Prosser Richard: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeProsser Richard: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 11 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11989. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this first reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. New Zealand First opposes this bill and everything it stands for unequivocally and in its entirety. We oppose this bill because it epitomises everything that is wrong about core governance of a nation from an economic standpoint from an ideological standpoint from a social good standpoint and perhaps as important as—if not indeed more so than—any of those from the standpoint of the voluntary adherence by the Government of the day to the otherwise unenforceable yet constitutionally fundamental and indispensable convention by which those who hold executive office choose to maintain their subservience to the laws of the land choose to maintain the ethos by which laws are made and upheld in accordance with the principles of democracy and the best interests of the common good and choose to conduct themselves and to execute their responsibilities of their office in a manner uncorrupted by the temptations of material gain or regulatory and jurisdictional advantage—or not. They choose to conduct themselves and to carry out the business of Government in this manner or they choose to not do that.When Governments choose to depart from these fundamental conventions it is the beginning of an insidious process of thought and the beginning of a very dangerous road that leads towards corruption and at the end of which lie the remains of societies that have traded democracy for the usurpation of power. It is a road that begins in the corruption of thought and ends in dictatorship. Fiji lies at the end of that road. So do Zimbabwe Pakistan and Egypt—only this month Egypt. Half the nations of South America and West Africa have gone down that road and none of them have ever truly come back. Is that what we want for New Zealand? Is that what we are going to allow? Is that what we are going to sanction for New Zealand—for the future of New Zealand—here in this House by passing this cynical and insidious piece of legislation? I say that in all seriousness. I ask all members but particularly the members opposite on the Government benches the members of the National Party whether that is what they really want and whether that is what they really want to allow.I say again that this bill is the beginning of a process that culminates in the ending of democracy and I suspect that those who are responsible for initiating it are not even aware that it is happening. I make this charge because this bill sends a message and I make it because of what this bill is and what it does and what it represents and because of the message this bill sends. What it says is that the law is for sale. The law here in New Zealand and the process of making law is for sale. Make us an offer and we will change the law to suit! The Government can spin this any way it likes. It can dress it up any way it likes. It can plaster that pig with as much lipstick as it can stagger under the weight of but the reality remains the same and that reality is that our laws are for sale.We have laws limiting the activity of gambling. We have laws that limit gambling and place limits on how much gambling can go on and where and when and by whom. We have them because gambling can and does cause harm and as a society we have decided that we need to be able to limit that harm. We believe as a society that it is in the best interests of the common good to see to it that the harm that can be caused by gambling is minimised. Yet through this bill that impetus towards harm minimisation is being abandoned. Through this bill with this bill what we are doing—what New Zealand is doing what the Government is doing and what the Parliament is allowing to happen—is that we are deciding arbitrarily that the minimisation of gambling and the minimisation of the harm and the potential harm caused by gambling is not important any more. It is not as important as some other considerations—economic considerations monetary considerations. Jobs are important. On that I think we are all agreed. Industry and building and construction are important. No one is denying that. We need jobs for people. We need building and construction and major projects in the economy. That goes without saying.But within that reality is another reality and it is this. Even when we as a nation acknowledge that we need jobs and industry and construction we still have this other reality which is that we have problems with gambling in this country. We have problem gamblers and we have harm being done and that is why we have laws pertaining to gambling. They are there in an attempt to minimise that harm but through this bill the Government is denying that reality. The Government is attempting to justify the changes in this law by referring to the jobs that will be created by the construction of the new convention centre and by referring to the revenue that it anticipates will be generated in the economy by having the convention centre operating and from the overseas visitors whom it will attract. And it is true that those things will happen. Building a convention centre will create jobs and it will inject new revenue into our economy but that is not good enough. There are other ways in which jobs can be created and there are other ways in which Crown revenues can be enlarged.Does Auckland actually need another convention centre? Have we as a nation actually asked that question? Auckland already has the Aotea Centre of course. Whether having another one as a crucial element in the Queen City remaining competitive with the other 70-odd convention venues in our region is a matter for some contention. But if we do in fact need another one someone has to build it and someone has to pay for it. So the question then is whether we should as a nation and a Parliament be changing the law in order to allow Skycity to build one for us free of charge in exchange for their being allowed to expand their casino by an additional 230 pokie machines and another 35 gaming tables. Does Auckland or New Zealand need another 230 pokie machines? I would contend that they do not.It is true that some people use pokies responsibly and gain some enjoyment from doing that. But it is equally true that these machines are designed to make a profit and that is what they do. Eight-five cents of every dollar that goes into a pokie or thereabouts stays in that machine. They are programmed and built that way. There is no getting away from that but people play them anyway because they are fun and exciting and they come with the promise of reward and that promise can be and often is addictive. As such these machines have become a scourge in our pubs and suburbs and communities. We have problem gamblers in this country—far more of them than many people would care to admit. It is not a problem that is restricted to the poorer parts of New Zealand or to brown people or to the less well educated. Gambling addiction cuts across all socio-economic levels and all strata of society all ethnic groups and all levels of income.I have had firsthand experience of being in a relationship with someone who was unable to resist the temptation of putting another coin in the machine. I watched as my best efforts to assist failed and a person who held a good job in a position of responsibility succumbed to her affliction just as progressively and just as destructively as the damage and decline experienced by an untreated alcoholic or drug addict. Gambling addiction destroys lives. It ruins livelihoods it breaks up families and it breaks up relationships. It is a horrible thing to watch and an even more horrible thing to experience. We do not need 230 more pokie machines. We need 230 fewer and that would be a good start.We most certainly do not need to tear down laws that have been put in place to protect the vulnerable because we have succumbed to the temptation of a promise of $400 million in the form of a convention centre. This windfall win as it is being perceived and promoted is no less a mirage than any other win on the pokies. Has this Government I ask been seduced by the promise of the bright lights and the flashing colours and the big dollars to be had from this exciting casino deal? I ask because there is a common thread. There is a common set of indicators in people with addictions. Drugs alcohol gambling—they are all the same. One of the most common early signs is denial accompanied by justification and minimisation. Smokers begin that way and so do drinkers. They say: “Just one more puff. Just one more beer. Go on have a chaser with that. One more won’t kill you. Everyone else is doing it. The sun is always over the yardarm somewhere in the world. Just one more twenty. Ten more coins and that’s it. I’m not feeding the pokies anymore this week—well tonight.” It starts that way and then every subsequent indulgence is justified by the one before it and then there is full-blown addiction and a cycle of self-destruction that is inescapable. There is minimisation justification and denial. The psychology of addiction is very similar to the psychology of the corruption of thought.Is there a parallel here? I ask the House and the members opposite to ask themselves whether that is indeed what they are doing and whether this is what is happening with their thinking: “Just one little law change that’s all. Just a few more pokies. Think of the jobs. Think of the investment. Just one little law change. Go on it won’t hurt.” I ask them to contemplate that because do you know what? Once they have done it the next time it will be so much easier—so much easier to do and so much easier to justify. They might say: “What law shall we sell next I wonder?”.The Prime Minister obviously understands the maxim that one should never gamble with more than one can afford to lose and that is why he is whipping his caucus and their individual consciences into line. But I ask those members whether they have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing here today rather than the thing they have been told to do. If they vote to sell this law today how will they justify not wanting to sell another one tomorrow? We are at a fork in the road. One way is the right way. At the end of the other is Zimbabwe. We all have a choice as to which road we will take and which way we will vote. We must live with the consequences of that choice.I will be voting against this bill as will my New Zealand First colleagues. I would urge the members opposite to choose very carefully whether they support this law or not and to vote accordingly while they still have that free choice in a free society. Thank you.