Submission
on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill
1.
Roskill Community Voice is a political organisation, established
in 2010. which contests local body elections in the Puketapapa Local Board
area, part of Auckland Council. We are part of City Vision, and as such
are endorsed by Labour, the Greens, and community independents. We are
currently represented on the Puketapapa Local Board by Julie Fairey and Michael
Wood, and are running a full slate of six candidates for the 2013 elections, including
Fairey, Wood and four others; Garth Houltham, David Holm, Harry Doig and Shail
Kaushal. While we are endorsed by both Labour and the Greens we set our
policy independently and this submission has been primarily written by Julie
Fairey, who is a community independent and not a member of any political party. We have also had feedback from our community
in the Puketapapa area and further afield in Auckland which has informed and aligned
with the views expressed in this submission.
2.
Roskill Community Voice has taken a strong stance against the
proliferation of pokies since our very beginning. We have consistently
advocated for measures that will reduce the number of pokies in our community
and in Auckland; including a sinking lid without relocation for Puketapapa and
the Auckland region.
3.
In 2012 Board member Fairey moved a Notice of Motion for the
Puketapapa Local Board to oppose the Sky City Convention Centre deal on the
basis that it would increase the number of pokies in Auckland. This
Notice of Motion was amended, and passed unanimously by the Board, including
the following clause specifically on the deal itself:
“That the Puketapapa Local Board
supports a new international convention centre for Auckland, but does not
support any deal that would result in an increase in gambling machines in
Auckland, including an increase in any venue, in accordance with our
position on gambling machines in our 2011 Local Board Plan.”
4.
Roskill Community Voice does not support the international
convention centre deal, even with the reduction in pokies that has now been
agreed. We consider the business case for the International Convention
Centre weak and flawed, in particular the reliance on an increase in harmful
pokies and electronic gambling tables, as well as an increase in casino space,
to secure Sky City’s funding for the construction. In a very short period
of time the limited public benefit of not paying for the cost of construction
will be overtaken by the very real public costs of gambling harm. Any
ongoing jobs created are likely to be much lower than the estimates given in
the media, as shown by comparable developments in Australia.
5. We specifically object
to the 35 year licence guarantee, which inhibits future governments and council
from measures to limit the harm from the casino, by requiring multi million
dollar compensations to Sky City. This is
not only a bad way to make law it also undermines the sovereignty of future
Parliaments.
6. We further
object to the expansion of gambling for a business which returns a far smaller
share of its revenue to community projects than other outlets whose facilities
are being (properly) reduced.
Casinos pay a very small portion back to the community and make very
large profits, as well as causing significant harm to individuals, families,
businesses and communities.
7.
We also hold very real concerns about the process by which this
legislation has come about. The tender process was not sufficiently
transparent, with Sky City appearing to be favoured early in the process.
In addition subsequent negotiations between the Government and Sky City do not
seem to have delivered a very good deal for the Government party, perhaps in
part because key Ministers and the Prime Minister were vociferous in their
support for such a deal to the point where it became politically necessary to
them for a deal to be concluded with Sky City, to the detriment of their
bargaining position.
8.
Roskill Community Voice feel strongly that this is a deal that
is being imposed on Auckland by Parliament, which is clearly not wanted by
Aucklanders and is the equivalent of a whole new casino in our city. It
is in direct contradiction of the wishes of many communities, Local Boards and
the Governing Body of Auckland Council. We submit that the legislation
should not proceed.
9.
We would like to appear to speak to our submission and request
that the Committee travel to Auckland to hear submissions.
