Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Well thank you Madam Chair and can I say what an honour it is to talk about Part 2. You missed my speech on Part 1 which was hugely exciting to the committee I know but I'm happy to talk about Part 2 and really just add to and endorse what my colleagues have said.Look I applaud the work on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) but I also noticed not being a member of the committee—but I know that the primary purpose of the commission will be to have an advisory role only. I looked in detail around some of its support for projects and in that I noticed it says produce best practice guidance on infrastructure procurement and delivery". I wonder if that's not enough to satisfy what the member is trying to achieve. I also note that through its delivery arm the Infrastructure Transactions Unit will be involved obviously in supporting individual projects and this can include giving advice on the decision to invest and the procurement process—so two pieces of information there that lend support to wanting a stronger focus on procurement. It keeps intact the integrity of the commission's primary purpose and that is around an advisory role. And I think that may be enough—in fact will be enough—in terms of trying to achieve something that is I guess a go-between the intent of a stronger procurement focus.Look I totally agree that in terms of some of the intent of a pipeline of work and having the frustrations of say a hold-up with procurement or that process when you are starting to pack in a number of projects that have different time lines for different pieces of infrastructure work the procurement function may be seen as a hold-up or may be seen as a barrier. I think though can I say that in terms of addressing the SOPs at least there is some information or some intent there in terms of supporting projects already in place.I want to move to Part 2 and just endorse the work of the Hon Shane Jones again in terms of putting in place the commission the board appointing the chief executive but also again reinforcing just some of the work of the select committee. One of those was of course those information-gathering powers and we know that with the arm's length operation of State-owned enterprises for example now in charge of many a piece of infrastructure that is Government owned people-owned infrastructure there can be some reluctance in some ways for a whole range of reasons and I applaud that that's been addressed there in clause 23.Likewise with local government where they too—and I used some of those examples in my speech in Part 1 around their infrastructure but I note though that it I guess restricts it to that of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act to the scope or the extent of that Act. And I think that's excellent because I think as we've seen what the intent of this body is they say that we want I guess a pipeline or a whole of public works programme of works for the future. Then you are going to have to have local government in the work that they do. Things are co-funded co-managed co-owned; so it just makes sense. But I want to I guess applaud the committee for showing some common-sense approach in terms of the resource required to get information and so they get a tick for that.My colleagues have talked about extending privacy protections. Look this bill is long overdue it will be implemented successfully and I commend this to the House."