8. Question No. 8—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 8—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister at the start of question time corrected an answer to a question yesterday which was a primary question on notice. I draw your attention to Speaker's ruling 184/1 about Ministers having an obligation to correct answers at the earliest available opportunity. The House has been sitting all of yesterday evening and indeed this morning and we've only had the correction at 2 p.m. this afternoon.SPEAKER: That is a fair point of order and the correction if the Minister was aware of it should have been made earlier. There are a couple of points. First of all the point of order should have been taken at the time of the correction or immediately afterwards. Secondly I'm not sure that it impacts on the wording of the question that we're about to have. If the member feels that he's been significantly disadvantaged as a result of the correction on the part of the Minister I would propose to seek the leave of the House for this question not to be asked and for an additional question to be given to the National Party on Tuesday which would I think give the member the opportunity to have the question that he would want.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): You've heard Mr Bishop's point of order but he forgot to add the refinement or the caveat that is at the first available opportunity after discovering there was a mistake. He left that part out.CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Is the Deputy Prime Minister implying that the Minister found out his answer yesterday was incorrect at 2 o'clock?SPEAKER: No let's leave all of that. I'm now going to ask Mr Bishop if he thinks he's been significantly disadvantaged by the correction and if so whether he would prefer to ask a question on Tuesday rather than now.CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I'll proceed with the question. I'm happy to proceed because I think it's in the public interest that we do that.SPEAKER: OK.8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: In the Cabinet paper released in June 2019 titled Progressing our plans to deliver light rail in Auckland" does one of the redactions include a comment from the Treasury; if so what does that comment say?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes this comment was redacted in the released Cabinet paper to protect confidentiality of advice and so that negotiations can be carried out without prejudice or disadvantage and on the basis of that it's still appropriate to withhold that information. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order!Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are various Speakers' rulings: 177/5 and 177/6 make it clear that the Minister's obligation to the House is separate from the obligations under the Official Information Act—SPEAKER: Yes and?Chris Bishop: My point is that this is a primary question on notice and we'd like the information. SPEAKER: No no there's no—Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order.SPEAKER: No I don't need any help at all. There is no obligation. If the Minister says it's not in the public interest to provide that—Chris Bishop: He didn't say that.SPEAKER: Well I listened to him very carefully. He might have used the terms of the Official Information Act but he made it clear that for commercial sensitivity and to allow the negotiations to proceed it wasn't appropriate to release the information now. He said he stood by that. The member's absolutely right—you know there are different obligations. But if the Minister—and I think he in effect told the House that it's not in the public interest to release the information then he cannot be forced to. It's a matter for his judgment no one else's.Chris Bishop: When he said yesterday "the recommended course of action that went to Cabinet from the Ministry of Transport in the paper that I took was the process that we have since undertaken." where does it say in the paper that the twin track process was the recommendation of the Ministry of Transport?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Through me. Chris Bishop: When he states in his Cabinet paper at paragraph 65 what his "preferred approach" would be and how to deal with the New Zealand Infra and New Zealand Transport Agency proposals did the paper state other approaches that could be undertaken other than his preferred approach?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.Chris Bishop: Why when the twin track process has concluded and the Ministry of Transport has completed its assessment of both proposals can he not provide the House with details about alternative proposals and the recommendations from the ministry?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because the commercial process is still under way.Chris Bishop: Did Treasury support the recommendations in his Cabinet paper?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: As I've stated the comment from Treasury was redacted on the grounds to maintain confidentiality of advice because of the commercial nature of the process.Chris Bishop: How can it possibly impact the commerciality of advice and the Crown's commercial position as to whether or not Treasury supported his recommendation to Cabinet?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The content or the substance of the advice is judged to be relevant to the commercial process and therefore it's appropriate for it not only to be redacted from the release of that Cabinet paper but to not be in the public interest to release that information now.Chris Bishop: What is so explosive about the fact that Treasury has provided an alternative option to the one that is his preference that would put the Crown at a commercial disadvantage?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There's never been any suggestion that it's explosive."