Martin Tracey: New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 22 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5222. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I move That the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider the bill. This bill could possibly be the most important piece of legislation that this House has had to consider since the last member’s bill of mine that was in this House not that long ago which I managed to convince this Parliament was in the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders and which passed into law. I have high hopes that members of this Parliament once we have a robust debate—and I expect a robust debate but I expect common sense to prevail. I hope that possibly at least one member of a very very minor party inside this Parliament will allow his initial reaction to this bill to prevail grab hold of his gumption not answer that phone and come down and cast a vote in order to actually see this bill go through to the select committee. Go with your initial reaction I say to that member and he knows who he is—he knows who he is.Just like my last bill this is not a very substantial document. It is not hard to read. It is not difficult to understand. It is in plain English so Dr Smith might be quite comfortable reading it and making sure that he does not have any problem with the language of it. The bill does a single thing. It repeals and gives this country the opportunity to go back to a fair and open and transparent discussion around the building of a convention centre in Auckland that would truly benefit New Zealand and New Zealanders. That is what this bill does. It provides this Parliament with an opportunity to undo an act that has been perpetrated on the New Zealand public. I am going to be walking a very fine line Mr Assistant Speaker and I know I am so I will watch you very closely. There are things around what preceded the piece of legislation that this bill seeks to repeal that have given some people cause to reflect and to feel somewhat uncomfortable.What we are seeking to do here is to repeal the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 and this would stop—this would 100 percent stop—the current plans that are being made by Skycity to build that convention centre. I have no doubt that members of the Government will stand and refer to the cost of stopping where the process is at at the moment. I have no doubt that that is what the Government will do. But one would have to argue whether good money is worth throwing after bad because what we have got now—I would argue—is that Skycity has already broken the deal that was entered into with this Government that created that piece of legislation.The arrangement that was entered into—the contract that was entered into—by Skycity has several clauses in it. One of those clauses is around the size of the convention centre that would be built and the amount of money that it would be built for. Those things have changed but it was on the basis of that contract that the current legislation the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 was brought to this Parliament. It was brought here based on that contract and the legislation—there is no getting away from what the legislation does—provided 230 extra pokie machines and an extended exclusive licence to Skycity until 2048. It guaranteed to a private business the protection of this Parliament around its businessuntil 2048. The arrangement was based on this contract over here and yet the contract has not been delivered. Skycity has already broken that contract.When this bill was pulled from the ballot in March the New Zealand Herald quite correctly reported that this bill would pass if two things happened. The first was if Winston Peters won Northland. The second was if the ACT Party supported it. Well we all know what happened in Northland—we all know what happened in Northland. The Rt Hon Winston Peters steamrolled home overturned a massive majority held by the National Party and sent a message—and one hopes regional New Zealand is watching because it has been received. So that is what happened with point No. 1. So we have No. 1 lined up.And we have No. 2 available to us and it will be interesting to hear what Mr Seymour will say with regard to this bill. I hope that Mr Seymour is tired also just as Northland was tired of being taken for granted. I hope that Mr Seymour is tired of being taken for granted by this Government. I hope that Mr Seymour is tired of the National Party telling him that life is rosy and everything will be fine if he does what it says in the same way that it told that to Northland for 70 years and that ended up in nothing. I hope that Mr Seymour is tired of being taken for granted. I hope that Mr Seymour will cast his vote today on his gut reaction—the gut reaction that he has gone on record and has recorded. I hope that he will do that.Originally this bill was actually in response to the request by Skycity for more taxpayers’ money. Since then the design has been changed which as I said is one of the reasons why we feel that the original contract has now been breached and therefore the repeal of this Act is quite justified. It has now made the convention centre smaller. The numbers that Skycity says it will be able to bring to New Zealand have changed although it has confirmed that no new economic modelling has been done since the 2011 report. It is a totally different convention centre from the one that it mooted in 2011 when it edged out supposedly four other bids to build the centre winning on the basis of a promise that it would cost taxpayers nothing but would require a change to the gambling law so that it could—I do not know—get more on its investment I gather.We do not know what the economic modelling is of the new centre that Skycity now says it is going to build. It is 19 percent smaller and it is going to have smaller conventions. We also do not know whether even at the design stage Skycity will have to come and say to the New Zealand public: “Hmm sorry can’t build it for that.” What happens if it gets halfway through and it says: “Hmm sorry can’t build it for that.”? We have no confidence that Skycity can actually continue to deliver even the amended criteria that it has put there and we do not have a signed contract around that amended contract. The original contract and the original deal that brought in this legislation still stands. That is one of the reasons why this bill is here: to give this Parliament an opportunity. Let us put this deal back on the table. Let us put this deal or arrangement—the possibility of a convention centre for Auckland—back out there into the public domain. Let us actually have a fair and honest process so that we can truly discuss whether that is the best thing for Auckland. Let us have a conversation about that.There is one other little point too. It is one other little point and that is around two pieces of overlapping and not quite connected pieces of policy area. What we have on one hand is Skycity with 230 more pokie machines and an extended licence protected by this Parliament until 2048. On the other hand we have Auckland City with a policy of a sinking lid on pokie machines. So we have a Government that overrode the by-laws of a city and yet everywhere outside that convention centre there is a sinking lid on pokie machines. Nobody can replace any pokie machines in any RSA or bar or whatever in Auckland City. Eventually that will provide a monopoly for Skycity.Those two pieces independent of each other but overlapping in reality will create a monopoly beyond 2048 that Skycity will have and it will have it merely because this Government gave it to Skycity. And this Government gave it to Skycity merely because one person would not vote with his gut. One person would not actually take his initial reaction and support legislation—that is if this gentleman chooses to go down this pathway. So if this gentleman chooses to go down this pathway it will be upon that basis. So we know where the Government stands—we know where the Government stands. There is one opportunity here for one gentleman to make a difference to stand up and be counted and to say: “I’ve had enough of being taken for granted. I will not be taken for granted again. Don’t think you’ve got my vote just for the hell of it. I will stand up for what I believe in and I will allow this bill to go to a select committee.” Kia ora.