Ardern Jacinda: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee[Sitting date: 06 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14430. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): It is my pleasure to give a contribution on this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. It is something that I feel really strongly about as someone who is resident in the area where this convention centre will exist. I fear that in all of the debate the overall principle the debate around the existence of a convention centre or not has definitely been blurred by the Government. So I want to come back to that original question because the Government has continually maintained this line that the choice was either trade off the gambling harm issues to get the convention centre or nothing—or nothing. It has maintained that the choice was economic development via the Skycity convention centre and a bit of gambling harm on the side or potential job losses and net economic loss to the country on the flip side. That is completely wrong and that is completely misleading.The rest of the country could be forgiven for having just that small view of this entire picture because the Government did not talk about the other options on the table because in reality the Prime Minister never really considered them. In fact the Government probably never really considered them but they existed.In fact many months ago now I put in an Official Information Act request for what some of those options were. I had a personal interest in some of them because some of them may have led to quid pro quos that could have been a net benefit to the city in which I live including the Aotea Centre deal. I want to go through some of those so that the public know that they are not forced into the ridiculous situation of choosing harm for the sake of 18 jobs when actually we could have had the convention centre without this dodgy deal.Back when it was originally floated that the Government was interested in a convention centre that there was a belief that there was a gap in the market there was an opportunity for some other options to be raised. At that time probably the most seriously considered options were from the likes of Ngāti Whātua who had some plans for land that they owned—I believe on the waterfront was where they were originally thinking. There was the potential for them to then partner with the council and the Government in the development of a convention centre there.The other option that got a little bit of air time—a little bit of air time—was the idea that we have the entire Aotea Centre in the middle of Auckland City operated by The Edge. Some might say it is an underutilised resource but it is a resource that in recent times has had significant investment in it. There is a recognition that at the moment that centre is fulfilling quite a specific job—that it does house for instance Opera New Zealand and the Royal New Zealand Ballet and so on—and that if you did pitch the Aotea Centre to be an international convention centre you may need to provide some alternative facilities. So the idea that was put forward was that we could turn the Aotea Centre into an international convention centre give it the alterations that it would require—and it would require some—and at the same time restore the St James Theatre to pick up the alternative role that that convention centre therefore would no longer be able to provide.I see only win-win in a suggestion like that. We would not have had to pass law in this Parliament to allow for additional pokie tables to come into play in order to have that deal. We would not have had mass protest from the public who know what we are trading off in this Parliament today off the back of that deal. But that is not the deal that the Government chose to select. So be under no illusion that this was the only option on the table. It was not. Be under no illusion that the only way we could have had economic development and jobs was through this trade-off. It was not. That in my mind exposes how dodgy this deal is because there were other options.I want to speak a little bit to clause 3 in Part 1 the “Purpose and outline”. It says that “(1) The overarching purpose of this Act is to provide economic benefits to New Zealanders by improving New Zealand’s capability to host medium- to large-scale international conferences and related exhibitions through the construction and operation of an international-standard convention centre; (2) To this end the Act—” and then it follows on giving the agreement with Skycity. As I have already said it is very unusual to have to pass a law to build a convention centre in this way. That therefore implies that the economic benefits were of course attached only to the Skycity deal.That is why I want to reflect on the process that we went through in order to get Part 1 in the first place. In order to find that I would like to go back to some of the statements that were made in the lead-up to this even before this got to the Commerce Committee because we did have some analysis of the process that we went through in order to get to this place. Let us perhaps go through that process in which we established the economic benefit.In August 2009 there was a feasibility study as to whether or not a new international convention centre would be of value. It was for the Ministry of Economic Development and Auckland City Council. It was at that time that I heard the vague discussions about this potential deal. It was in that same month that John Key was briefed on the study’s findings and officials recommended that there was a business case that sat around it. That was in August 2009. We know that by the end of August officials had been made aware of a proposal being developed by Skycity to expand its own convention facilities. Key then writes by hand when they were talking about the proposals and looking at feasibility that “We should close off the Skycity angle first.” He handwrites that “We should close off the Skycity angle first.” If that does not indicate that there was already an ingrained preference before any of this had gone anywhere I do not know what does.We know that by the end of that year by 4 November John Key had had dinner with members of the Skycity board and he says that they discussed a possible national convention centre. They raised issues relating to the Gambling Act 2003. That is an interesting point because we are debating now the very amendments that the Prime Minister was already talking about back at the end of that year 2009.But here is a really important point: the tender process had not started. Expressions of interest were not called for until March the next year but already the Prime Minister was having discussions and talking about regulatory trade-offs with Skycity. If regulatory trade-offs were part of what the Government was interested in entertaining in order to have the convention centre built was that part of the tender process? Were any of the other interested parties told that if they were interested they could perhaps put forward a package that was not just about building a facility and doing up the St James Theatre? For instance Vector Arena might have been interested in building another facility in exchange for some regulatory trade-offs in electricity. But did Vector know that this was an option? It absolutely did not because this was a deal just for Skycity specifically. We know that from the time line that has already been exposed.Hon Trevor Mallard: Auckland Airport.JACINDA ARDERN: Auckland Airport may have wanted to do that—there were a range of parties—but we never knew about that. The other parties did not even know about that.In that same month when the expressions had gone out the Government suggested that the current arrangement with Auckland City Council to follow up the jointly funded feasibility study must end even though $250000 had already been set aside for the feasibility study. In May we then had the open tender process. By September Skycity was asking the Government about buying some of the land required in order to go ahead with the convention centre it was proposing.I actually could go on. I have got pages and pages more of the time line. But as you can see before the convention centre tender process had even closed Skycity was talking to the Government about buying land to build its convention centre. Before the tender process had even opened the Prime Minister was talking about amendments to the Gambling Act. It is no wonder that the Deputy Auditor-General said of the process: “We do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.” I am going to read that again; I think it is an important point. The Deputy Auditor-General said: “We do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.”This side of the Chamber does not just throw around the words “dodgy deal” for nothing. We say them because the evidence exists. Mr Joyce may lurch in his chair with what appears to be laughter—I cannot be quite sure—but these are the facts that are before us. We know from the time line—we so rarely see what could be anything other than a smug smile from the Minister; it is hard to know. We based what we have said around the tender process on the facts the evidence the Cabinet papers and the process and all of it leads us to the impression that it was a dodgy deal. But it did not have to be this way. We could have had the convention—