Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 04 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13229. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister for Economic Development: When he said in relation to theSkycity convention centre deal “the negotiated significant additional harm-minimisation measures that apply to all gambling machines in that casino will together act to reduce harm” was he basing his claim on the Health Ministry’s gambling harm minimisation team’s advice; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): My comment was based on information contained in the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment following consultation with and summarising advice received from the following agencies: the Ministry of Justice the Gambling Commission the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs TePuniKōkiri Treasury the Ministry of Social Development the Ministry of Women’s Affairs the Office of Ethnic Affairs the Department of Internal Affairs the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Health.Metiria Turei: Why did the Minister exclude from the regulatory impact statement the advice from the Ministry of Health that it was “doubtful” voluntary pre-commit cards would reduce harm and thatSkycity was already using the technology so it was not in fact either new or additional?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member misunderstands the role of the regulatory impact statement. The regulatory impact statement is prepared by officials and it is a summary of all the different official advice that comes from different agencies.Metiria Turei: Why then did the Minister sign off on the regulatory impact statement which excluded the advice from the Ministry of Health that doubling of host responsibility staff at theSkycity Casino was likely to have at best a minimal effect?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again I think the member is misunderstanding the role of the regulatory impact statement which is to collect together the information supplied by different departments. It may come as a surprise to the member that I have not read the advice from every single one of those agencies. The regulatory impact statement—Hon Trevor Mallard: Why not? You’re in charge.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Do not be a clown Trevor. The regulatory impact statement is put together as a summary of the different agencies.Hon Trevor Mallard: Is it not his practice to read the advice from all officials on bills?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is not my practice to read advice to individual Ministers from every single agency for a paper that I am taking to Cabinet. I very much doubt thatit is any Minister’s practice and it was certainly not the practice of previous Ministers in the previous Government.Metiria Turei: When the Minister told this House that Cabinet had considered “all of the risks and benefits of the social and economic impacts” of this deal was he mistaken or was he deliberately misleading the House?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well neither. Cabinet as always in these situations receives a Cabinet paper and in appropriate cases including this one a regulatory impact assessment which different agencies contribute to and which is summarised by the lead agency is then taken to Cabinet. That is what occurred in this case as occurs in a whole range of other cases. It has to be said that the regulatory impact statements have been a heck of a lot better prepared under this Government than under previous Governments.Metiria Turei: What other advice did the Minister choose to leave out of the regulatory impact statement and did part of it include the advice on the intended reduction in the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) dividend as a result of the sale of land toSkycity under the convention centre deal?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again for the member’s benefit if she had listened to a previous answer she would notice that the supposition contained in the first part of that supplementary question is incorrect. In relation to the second part of the supplementary question she is also incorrect because in actual fact in terms of the forgiveness of dividends which was flagged potentially some time ago that is for the opportunity for TVNZ to renovate its building next door which I think is a fantastic outcome. It has sold some land toSkycity as part of the convention centre arrangements and it is getting an opportunity to make a much-needed renovation to its facilities.Metiria Turei: Were Cabinet and his caucus colleagues made aware of the likely significant extra cost of this need to induce TVNZ by way of a reduced dividend expectation to move out of part of its central Auckland premises to make way for the convention centre deal before they voted for the bill?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I completely reject the assertion that the member makes. The reality as I have made quite clear is that the convention centre could proceed with this extra piece of land or without and it is quite obvious that it could do so. TVNZ was given the opportunity to sell the land. It went to its shareholding Ministers and said: “Well look we would like to renovate our building. Would you support us in doing so?”. As has been said publicly for some time now it was indicated that shareholding Ministers would support that and so out of this we will get a fantastic convention centre for New Zealand based in the middle of Auckland City generating jobs generating tourism opportunities and also TVNZ next door will get an upgrade of its building including earthquake strengthening and future-proofing. So it is all working out as a pretty big win-win.Metiria Turei: Did the Minister advise the Minister of Broadcasting Craig Foss last year about the possibility of a reduced dividend from TVNZ due to theSkycity deal given that Mr Foss demanded at least 9 percent in dividends from TVNZ in December?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the matter was raised by TVNZ with its shareholding Ministers a reasonably short time ago. There was a letter that went back which I referred to publicly I think from memory a couple of months ago and it was probably shortly before that. So I think that relating it to last year is probably reasonably irrelevant.Metiria Turei: Why did the regulatory impact statement cite the 2011 New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report and table 1 as showing that the convention centre would employ 500 full-time equivalents when in fact no such figures are in either the tables or the report from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research 2011 report?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would have to go back and check the comments the member makes in relation to the regulatory impact statement but it is important for her to realise that the figures referred to in the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report are a different set of figures and do not bear any direct relationship to the figures around construction and operation of the convention centre. They are only an input into the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report looks at wider economic analysis and does not refer to the number of jobs either in the construction or in fact in the operation of the centre.Metiria Turei: What discussion has he or his officials had withSkycity about its participation or non-participation in the select committee process on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I had one conversation with the chair ofSkycity on a number of matters including some not related toSkycity. He asked whether it was something thatSkycity should do and I said to him that it was open to the company to decide what to do. I did not think it was particularly necessary but it was very muchSkycity’s call to make and I think it made its own call.Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm that when his colleagues such as Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga voted in support of theSkycity deal they did so on the basis of incomplete and inaccurate financial analysis inaccurate advice on the actual cost to the taxpayer from this deal incorrect projections of job numbers and a patently untrue account of the impact of harm minimisation measures?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No the member is wrong on all three of those counts. This particular convention centre which all of the National Party caucus campaigned on at the last election—and I appreciate that this is the second time in 2 days that the Green Party has advised us not to follow the policies on which we were elected—will create 1000 jobs in construction will create 500 jobs in ongoing operation and will enhance the New Zealand convention industry. It is a good deal for New Zealand and this Government believes strongly in it.