Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7697. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: What is the total number and value of contracts held by Mainzeal Property and Construction in respect of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery rebuild? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 There are two parts to that question. The first is that the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority itself has two contracts with Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd now in receivership. The first is for the demolition of the Clarendon Towers for a contract price of $8.9 million. This is nearly completed with 3 weeks remaining—the job almost done. The second is for the QEII complex. The value is $2.1 million. These works are also almost completed with approximately we think 6 weeks left to go. There are a number of other contracts that Mainzeal has in Canterbury that are with the private sector and I do not have details for exactly what the position is on those at this stage. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will have gleaned by now that that is a totally inadequate answer for someone who has had 4 hours to prepare on a very very serious matter. Two contracts and about $11 million is not what was being asked about in the primary question. It will be very obvious to anyone associated with Canterbury what the depth of Mainzeal’s association was and to get up and say after 4 hours that he has not got the information is certainly Mr Speaker I think—well it is trifling with Parliament and trifling with question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am the Minister responsible for Canterbury earthquake recovery and the department and so there are the obvious answers to the contractual arrangements that the department has. I cannot at this point give a firm answer on the other contracts—I believe there are five of them—that Mainzeal has in Christchurch. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance. In my opinion the Minister answered the question according to the rules. He listed the two that he knew about that were the result of a contract between the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and Mainzeal Property and Construction. He noted that there could be a number of other contracts in existence that were within the private sector. I think the Minister has answered quite satisfactorily and the member has alternative supplementary questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did he or Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority officials view the Mainzeal company’s balance sheet before awarding Mainzeal millions of dollars in contracts; if not why not? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: We had every reason to believe that Mainzeal was a stable company and entered into the contracts on the basis that it had capacity to do the job which is far more important to us than anything else. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. Did he or Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority officials view the Mainzeal company’s balance sheet? That is what he is being asked. The answer has got to be yes or no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I think he— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can give a further answer if he wants to know. No because that would be a Minister interfering in operational matters and the member would have a dim view of that I am quite sure. As to whether or not the balance sheet was checked out by Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority officials I have not been informed of that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How could he and his officials not be aware of Mainzeal’s financial position given that one of the members of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel also happened to be a director of the company in question? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The two matters are quite separate. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel is a statutorily constituted body that has the Hon Justice Sir John Hansen as its chairperson and he conducts scrutiny of Orders in Council after they have been considered by all parties in this House. To somehow construe that from that we should be discussing a private matter or a private engagement on a daily basis with one of the other members of that panel is utterly ridiculous. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can he confirm that Dame Jenny Shipley a member of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel which he appointed was also a director of Mainzeal Property and Construction until December last year when she was asked to resign by Richard Yan? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have no idea what the circumstances were around the resignation but I can confirm that she is a member of the review panel. The panel reviews Orders in Council after those Orders in Council have been considered by all parties in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So why did he appoint Dame Jenny Shipley to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Review Panel a body that is supposed to be independent despite Ms Shipley having a clear conflict of interest in respect of her directorship of Mainzeal Property and Construction? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the member needs to look at the Orders in Council that have been somewhat I think judiciously used in order to move the recovery forward and ask his own spokesman why he has supported some of them but more than that explain to the House why he thinks someone who is reviewing changes to law is somehow conflicted because they are the director of a construction company. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question is very direct. I am asking why when it was clear there was a conflict of interest did he appoint someone to the authority— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat. You are now using the point of order process to debate the answer that was given. The Minister answered the question quite satisfactorily. It may not be to the satisfaction of the member and if he wants to use further supplementary questions he can but at this stage that answer was quite satisfactory. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We do not have any other supplementary questions—that is the first thing—and twice today and this is the second time the Minister has referred to matters that have no connection with the question including New Zealand First’s Canterbury spokesperson. That has nothing to do with the answer at all. I want to know why— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have ruled that the question has been answered absolutely satisfactorily. If the member has no supplementary questions left today I cannot do anything about that. The member will have to look for another question time.