Clark David: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14427. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is interesting to follow that member Jonathan Young who chaired the Commerce Committee on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and to hear some of the claims that he was making which I wish to refute now. One in particular is that the number of jobs—18—was refuted in that select committee. It may have been refuted per se—somebody may have said: “I don’t accept that number.”—but there was certainly no evidence presented that was convincing to say that the independent research by the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research was not in fact dead on the mark. That independent research said that conventions would be drawn from other places in the country and that regions further around outside Auckland would suffer as a consequence of this centre being built—that they would lose jobs as a consequence of this centre being built. The New Zealand Institute for Economic Research as an independent body estimated that there would be a net 18 jobs created by this legislation at a cost of $402 million—$402 million—and most of that paid off the back of problem gambling.This is an appalling bill. This is an absolutely appalling bill. Its purposes as they are laid out in the bill itself are difficult to argue with. If we look at Part 1 it says that “Theoverarching purpose of this Act is to provide economic benefits to New Zealanders …” by providing some capability to host these conventions. Who could argue with that on the surface? It is just that when we dig into it it does not quite stack up. It does not stack up. The Government would not hear that. It would not hear about the harm. At the select committee a ragtag group of MPs blocked submissions. They blocked the officials from the Department of Internal Affairs from coming who had shown in the official papers that were released that they had expertise on this matter. They blocked the Ministry of Health officials the people who understood gambling-related harm from coming to speak to the committee. They blocked the Gambling Commission and its people who deal with this stuff who are at the hard end and who understand the gambling-related harm that will fund the building of this convention centre from coming to the committee. And they blocked Treasury officials for goodness’ sake from coming to this committee most probably because Treasury was very clear that the public benefits did not accrue in the amount that one would expect and that the private gain would far exceed those public benefits. Treasury is normally right there with the Government fighting hand in hand but this time the committee did not want to hear from Treasury’s officials. There was a majority on the committee that blocked those officials. All those MPs who blocked it had in common a little “N”—a little “N” lapel badge. It was an “N” for “Not listening” and beans in their ears—beans in their ears I say.That is unfortunate because if the Government really believed in this legislation—if it really believed that this was the way to go—it would not have tried to bury it. It would not have tried to hide the officials. It would not have stopped people from being critical. It would have let all of the facts come out into the open. It would have let the debate proceed. But instead it tried to shut down the debate in the select committee time after time after time. When later on one of my Green colleagues asked whether we could perhaps just have some updated advice from the Ministry of Health some advice that looked at the bill now that it had been changed and now that more facts are out in the open that too was blocked. They were not even asking to have the officials come there but for a simple piece of advice advising on health concerns and that was blocked by members of the select committee. That is a shameful thing. I say shame to those members of the committee who blocked us from getting advice on the harms that will be caused by this legislation.No one in this Parliament I do not think—and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—thinks that building an international convention centre is of itself a bad idea. Having the ability to host conventions is a reasonable proposition. It is simply the fact that the proposal is to pay for this convention centre through problem gambling that really has us uncomfortable. It is a conscience vote I understand but I would be very surprised if it was not very strongly opposed on this side of the Chamber. This Government is pushing a very bad deal on New Zealanders. The papers that have been supplied and the regulatory impact statement indicate that 8000 people effectively will be harmed by these changes through the impacts of problem gambling. That as we have heard is for the creation of just a net 18 jobs in the economy. Of course there will be a confidence variant around that number of 18 jobs. It might be lower than that. It might be a few higher. It might actually be none in which case we will see that this language in the purpose clause right at the start of the bill which talks about providing economic benefits to New Zealanders will not hold up to the light of day.The other thing I want to say about these economic benefits that are outlined at the start of the bill is that they have been questioned in the debate that has ensued in the media. We have an article on Stuff by Matt Nippert that draws attention to the way these things are handled in Australia. Over there they tend to make sure they get independent advice. They do not get all of the facts and figures about the benefits from the person whois bidding for the contract; they go and get independent advice on the economic benefits so that a fair decision can be made about the worthiness or otherwise of the tender. An expert on these things Mr Kale from Bond University said that Skycity got an incredibly good deal out of the Government. He said that it is a clear win for Skycity. He said of Mr Morrison that “He’s a friend but if you want to quote me you can say: ‘Morrison did an excellent job negotiating with authorities.’ ” The estimate that was in the documents supplied by the Crown shows that the deal ends up at $68 million in Skycity’s favour and that is a risk premium.But that is not the worst of it because it is actually more than that. If we look at the overseas examples in Australia the estimates for this kind of deal are much higher. We see in Sydney that there was an outfit called Echo Entertainment Group which paid $700 million for a licence extension the likes of which we have Skycity paying about $90 million for. There is a huge discrepancy there. That pattern is replicated across Australia. For exclusive rights to run this kind of pokie outfit the Australians demand much more money for the taxpayer but that gets away from the very fact that this is actually a moral issue. It is the harm that is caused that is the bit that I think most people in this Parliament object to. Putting this convention centre on the back of problem gamblers will have serious impacts on our communities. It will cause deaths suicides and murders the likes of which Mr Mallard referred to earlier. We know this because the evidence says that that is what happens and it is highly quantifiable internationally. There is a huge literature around the impacts of problem gambling.This is a terrible bill. The way it is outlined in the beginning might lead us to think that it had economic benefits of a significant nature that were somehow worthy of taking the risk of running with it but we know that that is not actually the case because the case simply does not stack up. The independent research has not been done that would say that was the case. The Government has got itself into a political corner and now it feels that it must get the deal through to try to save face to try to show that it is doing something to stimulate the economy because it currently has the worst economic record of any Government in the last 50 years and that record is shameful.It is a Government that is struggling. New Zealanders are waking up—well they woke up long ago but they are getting frustrated I should say with the lack of progress by this Government when it had the circumstances following 9 years of surpluses from a Labour Government to actually build New Zealand into the kind of country that we all want to live in with a chance for no one to be left behind. But instead we have the rich getting richer the poor getting poorer and those who are really at the bottom getting more debt lumped on them through gambling debt. That is the vision of this Government—a visionless Government. It is making deals. It is trying to get this legislation through but it will lead only to more harm for New Zealanders who are struggling the most. I personally will be opposing this bill because I do not feel that in my conscience I could support it.There ought to have been a transparent process around it. We know from the start that Mr Key met with the Skycity people and gave them the inside running on the legislation. That also meant that the taxpayer did not get a look-in through a fair process of having other tenderers bid for it to see what else might have been on the table. That means that the Government put itself over a barrel in the negotiation process. It had only one party that it was talking to. That party spelled out the terms and the Government is sitting there with its head down bearing it swallowing and trying to get on with the job. It is a shameful day for this country. It is a shameful piece of legislation. We should not be having it go through this House. I say to those members opposite that I hope they examine their consciences and I hope that some of them are willing to cross the floor particularly those who live in electorates where this gambling harm will hit the hardest. I think of SamLotu-Iiga and others in the Auckland constituencies who know very well that the communities they represent will be harmed by this legislation.