Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is subject to correctionTurei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 22 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14053. Text is subject to correction.]6.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister for Economic Development: Has he received any advice that a future Government could dismantletheSkyCity convention centre deal without paying compensation; if so what was that advice?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Yes and I have to say to the member that this is not new news. As the member may be aware from her Law 101 classes in New Zealand’s constitution Parliament is sovereign and can pass any law it likes. I do not think that this is news today or any other day. Whether it is a good idea for one Parliament to start ripping up contracts with outside organisations entered into by a previous Parliament is entirely another question as any number of contracts extend past the life of just one Parliament. However that does not change the fact that Parliament is always sovereign.Metiria Turei: Has the Minister warnedSkycity to the possibility that a future Government could legislate to protect the public from the deal that he has worked out withSkycity and thatSkycity would not receive compensation?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well that was discussed in the public arena before the agreement was signed and it is not news. I do not know why the member thinks that this is some great revelation. This is just reality. How strange.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked him whether he had alertedSkycity to the possibility. He has not answered that question.Mr SPEAKER: I think that between that answer and the previous answer he did. He just said that it is common knowledge that a Government has sovereign right. If a Government of the future wants to change anything it can do so. So he has not specifically notifiedSkycity of that possibility.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do believe that that was a reasonably direct question from the member asking whether or not the Minister had alertedSkycity. You put two answers together. That is very difficult for the Opposition in terms of what is on the record of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I am quite comfortable with my ruling. The Minister attempted to address the question satisfactorily. It may not be to the member’s satisfaction; that is happening relatively frequently in this place. [Interruption] Order! My job is to see that the question has been addressed and to my satisfaction it has been.Metiria Turei: Does the Minister both accept and agree that future Governments have every right to legislate to overturn a deal that effectively sells our laws to the highest bidder and causes harm to the wider community?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; I disagree completely with the premise of that member’s question. The arrangement if she cared to look at it is an exchange of some regulatory concessions in return for the building of a $400 million convention centre for Auckland and New Zealand. So yes a subsequent Parliament could rip that up and jeopardise the thousand jobs in construction of and the 800 jobs in operating that particular convention centre. It could do that but I think that it would be marked by the public as irresponsible. I think it would be marked by the public as frankly scurrilous in terms of the approach it took and I think that it should be very careful before it did that.Metiria Turei: Does the Minister think that a Government that sells the gambling laws to a casino in exchange for building a convention centre is a morally compromised Government?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I do not agree with the member. If she thinks that she should really look in the mirror because the Green Party was absolutely silent when a similar arrangement was struck by the Labour Government back in 2001. When that deal was done the Minister of Tourism of the day lauded the deal the Prime Minister lauded the deal and the Greens were as quiet as church mice.Hon Shane Jones: Why were officials from Treasury the Ministry of Health and the Department of Internal Affairs muzzled and forbidden from providing advice about gambling harm to the select committee dealing with the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the workings of the select committee are over to the select committee. I have no responsibility for them.Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking a question to the Minister responsible for the stewardship and the sponsorship of a bill.Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister responded that he had no responsibility for that. That is the Minister’s answer. That is for the Minister to determine. He quite emphatically said: “Well that’s not my responsibility.”Metiria Turei: Would the current compensation provisions in the deal be triggered ifSkycity was required to use pre-commitment and player-tracking technology across all its electronic gambling machines in a way that reduced its pokie machine revenue—would the compensation provisions apply?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a hypothetical question. But in relation to the legislation as drafted Parliament has the right to regulate gambling and to deal with problem gambling in the way it sees fit and that would not trigger compensation in that regard. So I think the member is raising a hypothetical issue in terms of the measures she talks about. But Parliament does have the right to regulate gambling and to regulate problem gaming in a way that it sees fit and that is not changed by this legislation.Metiria Turei: Will the Minister release the Crown Law Office advice sought by the officials advising the Commerce Committee as those officials referred to and paraphrased that advice in the departmental report said they had attached that advice to the departmental report and then subsequently advised that that was a big mistake?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the tradition is that the Crown holds its legal advice so if it needs it at any stage it is able to act on it.