Mallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14442. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.