Dyson Ruth: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 14 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6654. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I want to quote the member of Parliament who spoke earlier in this debate who started his speech in the way that I want to start mine and say that I am outraged at the speech that the member has just delivered. It was gobsmacking. Having sat on a select committee with that member for some months now I frankly have come to expect better of him. I thought that that member was able to think for himself was able to stand up for principles and was able to allow a robust debate on important issues but he has let me down. He has let a lot of people down actually as have his colleagues Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and Jonathan Young who have both spoken earlier. 
The member from New Zealand First who spoke during this debate Denis O’Rourke said that he suspected the reason that the National Party was opposing this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill—clearly National does not want it go to the Commerce Committee; they want to close down the debate fast—was that it was soft on crime. That may be a reason. That is certainly a possibility. I think Mr O’Rourke with respect that you might need to just tune that a little more. I think National members are soft on some crime. They are soft on crime that goes on in casinos. They want to turn a blind eye to that. They want to allow people who have committed crimes to use the profit of that crime in the casino. They want the casino to benefit from the crime and it wants to smile and wave and walk away. 
Why would they want to do that? Let me give that a bit of thought. It may be because the Prime Minister and Steven Joyce are doing a shonky deal with the Auckland casino so that they can get around the current law dramatically increase the number of pokie machines that it runs in the Auckland casino and Auckland will have a convention centre. Good on Auckland for getting a convention centre. Actually we would like one in Christchurch too because ours is pretty wrecked—it is probably gone actually by now—but we do not want to sell our community’s health in order to get our convention centre. We would rather pay for it ourselves and protect our community from more harm rather than encourage it in the way that John Key has done. 
So I think that Denis O’Rourke is correct. I think that the National Party is soft on crime and particularly it is soft on crime that goes on in casinos—otherwise it would be supporting this legislation at least to go to a select committee. What is the National Party scared of? What does it have to hide? That is the only reason that the National Party members would all be putting up their hands and saying no to this legislation: that there was something that might come out at the select committee that might expose their shonky deal with the Auckland Skycity Casino which is behind the scenes getting around New Zealand law. That is exactly what the situation is— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been listening very carefully to the member’s contributions and comparing it with the Speakers’ rulings as set out in Speaker’s ruling 50/3. I fear that the last comment that the member has made which I will not repeat has certainly strayed into territory that is improper for a member of this House to make. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I was actually thinking of Speaker’s ruling 51/5 myself. I would just caution the member to be careful in the way in which she couches the debate. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The reason why I think the National Party members do not want this bill to go to a select committee is that during submissions looking at whether criminals should be able to spend the proceeds of their crime at a casino and whether the casino knowing that should benefit from it the issue of the deal may come up. I think that during those submissions the issue may be brought up of the deal that John Key and Steven Joyce are doing with the Skycity Casino in Auckland so that that organisation can get around the law and dramatically increase the number of pokie machines it runs which we know will do great harm in our community and for which in return it has to have to provide a convention city which they will make money from. That is why the National Party is afraid and does not want this bill to go to a select committee. 
So Labour is supporting this. We want the debate. There might be as there often is in a member’s bill some matters to clean out. We do not have the resources of Government departments and agencies to write bills for us. Members rely on talented members within their own caucus. We are fortunate to have Charles Chauvel. I am not sure who the Green Party has in its caucus—any number of people might have written it—but Metiria Turei is responsible for this bill and I want to give her credit for bringing it to the House. It is an important area. It is one that this Parliament should not be afraid to debate.