O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look I'm very pleased to take a call on this New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga Bill. I hope that in the time that I will have available I will be able to build a credible speech particularly on the third reading. So look I'm very pleased that National is supporting this. A little bit like other bills that we've supported it's because National had in effect started the legislation of this nature and is actually conceptually in support of an infrastructure commission. We see the value in it. It's easy for statements like that of course to be made in Parliament but I'm fortunate to be able to build my case the infrastructure of this argument if you will by pointing out—[Interruption] Yes that's my best work for tonight I'm afraid. The key is of course that National has been very keen on infrastructure. One only needs to think of the roads of national significance completing Waterview—these are infrastructure projects which we have been proud of and which of course you build on in order to move into the likes of a commission of which this bill is structuring things. It's an attempt by the Government to set up a strategy. It's trying to empower the commission to engage New Zealanders for them to understand what projects they want. I think that's actually an important part of it. I note we actually have Jessica McKnight the Youth MP for Maungakiekie in appearance up there tonight. They would know and I'm sure they'd be the first who would want to talk—I hope it's not presumptuous Denise Lee—to this new commission to demand that the East-West Link get completed in Auckland. Look it's a fundamentally important commission but there are two caveats and concerns that this side of the House has around where this bill is landing in its third reading and that's its two deficiencies. First and foremost we don't think this has enough teeth. We think it's still malleable to ideology if you will. I think both sides of the House—I would've hoped—would've agreed that actually setting up an infrastructure commission should've been done in a way to keep it away from the whims of political cycles. The other is the disappointment that through the committee of the whole House stage and now at the third reading a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of Andrew Bayly was defeated. This in effect— Stuart Smith: Outrageous. SIMON O'CONNOR: —was about—it is outrageous actually. It was an attempt to try and shore up—for want of a better word—those groups those organisations those businesses who work in the infrastructure sector. The way things are structured at the moment—and it was unfortunate because the commission could've been empowered to look into it—is to try and share that risk. If those on the other side particularly in Government are talking to those working in infrastructure to those who will be affected by this commission and its intentions they will say that too much risk of Government procurement is put on to them and subsequently on to subcontractors and we already know from recent weeks the tragedy that that entails. I'm disappointed that that SOP did not progress but the bill is sufficiently in line with what National had already intended and supported and so at this third reading I'm very happy to commend the bill to the House.