English Bill: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeEnglish Bill: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14549. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister)on behalf of theMinister for Economic Development: I moveThat the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be now read a third time. The third reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill brings to an end the long and involved process to set up and establish an international-standard convention centre in New Zealand. Wehave long needed such a centre. There has been discussion about it particularly in Auckland for over 20 years. We will now be getting one thanks to the persistence of this Government and thanks to this bill.This is a bill that will provide jobs and better incomes for New Zealanders. There will be around a thousand people employed in the construction process—not 18 as the Opposition is prone to assert. There will be 800 people servicing the needs of delegates and exhibitors when the centre is fully established. The centre will generate economic growth for all New Zealanders. It will inject an estimated $90 million in additional spending by delegates in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand and it will increase GDP by $49 million as a result. It will also enhance New Zealand’s reputation as a developed-country destination. The bill will enable the construction of an international-standard convention centre that seats up to 3500 delegates. We simply do not have a facility of that size and that standard. It will be a new $402 million asset that will consolidate Auckland’s standing as an international metropolitan city and a destination of significance—something that Aucklanders have been keen to achieve for many years. This will be achieved with very little if any investment by New Zealand taxpayers. This is another initiative of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda which is a comprehensive programme of work to build jobs and growth for New Zealanders.Members opposite have had their credibility tested in opposing this legislation. Skycity will be allowed an additional 230 pokie machines. This is an interesting number. It is the same number granted to Skycity under the previous Government in 2001 for the development of the existing and much smaller Skycity Auckland Convention Centre. In fact in return for a deal of the same increased number of pokie machines that Government ended up with a convention centre one-quarter the size of this one. It was welcomed by Helen Clark and Mark Burton at the time. They praised it for helping to bring tourists to New Zealand. Then they used to know about the benefits of convention centres.What is more under the 9 years during which the Labour Government was in power the number of pokie machines around New Zealand increased by an average of 707 per year—that is an increase of 707 per year. In the last 5 years the number of pokie machines has been falling not increasing by around 500 per year. Opposition members were criticising pokie machines but under the previous Government the number went up 700 per year with the support of the Green Party—a 700 per year increase in pokie machines. Now that those members are safely out of Government the number of pokie machines is falling by 500 per year. So I invite them to speak and explain that policy to the House. Where were the Greens in 2001? Were they building fake casinos in Aotea Square then? No they were not. Were they pulling stunts outside Parliament when pokies were going up at 700 machines per year? No but once pokie numbers started dropping by 500 a year then the Greens decided they were against pokies and moreover against the Government under which the number of pokie machines has been dropping by 500 per year. But they were absolutely as quiet as church mice back then.There is a claim that the bill is constitutionally dubious—that it breaches the principles of equality before the law or the principle that Parliament is sovereign or even the Bill of Rights of 1688. Here is the reality: many pieces of legislation confer benefits on a particular party or activity. That is one of the reasons why we have lobby groups. It is called democracy. For example the Rugby World Cup empowering legislation benefited rugby supporters as well as New Zealand. Fonterra legislation—backed as I understand by these parties—was actually argued as conferring a benefit on the farmers involved. That was the point of it. So there is nothing special about the fact that this legislation gives effect to an agreement. Parliament has considered for instance Treaty settlement bills for nearly 20 years. Those bills give effect toagreements made between the Crown and a non-government entity on which the Crown confers considerable benefit. The Government could not function if contracts did not extend past the ending of particular Governments and Government contracts almost always extend past the expiry of a Parliament. They do that all the time. The Government enters into long-range agreements on construction projects and a whole range of Government services like IT and banking services.There has been criticism of the compensation provisions of this agreement. The compensation provisions are standard commercial practice. If Skycity breaches certain agreed operating standards it will be required to pay money to the Crown for non-compliance. If it does not build the centre it is required to pay back to the Crown the value of the concessions granted to this point.Let me speak briefly on the issue of problem gambling. The impact on the incidence of problem gambling from increasing gambling opportunities within an existing gambling venue is by no means clear. This was made clear by Professor Max Abbott who has been well-known to the parliament select committee system for the last 25 years. He stated that in his oral submission to the committee. The Department of Internal Affairs acknowledges that figures around problem gambling are very difficult to quantify and putting a cost on it is to use the words of Government officials “extremely difficult”. It is important to note that the agreement requires Skycity to implement a range of enhanced harm minimisation measures including a predictive modelling tool that analyses data to better identify players at risk of problem gambling—the Greens claimed in their minority report that Skycity already uses this; like most of their claims that is false—and a voluntary pre-commitment system where players can elect to restrict the amount of time they play or the amount they spend.The agreement requires a doubling in the number of host responsibility specialists to deliver 24/7 coverage of people trained to identify problem gamblers and the introduction of player identification requirements when amounts of over $500 are being put into or cashed in at non-restricted areas. These extra harm minimisation areas and anti - money-laundering requirements will become part of Skycity’s host responsibility programme. If in the future the Gambling Commission decides to revoke or amend this programme or require the Auckland casino to have tougher measures then Skycity must comply. Many things in life have the potential for harm. The Government has done a good job of minimising the harm from this agreement while maximising the economic benefits to New Zealand. In that respect it is no different in principle from building roads where people will die in car accidents on roads that did not exist before but the benefit to the community is significant.For little if any investment by taxpayers we will get the benefit of an international-standard convention centre new jobs improved competitiveness as a tourist destination an increase in GDP and attracting more investors to New Zealand. On this side of the House we are pleased to stand up and take practical steps to build jobs and growth for New Zealand and we are pleased not to be with those parties that are simply against all jobs and growth and increases in incomes. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.