Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 22 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green)to theMinister for Economic Development: Did the Regulatory Impact Analysis team raise concerns over the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for the New Zealand International Convention Centre; if so what were these concerns?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):Treasury’s regulatory impact analysis team noted that although the benefits and potential social costs are discussed in the regulatory impact statement qualitatively it was not clear that the regulatory impact statement quantitatively estimated benefits to the economy that outweighed the potential social impacts. However these issues were thoroughly canvassed prior to finalising the agreement. The regulatory impact analysis team also noted that the regulatory impact statement contained little analysis on alternative proposals to construct and operate the convention centre. However I would point out tothe member that that was thoroughly canvassed by the Government before the decision was taken to negotiate with the organisation.Metiria Turei: How does he justify recommending the convention centre deal when in his own Cabinet paper of 26 June that team did as he says raise the concern that there is no certainty that the economic benefits will outweigh the fiscal and social impact of the regulatory concessions in the deal? How does he justify it?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am thrilled that the member is so thrilled with Treasury advice suddenly because there is a lot of Treasury advice I would like her to take on including putting the interest back on student loans. Perhaps the Green Party might like to embrace that as a policy. But in terms of the particular example it is difficult to quantify exactly. The officials did their best in terms of the information they could gain and Cabinet made a judgment. Cabinet is happy with the judgment it made.Metiria Turei: How does the Minister reconcile his answer in the House to questions from the Green Party on 13 June—that Cabinet decided to proceed with the deal on the basis that the benefits of the deal outweighed the cost—with his advice to Cabinet 2 weeks later that showed that there was no evidence to show that the economic benefits would outweigh the social and fiscal costs?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No the advice was in relation to the regulatory impact assessment team of Treasury. My advice to Cabinet was very definitely that the benefits would exceed the cost and if the member would like me to take her through all the details I am more than happy to. That was the decision Cabinet took based on the advice from the Minister from the Cabinet paper and so on.Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm that he also advised Cabinet on 26 June that a court would not enforce contractual provisions where they appeared to impose a penalty rather than be a genuine pre-estimate of a party’s loss and that legislation was therefore necessary to enforce the compensation provisions of the agreement because contract law would not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well the matter the member raises is actually the subject of quite a lot of discussion around contract law. My understanding is that there are some initiatives coming to deal with exactly that issue which is seen as a gap in New Zealand’s legislation in regard to this. So in effect we have taken a step to allow for the contractual remedies to be taken—in other words compensation to both parties in this agreement—but the broader law will definitely catch up with us in due course.Metiria Turei: Can the Minister therefore confirm that his advice to Cabinet was that if at any time in the next 35 years gambling regulations reduce the value of the concessions in the agreement it would not just compensate Skycity for their losses but also penalise the Crown for acting to reduce gambling harm?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No the member is incorrect in that assertion. It is very clear that in terms of the provision of the actual concessions they must be provided under the agreement or else compensation would apply. But in terms of the ability to regulate gambling under the gambling laws and regulations attached to those laws there is no fettering that ability and Skycity would be required to meet all regulations in that regard.Metiria Turei: Can he confirm then that the compensation provisions would be triggered if Skycity was required to use player-tracking technology in a way that reduced its pokie machine revenue by up to 40 percent—would the compensation provisions apply?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No it is very clear in the agreement where compensation applies and that is not one of them.