Mallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is subject to correctionMallard Trevor: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14439. Text is subject to correction.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think it is fair to say that Mr Tisch has summarised the situation well. I have now received a copy of the letter that you sent to the party whips. I do want to point out that nowhere in this letter does it say that Part 1 will be treated as a party vote. What it does is indicate that certain matters will be treated as conscience issues.One of those in the dot point at the top of page 2—and I am researching this relatively quickly—is changes to the regulatory regime for gambling and the application of proceeds of gambling. I refer you in Part 1 to clause 4(1) which defines “regulatory concessions” and brings them into the Act. From just a very brief reading of your letter it is clear that in fact that amendment at least comes within the ambit of your letter and therefore should allow for a personal vote. So that is No. 1. I apologise. It is not a matter that I was aware of before or I would have brought it up. I have just read your letter and compared it with the bill.The next point that I want to make is the indication from the Chairman that he had been directed by you. That is actually a quote. “The direction of the Speaker” were the words used by the Chairman of the Committee. Of course that cannot be because you I am sure would give guidance and not direction in these matters because otherwise the right of the Chair in following the debate to act as he sees would be fettered.I turn to the last point and I do want to say that we might have been if you like one vote premature in calling for a personal vote. There might be a good debate around—I think we can have a debate around whether the closure motion is a personal vote or not. It might be that there could be an argument as far as the closure motion is concerned to do with Government business and getting it through that those votes might be a party vote. But given the ruling from the Chairman that this is part of Part 1 as opposed to a procedural motion it might be worth considering it as a package.The last point that I would make is that if one looks through these definitions we go to “licence” in clause 4(1) and we also go to the legislative implementation of the agreement which is not counted in the schedules. So if one looks at clause 4(2) that is the clause that gives effect to the agreement and therefore is a major operative clause in the extension of gambling and the implementation of those provisions.My submission to you is that this part includes three or four provisions that change gambling andMcGee and other learned people who have written on the matter have made very clear in the past that gaming provisions are matters of conscience. I am asking you to rule that your letter stands and that that is guidance but not direction to the Chairman and that it would be appropriate for him to review his mistaken assumptions as to the effect of this part in relation to the letter that you have provided.