Williams Andrew: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Andrew: New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14559. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in the third reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and I would like to perhaps provide a historical overview of how this whole piece of legislation has got to the House today. Initially we were advised that Auckland the largest city in New Zealand required a larger convention centre than it already had. The existing one was located at Skycity and was built back in the early 2000s and we were told that if Auckland was to secure much larger international conferences and conventions it would need a considerably larger venue.Early in the National Government’s term of 2008 to 2011 the Government sought expressions of interest for building a larger convention centre. Five organisations tendered for the new convention centre. Four were declined. Of the four one was Ngāti Whātua the local iwi in Auckland who were prepared to put forward land holdings in the Auckland area controlled by Ngāti Whātua in the downtown area adjacent to the historic railway station and to the large Vector Arena which seats 12000 people. It could have perhaps been a wonderful link to Vector Arena and the historic railway station and could have provided a wonderful international centre on local iwi land. Again we hear this talk about the Government working with iwi and working with theMāori Party. That particular proposal which would have brought in major landholders in Auckland was dismissed.A second submission was made by the Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund owned by Morrison and Co. which had a major cornerstone investor being the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. That organisation again wanted to invest significant funds into the Auckland convention centre and exhibition centre and it was turned down. Instead at the time the Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund said that it was disappointed it had to take its money elsewhere and it—a New Zealand fund with investment from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which is owned by New Zealanders—invested in the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. So what a shame that New Zealand superannuation funds have ended up going offshore to support the funding of the Melbourne convention centre while those very same New Zealand superannuation funds have not stayed in this country in perpetuity for ongoing funding from that.The Auditor-General then did a report in February 2013 as a result of concerns being brought to the Auditor-General’s attention over the process when Skycity was awarded the tender. The Auditor-General concluded that Skycity got special treatment in talks around the International Convention Centre after the Prime Minister personally intervened and had meetings with Skycity. The Auditor-General’s office determined that Skycity was treated very differently to others tendering for the contract. The report concluded and stated that Mr Key personally penned his note on the briefing paper calling a halt to wider business consideration being prepared—“we should close off the Skycity angle” wrote John Key in his own handwriting on the notes given to Cabinet. Mr Key was personally briefed on options for the convention centre at a dinner with Skycity board members and executives on 4 November 2009. On the same day as Mr Key’s dinner with Skycity a Treasury official warned officials about process and probity. The same warning was conveyed to Mr Key in a briefing note on 12 November 2009.The Auditor-General found a range of deficiencies in the advice that the Ministry of Economic Development provided and in the steps that officials and Ministers took leading up to that decision. I quote from the Auditor-General: “The quality of support that was provided fell short of what we would have expected from the lead government agency on commercial and procurement matters.” Secondly the Auditor-General stated that there were “inappropriate considerations” and further that there were “connections between political and business leaders.”Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did not.ANDREW WILLIAMS: This is the report from the Auditor-General Mr Smith so please do not deny it or you are denying a report of the Auditor-General. Further Treasury in its report said that Treasury made it clear that it “was not convinced by the cost-benefit analysis” presented by Ministers. Treasury expressed “strong concerns that private benefits to SkyCity will exceed public benefits to New Zealanders.” I am quoting from Treasury reports. It said that there were “strong concerns that private benefits to SkyCity would exceed public benefits to New Zealanders.” John Key personally cut a backroom deal for Skycity to build a $350 million convention centre in exchange for the casino getting another 230 pokie machines and a 35-year licence—until 2048. Can you imagine anyone in this country getting such a sweet deal as to get a licence through until 2048 with basically carte blanche from this Parliament? It increases the number of pokie machines from 1647 to 1877. This is a prime example of the Government cuddling up to its buddies and selling off our laws to the highest bidder while ignoring the social cost of problem gambling. It makes you wonder what other dubious deals to sell off the country are being hatched by Mr Key.Official party donation returns also show that United Future and John Banks during his 2010 Auckland mayoralty campaign both received funding from Skycity—both United Future and John Banks. The National Party received $60000 from Skycity management in 2005 while United Future received $12000 in the same year. These three parties that received donations from Skycity are the same ones that can ensure that this John Key deal gets a majority in this Parliament today. The very same people who have received funds from Skycity will be voting on this bill and putting it through today. The National Party has also pumped money into Skycity which it has used as a venue for party events. The National Party used Skycity for its campaign launch in 2005 it was the election night headquarters for John Key in both 2008 and 2011 and there have been many other meetings of the National Party held at Skycity. Again one would question how much money passed hands to have access to those venues or were they at favourable buddy rates to secure the goodwill of both sides?It is also disappointing having come from local government where local government throughout New Zealand has tried to put a lid on the number of pokie machines which are affecting our society and which are one of the major concerns in many communities. I was looking today at some of the different council policies but all over New Zealand local authorities have sinking-lid policies including the Auckland Council the Nelson City Council the Hamilton City Council the Christchurch City Council the Hastings District Council and many many more. It is interesting that those communities do receive returns from those pokie machines but it is interesting that at the same time in the community those gaming trusts give 37 percent of the proceeds from those gaming machines in their communities back to the community—37 percent.By contrast the pokie machines in Skycity return only 2.5 percent of their takings in the way of community grants. That is a shocker. So although Mr Key says “Oh well don’t worry because on one hand the number of pokie machines is reducing around New Zealand in different communities and under different authorities while we are giving out another 230 in Skycity.” they are not the equivalent of 230 machines because the funds going back to the community are only 2.5 percent from Skycity not the 37 percent that goes back in other places all over New Zealand. That is another shocking result of this John Key deal.New Zealand First does not support this bill. We think that this is absolutely what we call a “John Key shonky deal”. This will go down in the annals of history in terms of being one of the sleaziest deals that this Parliament has ever put legislation through on—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about Owen Glenn.ANDREW WILLIAMS: —and for ever and a day the likes of Nick Smith and others of his ilk will remember the day that they sold out New Zealand law and sold out the principles of this Parliament in order to do deals with their mates and to sell out to the gambling industry.