Street Maryan: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeStreet Maryan: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14451. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.