AKL CONVENTION CENTRE | Proposed

[IThomas]

Academic wants convention centre in Aotea Square

An urban design academic wants Auckland's new convention centre built in Aotea Square. Plans for a centre have turned into a political football over John Key's centre-for-pokie machines deal with Sky City. Unitec urban design Associate Professor Dushko Bogunovich says the Government's problems would simply go away if the centre was built on top of the existing Aotea Centre. He says there's no denying such a centre needs to built, wherever it ends up. "Wherever the convention centre in Auckland would be I guess the economy overall would benefit. But I actually think of all the locations that have been proposed I think this is the best one, I think it's better than Wynyards quarter, or anywhere else on the waterfront." Mr Bogunovich says building the convention centre there would avoid all the political point scoring surrounding the issue. "That whole area is perfectly suited for it because it has a number of venues in the same area. It's really a cluster of quite interesting spaces like the town hall and St James' theatre." Mr Bogunovich says if the new build was placed on top of Aotea Centre, that would also solve the problem of the 10 million dollar bill to replace the centre's roof. He says there's plenty of room for expansion to the back and above Aotea Centre.

[cambennett]

This was one of the bids that was submitted by the Edge and rejected on the basis that it required large amounts of government funding. It wont happpen unless the deal with Sky City falls through, even then i would think that the government would be more inclined to go to one of the other private bidders like Infratil to see if they could shoulder at least a portion of the costs as a PPP.

[SYDNEY]

OMG ... just build the Convention Centre already - if people want to gamble that is their prerogative / stupidity - it's not as if somebody is holding a gun to their head. It is all about give and take.

[Bealzebubbles]

When dealing with casinos it's mainly take. If they were wanting more bacarat or blackjack tables then I don't have a problem with this deal. But they are asking for more pokie machines. These deliberately target the poorest members of society. That's a worry. The effect of these extra machines on problem gambling needs to be identified and SkyCity needs to be held to strict rules about problem gamblers. In the past they seem to have flouted these rules.

[SYDNEY]

Originally Posted by Bealzebubbles

When dealing with casinos it's mainly take. If they were wanting more bacarat or blackjack tables then I don't have a problem with this deal. But they are asking for more pokie machines. These deliberately target the poorest members of society. That's a worry. The effect of these extra machines on problem gambling needs to be identified and SkyCity needs to be held to strict rules about problem gamblers. In the past they seem to have flouted these rules.

As is the case with most businesses / firms wanting to make huge profits. I have no pity for people who get themselves into a fix. I know that drugs are highly addictive and so I stay away from them, I don't gamble because I understand the consequences, I know that smoking is bad for you and highly addictive therefore I don't smoke, I know that alcohol is bad for you (and addictive) therefore I only spend money on booze once every 2 months and that is that. Adults don't need anybody to hold their hands like little babies.

The number of pokies - be it less or more - is not going to stop people from gambling. There is no funding available for a Convention Centre and if this doesn't go ahead then we will be without one for the next couple of decades - not my opinion but it is based on what always happens .... talk, talk, talk and zero action.

I have lived in a city (Cape Town) where they grabbed the opportunity and built a fantastic Convention Centre, needless to say that it changed the face of the city and placed it firmly on the map - it has benefitted the locals and the city as a whole. I am quite used to the predictions of doom and gloom here - it is like a stuck record and gets played over and over and over again but when it comes to biting the bullet and ignoring the pessimists the end result is always - oh we should have done that years ago .... Sky Tower anybody ?

Sanity prevails ....

Council rejects proposal against SkyCity deal

Auckland Council has rejected a proposal to stand in the way of the Government's planned convention centre deal with SkyCity. Councillors voted 12-9 against supporting a motion that the council did not support legislation that would allow SkyCity to increase opportunities for gambling in return for a national convention centre. Mayor Len Brown was among the 12 who voted against the motion.

[Bealzebubbles]

I'm not arguing against the deal but we need to analyse what the effects will be before we charge off and agree to it. Scientists have proven that the addictiveness of gambling. Like any addiction the victims are not just the people with the addiction. Family members and friends can suffer just as badly when someone's addiction causes them to hurt them. My Grandfather is an alcoholic. We haven't seen him in over seven years. This took a huge toll on our family particularly when he tried to squeeze us for money than he was entitled to out of my Grandmother's estate.

I also resent the implication that anyone who questions this deal is insane. Questioning the decisions of those in charge of the country is our democratic duty.

[SYDNEY]

Originally Posted by Bealzebubbles

I'm not arguing against the deal but we need to analyse what the effects will be before we charge off and agree to it. Scientists have proven that the addictiveness of gambling. Like any addiction the victims are not just the people with the addiction. Family members and friends can suffer just as badly when someone's addiction causes them to hurt them. My Grandfather is an alcoholic. We haven't seen him in over seven years. This took a huge toll on our family particularly when he tried to squeeze us for money than he was entitled to out of my Grandmother's estate.

I also resent the implication that anyone who questions this deal is insane. Questioning the decisions of those in charge of the country is our democratic duty.

Sorry to read that .....

My father was an alcoholic and quite frankly he brought it upon himself - if anything it made us realise that we didn't want to be like him and chose a different path - that is one of the positive outcomes. The same might be happening in families where there are gambling problems. It is the way of the World and nothing can be done to stop it - the sole responsibility rests on the shoulder of the "offender". Blaming extra pokies for other people's behavior isn't going to solve the problem. I wish that this Country would flex their democratic muscle and worry more about all the bars and liquor stores opening up on almost every corner of every town and city - I can't see people kicking up a fuss about that At least more people will benefit from the Convention Centre (employment generated and flow-on effects) as opposed to those who are already compulsive gamblers - with or without the Convention Centre.

Will this help the neurotics sleep at night - I doubt it

SKYCITY to introduce technology to help high-risk gamblers

[Bealzebubbles]

NP, sorry to here about your father. Every family seems to have a story about someone who's gone off the rails. As I said I'm not overally fussed one way or another. But we need to have a discussion in public about this and not have a backroom deal made. After all this is our country and we deserve to know the effect this will have. You have said that you believe this should be decided democratically. That's fine. But democratically is not a deal done over lunch in the Viaduct.

[SYDNEY]

Originally Posted by Bealzebubbles

NP, sorry to here about your father. Every family seems to have a story about someone who's gone off the rails. As I said I'm not overally fussed one way or another. But we need to have a discussion in public about this and not have a backroom deal made. After all this is our country and we deserve to know the effect this will have. You have said that you believe this should be decided democratically. That's fine. But democratically is not a deal done over lunch in the Viaduct.

Thanks ... lots of deals being done over lunch across the city, how I wish that I could be a fly on the wall at all of them - I am too curious for my own good but wouldn't it be good to know what is currently being planned

[Bealzebubbles]

Deals over lunch is ok for business. But when you are talking legislation changes then you're talking corruption.

[IThomas]

Reading all your posts I must say that I agree with Sydney and with Bealzebubbles With Sydney, regard to the fact that the presence or absence of gaming machines, don't have the responsibility to be "toxic" for the players. If one wants to play, or in this case drinking (as in the experience of Syd's father, which by the way I'm sorry ), harms only himself and not the community. To bring some practical example where I live, there are dozens and dozens of bets, games and anything to put in "danger" the money. Weekly lotteries belonging to state monopolies, and with big wins (million euros) with extraction three times a week, all bets on the matches of each team in any sport, scratch cards, poker ... In short if you stay here too long to write it ... I say all this just to tell you that taking myself as an example, I never thought of spending my money on all of this just described, yet there is around me and I am also constantly bombarded by advertising also be on TV that on the internet .... but I was always out of the loop... I think we stay out, also depends on the strength of will of himself.
While I agree with Bealzebubbles, when he says who change legislation is how to say "corruption" ... P. S. let's leave this to other countries ... and we understood each other ...

So I say to you, which in my opinion, if you will permit, the construction of the Convention Centre is a good thing both for the economy of the city and both for the jobs that are created. So they need to find a chord "clean"

[deepred]

And moral concerns aside, the real issue is cronyism and pork barrel politics. Fran O'Sullivan, a free-marketeer in the Adam Smith/Milton Friedman tradition, ripped into the Sky City deal big time. And she didn't even touch on SkyCity's state-assisted queue jumping.

Guyon Espiner seems to be finally coming of age in this 60 Minutes doco on the affair.

And it's a known fact that pork barrel politics is a major factor behind cost overruns in big projects - NASA is a case in point. How else to explain the $350m cost projection, and the projected number of staff compared with its Sydney and Melbourne counterparts?

I'm vaguely reminded of the White Shoe Brigade's wheeler-dealing under Sir Joh's Queensland. I'm all for a convention centre that's up there with SYD & MEL, but not if the initial savings have to be paid for in the long run by the Police, Courts, Corrections, CYFS and the mental health system.

As they say, the house never loses.

[cambennett]

The issue for me is not problem gamblers or more pokie machines. It's the fact that the government is making law changes in exchange for money. The law should not be for sale. Sky City tried this on with the Adelaide state government and were told they were dreaming if they thought the government would change laws in exchange for anything.

Deepred is right this reeks of cronyisim that harks back to bad old Roger Douglas days. I don't think anyone is arguing that a convention centre should not be built, just that this is a pretty murky path to start going down.

[KLK]

Originally Posted by cambennett

The issue for me is not problem gamblers or more pokie machines. It's the fact that the government is making law changes in exchange for money. The law should not be for sale. Sky City tried this on with the Adelaide state government and were told they were dreaming if they thought the government would change laws in exchange for anything.

Deepred is right this reeks of cronyisim that harks back to bad old Roger Douglas days. I don't think anyone is arguing that a convention centre should not be built, just that this is a pretty murky path to start going down.

Quick question - can someone explain what law is being "bought"?

I was under the impression that the deal involved (a) being allowed more pokie machines than is currently regulated for and (b) an extension of their licence. Nothing else.

The request for (b) is perfectly reasonable. So if that particular piece of law that is being bought is (a) then we are all wasting alot of energy over this. Its not like its a decision to have pokies or not - they already have hundreds and they already have their "victims". Extra pokies is not, IMO, going to result in any more victims than there would otherwise have been.

And as for Governments making law changes in exchange for money? That's what they do. Many law changes or new legislation is for direct or indirect financial reason - whether it be increasing tax take, increasing other government revenue, luring foreign direct investment etc etc. The advantages (tax breaks) given to Peter Jackson by Helen Clark - to get LOTR filmed in NZ - is a good example.

[Mr_kiwi_fruit]

+1

[Matt L]

I believe the number of machines is dictated by law and I guess the big difference is that normally you change a law for the whole industry, not just one company in that industry.

[cambennett]

Originally Posted by KLK

Quick question - can someone explain what law is being "bought"?

I was under the impression that the deal involved (a) being allowed more pokie machines than is currently regulated for and (b) an extension of their licence. Nothing else.

The request for (b) is perfectly reasonable. So if that particular piece of law that is being bought is (a) then we are all wasting alot of energy over this. Its not like its a decision to have pokies or not - they already have hundreds and they already have their "victims". Extra pokies is not, IMO, going to result in any more victims than there would otherwise have been.

And as for Governments making law changes in exchange for money? That's what they do. Many law changes or new legislation is for direct or indirect financial reason - whether it be increasing tax take, increasing other government revenue, luring foreign direct investment etc etc. The advantages (tax breaks) given to Peter Jackson by Helen Clark - to get LOTR filmed in NZ - is a good example.

The law in question is called the Gambling Act. In return for spending $350 million on a new convention centre the government will amend this law and allow them, and them alone additional pokie machines. The number of pokies across all other outlets (pubs, sporting clubs etc) is being reduced as part of the sinking lid policy but the government (in exchange for $350 million) will change the law to allow them to increase theirs.

Would you be just as comfortable if Infratil had got the winning bid and in exchange for spending $350 million they got the integrated ticketing contract for Auckland? I don't see a lot of difference here.

Also if the number of pokies is not a problem then why regulate it all? Why not let them have as many as they like? Why not another 5000 if they want them?

The difference with the tax breaks for the film industry that you cited is they were given to the industry as a whole not one company to give them a leg up over their competition in exchange for spending money on a peice of infrastructure. This is not changing regulations for an industry this is hooking up one company for the right price. That's the cronyisim aspect of all of this that has a bit of a bad smell about it.

Pretty straight forward to me, and similar to the reasons why Adelaide knocked them back:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...s-under-threat

[SYDNEY]

Mayor backs SkyCity convention centre

Auckland Mayor Len Brown has come out swinging in favour of the controversial $350 million SkyCity convention centre. The Government is negotiating a deal that would see SkyCity build the centre in return for extra pokie machines. Auckland Council is divided over the deal. But Brown told TVNZ's Q+A Auckland had to have a convention centre. "I said right from the get-go to the Prime Minister we desperately need that convention centre - 1000 jobs, 800 in construction, half a billion [dollars] a year, it's hugely important for Auckland." He said Brisbane, which was one of Auckland's biggest competitors, attracted 86 conferences a year because of its convention centre. Auckland attracted just six. "The economic benefit to Brisbane is massive. I believe we would take out exactly the same kind of economic benefit.

So it's critical. And secondly, for me, its about jobs... We need to get our young people into jobs, that's my real clear focus." But Brown admitted the extra pokie machines created "a conundrum". He had made it clear to the Government that 500 extra pokie machines, as sought by SkyCity, was too much and he also expected preventive measures to be part of the deal - things like screen savers asking people if they want to stop playing, harm minimisation officers and money cards loaded with a set limit . "I'm not negotiating this deal, the Government is [but] I would expect them to be negotiating well down the figures [500 pokie machines] the media are talking about." Brown indicated that his support was conditional on that.

[KLK]

Originally Posted by cambennett

Would you be just as comfortable if Infratil had got the winning bid and in exchange for spending $350 million they got the integrated ticketing contract for Auckland? I don't see a lot of difference here.

No I wouldn't, but then its not a valid comparison, is it. The casino is asking for extensions to entitlements it already has under statute. That is, IMO, quite a big difference from your example of Infratil being offered a public contract, which would be required to go out to public tender to determine the best supplier and which is yet to do so. Apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by cambennett

The difference with the tax breaks for the film industry that you cited is they were given to the industry as a whole not one company to give them a leg up over their competition in exchange for spending money on a peice of infrastructure. This is not changing regulations for an industry this is hooking up one company for the right price. That's the cronyisim aspect of all of this that has a bit of a bad smell about it.

The point about the film industry tax breaks was not to compare with the Sky City deal. It was to point out that governments change laws all the time to benefit business in the interests of getting money. We can talk all we like about benefits for the wider film industry, but Helen Clark made those changes to the tax laws to get, first and foremost, Universal Studios cash. Key did the same thing with the labour laws for Warners. So quite why the former was generally considered pragmatic and the latter "cronyism" (as in the Sky City case as well) is a little perplexing.

I have no doubt that the other bids came with conditions as well - in particular , it seems, that the Government stump up with a significant part of the cost. Sky City's was, I think, the only self-funded one, so its attraction is not surprising. While from a location perspective I much preferred The Edge proposal, I also think this is a good bit of business by the government, provided that the so called "sinking lid" policy is implemented. Pokies in your local pub? Now that's the real social gambling problem.

[AK-Sam]

I'm hearing a lot of worrying issues regarding this.

A business case study was cancelled prematurely.
Council, Infratil and Iwi options have been bypassed.
80 conferences a year supporting 800 jobs is very unrealistic.
SkyCity were going to build a convention centre anyway.
SkyCity would profit $40m/year from increased hotel, restaurant & casino revenue.
Donations have been made by SkyCity to all political interests, as well as the media.
The existing Edge theatre will be lost (converted to Pokies)
Skycity's centre will compete with Viaduct Events Centre, Aotea Centre and others.
TVNZ studios and facilities are being moved to make way for it.
Gambling license secures SkyCity's monopoly on gambling.
Sizeable donations have been made to all parties.
All measures to prevent problem gamblers seem to have failed so far.


In the past, wouldn't a gambling law change be a conscience vote?