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: 15 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:9930. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister for Economic Development: On what date did the issue of compensation in the event of future reform of gambling law first arise in the negotiations over the SkyCity Convention Centre; and which party raised it?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Negotiations with Skycity began in June 2011 and they were undertaken on a commercial basis by ministry officials and advisers with the company. As the member may appreciate the nature of negotiations is such that issues are often raised in an informal way around a negotiating table and are not necessarily recorded. As Minister for Economic Development I was not involved directly in those negotiations and am therefore not aware of every suggestion that was made or when it was made. However in order to be of assistance to the member I think it is fair to observe that given that the company was being asked to build a very large convention centre and operate it for 35 years the issue of what compensation would arise if Parliament subsequently altered the concessions would have come up fairly early on.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that there was a partial answer to this question but this question was put on notice. It asked on what date. That was not answered. When I asked this question of the Prime Minister yesterday he expressly referred me to Minister Joyce as the person who would know the answer to that question. I expect an answer. On what date did the issue first arise?Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty the member has with the question is—and I accept she asked for a specific date—that the Minister quite clearly in his answer said he was unable to provide a specific date because the discussions occurred over a long period of time and they moved from informal-type discussions to more formal and therefore there is no specific date recorded.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue is that the Minister has previously made public statements identifying that it was Skycity that raised this question not the Government and hence the Minister is already on the public record identifying the answer to at least one part of this question; presumably he must have information about the other part of the question as well. It is not consistent for him to argue both sides of the coin.Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry but I do not accept the point the member is making. I was listening very carefully. The Minister was quite careful in explaining why he was unable to give the specific date that the member asked for. The member has further supplementary questions if she wishes to use them.Metiria Turei: Given the Minister’s answer that the issue was raised some time ago does he then agree that Nigel Morrison of Skycity was incorrect when he blamed the NZ Power announcement 4 weeks ago for supposedly spooking him into seeking compensation when in fact as the Minister has confirmed compensation had already been on the table for some time?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can confirm a couple of things for the member. Firstly the general concept of compensation has been there for some time. If the member has had a look at the heads of agreement she will note that one aspect of the compensation is in regard to the gambling levy while the convention centre is being built which is over a different time frame—until up to 4 years after the convention centre is built. My understanding is that that particular element came up quite late in the process. I cannot give you the exact date but nor would I necessarily be able to contradict Mr Morrison in that regard.Hon Trevor Mallard: Has his department given up keeping file notes of important meetings and requests?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As far as I am aware it has not given up keeping those notes—Grant Robertson: Just on this.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No it was asked to check and could not identify a specific date.Metiria Turei: Given that the issue of compensation has been on the negotiating table for some time does he not believe that the public have had the right to know that the price of this deal was 35 years’ worth of compensation if the public decided they wanted to change gambling law?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not quite sure what the problem is that the member has raised. The point is that the discussions took place over a period of time. We did not discuss how those discussions were going or I think certain members of the media might have committed us to a larger number of pokie machines than eventually was agreed so we said we would talk about that at the end and we have now presented the arrangements to the public. Parliament will get an opportunity to debate those arrangements and then we will make a decision as to whether or not to pass them.Metiria Turei: Was the Minister deliberately keeping the compensation provision secret until this past Monday because he knows that there is likely to be serious public concern that the public’s right to make gambling law reform in the future will now come with a multimillion-dollar price tag for the next 35 years?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is incorrect and I think it is important that I point that out to her because she has made these statements a number of times in the media and she is wrong. The reality is that the compensation relates to the specific concessions that are identified in the agreement. They do not relate to harm minimisation and other aspects of gambling policies. For example—[Interruption] Do you want to hear about it or not? For example the problem—Grant Robertson: Rubbish! Cashless gambling machines?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well you will learn something Grant. The problem gambling levy—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is absolutely inappropriate for the Minister to bring you into the debate and ask you whether you want to hear about it. [Interruption] And I ask you whether it is appropriate for the Minister who has just breached to breach again by interjecting during a point of order.Mr SPEAKER: The member is quite right. Points of order should be heard in silence and no member of Parliament should bring the Speaker into the debate. But to be fair to the Minister he was responding to a level of interjection from the Opposition benches. A further supplementary question?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like the opportunity to complete my answer—Mr SPEAKER: Absolutely.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —because it is a very important point.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can continue with his answer.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I was saying to the member it is important to note that the issue of compensation is in relation only to the specific concessions laid down in the agreement. In terms of items such as further changes to harm minimisation further changes for example to money-laundering laws and further changes to the problem gambling levy—all of those are able to be made for the entire 35-year period without any recourse by Skycity.Metiria Turei: Under the heads of agreement how much money would New Zealanders have to pay Skycity if they wanted to outlaw cashless gaming technology such as ticket-in ticket-out which is currently illegal in New Zealand because for example it increases money-laundering? How much would the taxpayer have to front up with if they wanted to outlaw cashless gaming under this deal?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well the member has listed one of the concessions that of course does apply for compensation. I would point out to the member though—Grant Robertson: Right so why did you say it didn’t?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well that is exactly what I said at the front. I said that apart from these specific items raised all other aspects can actually be changed. In terms of changing ticket-in ticket-out—or cashless gaming as the member puts it—which of course is available not only here in New Zealand now but also across all Australian states the reality is that of course Parliament can choose to change that and there would be an element of compensation because that is part of the concessions granted to Skycity.Hon Members: How much?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have the number in front of me but it is part of the concessions granted. It is laid down in the KordaMentha report.Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm then that as the Minister responsible for this deal he cannot tell the New Zealand public what their potential financial liability will be under the heads of agreement for any future changes in gambling law reform that affect the concessions provided to Skycity by him under this deal? He does not know how much it will cost.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I could but it would take up a fair bit of the House’s time because it is quite a KordaMentha report. If the member wants to make some specific requests—if she is unable to deduce from that report—and if she wants to put them down in writing I am more than happy to address them for her.Metiria Turei: Why was the independent consultant KordaMentha not instructed to also consider the costs of the social impacts of increased gambling harm caused by the gambling law concessions in the deal as it has specifically noted were excluded in its report?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Because that is Cabinet’s responsibility to make that assessment relative to all other aspects. The specific requirement that we asked of KordaMentha was to assess the economic considerations to ensure that at the economic level between Skycity and the Government the arrangements were fair to both parties. The social considerations are very much a matter for Cabinet to consider when weighing up the decision.Metiria Turei: What has the advice to Cabinet been then as to the financial and social costs to New Zealand from the gambling law concessions that are part of this deal; and if he does not have this figure how does he justify telling New Zealanders that this is a good deal if he cannot tell them how much it will cost both from the compensation and from the financial and social costs of increased gambling harm?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There is not an actual number and the reason for that is that nobody has been able to define for example how any element of gaming necessarily increases the amount of problem-gambling harm in the community. That is the reality of it.David Shearer: Like cigarettes 40 years ago.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well in actual fact it is a little bit different from cigarettes—for the somewhat challenged ones in the Opposition—because actually there are some people for whom any aspect of gaming actually causes a problem. They have access to a range in the community and there is no evidence to suggest that addingor subtracting for example one individual pokie machine at a casino or anywhere else has any effect on its own on problem gambling.