Ruth
DYSON
Internal Affairs Spokesperson

15 January 2013 MEDIA STATEMENT
Govt must come clean on pokie deal

The Government must come clean on all its dealings with Sky City over the proposal to allow the Auckland casino to install more pokie machines in return for building a National Convention Centre, says Ruth Dyson.

Reports that Sky City has completed its planning for building work to allow it to install more pokie machines raise more questions about the cosy relationship between the Government and the casino operator.

"We are still waiting on the Auditor General to release her report into the way John Key and National have handled the convention centre proposal. Steven Joyce said no decisions would be taken until that report was completed - so why is Sky City so confident that it is apparently already engaging contractors?

"This whole deal has smelt from day one. If the Government has already told Sky City on the quiet that the deal will go ahead then it should also tell the public.

"A National Convention Centre should be built on its own merits, not as a result of a backroom trade-off between National Party Ministers and a casino company.

“Labour cannot support a deal to increase the number of pokie machines. That will only increase the harm caused by problem gambling," says Ruth Dyson.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

Arguably Reassuring: Inspector-General Finds GCSB "Arguably" Legal

Of the 88 individuals:

• 15 cases involving 22 individuals did not have any information intercepted by GCSB.

• another four cases involving five individuals were the subjects of a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service warrant and the GCSB assisted in the execution of the warrants. The Inspector-General is of the view that there were arguably no breaches and the law is unclear.

• the Bureau only provided technical assistance which did not involve interception of communications, involving three of the individuals, so no breach occurred.

• the remaining cases involved the collection of metadata, and the Inspector-General formed the view that there had arguably been no breach, noting once again that the law is unclear.
More>>