Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11966. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister)on behalf of thePrime Minister: Yes.Grant Robertson: How does he justify his statement that his Government was “totally vindicated” by the Auditor-General’s report into the Skycity deal when that report said that the process was flawed and not transparent and it established deficiencies on behalf of both Ministers and officials?Hon BILL ENGLISH: He can justify that statement because the Opposition asked for that inquiry on the basis that it believed that it could knock the deal over. But of course that did not happen and now hundreds of Aucklanders will benefit from the long-term job creation of a national convention centre that is finally one of international proportions.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that in the course of the 6 months while the tendering process for the convention centre was under way he his Deputy Prime Minister or his chief of staff met with Skycity a total of six times; if so were other bidders for the convention centre build given the same opportunity?Hon BILL ENGLISH: By the sound of it that was fewer meetings with Skycity than the Labour Party had.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that there were two legs to that question but neither of them was addressed.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I think the member raises a fair point. Would he please ask the question again.Grant Robertson: Certainly Mr Speaker. Is it correct that in the course of the 6 months while the tendering process for the convention centre was under way he his Deputy Prime Minister or his chief of staff met with Skycity a total of six times; if so were other bidders to build the convention centre given the same opportunity?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm that detail but the Opposition has tried very hard to raise issues of probity about the negotiations. It has failed even after the Auditor-General’s close and forensic examination of the whole process. I suspect that it followed a similar process to the one that—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The acting Prime Minister said at the start that he did not have the information. He is now going on to irrelevant material. His answer should—Mr SPEAKER: I—[Interruption ] Order! It was a relatively political question but the Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister has now adequately addressed the question.Grant Robertson: What is his response to Major Campbell Roberts from the Salvation Army who said that the proposed legislation cancels out any benefits that the harm minimisation measures allowed for in the legislation are a joke that they are neither robust nor effective and that they do not represent any significant improvementon the current ineffective practices of Skycity Casino which are already failing to reduce gambling harm? What is his response to Campbell Roberts’ comments?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have a great deal of respect for Major Campbell Roberts. He is a long-time and thoughtful advocate for many New Zealanders who do not always have an effective voice. In this case we simply disagree with him and it would not be the first time.Grant Robertson: Are National MPs exercising a conscience vote on the legislation coming to the House today?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The National MPs are voting consistent with the manifesto on which they campaigned. I know that is a novelty for the Labour Party but we take it very seriously. I have noticed there are no Labour MPs on a conscience vote.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was an extremely direct question that the acting Prime Minister has not answered.Mr SPEAKER: It was answered by saying “consistent with the manifesto”. That is an answer. That is one that I rule as satisfactory.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. Can you indicate whether saying something is consistent with a manifesto indicates that it is not a conscience vote?Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not for me to indicate; it is for the Minister to answer it the way he decides. It is my job to determine whether in my opinion the question has been adequately addressed. I have done that. Your second point of order?Hon Trevor Mallard: My second point of order is that both when Grant Robertson was taking a point of order and when you were ruling on it four or five members including especially the Minister for Economic Development were interjecting.Mr SPEAKER: All members know that points of order should be heard in silence and when they are not heard in silence it leads to that sort of point of order being quite legitimately raised by the member. Hopefully there will be no further breaches today but I will keep an eye on it.Grant Robertson: When he says National MPs are going to vote in accordance with the manifesto does that mean National MPs are exercising a conscience vote on the bill before the House today?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It means that the National caucus as is its right to do decides how it is going to vote. It is a misunderstanding that the Speaker or Parliament decides on that; they do not. The National caucus has decided to keep its promise to deliver on what it said which is an international convention centre and the thousands of jobs that go with it having weighed up all the issues involved with expanding the convention centre.