Gambling harm: “commercially sensitive”

Written By: - Date published: 5:40 pm, November 5th, 2013 - 23 comments
Categories: business, same old national - Tags: , , ,

Given this, are we to expect that next time a cigarette company wants to withhold the evidence that smoking will take 11 years off the life of every second smoker, they just need to do a dodgy deal with National to build a convention centre with added ciggie sale points right?

Or the booze barons could build a convention centre / mega-bar and no papers will be allowed out on alcohol harm either presumably?

At what point do the best interests of New Zealanders get to trump the best interests of foreign corporates?

One can hardly see National fighting hard against Investor-State in the TPP given this…

23 comments on “Gambling harm: “commercially sensitive” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tracey 1
    5 November 2013 at 5:48 pm

    At what point? When nzers stop voting purely based on self interest

  2. Naturesong 2
    5 November 2013 at 6:51 pm

    05.11.13 – Question 5: Metiria Turei to the Minister for Economic Development

    Did his office withhold information about the harm caused by the SkyCity convention centre deal because it was considered sensitive by SkyCity; if so, why?

    http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/21731

    Excellent questions from Metiria Turei to Steven Joyce today

    • infused 2.1
      5 November 2013 at 7:58 pm

      Eh? She got nailed.

      Good speaker… who is this guy?

      • karol 2.1.1
        5 November 2013 at 9:40 pm

        good speaker? He didn’t even know what criteria he was drawing on for rulings.

        Turei didn’t get nailed. She stuck to her questions while the speaker did his best to support Joyce’s slippery answers, and loud hecklers were adding some distraction.

        • infused 2.1.1.1
          5 November 2013 at 10:02 pm

          Yes he did, he just got it confused.

          She stuck to her questions that were wrong. She replied to the hecklers, twice, so she deserves it.

          Joyce gave the same answer, hardly slippery.

          • karol 2.1.1.1.1
            5 November 2013 at 10:47 pm

            No. Joyce was dancing on a pin, repeatedly claiming that some other documents showed there had been no withholding of harm minimisation information. However, both Turei & David Fisher, having seen the recently released OIA documents say the government allowed harm minimisation information to be withheld.

        • infused 2.1.1.2
          5 November 2013 at 10:11 pm

          Just to add to that, she should have asked her question better.

          • karol 2.1.1.2.1
            5 November 2013 at 10:48 pm

            Should asked her question OK, but Joyce kept objecting to it, with the support of the speaker.

          • muzza 2.1.1.2.2
            6 November 2013 at 2:57 pm

            Infused, do you enjoy the politics the way it is ?

            Country heading in a direction you feel is beneficial to as many inhabitants of this land as possible, under the current political paradgims ?

  3. Philgwellington Wellington 3
    5 November 2013 at 7:15 pm

    Xox
    Remember the golden rule. He who has gold, rulz.

  4. Draco T Bastard 4
    5 November 2013 at 8:05 pm

    At what point do the best interests of New Zealanders get to trump the best interests of foreign corporates?

    Under National? Never.

    And all this not releasing shit that National has going is the keep ’em in the dark and feed ’em BS style of social engineering.

  5. Clement Pinto 5
    5 November 2013 at 10:34 pm

    The speaker today was as bad as the other guy, if not worse! At one stage he interrupted Ms Turia when she was tabling a document and he put it to vote even BEFORE the members KNEW (as far as I could make out) what that document contained and it got PASSED! Just CRAZY stuff! Did any of you notice that?

    • karol 5.1
      5 November 2013 at 10:38 pm

      I think the Speaker and Nat MPs deliberately stopped Turei stating what the documents she was tabling said – coverup.

  6. hellonearthis 6
    6 November 2013 at 1:44 am

    Burger King already advertises Tui beer with their meals, which are aimed at kids and they have a great range of gambling machines in their stores too when you can have the chance to play a machine and win great prizes like iPads. Maybe Burger King could join Sky and invest in that white elephant convention center so they can sell beer and increase the range of gambling machines in Burger Kings.

  7. Ad 7
    6 November 2013 at 8:12 am

    Can anyone think of a business based in Auckland that is more regulated than Sky City is already?

  8. Tracey 8
    6 November 2013 at 8:40 am

    John key put 50 bucks on the m cup winner yesterday and then the sky city rort was passed.

    In touch with which people john??

    • Grantoc 8.1
      6 November 2013 at 9:49 pm

      “In touch with the people John?”

      Well to the extent that most of the country also placed bets on the Melbourne cup, I’d say he was.

      Its the out of touch new puritans in the form of the sneering sanctimonious Turei and her Green fellow travellers who are out of touch I’d say.

  9. Mark52 9
    6 November 2013 at 10:43 am

    OK Logic argument not political!
    Where are all the extra problem gamblers coming from?
    Considering there is an overall sinking lid policy on the total number of pokies in Auckland and, please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t see any gamblers lined up behind the existing pokies just waiting to get a fix for their “addiction”.

    • Colonial Viper 9.1
      6 November 2013 at 10:52 am

      Are you saying that SkyCity did their numbers wrong, and there is actually no consumer demand for these extra pokie machines?

    • framu 9.2
      6 November 2013 at 12:36 pm

      “OK Logic argument not political!”

      as this issue has completely been done to death pretty much everywhere – im sceptical of this claim

      and as tat points out – its a logic argument that fails the first test of logic – projected profit

  10. Tracey 10
    6 November 2013 at 1:16 pm

    Mark

    you need to educate yourself more on problem gambling rather than relying on soundbites and then calling it logic

  11. Penny Bright 11
    6 November 2013 at 9:30 pm

    Why is the International Convention Centre Bill proceeding – when there has been NO ‘due diligence’ done on the increased risk of money-laundering?

    Is there ANYONE else out there who is even raising this issue?

    (Or – have I missed it? )

    _________________________________________________________________________

    6 November 2013

    Open Letter /OIA request to the Minister of Economic Development Steven Joyce:

    “Why are you continuing with the International Convention Centre (Sky City money-laundering) Bill?

    Dear Minister,

    I note that the International Convention Centre Bill is now at the Committee Stage: on today’s Parliamentary Order Paper:

    http://www.parliament.nz/resource/0001960125

    Please provide the following information which confirms:

    1) That you have considered the following OIA reply from OFCANZ, which shows that they have not done any ‘due diligence’ on the increased risk of money-laundering with the International Convention Centre Bill.

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/SKY-CITY-OFCANZ-OIA-REPLY-NO-DUE-DLIGENCE-RE-MONEY-LAUNDERING-bright-penny-06-c211711-2-sent-reply.pdf

    2) That you as the Minister of Economic Development, are knowingly and willingly, continuing to push the International Convention Centre Bill.through Parliament, although this OIA reply from OFCANZ, shows that they have not done any ‘due diligence’ on the increased risk of money-laundering, as outlined in the following Regulatory Impact Statement.

    http://www.med.govt.nz/about-us/publications/publications-by-topic/regulatory-impact-statements/mbie-regulatory-impact-statements/NZICC-RIS-June-2013.pdf

    (See paras 95 – 111 )

    Potential risk of money laundering

    95 Cash intensive industries such as casinos are attractive to money laundering activity. New Zealand’s National Risk Assessment 2010 assessed casinos as presenting moderate to high risk of money laundering.

    For this reason, casinos (including all SkyCity casinos) are subject to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of
    Terrorism Act 2009 (the AML/CFT Act), which comes into force on 30 June 2013.
    …..

    Yours sincerely,

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption / anti-privatisation Public Watchdog’

    2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.