Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8159. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: In light of the view of the Deputy Auditor-General that “… the work through to August 2009 was … reasonable and careful”; did the Prime Minister’s intervention in August 2009 result in an approach that was no longer reasonable and careful? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I am sorry I was actually expecting another David but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Would the Minister just answer the question. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Sorry I am just a little bit confused—not that one but not that one either. The full quote which the member chooses to ignore is that “the work through to August 2009 was a reasonable and careful exploration of the possibilities presentedby an international convention centre.” The report makes clear that the initial exploratory and feasibility stage—the stage the Prime Minister was involved in—along with the current negotiations has been deemed by the Office of the Auditor-General to be appropriate. The report notes procedural issues with the second stage of the process—the expressions of interest phase—primarily that officials did not do enough planning and that the assessment of the expression of interest process went on too long. 
Hon David Parker 
: Was the Prime Minister’s handwritten annotation directing officials to “… close off the SkyCity angle …” dated August 2009? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That is my understanding and that forms part of the period that as I will just say again the Deputy Auditor-General said of in paragraph 3.32 of the report: “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.” 
Hon David Parker 
: Is it not the reality that the August date was chosen by the Deputy Auditor-General because it was the subsequent negotiations with Skycity advanced by Mr Key and his chief of staff that the Deputy Auditor-General found to lack transparency and were unfair to other interested parties? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No that is not correct. Paragraph 3.32 is perhaps helpful to the member. I have read the first sentence but if I could indulge the House it went on to say: “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.” The paragraph finishes by saying: “Our investigation confirmed that the discussions between August 2009 and March 2010 remained high level and preliminary in nature.” At the end of that chapter of the report it talks about what the ministry should be considering but again it says that it had no concerns about what the Government was doing at that time. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given that the Minister maintains that it was not unwise for the Prime Minister and his chief of staff to pursue negotiations with Skycity in and after August 2009 including possible regulatory breaks that other parties were not aware of why did the Attorney-General conclude: “… we do not consider that the approach adopted was appropriate.”— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Auditor-General. 
Hon David Parker 
: —sorry the Auditor-General—“… we do not consider that the approach adopted was appropriate. The result was that one submitter was treated differently from the others during the evaluation process.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is obvious from the end of that quote that the member is quite deliberately seeking to conflate the two different parts of the discussion. The parts referred to that the Prime Minister was involved in were in 2009-10 and the Deputy Auditor-General indicated no concern with those parts of the process. The quote that the member has just said was obviously in relation to the expressions of interest process which the Prime Minister had no part in. I think the member is being a little bit disingenuous if I may say. 
Hon David Parker 
: Was the reference to the Treasury warning about probity contained in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet briefing note to the Prime Minister on 3 December 2009 expressly limited to public-private partnerships and when will the Government release the still suppressed Treasury advice to the Ministry of Economic Development the Ministry of Economic Development or Ministry of Tourism report to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the briefing note from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Prime Minister? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well some of those items that the member raises are affected by the convention by which the executive and Parliament operate. But just in relation to the member’s point I would perhaps quote to him from the report itself because it talks about if matters were to proceed to a public-private partnership and that was the concern. So just going on the report the reality is that it makes it clear that it was about a public-private partnership that it was concerned. The report notes in 3.44: “the matter became moot because SkyCity did not produce a proposal at this time. Instead the Minister directed officials”— 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether the reference to the Treasury warning about probity— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! There were two clear parts to your question and I consider that the Minister has adequately addressed the second part. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Then with respect the Speaker should take care that he does not allow the Minister to ramble on about things that were not in any part of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think that on that occasion the Minister did although there have been some very lengthy answers today that were not helpful.