Martin Tracey: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionMartin Tracey: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14354. Text is subject to correction.]TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. With all respect to the member who just resumed his seat Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi the majority of that speech was rubbish. It was very interesting to hear the Minister for Economic Development when he started his speech having to actually compare this deal—in the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill—with Treaty settlements and the Rugby World Cup. The Minister had to compare this deal with Treaty settlements to actually justify it to New Zealand. I think that shows how low down in the barrel the Minister and the Government have had to reach to try to justify this deal to the people of New Zealand.This deal is nothing like a Treaty settlement. It is nothing like the Rugby World Cup of which there was not just a single beneficiary; the whole country benefited. For the member who just resumed his seat to suggest that the whole country will benefit from a convention centre inside Auckland is nonsense. These buildings are built. The company Skycity runs them specifically to keep the customers it brings into its buildings inside its buildings. That is why it builds restaurants in them. That is why it builds shops in them. It will pick up these China Southern Airlines customers from the airport in its cars. It will transport them to its convention centre. It will keep them within its walls as much as it can. Auckland will see no improvement apart from the fact that Skycity might have to pay a few more dollars out to charity to counteract the harm it is doing. So I am sorry but your speech was rubbish.I get back to the point where I actually wanted to start. We keep hearing—and we just heard it again—that New Zealanders will reap the benefits of a convention centre. New Zealanders will not own it. New Zealanders will not own it—it is a private building. Again I just take up the point made by the Green member Metiria Turei where she mentioned that John Key had swapped 250 pokie machines and this many this many this many for a building. We do not get the building. If we were actually going to get the building New Zealanders might say that they gained something. We do not. We have given away legislation so that a private company can improve its own profit line and that is exactly what private companies do. [Interruption] No no I have no beef against Skycity. If you can get a deal like this of course you would get it. The fact is that you should not be able to get a deal like this on the New Zealand people. This is not about a convention centre; this is about pokie machines.The very fact that Len Brown and the rest of the councillors and local board members in Auckland put forward and approved a motion to have a sinking lid on pokie machines in the very city where this company may because of that sinking lid end up with a monopoly concerns me. I would like to know from Len Brown what changed his mind after he voted for a sinking lid across Auckland because he saw the harm of pokie machines on the rest of the communities and why he now supports this convention centre idea and this Government. What happened? Let us hope that it was not some discussion about a tunnel under a harbour or some discussion about some electric trains out to the airport or any other discussions like that that made Len Brown change his philosophy around this particular deal.The Government and the proponents of this deal like to point to data that suggests that more gamblers on pokie machines become problem gamblers in small local pubs and RSAs than in the large responsible organisations such as Skycity. This is a really interesting manipulation of the data. I want to point out a joint statement by Chris Tremain and Peter Dunne. It was put out in May of this year. The title of it is “Government sets $55.3m problem gambling strategy”. It says: “The problem gambling levy is expected to recover about $33.35 million from non-casino gambling machines $11.34 million from casinos $5.38 million from the NZ Racing Board and $3.95 million from the NZ Lotteries Commission.” It also says: “The levy is staying about the same because there’s been no significant change to problem gambling data.”We are hearing that apparently there has been a change to problem gambling data because the Government keeps patting itself on the back about apparently lowering it but the levies need to stay the same because there has been no significant change. It continues: “The number of machines has decreased”—righty-o—“expenditure overall is down and the most recent New Zealand health survey appeared to indicate a slight decline in prevalence.” This is from the Ministers: “The amount that each sector is required to pay depends on that sector’s share of total player expenditure across the four sectors and that sector’s share of the help-seeking … associated with gambling in those four sectors … This means that non-casino gaming machine operators will continue to pay by far the highest share of the levy. Harm is associated with non-casino gaming machines more often than with any other form of gambling.”By this point you might be asking why Tracey Martin is standing up and fighting against the small RSAs and the pubs and their gambling machines. It is because that is a really interesting twist on how this data was created. The number of problem gamblers in the country is predominantly created by those who seek help; those who are identified and then actually go to seek help from such an organisation. They are more readily identified inside the communities that know them. They are more readily identified inside the local RSAs. They are more readily identified inside the pubs. The publicans and the people in the RSAs walk up to those clients whom they know and say: “Mate you’ve got aproblem. How can we help you out?”. To actually penalise the RSAs and the pubs through situations like the levy where they pay 1.31 cents in every dollar whereas the casino pays only 0.74 cents in every dollar—one could say that the casinos do not identify the problem gamblers.I love the fact that the Minister and also other members have said that the casino as part of the deal will be doubling its—what are they called? They are called something or other—responsible persons; that is right. So there will be extra staff. In JuneOne News said: “As part of the pokies for convention centre deal SkyCity only needs to employ three extra staff to help identify problem gambling. … In response to questions from ONE News SkyCity has confirmed that it currently has three host responsibility executives and that number will increase to six. Minister for Economic Development Steven Joyce said his understanding was that there would be ‘twenty-four seven’ coverage.” Figure out how many hours those people are working and figure out the floor space of that casino. Those people ought to be earning their wages. “This coverage is a requirement in the legally binding agreement unveiled by Joyce and SkyCity last month.” This is from June. It goes on: “ONE News asked SkyCity exactly how it would provide 24/7 coverage with just six people. However SkyCity has refused to answer.” That is probably because it does not know how it is going to do it. This is a spin again. This is a spin. This is a deal done.Let us talk about the fact that clause 3 at the beginning of the bill says that “The overarching purpose of this Act is to provide economic benefits to New Zealanders by improving New Zealand’s capability to host …” etc. I just went to the Government’s new Careers New Zealand website to have a look at how much the people who would be employed inside this casino might be paid. Right now if you get a job inside a casino in New Zealand you will get paid $15 an hour. This is not exactly the high-wage economy that John Key and this Government sold the electorate on when they went to the last election. The other jobs that are going to be inside this convention centre—housekeepers kitchenhands possibly waiters and waitresses dishwashers—all get paid less per hour as currently shown on the Careers New Zealand website. That is hardly what I want to go back and talk to the young people in my community about—for them to aspire to be dishwashers in a casino.David Bennett: You don’t have a community.TRACEY MARTIN: Everybody has a community. That is the problem sir. You obviously do not belong to a community—you do not understand that point. It is said that this bill is about economic growth but it is economic growth in the wrong direction. There is nothing in this bill for the people of New Zealand. The Government has sold our legislation yet again. New Zealand First will be opposing this bill.