Roche Denise: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRoche Denise: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 12 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1539. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.DENISE ROCHE (Green)to the Minister for Economic Development: What advice did officials provide about how much more valuable to SkyCity the TVNZ land sold to it for the siting of a convention centre was once that land was used as the site of a hotel?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):The first thing I would point out is that the site of course has not yet been used for a hotel. Negotiations are ongoing regarding the final layout cost and size of the convention centre complex. With regard to the plans submitted to Auckland Council by Skycity at the end of last year I am advised that there is a potential benefit to Skycity of a change in location but as the final form of the convention centre is still being negotiated I cannot at this stage provide an estimate of that benefit. But I have been clear to our negotiators that I would expect that anything that gave that benefit to Skycity would be a cost that they would need to take account of.Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was on notice and it specifically asked about the advice that was given about the change in the land value not about any other sort of advice that he has had since. It was about the advice that he received before the deal took place.Mr SPEAKER: Again as I interpreted the Minister’s answer he said there could well be an increased value because of subsequent use but it was impossible at this stage to put a figure on it until the plans were finalised as to what that site would totally be used for. I think that the question has been adequately addressed and I suggest that if the member wants to take the matter further tease it out now with good supplementary questions.Denise Roche: Why did he not work out how much more the deal was worth to Skycity with the hotel on Television New Zealand (TVNZ) land before the deal was signed given that officials said it made the deal much more valuable to Skycity?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure what the member is driving at because actually there has been a proposal for the hotel to be on a different site—and I would stress that Skycity already had its own site for a hotel it is basically proposing to shift from one part of the site to another part of the site—and until that proposal was made it would have been difficult to anticipate the need for putting a value on a proposal of that nature. I have been quite clear to the member in the answer to the primary question that I believe there probably is a value out of that and that that value should be accounted for in any subsequent negotiations.Denise Roche: How is it that his deal allowed Skycity to acquire a prime piece of central Auckland real estate discounted at taxpayer expense and somehow a year later Skycity comes back asking for even more handouts?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; the member is incorrect. I am not sure where she got the idea there was any sort of discount but actually as I understand it Skycity has paid something in the order of—I do not know—$16 million or something which was a commercial valuation on the site firstly. I think TVNZ is currently using the money to renovate its facilities in Auckland so it obviously got the value from it. And in terms of where the hotel goes on the overall site that is something that we would negotiate with them in terms of any value they would obtain from that. So I just do not know what the member sees as the massive issue here.Denise Roche: Did the Minister’s lawyers advise not to include clause 11.47 of the convention centre agreement which effectively allows Skycity to plan a bigger and flasher centre to renegotiate the whole deal; if so why did he include it?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; I think the member is incorrect. There was a deal that was done for a convention centre at the value of $402 million. That is finally confirmed at the time—Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s not what you told the public at the time.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —listen to me—a construction agreement is signed at which point the concessions that are in return for the convention centre would come into force. Prior to that time either party could withdraw from it. What Skycity is saying is that it has got a bit more expensive and it is worried about that and it wants to negotiate with the Crown. What we have said is that we will listen to them and that we will have the discussions but that any money would be our least preferred option. That is the whole of the week I do believe in the media.Denise Roche: Is he embarrassed that he negotiated a deal that allowed Skycity to walk away with a large chunk of prime public land for its own hotel and to completely change the size and cost of the so-called free convention centre.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; much of what the member is saying in her question I just completely disagree with. The simple thing the member needs to understand in this is that that company already had some land set aside for a hotel. It has proposed to shift the location of that hotel as part of its latest proposed facility for the consent so that actually the convention centre works a bit better on the site. We will make a judgment on that and assess the value of that and that will form part of any further discussions.Denise Roche: Why will he not just admit that he and Mr Key have been played by much better gamblers and it is time to fold ‘em and walk away?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure that it is news that the Greens oppose a convention centre in Auckland but obviously we will choose to disagree as I think we have since roughly 2009.Dr David Clark: Does he have any absolute and specified negotiating bottom lines beyond which he will walk away from the convention centre deal?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said to the member yesterday I am not prepared to conduct the negotiations in public because that would actually make the Crown’s position weaker and I would prefer to have a stronger position and have the option of conducting those discussions and then reporting back the result of those discussions to the House.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just asking for your assistance. I think the member has misunderstood my question which was whether he has any—it was a yes or no. I do not want the nature of them—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member’s question was whether there were any bottom lines and the Minister clearly in answering said he was not prepared to reveal his position on a negotiation that is still proceeding.