What’s done can be undone

Written By: - Date published: 8:52 am, May 13th, 2013 - 220 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, national - Tags:

SkyCity will get more pokies and cashless gambling in return for building the convention centre that it always wanted to build.  (…excuse me, I’m just trying not to puke watching Len Brown on Breakfast as he shrugs off the problem gambling increase from this deal…) The convention centre will be a white elephant. The 800 jobs claim is bullshit – larger convention centres in Aussie employ a fraction of that number.

National has shown that the law is for sale, it can be changed at a whim. Well, it can be changed back, too. SkyCity should know that what’s done can be undone.

SkyCity might find all kinds of regulatory changes imposed on it that will see it wishing it had never poked its nose into the political sphere and cut a dirty deal.

Ah, but they thought of that, eh? There’s a compensation clause in the deal between SkyCity and the Government. Well, that’s the thing about laws, they can over-write dodgy compensation clauses, too. Why would a future Green-Labour Government pay out taxpayers’ money to a gambling company in ‘compensation’ for overwriting a deal that they opposed?

SkyCity should be aware that its cut a deal with National, not with future NZ governments for all time.

I wouldn’t be buying shares in SkyCity just yet.

Update: Anyone buying in to the Nats’ “Labour did it too” line should read Russell Brown’s demolition of that lie

220 comments on “What’s done can be undone ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tigger 1
    13 May 2013 at 8:55 am

    “SkyCity should be aware that its cut a deal with National, not with future NZ governments for all time.”

    +1.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.1
      13 May 2013 at 9:00 am

      +1

      Parliament is sovereign.

      • muzza 1.1.1
        13 May 2013 at 12:41 pm

        Parliament is sovereign

        What would you provide to sure that statement up, or was it sarcasm?

        • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 1:23 pm

          Ask Mr Steyr and Mr Paremoremo.

        • Rodel 1.1.1.2
          13 May 2013 at 9:02 pm

          Mae Chen on Checkpoint tonight was quite clear and cites the statutes that Parliament is sovereign and can simply eliminate the compensation clause easily.

    • David H 1.2
      13 May 2013 at 9:27 am

      That must be the reason for the words “Legally Binding” spewing from Joyce’s mouth. Still no sign of Key. This really must be a Poisoned Chalice

      • ghostwhowalksnz 1.2.1
        13 May 2013 at 12:25 pm

        Change the rules for their gambling palace and you pay hefty compensation.

        In practice its not going to be undone.

        Since they wont be using the ‘old convention centre’ they got extra poky tables for effectively they are getting double as they dont have to give back what they lost for old smaller convention centre

        • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 1:25 pm

          Change the rules for their gambling palace and you pay hefty compensation.

          Oh, I think SkyCity can be convinced to settle for minor compensation.

          • Murray Olsen 1.2.1.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 7:07 pm

            A workers’ government with cojones could convince them of many things. Entry to their casino via understaffed police checkpoints would do wonders. Clerical mistakes which saw their power and water accidentally cut off once a week or so. Ongoing SFO investigations…. All it lacks is the will.

      • BLiP 1.2.2
        13 May 2013 at 2:52 pm

        . . . Still no sign of Key . . .

        Hmmmm . . . I wonder why because John Key had quite a bit to say about the Sky City deal, you know, things like . . .

        – the Sky City deal will provide 900 construction jobs and 800 casino jobs

        – the Sky City deal doesn’t mean more pokies

        – there was nothing improper about the Sky City deal

        – my office has had no correspondence, no discussions, no involvement with the Sky City deal

        – Sky City will only get “a few more” pokie machines at the margins

        – any changes to gambling regulations will be subject to a full public submission process

        – Sky City has approached TVNZ about the purchase/use of government-owned land

        – the Auditor General has fully vindicated National over the Sky City deal

        . . . perhaps his new Ministry of Truth is taking a strategic approach to keeping the brand intact by seeking to avoid reminding the public John Key is a liar.

  2. Draco T Bastard 2
    13 May 2013 at 8:58 am

    Well, one of the most perceived least corrupt countries in the world now shows it’s corruption openly.

  3. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3
    13 May 2013 at 9:04 am

    This is great. We should tell Maori that, although past governments confiscated their property without compensation, they can go whistle now, because Parliament is sovereign. Hey, Ngai Tahu, all property is theft!

    • vto 3.1
      13 May 2013 at 9:06 am

      do you not know the difference between the crown and government gormless

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.2
      13 May 2013 at 9:16 am

      Why don’t you campaign on that, Gormless? See how you get on.

      The National Party is a bought party. This is a bought government.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.2.1
        13 May 2013 at 10:06 am

        Your lot have been campaigning on this government being a “bought” government. How’s it been working out so far?

        People are waking up, I tells ya!

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.2.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 10:20 am

          Let’s just confiscate the property of any one who is unpopular enough to have a majority of the Parliament against them. Red heads, obviously. People from Dannevirke, maybe? And let’s not stop there. If it is Parliament’s will to sterilize all beneficiaries, who are the minority to argue with the Parliament’s sovereignty. Failure to accept this is simply undemocratic.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.2.1.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 11:40 am

            “Your lot”? There’s precisely one of me.

            As for the rest, stop being hysterical. There’s nothing unusual about the proceeds of crime (money laundering) being forfeit. Your loyalty to the party is clouding your judgement, comrade.

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 3.2.1.1.1.1
              13 May 2013 at 1:32 pm

              Yes.I am the one who is being hysterical.

              • felix …
                13 May 2013 at 2:59 pm

                Yeah you are. You’re hysterical when you suggest that the defining characteristic of Sky City in the context of cancelling the Nats’ deal with them is that they’re a “minority”.

                • Descendant Of Sssmith …
                  13 May 2013 at 8:53 pm

                  Or just restore the status quo to no pokies and no casinos in the country. Immediate and complete closure.

                  Pay the compensation and the insidious things will be gone and hopefully the thieves who run them will be gone as well.

                  The wealthy can still get their fix overseas and the poor can stop having their limited incomes taken by things tat are psychologically designed to steal.

                  If you do keep em for any reason some cigarette plain packaging would be nice.

                  All nice looking drab brown machines with symbols on them to reflect that they are stealing money off you and that you should be anywhere other an here. Instead of a jackpot counter up high a counter saying how much money has been fleeced off the punters today, this week, this year.

                  Maybe put Pravda on the counter just to annoy the righties.

  4. vto 4
    13 May 2013 at 9:05 am

    This government is certainly nailing its flag to the mast……….

    it favours casino operators over people.

    Further, somewhat tangential… If convention centres are such places of good business and increased economy then why can’t the private sector fund them?

    Why is the private sector failing to supply what the demand demands?

    Perhaps Rodney Hide or John Banks can explain why this government is having to step in to support private enterprise? For the dairy farmers, for the NZX, for the housing sector, for convention goers (drab), for casinos even ffs.

    It’s nanny state on a monumental scale.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      13 May 2013 at 10:58 am

      Government has always had to step in to prop up private business. Capitalism is supposed to be risky and the problem with risk is that the returns are always negative.

  5. karol 5
    13 May 2013 at 9:32 am

    Metiria Turei has just been on RNZ saying that it will be hard for a future government to undo some of the deal given to Sky City – it could be legally costly to attempt.

    • Lanthanide 5.1
      13 May 2013 at 9:39 am

      Yip. While Parliament is sovereign and can do absolutely anything it likes, there is the court of public opinion and reputation that acts as a break against a lot of what could be done.

      • karol 5.1.1
        13 May 2013 at 9:44 am

        Turei was talking about the legal arrangements – see also Wayne below. I think Turei was saying something similar.

        Although, Turei also said the government’s Sky City deal is “unconstitutional” and “unethical”.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 11:02 am

          It’s the unethical bit that allows it to be undone with little to no cost. Most people realise that the deal was unethical in the first place and will thus support undoing it. What will really piss them off is that this government can’t be sent to jail, as they should be, for making it in the first place.

          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 5.1.1.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 11:04 am

            Can’t you read? Parliament is sovereign.

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.1.1
              13 May 2013 at 11:59 am

              And that means that they shouldn’t be held to account?

            • mickysavage 5.1.1.1.1.2
              13 May 2013 at 5:25 pm

              It is sovereign. It could for instance legislate to say that an agreement signed with Sky for, for instance, compensation, had no legal effect.

          • dumrse 5.1.1.1.2
            13 May 2013 at 5:40 pm

            Unethical, which court passed that judgement ? Whilst I’m at it…”Most people realise…” was that a poll result you are quoting from? Most people…… Sounds better than 50% so you must have some facts ?

            • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.2.1
              13 May 2013 at 8:42 pm

              Kiwis against Key’s Sky City deal – poll

              In the poll people were asked “do you approve of the deal – more pokies in return for the casino paying for a new convention centre”.
              Of the respondents 72 per cent said no and 23 said yes, with 5 per cent saying they did not know.

              BTW, the courts don’t rule on ethics, they rule on laws which the politicians pass – that’s why we have stuff that is unethical but completely legal. Which is why I say just because it’s legal, doesn’t make it right. This law/deal that Key/National have made is unethical as it causes more harm to society while benefiting only a few.

            • North 5.1.1.1.2.2
              13 May 2013 at 9:00 pm

              Being anti-social again are you Dumbarse, like your local tinnie house…….

    • Colonial Viper 5.2
      13 May 2013 at 9:42 am

      Hi karol that’s no problem.

      Signal to the Skycity board the need for a revised agreement.

      If Skycity refuse then suggest that a unilateral change in the law is something that their board would not want to see. If Skycity still refuse, then draft changed laws. Should Skyscity still refuse to agree to a revised settlement after viewing the new legislation, put the laws through and threaten enforcement.

      If they still refuse, enforce the changed law to the letter, and then legally stonewall Skycity in the courts. Every year they refuse to come to a revised agreement turn the screws of the regulation under the changed laws one setting tighter, and keep doing so until they pop.

      This ladies and gentlemen, is what is meant by “the Crown is sovereign”.

      edit – Lanth makes a good point about the court of public opinion. But bear in mind that the court of public opinion will affect a corporate like Skycity far more than it affects the Crown.

      • Lanthanide 5.2.1
        13 May 2013 at 11:09 am

        “But bear in mind that the court of public opinion will affect a corporate like Skycity far more than it affects the Crown.”

        But it’s not just SkyCity. Your stand-over enforcement tactics will genuinely scare off other businesses, both local and international, from making deals with the government.

        • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 1:28 pm

          Come now, these are all valid commercial negotiating approaches. They’re not standover tactics at all.

          Other corporates might be scared off from making deals to change our nation’s laws as it suits them?

          Uh…were you saying that this was a good thing or a bad thing?

          • Lanthanide 5.2.1.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 2:24 pm

            Slippery slope, etc.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.2.1.1.1.1
              13 May 2013 at 2:41 pm

              Standing up to corrupt back-room deals is a slippery slope?

            • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1.1.2
              13 May 2013 at 5:50 pm

              Slippery slope? My fear is the slippery slope of selling out our legislation for corporate profits, and the slippery slope of Government and big business acting in concert to the detriment of ordinary citizens.

        • North 5.2.1.2
          13 May 2013 at 9:05 pm

          Yeah right you “sensible”, actually boring old know-it-all codger Lanthanide. . I understand why Morrissey thinks you’re a fart. Are we into protecting our community from the rape of international money or not. That’s the question. Enough of your pedantry !

    • Dr Terry 5.3
      13 May 2013 at 11:38 am

      Legally costly without doubt. The moral?social cost will be vastly higher.

    • Macro 5.4
      13 May 2013 at 1:24 pm

      They could create a “gaming” tax to be payed into a special fund to assist the families of problem gamblers, and secondly to pay for treatment of problem gamblers. This could be a fairly substantial tax, designed to reduce the profitability of the the gaming industry, and make it less attractive to “investors”.

  6. Colonial Viper 6
    13 May 2013 at 9:37 am

    If a $400M white elephant convention centre is the best this country’s leadership can come up with to prepare for the next 50 years of energy and resource depletion, we’re pretty much stuffed.

  7. Wayne 7
    13 May 2013 at 9:38 am

    Pretty risky for any government to specifically override a compensation agreement. That is typically associated with revolutionary third world governments.

    This whole area was part of my PhD research. As general principle of international law if a govt unilaterally and specifically changes a compensation provision that would affect foreign held shares the govt incurs liability under “state responsibility.” The threshold is quite high, so for instance the Labour/Green power proposal would be completely OK. And I imagine general but substantially more stringent gambling harm minimisation programmes would also be OK.

    Of course this does not apply to local shareholders, who are simply subject to any laws a govt cares to pass, whether they expropriate or not.

    I cannot see a Labour led govt going down this path. Of course Mana would see this as part of their brand. Not sure about the Greens, they won’t want to be seen as an party of expropriation, since they have trying to establish a business friendly image (within a Green context).

    [It’s pretty damn dodgy for a government to write in a legislative compensation clause. Overwriting one is no more dodgy. Eddie]

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      13 May 2013 at 9:47 am

      Pretty risky for any government to specifically override a compensation agreement.

      Yeah, so returning to today’s status quo creates what risks to the Crown? How can you consider returning to today’s status quo “revolutionary” when it’s been signalled well in advance of any actual corporate investment? It seems like decent ordinary social democracy.

      You talk about “expropriation” but returning to the status quo involves no “expropriation”.

      SkyCity will get to keep their beautiful, popular, money making Conference Centre.

      I mean, that Conference Centre will be profitable in it’s own right, won’t it?

      • Wayne 7.1.1
        13 May 2013 at 10:07 am

        A new Govt could argue that they are restoring the status quo, but what we have here is a deal where Sky City builds a convention centre in return for extra pokies and a renewed license. The compensation clause is there to protect the deal. Therfore unilaterally changing the deal in a major way (say eliminating the extra machines), will raise the expropriation question.

        I guess this demonstrates that convention centres require some incentive to start, and indeed all other proposals required an injection of Govt money.

        [when National raised GST, it effectively expropriated some of my wealth. So, do I get compensation, or is that just for big corporates? Zet]

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.1.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 10:18 am

          A deal which was awarded by a corrupt process to a privileged bidder and National Party client, to operate a business with links to money-laundering activities.

          Yeah, there’s nothing we can do about it, nothing to see here, no, wait, here comes the Serious Fraud Office.

          • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 11:07 am

            …to operate a business with links to money-laundering activities.

            Let them build the convention centre then shut them down for money laundering and take the whole lot off them through the Criminal Proceeds Act 😈

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.2
      13 May 2013 at 9:56 am

      That would be true if this were a legitimate contractual arrangement. The AG made clear that the process was in fact deeply flawed. The first step would be for the government to simply ask the courts to annul the contract on the basis that it was awarded illegally.

      Then there’s the money laundering and corruption in the pokie business to look at too.

      • karol 7.2.1
        13 May 2013 at 10:09 am

        Turei also talked of the money laundering aspect on Nine-to-Noon this morning, and in her subsequent press release.

        “The introduction of TITO technology, ticket in ticket out technology, is the crack cocaine of this deal. TITO is currently illegal and for good reasons. The technology enables anonymous gambling which makes problem gambling easier and is directly linked to money laundering overseas.

        “Though precommitement cards are a good idea, they’re almost useless unless they’re made compulsory, because problem gamblers, and money launderers operate in secrecy. The last thing they’re going to do is sign up to a voluntary precommitment card.

        “It’s like a voluntary seat belt. It only works when you put it on.

        “Player tracking, on the other hand, is an air bag. It goes off no matter what. No surprises then that it doesn’t feature in the deal.

        “SkyCity has historically been inadequate in its response to responsibilities around problem gambling and money laundering. There is nothing in this agreement that requires them to do a better job.

        • Tigger 7.2.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 11:01 am

          The process that Sky Shitty got this deal was crooked. Easy to show that and overturn any decisions. Just like buying stolen property, if the cops come and take it away you can’t whine ‘theft’.

    • Murray Olsen 7.3
      13 May 2013 at 7:21 pm

      All I can say is “Viva la revolución!! Mejorar el tercer mundo com el gobierno revolucionario que la república de la kumara.”

    • North 7.4
      13 May 2013 at 9:22 pm

      We’re rapidly approaching Third World and Slave Nation already Wayne Boy. Oh sorry…………
      ” Doctor ” Wayne.

      Fuck off with your “I’m so learned and rational” and all that. You love the whole business and you’re dissembling no less.

      This is about New Zealand’s potential serfdom.

      PS: You wouldn’t be that pompous, lisping prick me and a mate clashed with (well we clashed, you lisped and simpered) at an election meeting some years ago in Birkenhead would you ? About affirmative action. When you couldn’t resist telling all present that your “good wife” couldn’t be there because she was at some knees-up in Wellington for the farewell of Whoever “QC”. That you ‘bro ? And there was nearly a punch up with your grey cardiganed acolytes ? When we were in the grips of “Kiwi/Iwi”. And the grey cardigans thought better of it when my burly Maori mate (falsely) told them I was a former NZ light heavyweight champion. That you ‘bro ?

  8. Bearded Git 8
    13 May 2013 at 9:39 am

    Herald’s Poll is running 45-43 against the Gambling Centre. That really says something given the politics of its reader profile.

    • Enough is Enough 8.1
      13 May 2013 at 9:59 am

      It doesn’t say anything about anything. Online polls are as useful as John Key

      • Bearded Git 8.1.1
        13 May 2013 at 1:42 pm

        You are probably right-still 45-41 against now after 4500 votes. And as Hoots said this morning the whole scummy deal is not popular even among National voters.

    • Jim Nald 8.2
      13 May 2013 at 10:16 am

      Looking forward to all the churches and many faith groups, as well as a great number of community groups, voicing their concerns against this blight being inflicted on us.

      Organise organise organise!

      Greens and Labour must mobilise concerned organisations, leaders and high-profile individuals to speak out.

    • Private Baldrick 8.3
      13 May 2013 at 10:51 am

      My turnip voted for the deal…….. we’ve just had a horrible argument about it.

  9. tc 9
    13 May 2013 at 10:13 am

    As if Auckland wasn’t messed up enough without this blot on the landscape, ugly just like its backers and owners.

  10. Wayne (a different one) 10
    13 May 2013 at 10:35 am

    What a bunch of ignorant “munters” – you wouldn’t know a great deal if it flew in your face.

    This is something the left can only dream of, but could never deliver, given the economic incompetence that sits on that side of the fence.

    I think of the economic stroke of genius that prevailed the thinking of Labour in buying Kiwi Rail for $780m or there abouts. What an embarassment, $2 would have got it. Toll laughed all the way back to Aussie.

    And if you want any more proof of what Key and the National Party have done for this country after Helen Clarke and her meery bunch left in a state of ruin – go to the article by Larry Pickering of The Pickering Post – very sobering reading for you left economic deniers.

    • karol 10.1
      13 May 2013 at 10:48 am

      Tell that to people on low incomes struggling to pay the rent and the bills: the people who will not benefit from this deal, many of whom will have gambling addicts within their families and communities, adding to their hardship.

      It’s a good deal for the 2%.

      • Private Baldrick 10.1.1
        13 May 2013 at 10:52 am

        I agree, but my turnip says what about the fact that it didn’t come out of the rates and if Len Brown says it’s a great deal it must be OK.

        • karol 10.1.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 10:58 am

          How anybody that can consider it a great deal, must be ethically-challenged and socially irresponsible: it’s a deal that enables the increase in untraceable money laundering; it’s a deal that includes a clause that enables Sky City to seek financial compensation for any future law change; it’s a deal that does really little for harm minimisation of gambling problems; it’s a deal that enables some international circulation of money among the privileged classes that attend such conferences and related services; its a deal that will do nothing to resolve the crisis in affordable accommodation in the city.

          Shame on this government and their supporters and collaborators.

          • Wayne (a different one) 10.1.1.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 12:07 pm

            Left wing rehtoric spin – cheap throw away comments, without substance.

            But of course the Labour Party are anti enterprise/business (ala Shane Jones in the House last week). So none of this dribble surprises me.

            And where did personal responsibility go? Oh sorry, forgot, that’s the Governmnets domain – under Labour its “all care no responsibility – the Communist State will take care of you – Yeah Right!

            • karol 10.1.1.1.1.1
              13 May 2013 at 12:11 pm

              Plenty of substance in my posts on pokies and Sky City.

              Speaking of spin & rhetoric, Wayne, are you going to use the trickle down line?

              And what of the enabling of money laundering? The ethics of the deal?

              PS: we are, or should be, the government.

              Unfortunately under National government, we have an increasingly undemocratic government, making deals large numbers of people don’t want. Little chance to take responsibility for our communities, when we are increasingly dis-empowered.

              And, yes, government SHOULD have some responsibility to the whole of the community.

              “Communist”? Pffft. Who is into rhetoric and spin now?

            • framu 10.1.1.1.1.2
              13 May 2013 at 12:53 pm

              right wing rhetoric wayne – cheap throw away wayne without extra wayne.

              But of course wayne is anti enterprise/wayne (ala waynes comment at some other point)
              So none of this dribble surprises wayne

              And where did wayne’s responsibility go? Oh sorry, forgot, that’s the great non-wayne’s domain – under non-wayne its all “all care and no wayne – the non-wayne state will take care of you – yeah wayne!

              Its easy to put words together and make sentences wayne – but whether the have any relevance to reality and not some, “cheap throw away comments, without substance” – is another story.

              Obviously for some its quite hard to distinguish the two

            • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1.1.3
              13 May 2013 at 1:34 pm

              It’s pretty clear that the Convention Centre will never provide a decent financial return on investment by itself. In fact it’ll probably lose money every single year despite the government throwing government events contracts at it.

              That’s why SkyCity wants the Pokie Deal to pay for it.

            • vto 10.1.1.1.1.4
              13 May 2013 at 2:09 pm

              Wayne (a dumbo one) says “And where did personal responsibility go? Oh sorry, forgot, that’s the Governmnets domain – under Labour its “all care no responsibility – the Communist State will take care of you – Yeah Right!”

              Where was the personal responsibility when Bill English bailed out greedy investors in South Canterbury Finance?

              Where was the personal responsibility when Cantebury farmers couldn’t get their greedy irrigation plans underway?

              Where was the personal responsibility when the private schooools came running because they couldn’t manage themselves?

              Where was the personal responsibility when the NZX stuck its hand up and said “help me help me” and this govt responded by throwing them a government business called Mighty River Power?

              Where is the personal responsibility in the fishing industry when last week the salmon farmers were given $600,000 to study why their private business produces mutant salmon?

              You are an idiot wayne

      • BM 10.1.2
        13 May 2013 at 11:04 am

        What a load of poo.
        if you have an issue with gambling it’s your own fault, no one elses.

        Personally I have no interest in pokies, dull beyond belief, but I do know people who enjoy having a punt, they can go to the casino spend $20 dollars and if they lose that can walk away.
        I don’t see why they should dip out because some people have no self control and can’t stop.

        Fuck them, them know they have a problem, they know it’s affecting their loved ones but are too stupid or spineless to do anything about it.

        • Santi 10.1.2.1
          13 May 2013 at 11:10 am

          From the Herald: “The 230 new pokie machines is the same number granted to SkyCity under the previous Government in 2001 for the development of the existing, and much smaller, Auckland Convention Centre.”

          So Labour did the same thing and they now whinge about it.

          [r0b: Oh bullshit – read Russell Brown’s demolition of that lie.]

          • freedom 10.1.2.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 11:16 am

            giving an alcoholic a glass of whiskey is admittedly problematic,
            giving them a bottle is frikkin nuts

          • Pascal's bookie 10.1.2.1.2
            13 May 2013 at 12:20 pm

            The Herald printing National spin, Shocked.

            Ask Judith Collins if she approved those extra pokies for Skycity back in 2001, and what Labour did next.

            Tell me what she says.

            • Pascal's bookie 10.1.2.1.2.1
              13 May 2013 at 12:24 pm

              Here’s a clue:

              At the time of the 2001 deal Labour was in Government but played no role in the pokies for convention centre deal. Labour introduced the Gambling Act in 2003, preventing further expansion of gambling facilities

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10801486

            • Chrissy 10.1.2.1.2.2
              13 May 2013 at 5:31 pm

              I want to know that too as stephen joyce has just finished his interview with Mary (just say what you like stephen,I won’t interrupt) whatsername with the the statement that “by the way,Labour did it too. I have been lead to believe that this is not true but she didn’t even question it.

          • prism 10.1.2.1.3
            13 May 2013 at 12:41 pm

            Santi It seems that A +230 = B is one thing, but the total B + 230 would be another larger thing, not the same thing as it has a different total.

          • Draco T Bastard 10.1.2.1.4
            13 May 2013 at 8:48 pm

            [r0b: Oh bullshit – read Russell Brown’s demolition of that lie.]

            Ah, right, so the political right in this country are lying again.

        • ghostrider888 10.1.2.2
          13 May 2013 at 11:38 am

          The Market provides, mixed blessings.

        • North 10.1.2.3
          13 May 2013 at 9:40 pm

          Piss off Bowel Motion. You’re just not clued up enough to even click on this site. You’re a “borrow a pair of boots to walk twenty miles and vote Tory”, even if now you can afford to go to Number One Shoes and show off outa your own pocket.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 10.1.3
        13 May 2013 at 11:56 am

        “A great deal”.

        Just don’t get it do you Wayne? It’s called insider trading: one proposal was unfairly advantaged by access to information that was not available to the others.

        That’s a matter of integrity, incidentally, since you raised the issue of economic competence.

      • Rob 10.1.4
        13 May 2013 at 12:28 pm

        Karol, some people will not benefit from this deal and probably would not benefit from any deal to be truthful. Alongside this some people will benefit as this deal does create opportunities that are not there currently. There are jobs in construction , higher volumes for material manufacturers and a real injection in activity into the Akl landscape. I think this is a very good deal.

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.4.1
          13 May 2013 at 3:54 pm

          Meh White Elephant more french champagne for SkyCity shareholders and directors at the communities expense.

    • Pascal's bookie 10.2
      13 May 2013 at 10:57 am

      Which article?

      the one about the dangers of islamic incest?

      Or is it the lead article about Julia Gillard being a communist?

      Or perhaps the one that examines the burning question of whether Halal meat is Kosher?

      Or perhaps the ads for “I’m a sexist nutjob” T-shirts?

      • s y d 10.2.1
        13 May 2013 at 11:27 am

        personally I thought the one about how NZ is preparing for a ‘series of record suprluses” was exceptionally good. I guess we need more gambling opportunities and conferences to allow the forthcoming wealth to trickle down

      • Wayne (a different one) 10.2.2
        13 May 2013 at 12:02 pm

        “Which article”?

        “Wayne Swan – Please Explain?”

        • framu 10.2.2.1
          13 May 2013 at 12:45 pm

          that went totally over your head didnt it wayne

          • Wayne (a different one) 10.2.2.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 12:57 pm

            No it didn’t actually, but thought I would spell out the article for the “great unwashed” to read.

            Might enlighten their thinking somewhat to the great Labour/Green fraud on economics and, to highlight the crap this country was in when National came to power.

            Despite all the surpluses created by a gobal boom – Labour squandered the lot on poor decision making and a burgeoning employemnt within the Government sector.

            • Colonial Viper 10.2.2.1.1.1
              13 May 2013 at 1:21 pm

              You’re just sad that Labour didn’t squander money on farmers and corporates like Skycity

            • framu 10.2.2.1.1.2
              13 May 2013 at 1:33 pm

              “to highlight the crap this country was in when National came to power.”

              really? – like?

    • freedom 10.3
      13 May 2013 at 11:14 am

      “left in a state of ruin” roflmao

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/audrey-young/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501219&objectid=10548753&pnum=1
      “English said: “I want to stress that New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook.”

      “In New Zealand we have room to respond. This is the rainy day that Government has been saving up for,” he told reporters at the Treasury briefing on the state of the economy and forecasts. “

    • Murray Olsen 10.4
      13 May 2013 at 7:36 pm

      That’d be Larry Pickering the conman stalker, I presume? Try harder. Surely Charles Manson said something relevant as well. Pickering’s qualifications to comment on the economy consist of the ability to draw cartoons of female politicians carrying strapons around. Take your shared sexual fantasies elsewhere.

  11. Santi 11
    13 May 2013 at 10:52 am

    Good stuff!!!
    Well done. The deal is win/win.

  12. billbrowne 12
    13 May 2013 at 12:29 pm

    Joint Lab / Gr news conference:

    If we become government we will outlaw pokie machines.

    Win / Win and watch how fast SC backs away from the deal

    • infused 12.1
      13 May 2013 at 12:33 pm

      Because that worked so well with NZ Power.

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1
        13 May 2013 at 1:19 pm

        According to English it worked pretty damn well.

        • infused 12.1.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 3:13 pm

          Not really. You just gave them an excuse for a low float and people to make some easy money.

          • felix 12.1.1.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 3:31 pm

            After all the hype, all the pre-registrations, all the reports of websites crashing under the overwhelming demand, all the talk of being oversubscribed, all the carping about the half-a-million mums and dads, hardly anyone queued up to buy those shares and you know it.

      • billbrowne 12.1.2
        13 May 2013 at 1:32 pm

        yeah it fucking did didn’t it.

    • Rob 12.2
      13 May 2013 at 12:47 pm

      I am sorry, where does the 2nd part of the Win / Win come from, great political postuirng for Labour / Greens sure, but where does the 2nd win come from. How will not doing this deal increase activity and employment opportunities in Akl.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 12.2.1
        13 May 2013 at 12:57 pm

        Easy: corrupt back-room deals depress economic activity, because they tilt the playing field.

        PS: so that’s a win for the Greens, a win for Labour, a win for new Zealand, a win for all the New Zealand businesses that The National Party and Sky City disadvantaged, a win for people with gambling problems, and a defeat for money launderers and the National Party. Win win win win win win win.

      • billbrowne 12.2.2
        13 May 2013 at 1:30 pm

        Other win is stopping people throwing their money away on state sponsored addiction

  13. Jester 13
    13 May 2013 at 12:50 pm

    “Because that worked so well with NZ Power.”

    And light bulbs and shower heads.

  14. karol 14
    13 May 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Green Party say they will repeal the compensation law:

    The Green Party says it will repeal a law promising Sky City compensation if a future government imposes regulations which work against it, calling it ”unconstitutional”. …

    But Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said the ”dirty deal” locked future Governments out of making policy regulation to benefit New Zealanders.

    ”We consider this to be unconstitutional, it is a breach of Parliamentary sovereignty, to lock a government into a commercial deal for 35 years.”

    The Green Party would repeal it if it was able to form a government, and it was Turei’s intent that SkyCity would not be paid compensation.

    ”Every government is sovereign, every Parliament is sovereign, and could produce legislation that could change the law to take away their right to compensation. That is the risk they run with this sort of dirty deal.”

    Turei said the party was seeking legal advice on the matter, conceding that they may have to compensate SkyCity for any costs it laid out, such as construction.

    ”If there have already been costs laid out by Sky City there may be justification for repayment of those costs.”

    However, the leader of the party’s potential coalitiion partner, Labour’s David Shearer, could not say whether his party would attempt to back out of the deal if it won the next election.

    However, they would be combing over the fine print.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 14.1
      13 May 2013 at 12:55 pm

      Shearer, grow a pair.

      • Colonial Viper 14.1.1
        13 May 2013 at 1:18 pm

        Usually happens by 13 years of age or not at all.

      • Wayne (a different one) 14.1.2
        13 May 2013 at 3:07 pm

        They are probably tucked away nice and safe, like his little nest egg, in a New York bank vault.

        ‘Rich Prick’.

        • freedom 14.1.2.1
          13 May 2013 at 4:27 pm

          yaaaawwwwwnn, Wayne (a different one) Have you seen any declaration of the PM’s wealth lately? no thought not, nor that of any other MP. The Register of Pecuniary Interest only lists the fund/company/item etc IT DOES NOT LIST VALUE
          so get off your 2c carnival ride and engage your brain,

          Now if the leader of the opposition was failing to declare the account to the IRD you would have something to squawk about. I am sure the PM’s IRD declaration would be much more interesting btw. But the sad reality for you is he did everything correct except put some bs name down on a bs list that says bugger all about anything. look at Dunne on page (16/66) How are you meant to know anything about what he has done with the millions of dollars he has received at the largesse of taxpayers?

          http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/0E08D7E0-B99E-44E9-91AF-68D58FF054D7/270368/DBHOH_PAP_24521_RegisterofPecuniaryandOtherSpecifi.pdf

          There should be at least three distinct declarations that accompany each entry in the PIR information.
          a: under 1 million
          b: under 5 million
          c: over 5 million

    • gobsmacked 14.2
      13 May 2013 at 1:30 pm

      Labour’s David Shearer could not say whether his party would attempt to back out of the deal if it won the next election.

      First he needs to check a) the law, and b) the size of the next Sky City donation to Labour.

    • Rob 14.3
      13 May 2013 at 1:50 pm

      So we pay SC compensation ????

    • Prove It 14.4
      13 May 2013 at 6:27 pm

      Despite the Green’s view of constitutional law, under Diceyan orthodoxy it is Parliament which is supreme and sovereign. The Government/Crown – as the executive branch – are not.

  15. Santi 15
    13 May 2013 at 1:05 pm

    Who is in charge: Labour or the Greens? Is the tail wagging the dog?
    When did the once proud labour Party become a minor branch of the Greens? Laughable.

  16. Penny Bright 16
    13 May 2013 at 1:55 pm

    Big-time DERIVATIVES gambler – John Key……………………..

    ‘OPEN LETTER I sent to NZ Prime Minister John Key as part of my Epsom campaign in 2011 – which you can see on http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz

    (I never did get a reply! 🙂

    _____________________________________________________________________________

    “…..Isn’t it true that you – Prime Minister John Key, were the head of global foreign exchange, and European bond and derivative trading when you worked for Merrill Lynch.

    “Prime Minister John Key graduated with a Bachelor of Commerce from Canterbury University.
    He launched his investment banking career in New Zealand in the mid-1980s, and went on to work in Singapore, London, and Sydney for Merrill Lynch, becoming head of global foreign exchange and European bond and derivative trading.

    In 1999 Mr Key was invited to join the Foreign Exchange Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

    In 2001, Mr Key returned to New Zealand. He was elected MP for Helensville in 2002, becoming National Party Leader in November 2006, and then Prime Minister following the 2008 General Election.”

    http://www.seafoodconference.co.nz/co-speakers
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    Prime Minister John Key, wouldn’t it be fair to describe you as a former Wall Street ‘bankster’, given that you were a foreign exchange advisor for the privately-owned New York Federal Reserve.

    “Part A:
    The FXC Members… Past and Present…A Yearbook (listings based on FIRST membership year)

    2000
    John Carter, Lehman
    James Kemp, Citigroup
    John Key, Merrill Lynch
    Adam Kreysar, UBS Warburg ”

    http://www.newyorkfed.org/fxc/members/members_past.html
    _____________________________________________________________________________

    Wouldn’t it be fair, NZ Prime Minister John Key, to describe you as one of the 1%, against whom protests have sprung up all over the world, starting from the occupation of Wall Street, New York USA – where you used to work?

    Isn’t it time, Prime Minister John Key, to be a little more honest with the decent Kiwis who are part of the 99% and to stop trying to pretend that you are one of us – when you obviously are not?

    Yours sincerely,

    Penny Bright

    Independent ‘Public Watchdog’
    Candidate for Epsom
    Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ for water and Auckland regional governance matters. 2010 Auckland Mayoral candidate.
    “Anti-corruption campaigner”.
    Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference …………”

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16.1
      13 May 2013 at 2:12 pm

      Still boring, I see, Penny.

    • Blue 16.2
      13 May 2013 at 2:35 pm

      I agree Penny, John Key is no more “one of us” than you are. He may be a 1%, but you are equally so. Do you think if the 99% supported you in any of your latest self appointed roles (“watch dog” Spokesperson”, “judicially….blah blah”), it would be apparent. I mean wouldn’t you be both Mayor of Auckland AND the MP for Epsom. Just so Boring.

      • felix 16.2.1
        13 May 2013 at 2:54 pm

        “He may be a 1%, but you are equally so. ”

        Nonsense Blue. In so many ways that simply don’t apply to John Key the 50 millionaire, Penny lives in the same world as the rest of us.

        • Winston Smith 16.2.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 3:12 pm

          Well no she doesn’t, in the world I live in I pay rates.

          • felix 16.2.1.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 3:24 pm

            And if you stop paying them to make a political point you’ll probably end up in court.

            Same world.

            You’re just describing a decision someone has made. That’s like saying you and I live in different worlds because I had a boiled egg for breakfast and you had museli.

            The context in which Key lives in a different world is that he is an extreme outlier in terms of his personal wealth. He simply does not have to face the same sorts of concerns that the vast majority of people in NZ do.

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16.2.1.2
          13 May 2013 at 3:18 pm

          Penny lives in a world entirely of her own.

          • felix 16.2.1.2.1
            13 May 2013 at 3:24 pm

            So do you.

            But that’s not what “1%” refers to and you know it.

        • Blue 16.2.1.3
          13 May 2013 at 3:51 pm

          Not at all, Felix. I work, I raise a family, I own my house, pay my rates. Penny should try it sometime. But I suppose working people supporting Penny and her unwinnable crusades, and her taxpayer funded lifestyle is enough for her. I do hope she is actively looking for work.

          • North 16.2.1.3.1
            13 May 2013 at 9:47 pm

            Penny’s got more balls than any of the wanks above who lash her. Paying rates makes you God Mr Bourgeoise Bullshit Blue ? Not that you are Bou……se. But the thought buzzes you what ?

  17. felix 17
    13 May 2013 at 2:15 pm

    According to Matthew Hooton, he’s seen internal polling which shows this deal is deeply unpopular across all demographics. Kiwis just don’t like their govts to do such dirty deals so openly.

    This suggests two things:

    1: Commenters expressing support for the deal are either working for the Nats, lying, or such extremists that they can and should be ignored, and

    2: If Labour isn’t all over this 24/7 then they might as well just disband the party, because they’re never going to get such a good opportunity for a free hit.

    • ghostrider888 17.1
      13 May 2013 at 2:23 pm

      Classic Hits!

    • Santi 17.2
      13 May 2013 at 3:06 pm

      You can count on number 2.

    • Enough is Enough 17.3
      13 May 2013 at 3:33 pm

      They have been getting free hits on a weekly basis pretty much since the Fat German turned up. Yet they have a puch drunk idiot with the gloves on that the moment. If we can somehow retire him one or two hits might actually land.

  18. Wayne (a different one) 18
    13 May 2013 at 3:14 pm

    This deal has cost the tax payer – zip, zilch, didly squat, nothing.

    Why then all the hand wringing and wailing?

    If its about all the newby gamblers sitting at home just waiting for more pokie machines – oh please spare me!

    Remember – under this National Government there are less gambling machines than under Labour and, thats counting the increase under this deal.

    Where was the nashing of teeth then?

    • felix 18.1
      13 May 2013 at 3:17 pm

      Keep slaying those strawmen Wayne.

      ps According to the Nats’ internal polling you’re an extremist and totally out of touch with what most kiwis think about this.

      • vto 18.1.1
        13 May 2013 at 3:27 pm

        …. pooweeeee…. what a pong eminating from this mini thread. The pong of kiwiblog mannerisms.

      • Rob 18.1.2
        13 May 2013 at 3:28 pm

        So you are now the spokesperson for Nationals internal polling?

        • felix 18.1.2.1
          13 May 2013 at 3:32 pm

          No, just repeating what Matt Hooton said. Of course he might have made it up, eh?

    • framu 18.2
      13 May 2013 at 3:43 pm

      “If its about all the newby gamblers sitting at home just waiting for more pokie machines”

      good thing thats not what its all about then aye wayne

      • Wayne (a different one) 18.2.1
        13 May 2013 at 4:13 pm

        Here’s what one of your leftie journo’s ([r0b: deleted] @ No Right Turn) thinks of the Labour Party over this:

        “Well, fuck that. The Greens have said they will repeal any compensation deal, leaving Parliament free to regulate gambling again. As for Labour, its birds whistling and tumbleweeds all the way:

        However, the leader of the party’s potential coalitiion partner, Labour’s David Shearer, could not say whether his party would attempt to back out of the deal if it won the next election.

        However, they would be combing over the fine print.

        And this is why people don’t give a shit about Labour anymore. They stand for nothing, they offer nothing. They’re just a party of self-aggrandising chickenshits in suits.”

        Classic – very eloquent!!!!

        • framu 18.2.1.1
          14 May 2013 at 11:32 am

          “And this is why people don’t give a shit about Labour anymore. They stand for nothing, they offer nothing. They’re just a party of self-aggrandising chickenshits in suits.”

          1) i dont vote labour

          2) lots of people here would agree with that – do try and keep up wayne

          but i fail to see how thats even relevant to your assertion that its about all the newby gamblers sitting at home just waiting for more pokie machines

  19. tsmithfield 19
    13 May 2013 at 3:15 pm

    A Labour/Green government can probably repeal any law they like. But they won’t repeal this one.

    As I understand it, even left wing parties get quite a lot of income from business donations. The quickest way to make that dry up is to piss all over due process and legitimate business transactions.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 19.1
      13 May 2013 at 3:19 pm

      Agreed. But this transaction is illegitimate.

      • Rob 19.1.1
        13 May 2013 at 3:29 pm

        So why is not before the courts if it is so overtly ‘illegitimate”.

        • felix 19.1.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 3:33 pm

          Sounds like it will be.

          • Enough is Enough 19.1.1.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 3:37 pm

            what sound?

            • felix 19.1.1.1.1.1
              13 May 2013 at 4:10 pm

              Sound of this handful of extreme right-wing elitists carping on about how the next govt isn’t allowed to change the laws written by the current one.

              If it’s legit, and the next govt overturns it, then I expect the next govt to end up in court.

      • tsmithfield 19.1.2
        13 May 2013 at 5:23 pm

        I don’t think that is the way that business will think about it. If a future left wing government starts dicking around like this, expect their donation stream from business to evaporate overnight.

  20. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 20
    13 May 2013 at 3:26 pm

    Well, Labour gave Skycity an extra 230 poker machines and 12 more gaming tables in 2001 to pay for a $37 million convention centre in Federal St

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10801486

    So, how they can say this is a shit deal for us, I do not know.

    Guess they were a “bought government”, too. Only their price was lower.

      • Tamati 20.1.1
        13 May 2013 at 3:38 pm

        Explaining is losing.

        To average punter on the Street, Labour gave 230 pokies for a convention center, National has just done the same.

        • BLiP 20.1.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 3:49 pm

          To average punter on the Street, Labour the Casino Control Authority gave 230 pokies for a convention center, National has just done the same is about to use urgency to force through a dodgy backroom deal granting the casino operator a 35 year monopoly complete with $34 million for promotion as well as extend the license to operate at well below its market value

          FIFY. Not a good idea to under-estimate the punters in punter-land, as Dr Brash would have us believe.

        • karol 20.1.1.2
          13 May 2013 at 3:51 pm

          Yes, we need to do something about the MSN repeating NAct spin lines and distortions uncritically.

    • freedom 20.2
      13 May 2013 at 3:35 pm

      “Eleven years later, the casino company is seeking a similar deal with the Government – to build a $350 million international-size convention centre in return for gambling concessions.”
      AND A 27 YEAR EXTENSION ON ITS MONOPOLY

      giving an alcoholic a glass of whiskey is admittedly problematic,
      giving them a bottle is frikkin nuts

      (yes i sinned, I repeated what i wrote earlier,
      my penance is reading your regurgitative homilies of greed and corruption)

      • Tamati 20.2.1
        13 May 2013 at 3:40 pm

        It would be a bit rich for Labour and the Greens to come in opposition to Sky City’s monopoly. It’s not like they are going to turn around and advocate for more competition in the Casino industry.

        • Colonial Viper 20.2.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 3:51 pm

          It’s a bit stupid to equate critical infrastructure like our power grid to the parasitic commercialism of a casino.

          But I bet you someone will do it.

        • BLiP 20.2.1.2
          13 May 2013 at 3:53 pm

          ‘

          They could seek to minimise the harm gambling causes to society and claw back the concessions National Ltd™ just granted its foreign-owned milti-national mates in a corrupt back-room deal involving the Prime Minister lying to the public and to Parliament.

    • freedom 20.3
      13 May 2013 at 4:33 pm

      did you even read that article?

  21. tsmithfield 21
    13 May 2013 at 5:32 pm

    National will be loving the rabid left wing response to this. It plays nicely into the meme that a Labour/Green coalition are financial numpties and would cause massive capital flight from the country.

    • mickysavage 21.1
      13 May 2013 at 5:39 pm

      Yep only a financial numptie would insist, for instance that a Casino should actually work its way through the process and get its licence renewed by meeting the statutory criteria. Better to sell the licence instead. Why worry about due process when there is a dollar to be made?

      • tsmithfield 21.1.1
        13 May 2013 at 6:51 pm

        Very weak, Greg.

        You know full well that I am referring to the precedent that would be established that future governments might be prepared to walk away from, or legislate so they are not bound by a commercial agreement.

        I notice that Shearer was very guarded in this respect with Larry Williams tonight. The problem for Labour is they seem to have themselves under the spell of the crazies so far as economics goes. That is very scary indeed.

        • mickysavage 21.1.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 7:08 pm

          What about the other precedent, that our Government is prepared to essentially sell licensing rights even though the entity may not otherwise qualify TS. Arn’t you slightly concerned about this? What about if a WOF company was granted an extended right to issue WOFs because it was going to build new premises and the licensing system was suspended because it was investing some money and creating a few jobs.

          Still consider this weak? I think it is appalling.

          • tsmithfield 21.1.1.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 7:31 pm

            Even if the current deal is wrong, which I in no way believe it is, it still doesn’t excuse threatening to overturn commercial contracts when a potential government doesn’t like the particular deal. The clear message would be that future governments couldn’t be trusted. Russell Norman’s printing machine would have to be working overtime to make up for the resulting capital flight.

            • Jeremy 21.1.1.1.1.1
              13 May 2013 at 8:58 pm

              I have two NZ drivers’ licenses. One issued on paper in 2000 and valid until the end of January 2036. Issued and signed on behalf of my sovereign government in the name of The Secretary of Transport. The second license I own has the same number issued to me with the same name, no aliases, by the same authority now valid until the 19th of July 2020. Sixteen years earlier than the first one. These represent contracts between me and the government of the day. Now, broken. Fuck off you need a new license valid for half the time no consultation, nothing. So there apparently is no respect for contracts, at all.

            • Draco T Bastard 21.1.1.1.1.2
              13 May 2013 at 9:01 pm

              Even if the current deal is wrong, which I in no way believe it is, it still doesn’t excuse threatening to overturn commercial contracts when a potential government doesn’t like the particular deal.

              Actually, that’s exactly what a new government should be doing if a deal is unethical, as this one is, saying that it is unethical and over turning it. It’s pretty much how contract law came about I believe.

        • Anne 21.1.1.2
          13 May 2013 at 8:02 pm

          Can I suggest to the moderator that tsmithfield at 21.1.1 is out of line choosing to call a commenter by his christian name and not his known pseudonym.

          As for his comment…. if the NAct govt. passed legislation banning all members of the Labour and Green Parties from being employed in the Public Service (and they could because the GCSB can now legally access any NZ organisation’s computer files) then future govts. couldn’t and shouldn’t be able to repeal such legislation? What utter tosh!

          • tsmithfield 21.1.1.2.1
            13 May 2013 at 8:13 pm

            Are you part of the left-wing fun police? Micky has often been called by his christian name for as long as I can remember, without complaint.

            Anyway, you have offended yourself without realising it, by confirming that I have correctly called him by his christian name, removing any doubt. Thus, you have identified him as much as I.

            So far as your comment is concerned, I am talking about the folly of governments overturning commercial agreements at a whim. Not some far-fetched abstraction from a socialist wet dream.

            • Anne 21.1.1.2.1.1
              13 May 2013 at 8:31 pm

              Thus, you have identified him as much as I.

              Pitiful grammar ts.
              Nothing to do with identification. It’s called respect.

            • gobsmacked 21.1.1.2.1.2
              13 May 2013 at 8:35 pm

              “the folly of governments overturning commercial agreements at a whim.”

              Except it’s no such thing.

              If a) the company knows where a party stands, before entering such an agreement, and b) the voters know and c) the voters elect said party, then commercial decisions will be made in full knowledge. No whim at all.

              Would you take the same view if the casino licence were to be extended for 100 years? Should all future governments be bound? If not, why not? And how long?

              A moment’s thought would bring to mind many possible changes that could lead a government to review legislation (financial, technological, legal, even geological for all we know). In fact, it’s almost inevitable.

            • BLiP 21.1.1.2.1.3
              13 May 2013 at 8:39 pm

              I am talking about the folly of governments overturning commercial agreements at a whim.

              Yet the folly of governments overturning laws at the whim of multinationals doesn’t bother you. Twisted priorities are twisted.

    • felix 21.2
      13 May 2013 at 6:18 pm

      “capitol flight” lolz!

      It’s a foreign owned company ffs. The capitol flight is the squillions of dollars they extract from our communities and send overseas every year.

      They can take their parasitic money-laundering operation and fuck off anytime they like. Won’t be many tears shed over that.

      • gobsmacked 21.2.1
        13 May 2013 at 6:33 pm

        Yes, that’s exactly why the opposition should be playing hardball on this. Worst case scenario? Sky City pack up and go home. Of course they won’t, because they’ve got enough punters here to give them their profits. But if they did … well, boo hoo.

        Don’t need to do any scary-lefty nationalisation or eviction or suchlike. Just announce that Key’s deal will be not be binding, and if Sky City ask very nicely, they’ll be allowed to stay. On terms to be decided by the new government. If they don’t like it, they can stand for election, or bugger off. Or go to court, and lose.

        • tsmithfield 21.2.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 6:54 pm

          The problem is that such a move would not be seen as confined to that specific deal. In effect, it would be letting the genie out of the bottle. And once out, it would be very difficult to get in again.

          • Arfamo 21.2.1.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 7:11 pm

            If it stops other casino operators from thinking about setting up in NZ, great.

            • tsmithfield 21.2.1.1.1.1
              13 May 2013 at 7:31 pm

              Problem is the fall-out would be much wider than casinos.

              • Arfamo …
                13 May 2013 at 7:43 pm

                No it wouldn’t.

                • tsmithfield …
                  13 May 2013 at 8:17 pm

                  Care to explain the rationale of your brain-fart.

                  • Arfamo …
                    13 May 2013 at 8:47 pm

                    I think casinos are recognised world-wide as a type of predatory business a great many communities and governments don’t want to see, let alone see expanded. So I reckon other potential investors who might actually have something productive to offer WILL see it as confined to that specific deal, despite your hyperventilations to the contrary.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                13 May 2013 at 9:08 pm

                Great.

        • North 21.2.1.2
          13 May 2013 at 8:53 pm

          As long as those bastards’re able to continue to operate on more or less levels they’ll stay. And Oh Cry if they don’t. They’re making too many squillions as it is now to leave.

          Bluff time. Don’t believe the shit about uproar. The international money communtiy didn’t show any uproar when they invested very sturdily in MRP. That’s the point Corin Dann made half well with that ponce Tony Ryall on Q + A Sunday morning.

          If there was money in Jimmy Saville they’d be right in there ! Money is the great sanitiser.

    • Draco T Bastard 21.3
      13 May 2013 at 8:57 pm

      …and would cause massive capital flight from the country.

      Just so long as the free-loading scum go with it.

      We really have no need of their money – we own the resources.

    • North 21.4
      13 May 2013 at 9:53 pm

      Still living in the Holyoake years there tsmithfield. Only the right can handle a cheque book and all that shit.

  22. gobsmacked 22
    13 May 2013 at 5:39 pm

    Joyce is hilarious … such bluster on Checkpoint tonight. Mary Wilson called him on it, now Labour should do the same. A deal for 35 years is sacred? Why not 50? 100? Eternity? Because it’s bollocks, that’s why.

    Breaking news: government says a deal done now can’t be undone by a future government. Not without full compensation. Therefore government agrees to compensate in full for all Treaty breaches by NZ governments after 1840. Oops.

    • North 22.1
      13 May 2013 at 8:41 pm

      Scary Mary was brilliant……..got the grey man down to swearing. Go Mary !

  23. Bearded Git 23
    13 May 2013 at 6:18 pm

    Mai Chen, respected constitutional lawyer, just said on Checkpoint that the deal CAN be changed through legislation by the next government without the need for compensation. Joyce is just so full of it.

  24. Paul 24
    13 May 2013 at 6:23 pm

    Mai Chen on Radio New Zealand. “Parliament is sovereign,. labour and Greens can change law back without compensation. Audio would have started at 6.15 p.m.

    Tell you what if the Greens and Labour don’t guarantee repeal to this terrible law then we need to vote for a more militant party like Mana.
    This is what the TPP will look like. Corporate sovereignty.

    It’s clear now why the banisters made Key Leader of National Party years ago. The game plan is increasingly evident. Nothing less than the sale of this country to large corporations.

    How does Key justify such treasonous behaviour when he’s on his own? Is it all worth it so he can pass on squillions to his kids. Is that it? I destroyed a society in return for that? I don’t understand how one can think like that?

    There are words I could use to describe him and what he’s doing to this country but they’ll get me a ban form the site.

    • karol 24.2
      13 May 2013 at 6:34 pm

      Mai Chen did say NAct could entrench the compensation, but they are not planning to do that. She said it’s a risky for Sky City to enter into such a deal.

      • Tamati 24.2.1
        13 May 2013 at 7:42 pm

        Even if they did entrench the legislation, Labour/Greens could still repeal it with a simple Parliamentary majority.

        The only way the will of Parliament can be bound, is if an 85 year old lady from London chose to, and she or her predecessors haven’t done so for a few hundred years.

        • Lanthanide 24.2.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 8:40 pm

          Yes, or if Parliament chose to dissolve itself and convene a Constitutional Convention to create a formal written constitution that would bind and limit the powers of all future governments.

          • Tamati 24.2.1.1.1
            13 May 2013 at 8:51 pm

            And the old Lady from London would have to sign the constitution too.

      • Draco T Bastard 24.2.2
        13 May 2013 at 9:11 pm

        The law requiring that Auckland have a referendum on it’s political makeup was entrenched – until National un-entrenched it and screwed Auckland over. It’s why I say that entrenched laws should require a referendum to remove and that trying to bypass the entrenchment be treated as treason with a minimum 20 behind bars.

        ATM, a government in NZ can, quite literally, do whatever they want.

    • Anne 24.3
      13 May 2013 at 6:46 pm

      Tell you what if the Greens and Labour don’t guarantee repeal to this terrible law then we need to vote for a more militant party like Mana.

      Greens are unequivocal they will repeal the legislation.

      Labour is waiting to see the fine print before committing to any action. Dear God…

      • Arfamo 24.3.1
        13 May 2013 at 6:53 pm

        “Labour is waiting to see the fine print before committing to any action”

        Yep. On TV One 6 pm Newsotainment Shearer managed to get that across, along with the customary accompanying and really decisive-sounding ums and ers.

      • Tamati 24.3.2
        13 May 2013 at 7:45 pm

        Dithering David straddles the issue again. Opposed to the pokies but won’t repeal it?

        Honestly, more waffles than a House of Pancakes!

      • Draco T Bastard 24.3.3
        13 May 2013 at 9:15 pm

        Labour is waiting to see the fine print before committing to any action.

        And then they’ll ummmm and ahhh about it and do nothing.

  25. North 25
    13 May 2013 at 8:17 pm

    National has just demonstrated it will happily offer magnificent profit to foreigners, on the back of sick New Zealanders.

    Oh Kia Ora to neo-liberalism. And thank you, you scurvy traitors.

    The Ceaucescu day will come !

    For the avoidance of doubt I speak metaphorically.

    • North 25.1
      13 May 2013 at 8:27 pm

      What next, sell the nation’s daughters ? For a “free” convention centre ?

      • Tamati 25.1.1
        13 May 2013 at 9:00 pm

        I’d sell mine for a new kitchen and a swimming pool.

        • North 25.1.1.1
          13 May 2013 at 9:59 pm

          Well she told me she’d part with you for nothing ‘cos you’re such an embarassing fuckwit.
          After 70 years of it you can hardly blame her.

  26. Observer Tokoroa 26
    13 May 2013 at 8:27 pm

    Eddie

    Democratic Governments should never be involved in furthering the fortunes of Gambling Dens. They should never be involved in promoting male or female Prostitution. They should keep an ocean’s distance from Alcohol and Dope Corporations.

    None of these “enterprises” are of themselves wrong. Not alcohol, not consenting Sex and not Gambling.

    But they are instantly damaging the moment Government Ministers dabble in them, This because each of these activities always lurch and lunge towards irreparable excess. They start as fun and end as vice – too easily. They corrupt Public Service too.

    Also, I feel all the cities and towns in New Zealand should be advised person by person that they will carry the day to day costs of Aukland’s Convention Centre. These costs could be sky high! But as I understand it Sky City will not pay a penny towards the running expenses . Is that what our sleaze PM wants?

    I hope I am wrong on this cost impost Key has brokered.

  27. millsy 27
    14 May 2013 at 10:17 pm

    Not opposed to a convention centre, but hardly for it.

    One can be built without the need for this deal.

    Plenty of investors ready and willing to take the risk. The right seem to be hell bent on having the Chinese own everything in this country, why don’t we gets some Chinese money into building a convention centre?