Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8091. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he agree that the Prime Minister certainly moved to the extent of saying that he himself offered regulatory relief if so were other bidders to build a convention centre in Auckland offered regulatory relief? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: What the Prime Minister stated quite clearly in the answer to question No. 2 yesterday was that “regulatory relief has not been offered to Skycity. That may be part of the negotiations that they want but actually all bidders were told that we were looking for creative solutions and it was a cash-strapped Government. Every bid was different. In fact in the case of every bid with the exception of Skycity they were asking the Government for $300 million - odd to build it.” 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister’s answer just now equates essentially to a no to the first part of my substantive question. That is actually a quote given by you as Speaker yesterday interpreting the answer of the Prime Minister to be that he had “certainly moved to the extent of saying that he himself offered regulatory relief.” We now have a problem because Mr Joyce answering on behalf of the Prime Minister has come to the House today and effectively said no. So now we have the issue of your interpretation versus what the Prime Minister has actually said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising the point. The member cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. I am ruling that the question has been adequately addressed—maybe not to the satisfaction of the member. The member has further supplementary questions that he can utilise to try to obtain the answer he wants. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue we have is that in effect it is not me who has brought the Speaker into the debate; it is the Speaker who has brought the Speaker into the debate by giving an interpretation that today has been contradicted by Mr Joyce answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. It leaves the Opposition in a very difficult position in terms of being able to hold the Prime Minister to account when an interpretation is given by the Speaker and then it is contradicted by the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the point being raised by the member is genuine but I refer him to Speaker’s ruling 17/3(3) where it is clearly stated that it is out of order “to bring the Speaker’s name and opinions into a debate.” The member has further supplementary questions— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there are two points that I would like to make. First I would like to indicate to you that I contemplated writing a privilege letter yesterday based on your interpretation of Hekia Parata’s answer which if she had given it would have been a clear breach of privilege. What I am trying to do is to highlight the danger of this situation occurring. I think the other point that must be made is that the Speaker’s ruling to which you have referred refers to debate. This is not a debate; this is question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With respect to the member this is a House of debate and clearly when we have question time there are issues of debate within question time. So I do not accept that part of the member’s point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I would like to continue that because dozens of Speakers before you have ruled that there are rules for debate and there are rules for question time and they differentiate. You do not bring the Speaker into debate. We were not; we were quoting him at question time and that is something that is quite different and quite proper. Your opinion like anyone else’s can be quoted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I took careful advice on this issue from the Clerk prior to the beginning of question time and I have concluded that the issue of bringing the Speaker into the debate applies equally to question time. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the difficulty arises where the Speaker interprets the answer because members on both sides are then left not able to refer to what is then put in  
Hansard 
 by the Speaker in any way other than to pretend a fiction. We have here the Prime Minister saying that the interpretation that the Speaker put on the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday was wrong. I think that leads to the view that I think has been put by Mr Brownlee previously as well as by Opposition members that this is where we get to when the Speaker interprets the answer that is given by a Minister rather than requiring the Minister to answer for him or herself. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I do not think that New Zealand First would oppose the proposition that you can interpret the Minister or the Minister’s answer providing that that is the answer that binds the Minister as well. If the Minister wants to be excused from that they must get up and immediately rebut it; otherwise it stands in their name and it means we can have a meaningful question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the points raised are genuine. I accept the difficulty with this particular issue is my attempt to interpret an answer yesterday. The difficulty I am faced with is that on numerous occasions yesterday members who had asked a question then felt that question had not been adequately addressed. In future what I will do is not attempt to reinterpret the answer but will rule simply whether the question has been addressed to my satisfaction and therefore I do not think that members can expect me to continue to justify the decisions that are made. The situation we have here today is that we are now relitigating rulings that I made yesterday which will lead only to disorder. So I am concluding this matter. I am inviting the member to ask supplementary questions if he wishes to otherwise we will move to question No. 2. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Deputy Auditor-General’s finding correct that his “Chief of Staff asked SkyCity for details of the regulatory relief it would seek in return.” for fully funding the convention centre.? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The chief of staff made it very clear that the Government had no money for the centre and that Skycity needed to think outside the box and come up with something which might not work—but he did not specifically offer regulatory relief which I think is the point the member is suggesting. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I missed the detail of the question. I invite the member to ask the question again. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Deputy Auditor-General’s finding correct that his “Chief of Staff asked SkyCity for details of the regulatory relief it would seek in return.” for fully funding the convention centre? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not sure that that is a finding of the Deputy Auditor-General. Paragraph 3.25 suggests that Skycity told the Deputy Auditor-General certain things about a particular meeting but to suggest that that is a conclusion of the Deputy Auditor-General is I think stretching the description of the paragraph. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is it correct that what is written in paragraph 3.25 of the Deputy Auditor-General’s report is true that the chief of staff of the Prime Minister asked Skycity “for details of the regulatory relief it would seek in return.” for fully funding the convention centre? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have no—what would be the word—suggestion that what Skycity told the Deputy Auditor-General was not what it interpreted the conversation to mean but the Prime Minister’s chief of staff made it very clear that the Government had no money for the centre and they needed to think outside the box and come up with something that might work. It is quite reasonable for two people to take different meanings from a conversation. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is responsible in this House for the actions of his staff—in this case the chief of staff whom he has. It is a very simple question as to whether or not the statements contained in the Deputy Auditor-General’s report at paragraph 3.25 are as the Minister has suggested correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member ask the question again. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the statement in the Deputy Auditor-General’s report correct when it says that “the Chief of Staff asked SkyCity for details of the regulatory relief it would seek in return.” for fully funding the convention centre.? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: My answer remains the same. It is clear that paragraph 3.25 in the report is Skycity’s recollection of the meeting. The chief of staff’s recollection of the meeting is as I have repeated—what I said earlier. He made it very clear that the Government had no money for the centre and that they needed to think outside the box and come up with something that might work. If Skycity interpreted it in that manner well then it is obviously for it to report its own views to the Deputy Auditor-General. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he believe then that the Deputy Auditor-General believed Skycity’s account rather than his chief of staff’s account? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: On behalf of the Deputy Auditor-General— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That is what he seems to be suggesting that somehow I am answering questions on behalf of the Deputy Auditor-General. Quite fundamentally I am not. I am answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. But the reality is that the Deputy Auditor-General reported an item in the report in terms of Skycity’s interpretation of a conversation. Whether the Deputy Auditor-General believes it or not I have no idea. 
Grant Robertson 
: Given that only one bidder was told that regulatory relief was a convention centre payment option and that that information came via the Prime Minister and his office what responsibility does he take for the Deputy Auditor-General’s finding: “we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member seems to be leaping on from failing to get to the answer that he was seeking. But the key point is that this period of the process was prior to the evaluations and the expressions of interest. Actually what the Deputy Auditor-General said in relation to this part of the process and I quote from paragraph 3.32 of the report is that “We have no concern that the Government took steps to find out whether SkyCity’s development plans might be relevant to the discussions about an international convention centre. Nor is it unusual for a company like SkyCity to approach government officials and Ministers to explore whether there might be government interest in and support for its development ideas. Government and private business interests are free to talk to each other. It was sensible for both parties to explore whether they had a common interest.” 
Grant Robertson 
: Would the Prime Minister care to point his attention to the next paragraph of the report paragraph 3.33 where the Deputy Auditor-General discusses her “concerns about the apparent readiness of officials to support those discussions developing into more substantive negotiations without preparing to give advice on the Government’s procedural obligations and options.”; what responsibility does the Prime Minister take for officials going down that path given they went there only after he stopped the tender process in August 2009? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well Mr Robertson and I can quote paragraphs of the report to each other all afternoon. I would perhaps conclude by quoting paragraph 3.44 which to be helpful to the member is actually at the conclusion of this chapter. That says: “the matter became moot because SkyCity did not produce a proposal at this time. Instead the Minister”—which I presume is the Minister for Economic Development—“directed officials to proceed to an EOI process as part of a broader discussion of economic development possibilities.” 
Grant Robertson 
: Why did he ignore the warnings from Treasury about “the probity of the bidding process” contained in a briefing note given to him on 12 November 2009? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: He addressed the note yesterday. I would only go and repeat what was said yesterday that in relation to that note my understanding is that that was in relation to if matters were to proceed to a public-private partnership which of course is noted in paragraph 3.43 of her report. In case the member does not remember it did not go to a public-private partnership so that also becomes moot. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that he takes no responsibility whatsoever for the fact that a process around the convention centre to quote the Deputy Auditor-General failed to meet basic standards of “transparency and fairness.” and is he taking absolutely no responsibility for that? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Having failed to make his points the member likes to make a sweeping generalisation at the end. The reality is that the Deputy Auditor-General said there were no substantive issues in relation to the process and nothing that would change the outcome of the process and raised some procedural issues in regards to the expressions of interest. The member just does not want to hear it. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his statement in the House yesterday that “Television New Zealand entered a commercial agreement with Skycity to sell land that it owned” with the statement from the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) board chair Wayne Walden to the Commerce Committee today that there was no such commercial arrangement? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not quite sure how that fits into the frame of question No. 1 but nevertheless the Prime Minister was answering yesterday accusations of a “cosy deal” brokered by the Prime Minister between TVNZ and Skycity. Fundamentally it is obvious that that did not occur. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to refer you to your ruling you made earlier in question time as to the difference between debates and question time where you indicated there was not a difference and refer you to Speaker’s ruling 168/1 from 2011 Dr Smith: “The rules for question time are very clear. It is not a time when we have debates. We have questions asked”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. I will consider that. But he is now relitigating an earlier ruling of mine where I said to bring the Speaker into a question was bringing the Speaker into debate and that would lead to disorder. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the issue of regulatory or other relief why did the PM say yesterday: “Its architects designed such a thing realised they needed more land worked out who owned the land and approached Television New Zealand.” when TVNZ has claimed overnight that that statement is false? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Prime Minister accepts the TVNZ assurance accordingly. But I think the point is—and perhaps the member misses it—that that actually goes to underline the fact that there was absolutely no conspiracy about a TVNZ land purchase and sale because fundamentally it obviously has not occurred. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The question really concerns the Prime Minister: why did he say it yesterday and when was the Government going to advise TVNZ of the regulatory relief it was prepared to offer Skycity given that the deal would include TVNZ land? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member is pirouetting. Yesterday there was some terrible conspiracy; today there is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a straightforward question. I think Winston Peters might be nimble on his feet but he is not doing ballet in the House. You Mr Speaker should make sure that Ministers answer questions in a straightforward manner. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his assistance. It would be helpful if the honourable Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister would give a clear answer to the question. Would the member Winston Peters please repeat the question? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I will put the question again. When was the Government going to advise TVNZ of the regulatory relief it was prepared to offer Skycity given that the deal would include giving away or transacting TVNZ land? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No deal has been concluded so that matter does not arise. It has been raised publicly that some land might be needed. If a deal was done that would be progressed at the time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that on 6 September 2010 the Minister for Economic Development received an aide-mèmoire from Skycity asking the Government to “contribute” land owned by TVNZ as part of this deal; and furthermore that the ministry undertook extensive work to determine the valuation of the property and to clear up any Treaty of Waitangi claims on the property? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: One of the criticisms of the officials from the Deputy Auditor-General’s office was of places where they did not do preparatory work. I am assuming the member is now being critical of them doing preparatory work in regards to a matter in relation to any land that might be required if a deal went ahead. But the reality is that no deal has been agreed and until such time any arrangements in regard to some land are moot. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the subject of preparatory work why does the Prime Minister consider himself so unaccountable to the New Zealand public and taxpayers as to attend official meetings as the Prime Minister and at the taxpayers’ expense when no records are kept at all of those meetings? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Prime Minister meets and discusses things with people all over the country informally and formally at many different times. Generally records are kept of formal meetings but that does not mean there can be any expectations that any time the Prime Minister talks to somebody that somehow there will be formal minutes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did the Prime Minister go to the meeting in respect of the Auckland convention centre involving Skycity with the deliberate intention that no record be kept because any record would demonstrate just how sleazy these deals are? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I would just say I reject completely the premise in that member’s suggestion. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister accept the conclusion of the Deputy Auditor-General’s report that “we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: This is a fair way from the start of the question which was about what the Prime Minister offered or did not offer in regard to the very early meetings in this process. But in terms of the expressions of interest process the Deputy Auditor-General has made it clear that she feels that the— 
Dr David Clark 
: Look us in the eye. Come on! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: What a clown. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! If the members want to hear the answer they should allow some silence for Mr Joyce to answer the question. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Deputy Auditor-General made it absolutely clear—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Norman is over here in case you have not noticed—that she felt that the officials should have closed off the expressions of interest process earlier. The officials accept that criticism and the Minister for Economic Development is working with the officials on further guidance in that regard. But she also makes it clear there are no substantive concerns about the conclusions reached through this process. There were some procedural issues. The Government accepts the procedural issues but they were not substantive and would not have changed the outcome of the process. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance as to whether you think my very simple question as to whether the Minister accepts the conclusions has been answered or not. It did not appear to me that it had been. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister addressed the question very substantially. In fact he took too long to do so.