gaming machines already talked about “the Licence Holder may install and operate … up to 240 additional Automated Table Game terminals …”. So here are another 240 or “up to 12 further gaming tables if each such gaming table is substituted for 20 of the Automated Table Game Terminals …”. It goes on to say that “at no time shall the number of Single Terminal Gaming Machines in the Gambling Area exceed 1877.” This number is truly astonishing. The size of this is truly astonishing.I want to emphasise the size of this because of the fact that the Government has taken out any requirement to measure gambling harm. In fact the harm minimisation provisions are abandoned and there was not allowed to be any representations to the Commerce Committee debating this from the Ministry of Health or anybody else who might have talked about gambling harm.I want to just punctuate that comment with a little story from a woman in Nelson whom I admire greatly. We will call her Irene. Irene has twice in my hearing spoken up as a problem gambler as she has advertised a tool kit for problem gamblers put out by the Problem Gambling Foundation. I have been to launches of that tool kit at which she has spoken. She has spoken honestly and heart-rendingly about the harm that gambling did to her and to her family and her home as she squandered every mortgage payment every pay packet and everything that came into that house on a hopeless futile but addictive behaviour. She is a hero. She has stood up and been heard by the people in Nelson who campaigned to get pokie machines taken out of one pub—pokie machines taken out of one pub. They contradicted the council which said: “No we’re OK—we’ve got the sinking lid thing.” And the people said: “Well we don’t want the pokie machines here in our community.” The council listened to that in the end. The pokie machines were dismantled and they are no longer operating inside that community.But does this Government listen to people? Does this Government care about those families who are going to be harmed by this vast array of opportunities to feed some delusory hope that is inspired by an addiction that needs treatment not an opportunity for people to squander the little that they have. So this Government has deliberately made itself deaf and blind to those representations from the people who are to be harmed by this facility and by the people who would represent them—those who know about addictive behaviour who know what harm it does who know what is required inorder to assist people to break addictions and who know how very difficult that is. This Government has paid no attention at all to the welfare of people—no attention at all.So do not give us this nonsense about high rollers. Do not give us this nonsense about economic development and economic benefit for the country. This is just stark dealing which is the kind of thing that the Prime Minister has been adept at in the past in his former career. It is not his right to strike deals that harm the citizens of this country. It is not his right. His responsibility is to defend the people of this country not to expose them to harm and disregard any procedures or monitoring that might assess harm in the future. He has abrogated his responsibility because he prides himself as a deal-maker. Well a deal-maker might be fine in the corporate sector; that is not how to run a country. It might be how to run a company but it is not how to run a country. Time and time again that accusation can be sheeted home to this Prime Minister. The dealing—the shonky dealing the “behind closed doors” and “talk to your mates only” kind of dealing—that the Prime Minister is used to is not what the citizens of this country require or expect from their Prime Minister.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I have a number of Supplementary Order Papers in my name that are changes and amendments to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill that we—Dr David Clark: Very good ones.METIRIA TUREI: Thank you very much. I do appreciate my colleagues who have indicated to us already—Labour New Zealand First the Māori Party Mana Brendan Horan—that they are all voting in favour of these Supplementary Order Papers. Each individual member is voting in favour of I understand at least most of these—I do not think in favour of all of them but at least most of them which is great news.So I do want to be able to describe them for the Committee because I do think that there is still an opportunity for members who are considering supporting the bill to change their view. That is because it is a conscience vote on these issues particularly on the Supplementary Order Papers we have put forward because they concern the issues of gambling and gambling has traditionally been a conscience vote in this House. We appreciate that the Speaker has agreed that a conscience vote will be held on a number of these provisions and these Supplementary Order Papers.My colleague David Clendon has described a couple of the provisions already particularly clause 6 which is the provision that authorises the regulatory concessions. They have been described: the 230 pokie machines; the 240 automated gaming table terminals which operate very similarly to pokie machines; the additional gaming tables; plus the ticket-in ticket-out technology and the extension of the licence of Skycity. In cashless gaming there have also been a number of concessions.Clause 6 as set out says that the regulatory concessions will apply even where the Gambling Act prohibits them. So there are absolute prohibitions in the Gambling Act that say no more pokie machines at casinos but because this bill says that Skycity can have another 230 then this legislation will take precedence. Clause 6 also says that if there are any decisions of the Gambling Commission or provisions in the Gambling Act that give Skycity a benefit then Skycity gets the advantage of that.So Skycity suffers none of the controls—this is what clause 6 is about—of gambling harm minimisation that are built into the Gambling Act and that have already been passed in this House and accepted by the community as the right way to manage the harms caused by gambling and casino gambling. It does not suffer any of those constraints but it gets all of the advantages. So as my colleague David Clendon has said there is absolutely a win-win for Skycity in clause 6. We do not believe that that can be justified at all even according to any kind of deal-making that John Key wants to engage in and certainly not from a public health point of view.So we have three Supplementary Order Papers that deal with that. Two will amend clause 6—Supplementary Order Papers 377 and 379—and one Supplementary Order Paper 380 inserts a new clause 6A to the effect that Skycity cannot retain any of the concessions in the legislation if the contract is terminated. At present it is quite possible for some termination event in the contract to occur—for example if it is unable to get its resource consents or where there is a Treaty of Waitangi claim that stops it from being able to proceed—but the regulatory concessions apply effective immediately. Those concessions will continue to apply and Skycity can continue to get the benefit of those concessions even if there is a termination of the contract. It is not clear in the legislation that that is not the case.So we want to make it absolutely clear that if the contract is terminated for any reason then those concessions if they are already in place are gone. There is no justification for Skycity being able to keep its 35-year licence and being able to keep 230 more pokie machines if the contract itself is terminated. This is just another one of the little examples in the bill of how there has been a real failure to make sure that the public interest is protected at every step of the way. We can help to remedy that if this bill is passed.An additional Supplementary Order Paper we have Supplementary Order Paper 381 concerns clause 7. Again this is about the regulatory concessions. What our amendment will do is delete clause 7 because clause 7 provides for the regulatory concessions to effectively have the force of law. The regulatory concessions are part of a deal. They are not expressly included in the legislation. They should not therefore have the force of law. The reason I think that they do have the force of law in the deal in the way that it has been written is that Skycity—and John Key and Steven Joyce have agreed with this—wants those concessions to be absolutely locked in. That is why it is unclear about what will happen to those concessions if there is a termination of the contract.So in addition to it being unclear around what should happen if the contract is terminated there is a further locking-in of those concessions and of the money that Skycity will make from those concessions. Skycity is not getting 230 extra pokie machines and a 35-year licence just because it just wants to; it is getting this because that is going to make it hundreds of millions of dollars at least 40 percent of which will come from problem gamblers who are harmed as a result of having spent that money. So this is because there is money in this. The Government has allowed Skycity to lock in as tightly as possible the regulatory concessions so that under almost any circumstance Skycity can keep the benefit of the deal keep the value of those concessions and continue to make more and more money off the backs of problem gamblers.My colleague David Clendon also talked about another one of the Supplementary Order Papers that we have Supplementary Order Paper 385 and that is the one around harm minimisation measures. They also go to the regulatory concessions. There is no doubt in all of the evidence despite what the National Government’s advisers have written as notes for their MPs that if you increase the number of pokie machines if you increase the number of automated gaming table terminals—which is 240 for Skycity—and if you increase the number of gaming opportunities then there will be an increase in gambling harm. That is all of the evidence. International evidence and evidence from New Zealand shows that that is the case.The whole point of the Gambling Act of course was to stop the increase in gambling harm by stopping the increase in gambling opportunities. That is why the prohibitions in the Gambling Act are so strict. It then becomes critical that if there is going to be this deal that then gives Skycity this significant financial opportunity by increasing gambling opportunities on its site there must be even stricter controls onproblem gambling to make sure that the risk of problem gambling is significantly reduced. That is a fair quid pro quo.Under any circumstances when you are doing a deal like this or any other kind of deal you would look to balance out the interests. If John Key really believes that Skycity is so desperately poor that it urgently needs more machines to help it maintain its business then part of the responsibility that John Key has as Prime Minister is to also address the public interest in reducing the harm that would be caused by that increase. So that is why you should have stronger measures as a result of this legislation not softer ones.The problem is of course as we know that the harm minimisation measures in the agreement are soft measures. So let us take the voluntary pre-commitment technology that was mentioned earlier. Our Supplementary Order Paper 385 will require pre-commitment technology in all pokie machines to be mandatory with a strict time line for when it needs to be introduced. The best analogy I have heard about pre-commitment technology is that it is like a seatbelt. Not everybody is going to need one. You do not necessarily need one all the time but there is no point in having one in your car if you are not going to use it. We know that the risk of injuring oneself in a car accident is reduced if one wears a seatbelt. Therefore we have made it mandatory for everyone in New Zealand to do so and we have just increased the mandatory provisions for young children because it helps to significantly reduce the risk.This is what mandatory pre-commitment technology does for problem gamblers. It significantly reduces the risk that any individual person will develop a gambling problem. But if it is only voluntary like this current agreement requires it will not work because the people who need it the most—Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): What the Government has tried to do with this legislation is frame the argument around whether or not we should have a convention centre. That is an argument in its own right. It is not what the debate on this bill the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill is about. There could well be a good argument for a convention centre but if you are going to set up a convention centre this is not the only way it is certainly not the best way and actually it is not an acceptable way to fund that convention centre. Labour does not oppose having a convention centre but we oppose the process and we oppose the implications and the consequences of the Government acting in the way that it has.What I object to first of all about this deal is that it was a dirty deal carried out by the Prime Minister in contravention of the ethical transparent open and fair processes that one would normally associate with the public sector. The Prime Minister did not take simply a casual approach to his involvement in this; he himself met twice with Skycity. He had his chief of staff meet with Skycity. His staff met on five occasions with Skycity and the Prime Minister issued an instruction. The instruction was to put on hold any dealings with other bidders for the convention centre until he worked out a dirty deal with Skycity. That is not proper. That is not correct. It is wrong. It is so wrong that the Deputy Auditor-General decided that she would hold an inquiry into how this was carried out.John Key breaking ethics again long before the report came out said: “This report will totally vindicate me.” That was the language that he used—“This report will totally vindicate me.” It did nothing of the sort. Instead the Deputy Auditor-General said that there were clear deficiencies on the part of Ministers and officials. She used very considered language but the meaning is very clear. Listen to this. The Deputy Auditor-General said that “… we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.” That is the Deputy Auditor-General’s considered language. What it meant was that in effect she was saying that the Prime Minister was doing a dirty dealfor his cronies and that is exactly what this deal represents. It is a mark of shame on this Government.The second concern that I have about what this bill encompasses is that it binds this Parliament for 35 years. It gives special privileges to Skycity that will last until 2048. I warrant this: you will not be here in 2048 Mr Chairman. I will not be here. In fact there will not—Hon Trevor Mallard: I might be.Hon PHIL GOFF: Well maybe Trevor Mallard. He has incredible longevity. But I warrant this: there will not be a single member of this House in this Chamber while this deal continues to provide benefits to Skycity. There will not be any of the officials who are currently working here. It is unprecedented that a Government would enter into a deal that gives privileges for 35 years and tries to lock it in so that any future Parliament that looks back at this deal will say: “This is crazy. This cannot in any way be justified.” It makes it really hard for Parliament to get out of that deal. In fact it puts a financial penalty on the taxpayer when this contract is replaced as it most certainly needs to be.This Government will be remembered in the same way that Robert Muldoon is remembered for what he did about superannuation in 1976. This National Government will be remembered for a deal that was wrong a deal that was inappropriately negotiated a deal that was a millstone round the necks of New Zealanders and a deal that will cost them just to get out of it.I want to say that the critical clause in this bill is clause 6(2). It reads: “The regulatory concessions prevail if a regulatory concession is inconsistent with any provision of the gambling law and the application of the provision of the gambling law is modified accordingly.” That is very clear language that says that this dirty deal prevails over the provisions of the Gambling Act 2003 which will cover every other institution and individual that is involved in the business of gambling. This is a special deal for Skycity.But what I object to most about this is that it ignores the costs of gambling. I have got in my hand the regulatory impact statement. It says right up front in the beginning that “the potential impact this may have in increasing the incidence of problem gambling and its associated harm for New Zealand society …” is a key concern. On the front page it tries not to quantify that but it does it later on in the report. This is the impact of the deal that every one of those National members is seeking to impose on New Zealand. It makes this point in paragraph 85 of the regulatory impact statement by the Government’s own officials: “most of the money spent on gambling in New Zealand is spent on gaming machines and substantial proportions of it by people who play machines frequently. New Zealand studies have found that gaming machines are associated with harm more often than any other form of gambling.” There it is in black and white—a very clear statement that the Government is imposing on New Zealand another 230 gambling machines that its own officials have told it cause more harm than anything else. On top of that is the bonus of another 40 gambling tables.In section 91 of that report it does quantify the impact of that. As a result of this bill there will be more than 8000 New Zealanders who will suffer problems as a result of someone else’s gambling. It will have an impact. Mr Chairman you have seen it. Every member in this Chamber who has gone into an institution that offers gambling machines will have seen the poor pathetic people stuck on those machines for hour after hour as they spend the housekeeping money and they spend the money that they should be spending on their kids. Officials from the Ministry of Health and the Department of Internal Affairs said that it would have that sort of impact. In fact the Department of Internal Affairs said it would affect something like 6000 children.The great irony of this is that those people on the benches over there will be the first to condemn the unfortunate individuals who suffer from gambling addiction for spending their money and depriving their kids and then they will take away the benefits which will hurt the kids further as all the while they increase the millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars of profit that Skycity will make out of people who cannot afford it to fund Skycity and its exorbitant profits. If you want an international convention centre either it pays its own way or you put the bill on those who benefit most from it. You do not put the bill on the backs of those individuals who cannot afford to be gambling but who are trapped by the nature of the machines that are set up particularly to keep people feeding money into them. It is rank hypocrisy to condemn the victims of gambling while you reach dirty deals that increase the number of machines that increase the incidence of problem gambling. That is what the officials say about that.The other point that I want to make about this is that the economic benefits of this programme have not been demonstrated. The members of the Commerce Committee from the Opposition wanted to have Treasury the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Health come before the select committee to spell out what the costs and the benefits of this programme might be. In the true spirit of National Party democracy the chair denied the right of select committee members to hear from those officials to challenge the nonsense that Steven Joyce talked about—1800 jobs. But we actually read the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research paper that says the figure was wrong. He did not know where to put the decimal point. Do you know what the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research says? The real number of jobs—net long-term—was 18 Minister Joyce. You were out by a factor of about 100 percent—18 jobs permanently not the 1800. That is a factor of 100 percent.DENISE ROCHE (Green): It is my pleasure to speak for the second time this evening on this Part 2 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. This is where we get into the guts of the deal—the regulatory concessions. I think it is worthwhile to have a look at those regulatory concessions once again because essentially this deal is a memorial to greed and to deprivation. The regulatory concessions include as we have heard 230 extra pokie machines and 12 automated tables with 20 seats at each. So that is 470 pokies effectively plus 40 gambling tables. It also includes a 27-year extension to the existing licence and it calls for a couple of concessions I guess around the technology for paying for gambling and that includes ticket-in ticket-out.I have no idea why the Government agreed to this. Also it ensures that 17 percent of those machines can accept money denominations of $20 notes and higher. This is money for jam for money-launderers. They love this stuff. They absolutely love it. It came through in the advice that was offered to the Commerce Committee that if you want to prevent crime if you want to reduce crime then do not do this because this is how the P cooks launder their money. They are going to be having a field day with this. But at least the police—who will be working harder than ever because of the increase of problem gambling from the increased number of gambling machines and gambling opportunities—will know where to find the P cooks. They will be in the casino the casino that will be paid for by the cost that we will all bear as taxpayers through problem gambling and through crime.If this Government were serious about a deal for a convention centre and if it were serious in negotiating with a good corporate citizen then that good corporate citizen would not negotiate and the Government would not allow an increase in crime as a way of paying for a convention centre that is supposedly—Mike Sabin: Social harm from gambling but none whatsoever from cannabis.DENISE ROCHE: —to benefit the economy for all New Zealanders. It is not going to do that Mr Sabin. Skycity is laughing all the way to the bank and we as a Parliament we as MPs look like fools because we are the ones who will have to agree to this ridiculous deal with no handbrakes on it whatsoever to reduce harm from gambling.The ticket-in ticket-out technology is one of the best ways to increase money-laundering. It is also one of the best ways to increase problem gambling. One of the Supplementary Order Papers that my co-leader Metiria Turei has put up is around reducing harm from gambling. If we were serious about wanting to reduce gambling harm then we would take on board the restrictions that we are attempting to place on Skycity and the way it deals with problem gamblers in order to reduce the amount of harm that we have in our communities. If we do that it may well impact on Skycity’s profits but that should not be part of the deal. Supplementary Order Paper 385 suggests that there will be mandatory pre-commitment cards for everyone and Metiria Turei has already described them as the seatbelt. The other measure is real-time player tracking. In the concessions that were negotiated Skycity says that it will provide some measure of host responsibility which will include predictive modelling. Predictive modelling is not player tracking. Player tracking works only if you actually intervene in what is going on. The player tracking that Skycity already has is called the loyalty cards. That player tracking that predictive modelling ensures that Skycity will contact people who have developed a gambling problem who have spent all they have got and attempt to lure them back to the casino so they can spend more so that Skycity can make more money. This is the corporate citizen that—Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I have to say when I was listening to the debate tonight there is a very straightforward question for the members of the Opposition—a very straightforward question for the members of the Opposition. Where were they in 2001? Where was Trevor Mallard then with his anger and his upset? Where was Phil Goff? Why were they not winding up Helen Clark and saying “Don’t you dare Prime Minister. Don’t you dare support that horrible convention centre deal with the Skycity Casino.”? Where were they then? They did not say a word. And with that knowledge we all know that what they have been getting themselves wound up about tonight means absolutely nothing. It is pure rubbish politics—“I did not care 10 years ago. Now that I am on the other side of the House I care passionately and deeply.” That is what they are saying. Trevor Mallard in 2001—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member cannot say that. These are debating points [Interruption]—no—and the member cannot use the words “You’re a liar.” [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. There is a Speaker’s ruling on page 42 that says you cannot call someone a liar. I ask the member to desist from now on. [Interruption] I am the ruler in these matters and there will be no further discussion.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You indicated that what the Minister said was a debating point. It is a matter of the record of this House—how I voted on that bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order! The point I raised was that you used unparliamentary language and that is what I asked you to desist from doing.Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s a matter of fact.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The matter of fact is that the Labour Party was in Government in 2001 when a deal was done with Skycity to build a convention centre in Auckland in return for additional pokie machines and Trevor Mallard was silent. I didnot see any protests from Trevor Mallard. I did not see him crossing the floor. I did not see him doing anything to indicate concern about this and that is why everybody should ignore his false anger tonight. He is a specialist in false anger just like his friend Mr Goff. Where was Mr Goff in 2001 when Mark Burton and Helen Clark were getting positively excited and passionate about the new convention centre in Auckland? They were nowhere because they were not at all concerned at that point. But miraculously when they are on the other side of the House they are concerned.Where were the Greens? Where were the cardboard cut-outs of the gambling machines in 2001 Greens? Where were you then Greens? You were nowhere. You were not part of it in 2001. You were quiet as church mice sitting—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Don’t bring me into it.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Sorry. The Greens were quiet as church mice sitting quietly. Auntie Helen said it was all OK. “We will not be concerned about this. We will get something back for this.”—that is where the Greens were in 2001. We should ignore all their protestations tonight because they had none when it counted. When they were supporting a Government the Labour Party and the Greens were quiet and that is why this should be ignored. That is why all this false outrage all this excitement and all this standing up to claim the speaking slot is all a pantomime. It is a pantomime and it is time it was called tonight. It is a pantomime from the Opposition. Those members are lions in Opposition and they are absolute lambs when they are in Government and tonight we have seen it. Tonight we have had the proof.Not only that but they were poor negotiators. They have been having the Government on saying that the Government was taken for a ride. Well in 2001 the deal was for the same number of pokie machines and a convention centre one-quarter of the size. That is where they were at in 2001. It was the most appalling deal that this Government—Hon Trevor Mallard: Judith Collins did the deal.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It does not matter. You were the Government Trevor. Trevor was in the Government. You were in the Government at the time. Where was the law? Why did you not change the law Trevor? Why did Labour not put through a law to stop it happening? That is the question I have for you Mr Mallard and you did not do that because you did not object then. You were quite happy then and today it is suddenly the worst thing in the world. Well Trevor I have no respect for you for making those comments. I have no respect for you at all because it is the most appalling thing to oppose something so vehemently now when you actually allowed it to occur in 2001. It is sanctimonious claptrap—sanctimonious claptrap—and it is time this debate was brought to a conclusion.The other thing is—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! [Interruption] Calm down. The member once again—Speaker’s ruling on page 42 says you cannot say “Tell the truth.” I will ask the member again to not use that unparliamentary language in the Chamber.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister himself just used the phrase “Tell the truth.” so I ask you to call him to order as well.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well if that is the case I did not pick that up. [Interruption] Order! When I am on my feet there is quiet. The Speaker’s ruling on page 42 is very clear. You cannot use unparliamentary language. I ask you to respect that ruling. This is a robust debate and I am happy with that. Everyone is going to get their say on this—they have had a big say so far—but let us keep it seemly and keep the language correct.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are some very straightforward questions for the Opposition to answer. Why is it such a bad thing now when it was not back then? For the Greens why are the Greens running a debate now when they were not back then?Grant Robertson: Judith Collins.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No you cannot hide behind—Grant Robertson: No!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Where was the law Grant Robertson? When you were in Helen Clark’s office where was the law saying that we will not be doing this? Where was that then? You did not have one. You did not change the law to stop it happening. You actually went and supported it.Worse than that Labour members not only did not stop it but they went out and celebrated it. Mark Burton went to the opening as Minister of Tourism. He celebrated the success. He said what a wonderful thing it was. Helen Clark said what a wonderful thing it was to see that investment by Skycity in the convention infrastructure in New Zealand. Grant Robertson hates it because conveniently he has now become an opponent. Grant Robertson has become an opponent to Skycity which is very convenient given that half the caucus was in the hospitality box at Skycity saying that everything was OK. But he is now an opponent. That is why I cannot respect you in this debate Mr Robertson because in 2003—Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I appreciate that the Minister is quite emotional about all this but on several occasions he has said that he has no respect for you and I find that to be abominable in this Chamber.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am listening very carefully to those points and I will rule on them appropriately at the time.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is why you cannot have respect for these people in this debate. In 2001 and 2003 this party to my left was not only quiet but was in favour of exactly this sort of deal. Its members did speeches on it—they did absolute speeches—and here he is now Grant Robertson absolutely denying it. He is in denial. He is a Skycity convention centre denier. That is the reality of where Grant Robertson is today.So over the course of this debate we have had incredibly small amounts of anything that is actually related to the bill. All we have had is a rerunning of all the hypocrisy between the Labour Party and the Greens and everybody who opposes this thing but who were quiet in 2001 and quiet in 2003.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take offence at the description of the Green Party as hypocrites which was made by the Minister when we voted against the Gambling Bill—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I have heard the points you have made. The Minister did not use the word “hypocrite”; he said “hypocrisy” and that is a word that has been accepted. I appreciate the point you make. The Minister has 3 minutes remaining.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Just to refresh Mr Robertson’s memory these are the lines that Mark Burton used in—Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would just like to make the point that the Minister was factually incorrect about this.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No that is not a point of order. All you are doing is interrupting the flow of the debate.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Greens are feeling their silence from 2001 I feel. Here is what Mark Burton said—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I know what is going to happen. No one can comment on a ruling that I have made so let us carry on in a seemly manner without getting into these sideshows that we are having.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mark Burton said in 2001: “Skycity’s $140 million investment into this facility will give it the capacity to compete for a whole new range of prestige events.” That does not sound like somebody opposing it to me. He went on to say: “The potential gains from this are widespread—not only for”—Grant Robertson: Is this the same deal? No—this is a whole different deal and you know it Steven.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Oh it is a whole different deal. This is a National Party deal as against a Labour Party deal. Oh of course! How silly of me! This is the hypocrisy that we are talking of. This is what Mark Burton said: “The potential gains from this”—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know you have ruled on this matter very recently. What he has done then is label a party as hypocrites. He said about a party “This is the hypocrisy.”The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No—Hon Trevor Mallard: That is exactly what he said. He pointed to members—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! He talked about the hypocrisy of the policies—he did not say anyone was a hypocrite—and that is an acceptable use of that phrase. I have already ruled on that this evening. The Hon Steven Joyce has the call with 2 minutes remaining.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you. As I said Mr Burton’s comments—the Hon Mark Burton the Minister of Tourism for a Labour Government at the time—were that “The potential gains from this are widespread—not only for Skycity but for the Auckland city and region the tourism industry and the whole of New Zealand.”Hon Trevor Mallard: People have died as a result.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Unfortunately Trevor Mallard was not around at the time. He was not around at the time. I did not hear this in 2001 Trevor. I did not hear what I am hearing now. In 2001 Helen Clark—the saintly Helen Clark—the Prime Minister said: “In Auckland Sky City has pumped $140 million into its new Convention Centre and Auckland City has rebranded and upgraded its conventions facilities”. It has been pleasing to see”—pleasing to see—“continuing investment in the quality of our tourism infrastructure.” Labour once again are the “Yeah Nah Yeah Party”. Its members are not debating any of the points tonight. They are trying to deny their history. That is fine. They can do that. But the New Zealand public sees it for what it is.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I am looking forward to taking I hope all four of my calls as one of the members of the Commerce Committee and of course I would be happy to take them consecutively as I have something of an argument to develop. But as ever I am dependent on your grace and favour Mr Chair. On that select committee I have had the dubious pleasure of reading a number of the draft agreements and the negotiating documents and I would like to talk a little about them because they go into the agreement which is the substantive thing that is referred to throughout Part 2 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I want to discuss the agreement what it is what it could be and the way in which New Zealand taxpayers and New Zealand members of the public are disadvantaged in the course of this legislation.Before I do that I want to touch briefly on some of the earlier comments. Most recently obviously Mr Joyce as the Minister for Economic Development spoke. There is very little one can say about his contribution other than that it was mostly heat and had very little light. On that occasion the Minister appeared to be all mouth and no trousers.I want to engage more substantively with an earlier contribution because it was a more substantive contribution. That was the contribution of Mr Jian Yang earlier in thedebate. It was the first of only two National contributions so far. Its members are struggling to articulate what is on their consciences I suspect. That member referred to the Tourism Industry Association’s submission. I was on the select committee that heard that submission and I have to say that the Tourism Industry Association’s representative became decidedly uncomfortable when questioned about whether he was comfortable with the deal being funded off the back of problem gambling. Mr Mallard asked several pertinent questions on that front and the representative of the Tourism Industry Association was very reluctant—very reluctant—to commit himself to that proposition. I guess that the Tourism Industry Association’s submission was a line call for it because there would be some more jobs in the sector. But what it did not represent of course in that submission were the potential job losses in Taupō in Hamilton in Rotorua and in other centres that are recorded in the independent economic analysis which suggests that jobs will flow out of other areas of the economy and to that centre that is being built.Iain Lees-Galloway: More jobs out of the regions.Dr DAVID CLARK: So that is more jobs out of the regions—that is quite right—as my colleague says. It is a two-speed economy where Auckland is going ahead to some extent but the rest of New Zealand is being left behind. Unfortunately all of us are worse off with the pressure that that places on Auckland house prices and on various other things going on in that city such as job pressures while the rest of the economy suffers and everybody is dragged down.I come back to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill itself other than those contributions that have been made. The agreement is mentioned right through the clauses and right at the start of the substantive provisions right up front. Clause 6(1) states: “The regulatory concession shall be operative at the times and on the conditions that apply to the regulatory concessions in the Agreement.” Everything in the substantive provisions refers back to the agreement. Clause 6(2) states: “The regulatory concessions prevail if a regulatory concession is inconsistent with any provision of the gambling law and the application of the provision of the gambling law is modified accordingly.” That subclause is the one that says that Skycity wins—Skycity wins every time. It trumps gambling law. This agreement that has been signed trumps gambling law. Clause 6(3) which follows that subclause says: “Hang on. If things turn out the other way round and it’s actually advantageous to apply the provisions in gambling law then Skycity wins again.” Skycity wins both ways. This is the ace up both sleeves this provision and this agreement.It is an agreement where the Government has put itself over a barrel—over a barrel of its own making. That is because it was a political deal because the Prime Minister committed to one of the parties that was wanting to bid for the deal early on. He was forced into a corner.The Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward in the name of Metiria Turei and Denise Roche get to some of these points in the proposed law. They delete some of these clauses make them inactive and try to introduce some fairness for the citizens of New Zealand. I congratulate those members on putting forward a really really good set of Supplementary Order Papers ones with which I personally will be agreeing. I will be supporting them in my conscience vote when it comes time during the voting on the legislation.I want to focus back on the agreement and the concessions made by the Crown during the course of the negotiation of that agreement. Those papers are on the website of the Ministry of Economic Development so members of the public can access them. During the early stages of the negotiation we see the Crown trying to cover off those options that you would expect it to cover off in the interests of the taxpayers the votersthe citizens and the communities of New Zealand. Early on we see the potential for a blowout in costs. In the final agreement it gets to a point where this is to be negotiated over time. Over the stages of development of the proposal the Government can shovel further cash to Skycity if the proposal as it is drafted turns out to cost more than the $402 million currently budgeted. The agreement says that Skycity and the Government can agree to design modifications or walk away from the deal or either party may pay the other cash. They can just hand cash over if it comes to that. We know who will be in the stronger bargaining position in the election year. We know that Skycity will be laying its cards out. It will probably be supplying the numbers just like it did for the original agreement. There was no independent analysis and part-way through the deal Mr Joyce himself brought in extra negotiating muscle recognising the bad deal that was going on for the Government. He brought extra negotiating muscle in and still too much was given away.The bad news of course is that it does not stop there. Treasury warns that the conference market has peaked and that the chances are that in time in the future New Zealand may receive fewer international conferences. In part of course that is because of the rising price of jet fuel. We know that world travel is becoming more expensive and that people are staying local—they are becoming more environmentally conscious. That is one of the challenges that will be faced.The Government here—this Government—has given away the ability to recoup costs if the convention centre is not marketed effectively. It had in its earlier negotiating documents the hope and the sensible measure of saying that if the convention centre was not operated properly it could claw back some of the GDP loss that would accrue. It also had a clause in there saying that it could recoup some of the tax revenue that was lost. It could actually say: “Skycity you’re not doing your job correctly. We will take back some of what we might have expected to have had had you done your job correctly.” So if that conference business does not eventuate the taxpayer has no comeback.The incentives are on Skycity to set up a white elephant. Once it has built the centre—assuming that it builds the centre and it all goes ahead—it has no strong incentive to run it in a highly serviced fashion and to advertise it widely because it has got the concessions it wants. It has got the gambling machines it has got the cash flow and it has got the licence extension. The convention centre becomes just a cost centre for it. It is incentivised to minimise that cost. The worst-case scenario—the very worst-case scenario for the Crown actually not necessarily for Skycity—is that the Crown takes over the running of Skycity. That is what happens if Skycity chooses not to run a white elephant that loses it money once it has got the gambling concessions. It can hand the centre back over to the Crown just like Chorus sending the debt back to the taxpayer. There the Government goes again socialising the losses and privatising the gains. This is another example of that and it is written right here in the agreement that we are debating in the Committee. The Government has negotiated away the rights which it ought to have to ensure that the casino is run correctly—sorry not the casino; it gave up running the casino correctly a long time ago—that the conference centre is run in the interests of New Zealand. It has watered down its negotiating position.In the select committee we heard that class 4 gambling is the worst the most addictive. The pokie machines that are proposed to operate as a part of this deal are the worst kind of gambling. We heard from academics some of whom travelled from abroad to present to the committee. The one example that really stands out in my mind was a Scandinavian country that chose to ban pokie machines. The very interesting thing was that when they banned pokie machines gambling dropped off not just across that area of business but across all types of gambling and that is because problemgamblers are attracted to and are driven by the adrenalin that runs with those pokie machines. That spurs them on to other gambling and other types of gambling—those types of gambling that do not affect people in the first instance and do not necessarily make people problem gamblers. This deal unfortunately sets up a situation where problem gamblers fund the building of the convention centre but—IANMcKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I moveThat the question be now put.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): There are still a number of Supplementary Order Papers on Part 2 of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill that I want to describe for members in the Chamber. I very much appreciated the comments from individual MPs in the Committee that they will be voting for at least some of these Supplementary Order Papers and I invite members who are considering voting for the legislation to also vote for these Supplementary Order Papers at least some of them. Some of them do go to the heart of the deal—for example the removal of the regulatory concessions. But a number of them are designed to improve the legislation to make sure that should the deal proceed and the legislation go ahead that in exchange for Skycity getting 230 more pokie machines there are genuine harm minimisation measures put in place.I will refer to those harm minimisation measures again; they are set out in Supplementary Order Paper 385. The reason I refer to them again is that the advice of the Ministry of Health to the Minister for Economic Development concerning the harm minimisation measures in the deal was that they will not work. There is an argument as to whether or not they are new. They certainly do not appear to the Greens to be new and in some cases the Ministry of Health has said that that is the case; they are not new measures.The Ministry of Health has also said that these measures will not reduce gambling harm. It has said that some of them are worse than useless in effect. Given that there is going to be a huge amount of concession given to the casino to expand its business and to increase its gambling opportunities and therefore problem-gambling harm we should take advice from those who are directly involved in managing that harm. The Ministry of Health is the Government agency that is responsible. It is saying that the harm minimisation measures are not going to work that they will not make any significant difference to the harm that will be caused by the extra gambling opportunities. I believe that if the Minister is refusing to take the advice of the Ministry of Health and if the Minister is refusing to give the proper balance between the concessions that are given to Skycity and the public interest in reducing problem-gambling harm then it is the responsibility of Parliament to do so for the ministry.Given that we have the opportunity tonight to vote according to our conscience as opposed to along party lines we have the opportunity—each individual MP in this Committee—to say that we want to have stronger controls because we believe that problem gambling is a serious issue; that it is right for a Government for a Parliament to regulate to help protect against increases in problem gambling; and that we would like to see more stringent measures and here are some that can be chosen by individual MPs to be put in place. So it is not about opposing the deal itself; it is about making sure that the public interest versus the concessions that Skycity gets are properly balanced.We are very careful to make sure that there are different kinds of opportunities in these Supplementary Order Papers for members to individually consider whether each individual change is one that they are prepared to support because in their own conscience they believe that it is the right thing to do. There are a number of members particularly National members—John Banks even—who have in the past expressed extreme concern about the impacts of gambling who represent communities that areparticularly affected by gambling. We talked yesterday about Asian Family Services which is particularly concerned about the impact on its community and Pacific Island communities who are particularly concerned because they too bear the brunt. It gives the opportunity for those MPs who represent those communities to put in place stronger harm minimisation measures for those communities and yet still vote for the bill if that is what they want to do. There are those opportunities because of the conscience vote. We have provided MPs with those opportunities and hope that they take them up.I was very disappointed with the Minister’s contribution earlier. It was really just about shouting at everybody. It did not address the fact that there are some evidential holes in the justification for this legislation such as where the numbers of 1000 construction jobs and 800 convention jobs come from given that the information that is used to justify those numbers in the regulatory impact statement does not say that. Of course we then hear again another misrepresentation of the facts from the Minister who has been accusing the Greens of voting for the—CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to take my first of what I am sure will be many calls on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I listened very carefully to the comments of the Hon Steven Joyce. I was listening very carefully to hear his defence of the bill and I did not hear one. What I heard was a whole lot of labels and a whole lot of bandying about of slogans where he basically talked about all of the people whom he did not respect. Well I want to say to Steven Joyce that there are some things that I do not respect as well. I do not respect a Government that is willing to trade off the misery of other people. I do not respect a Government that is willing to transfer wealth from the people at the bottom of the socio-economic heap to the people at the top. No doubt about it that is what this Government is doing and that is what this legislation does. It trades off the misery of people who suffer from problem gambling it trades off the misery of all of the people who are associated with them and it transfers money to the people at the top of the economic heap. That is what this legislation does and I have no respect for that.Steven Joyce talked about the convention centre deal back in 2001 and he asked where the Labour Party was then. Well the Labour Government changed the law as a result of that decision. That was not a Labour Government decision; that was a decision made by the chair of the Casino Control Authority. Who was that? Who was the person who made that deal? Who was the person who signed off the last deal with Skycity? Anybody want to hazard a guess? Who was that person? It could be Judith Collins. It could have been Judith Collins who signed off that deal. That deal was signed off by Judith Collins and was opposed by the last Labour Government and the Labour Government changed the law to stop that happening again. That is the reason why we are in the Chamber tonight debating this legislation. National cannot do another dodgy deal like the one Judith Collins did back in 2001 without changing the law because the Labour Government closed that loophole. The Labour Government closed the loophole and that loophole is why Steven Joyce is here today pushing legislation through in order to open it up again so that those members can do another dodgy deal which plays off the misery of problem gamblers to build another convention centre.The Labour Government changed the law in I think it was about 2003 to ensure that the legislation was robust and to ensure that we balanced up all of the various interests that we needed to balance up when it came to debating and considering issues around gambling. This Government is changing the law. It is changing the law about that. If the Government was so proud of its casino deal and if it thought that this was the best that the taxpayer could get why did it shut out all of the other potential applicants? Why did it say that it did not want to hear from anyone else who might want to build a convention centre? It was going to shut them out completely and it was going to dealwith only Skycity. If it is true that the Government thinks that this is the best possible deal that New Zealanders could get why is it that it was not willing to hear from anyone else? I ask why it was that the Government stopped any of the other potential operators of a convention centre from being able to put forward their proposals because that is exactly what this Government did.I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I believe that this bill is in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce and he is in the Chamber.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes that is correct. If the Minister is in the Chamber he must be in the chair.CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you Mr Chair. There was a time in the National Party when there were limitations. There was a time in the National Party when it had high ethical and moral standards. National may have been willing to trade things off on economic grounds which it has always been willing to do and it may have been willing to effectively accept that there are poor people and rich people and that there are different opportunities but there were limits to what National was willing to do. There were limits. It still subscribed to a set of values. Those values have been woefully absent on that side of the Chamber in this debate. National is willing to trade off the problem gamblers in order to reward people at the top of the economic spectrum. Once upon a time that would have been a bridge too far for members of the National Party. Tonight what they are demonstrating in this conscience vote when every member of the National Party has the opportunity to listen to the voices of their constituents—to go out there and listen to the voices of the community—and they have an opportunity to cast their own individual votes on this legislation is that they are turning a deaf ear to all of the very legitimate concerns that are being raised by the people in their community.I think that that is very very disappointing. I think it is very disappointing because National members are doing one of two things. National members who are willing to vote for this legislation are doing one of two things. They are either turning a deaf ear to the concerns or knowingly and willingly voting against the interests of the people in their constituencies. I think particularly of those National Party members who represent some of the constituencies around the Auckland area. I think of Sam Lotu-Iiga who as far as I know has not spoken on this legislation tonight. I may have—COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): I moveThat the question be now put.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I would like to speak briefly on some of the Supplementary Order Papers on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill that we have put forward that do deal with harm minimisation. In the regulatory concessions as we have heard the deal includes a nod towards harm minimisation including increasing the number of Host Responsibility staff that Skycity will have on the floor. Currently it has three and it is going to very generously double that figure to six to cope with the extra 230 pokie machines and the extra 12 automated gambling tables which have 20 seats each as well as the 40 extra gambling tables. So it is going to have six people who will be responsible for checking to make sure that people are not harmed by the gambling that is taking place on those gambling machines.The interesting thing though is that it has not done very well so far. It has not done very well because as we know 40 percent of all the profits that Skycity makes comes from people with problems with their gambling—with no control over their gambling. So increasing the number of staff that it has on the floor is not going to do much at all to reduce gambling harm.As well as that Skycity has introduced as part of the concessions the ticket-in ticket-out system which as I have said before is money for jam for money-launderers. However that is one of the things that it is wanting to introduce. But that means that there are fewer staff actually dealing with money so there are fewer staff on the flooranyway looking at what is going on in terms of being able to identify people who are experiencing difficulties with their gambling behaviour.Some of the Supplementary Order Papers that we have put forward which my colleague co-leader Metiria Turei has already discussed are about the harm minimisations around real-time player tracking and mandatory pre-commitment cards but another one in my name is about the hours of opening. I have Supplementary Order Paper 386 which is about ensuring that no gambling takes place between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. This to some extent is not a big issue. In fact Skycity should just do this voluntarily without it being in legislation because the only type of gambling that occurs between 4 in the morning and 8 in the morning is problem gambling. The person who is standing in front of a pokie machine crying at 4.45 a.m. is not crying from happiness. You can be sure of that.If we consider that inside a casino it is dark you cannot see the sky one does not know what time of the day it is there are no clocks and there are maybe three people lurking about somewhere or possibly six although they have to cover a 24-hour day who may be able to identify that this person has a problem—but we are not banking on that; well maybe Skycity is banking on that but we are not banking on that—as a way of being able to identify somebody who is experiencing difficulty with their gambling then giving a small break in the gambling between 4 a.m. and 8 a.m. means that that gambler can go home and actually have a think about what is happening to their lives.The 24-hour operation and the opportunity to gamble 24 hours a day is one of the reasons why two out of five people who regularly use pokie machines become addicted. The absolute opportunity and this is a 24-hour opportunity to spend everything they have got plus more—Barbara Stewart: To win back the money they’ve lost.DENISE ROCHE: —and to carry on playing in order to win back the money they have lost as my colleague over here says and to keep going—these are very scary things that happen to people when they are in a casino.If we are doing a deal—which we are; this Government is doing a deal with Skycity—that will increase the opportunities for gambling harm then we should be ensuring that we have pieces of legislation inside this deal that reduce and attempt to put some controls and some breaks on the voracious desire to make a profit out of people’s misery.We also have Supplementary Order Paper 378 relating to the proceeds of crime. In previous speeches I have talked about the fact that casinos are basically a magnet for crime. They are places where money can get cleaned so it can be—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Damien O’Connor. Twenty years in Parliament—congratulations.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I appreciate that and I thank you for the opportunity. It is 20 years ago today that I entered Parliament and I am privileged to be given the opportunity I guess to say a few words on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. Can I say that I rise to speak against a couple of the amendments put up by the Green Party. I know that the amendments are well intentioned but I will explain why I do so.The first is that we are a party that has a conscience vote and I appreciate the opportunity given to each and every one of us by the leadership on this issue. I will choose to use that vote not to oppose Labour’s general position that it opposes this bill but it is to say that I do not believe that the passage of the Supplementary Order Paper 385 is the right thing to do. What it would do in bringing in harm minimisation measures is ease the conscience of those people in the National Government who think that they can pass this through and then feel a little bit more comfortable because thereare harm minimisation measures. Well no—each and every one of us is using our conscience to speak on this on the basis that we want the best outcome. There is an old saying you know “If you don’t use it you lose it.” Well that does apply to the National members because if you do not use your conscience you have probably already lost it. What Labour members say is that we will choose to use it for the right intentions in the ways that each and every one of us thinks are appropriate.The other Supplementary Order Paper that I will not support is Supplementary Order Paper 382. The idea that the Government can step in and dictate what sort of conventions can take place to me is going one step too far. If the convention centre is going to be built then all and sundry can come and use it. Once again it is no good feeling that we are a little bit more sacred or we have done less to harm the people of New Zealand by having a higher standard or a moral threshold for the kinds of conventions that can come in here. Let us face it: if this bill comes into being we may have conventions on anything from dentistry to armaments—who knows? Be that on the conscience of those people who have allowed this to occur.If I could go back to a speech made earlier in the Committee about the harm caused to individual New Zealanders by unemployment I accept that and I think that to be out of a job is a terrible terrible thing. It does affect the health of individuals. It does affect their outlook their positive attitude and it affects the well-being of their children but actually not as much as someone who is addicted to gambling. The National member Jonathan Young spoke of terrible things—about suicide about inferior health and about other things that are associated with unemployment. I accept that. I think Jonathan Young is absolutely right. But if you have a look at what happens to the 6500 children who will be affected by the additional gambling opportunities that this convention centre will offer—“offer” is the right word not force on people; we accept that. However addictive gambling is a disease. As a former Minister I had evidence brought before me time and time again that the addictive nature of pokie machines is far greater than that of racing because of the cycle time involved in the opportunities that people participate in. So let us not steer away from the reality of the harm that more pokie machines brought into Skycity will do to the people of Auckland.That is why coming back Mr Chairman—and I thank you once again for the opportunity—to the Supplementary Order Paper I do not think that I should ease my conscience by voting for a harm minimisation measure when in fact I believe we should not have the new opportunities for gambling in the first place. So the National members who might feel a little easier if this Supplementary Order Paper goes through should not be freed from their guilt should not be freed from the pangs of conscience—if they still have one—and should understand full well that if they vote for this harm will occur to people in Auckland to children in Auckland that need not occur. That is why—MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There are a number of amendments that we will be dealing with. If someone wishes to have a personal vote I will consider those personal votes. If you look at Standing Order 141 the process is that “A personal vote may be held following a party vote if a member requests one and the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote is so close that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result.” As I mentioned during Part 1 the Speaker has agreed that there will be personal votes on some parts of Part 2. So I will put the party vote and if someone requests a personal vote then I will consider it at the time. There are a number that fall into that category.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Martin (P)SioBeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)StewartBrowningHarawira (P)Moroney (P)Street (P)Clark (P)HipkinsNorman (P)Tirikatene (P)Clendon (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)TureiCosgrove (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Turia (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)PrasadWall (P)Dyson (P)Little (P)Prosser (P)Whaitiri (P)Faafoi (P)Logie (P)Robertson GWilliamsFentonLole-Taylor (P)Robertson R (P)Woods (P)Flavell (P)Mackey (P)RocheGenter (P)Mahuta (P)Sage (P)Teller:Goff (P)MallardShearer (P)Lees-GallowayNoes61Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Simpson (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King CSmith (P)Auchinvole (P)FinlaysonLee (P)Tisch (P)Bakshi (P)FossLotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tremain (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)UpstonBennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvieWagner (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wilkinson (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Williamson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)YangCalder (P)Heatley (P)Ross (P)YoungCarter (P)Henare (P)Roy (P)Coleman (P)Hutchison (P)Ryall (P)Collins (P)JoyceSabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 379 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes57Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Martin (P)StewartBeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)Street (P)BrowningHarawira (P)Moroney (P)Tirikatene (P)Clark (P)HipkinsNorman (P)TureiClendon (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)Turia (P)Cosgrove (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Twyford (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)PrasadWall (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)Prosser (P)Whaitiri (P)Dyson (P)Little (P)Robertson GWilliamsFaafoi (P)Logie (P)Robertson R (P)Woods (P)Fenton (P)Lole-Taylor (P)RocheFlavell (P)Mackey (P)Sage (P)Genter (P)Mahuta (P)Shearer (P)Teller:Goff (P)MallardSio (P)Lees-GallowayNoes62Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Shanks (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King CSimpson (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)Lee (P)Smith (P)Bakshi (P)FossLotu-Iiga (P)Tisch (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tolley (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)Tremain (P)Bennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvieUpstonBennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wagner (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Wilkinson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Williamson (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)Woodhouse (P)Calder (P)Heatley (P)Parker (P)YangCarter (P)Henare (P)Ross (P)YoungColeman (P)Hutchison (P)Roy (P)Collins (P)JoyceRyall (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Sabin (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 380 in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 6A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Martin (P)Sio (P)BeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)StewartBrowningHarawira (P)Moroney (P)Street (P)Clark (P)HipkinsNorman (P)Tirikatene (P)Clendon (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)TureiCosgrove (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Turia (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)PrasadWall (P)Dyson (P)Little (P)Prosser (P)Whaitiri (P)Faafoi (P)Logie (P)Robertson GWilliamsFenton (P)Lole-Taylor (P)Robertson R (P)Woods (P)Flavell (P)Mackey (P)RocheGenter (P)Mahuta (P)Sage (P)Teller:Goff (P)MallardShearer (P)Lees-GallowayNoes61Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Simpson (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King CSmith (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)Lee (P)Tisch (P)Bakshi (P)FossLotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tremain (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)UpstonBennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvieWagner (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wilkinson (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Williamson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)YangCalder (P)Heatley (P)Ross (P)YoungCarter (P)Henare (P)RoyColeman (P)Hutchison (P)Ryall (P)Collins (P)JoyceSabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 381 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 7 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Martin (P)Sio (P)BeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)StewartBrowningHarawira (P)Moroney (P)Street (P)Clark (P)HipkinsNorman (P)Tirikatene (P)Clendon (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)TureiCosgrove (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Turia (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)PrasadWall (P)Dyson (P)Little (P)Prosser (P)Whaitiri (P)Faafoi (P)Logie (P)Robertson GWilliamsFenton (P)Lole-Taylor (P)Robertson R (P)Woods (P)Flavell (P)Mackey (P)RocheGenter (P)Mahuta (P)Sage (P)Teller:Goff (P)MallardShearer (P)Lees-GallowayNoes61Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Simpson (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King CSmith (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)Lee (P)Tisch (P)Bakshi (P)FossLotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tremain (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)UpstonBennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvie (P)Wagner (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wilkinson (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Williamson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)YangCalder (P)Heatley (P)Ross (P)Young (P)Carter (P)Henare (P)Roy (P)Coleman (P)Hutchison (P)Ryall (P)Collins (P)JoyceSabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 382 in the name of Denise Roche to insert new clause 8A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes54New Zealand Labour 28 (Ardern J Beaumont Clark Cosgrove Cunliffe Curran Dyson Faafoi Goff Huo King A Lees-Galloway Little Mackey Mahuta Moroney O’Connor D Parker Prasad Robertson G Sio Shearer Street Tirikatene Twyford Wall Whaitiri Woods); Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Noes65New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 4 (Fenton Hipkins Jones Robertson R); ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 383 in the name of Denise Roche to clause 9 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 378 in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 10A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 385 in the name of Metiria Turei to insert new clause 10A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes56Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Martin (P)Street (P)BeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)Tirikatene (P)BrowningHarawira (P)Moroney (P)TureiClark (P)Hipkins (P)Norman (P)Turia (P)Clendon (P)Horan (P)O’Rourke (P)Twyford (P)Cosgrove (P)Hughes (P)Parker (P)Walker (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Peters (P)Wall (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)Prasad (P)Whaitiri (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)Prosser (P)WilliamsDyson (P)Little (P)Robertson GWoods (P)Faafoi (P)Logie (P)RocheFenton (P)Lole-Taylor (P)Sage (P)Flavell (P)Mackey (P)Shearer (P)Genter (P)Mahuta (P)Sio (P)Teller:Goff (P)MallardStewartLees-GallowayNoes62Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Shanks (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King C (P)Simpson (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)Lee (P)Smith (P)Bakshi (P)FossLotu-Iiga (P)Tisch (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tolley (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)Tremain (P)Bennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvie (P)UpstonBennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wagner (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Wilkinson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor D (P)Williamson (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Calder (P)Heatley (P)Parata (P)YangCarter (P)Henare (P)Ross (P)Young (P)Coleman (P)Hutchison (P)Roy (P)Collins (P)JoyceRyall (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Sabin (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 384 in the name of Denise Roche to insert new clause 10A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan; Other: Mallard.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 386 in the name of Denise Roche to insert new clause 10A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes54Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Mathers (P)StewartBeaumontHague (P)Moroney (P)Street (P)BrowningHarawira (P)Norman (P)Tirikatene (P)Clark (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)TureiClendon (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Turia (P)Cosgrove (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Cunliffe (P)King A (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)Curran (P)Little (P)Prasad (P)Wall (P)Delahunty (P)Logie (P)Prosser (P)Whaitiri (P)Dyson (P)Lole-Taylor (P)Robertson GWilliamsFaafoi (P)Mackey (P)RocheWoods (P)Flavell (P)Mahuta (P)Sage (P)Genter (P)MallardShearer (P)Teller:Goff (P)Martin (P)Sio (P)Lees-GallowayNoes65Adams (P)English (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)Ardern S (P)Fenton (P)Key (P)Simpson (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)King C (P)Smith (P)Bakshi (P)FossLee (P)Tisch (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)Lotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McClay (P)Tremain (P)Bennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McCully (P)UpstonBennett P (P)Groser (P)McKelvie (P)Wagner (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Mitchell (P)Wilkinson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)Ngaro (P)Williamson (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Calder (P)HeatleyParata (P)YangCarter (P)Henare (P)Robertson R (P)Young (P)Coleman (P)Hipkins (P)Ross (P)Collins (P)Hutchison (P)Roy (P)Dean (P)Jones (P)Ryall (P)Teller:Dunne (P)JoyceSabin (P)MacindoeAmendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes61Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Simpson (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King C (P)Smith (P)Auchinvole (P)Finlayson (P)Lee (P)Tisch (P)Bakshi (P)FossLotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-Bell (P)McClay (P)Tremain (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)UpstonBennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvie (P)Wagner (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wilkinson (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Williamson (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)YangCalder (P)HeatleyRoss (P)Young (P)Carter (P)Henare (P)Roy (P)Coleman (P)Hutchison (P)Ryall (P)Collins (P)JoyceSabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)MacindoeNoes58Ardern J (P)Graham (P)Martin (P)Sio (P)BeaumontHague (P)Mathers (P)StewartBrowningHarawira (P)Moroney (P)Street (P)Clark (P)Hipkins (P)Norman (P)Tirikatene (P)Clendon (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)TureiCosgrove (P)Hughes (P)O’Rourke (P)Turia (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)Delahunty (P)King A (P)Prasad (P)Wall (P)Dyson (P)Little (P)Prosser (P)Whaitiri (P)Faafoi (P)Logie (P)Robertson GWilliamsFenton (P)Lole-Taylor (P)Robertson R (P)Woods (P)Flavell (P)Mackey (P)RocheGenter (P)Mahuta (P)Sage (P)Teller:Goff (P)MallardShearer (P)Lees-GallowayPart 2 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and no progress on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill.Report adopted.The Houseadjourned at 10.38 p.m.