Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:10907. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green)to theMinister for Economic Development: Will the Government sign the legal contract between it and SkyCity for the SkyCity Convention Centre this week; if not when will it sign this agreement?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):I am advised that negotiations for the final agreement are progressing with Skycity. While they are progressing it would not be helpful or appropriate for me to discuss the nature and progress of negotiations until such a final agreement has been finalised. The heads of agreement anticipate that a final agreement will be signed on or before 14 June 2013. However both sides may agree to extend this to a later date and depending on how things progress this week we may or may not do so.Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with leading constitutional lawyer Stephen Franks that signing this agreement is “arguably unlawful”; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I do not necessarily agree with everything in Mr Franks’ publicised opinion although there are some things I do agree with. For example he states that this sort of law is not unprecedented in New Zealand practice. Recent examples include the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act 2010 and qualified exemptions from certain provisions of the Commerce Act 1986 for Fonterra under the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001. So I think he suggested it is arguable but then goes on to state some examples.Metiria Turei: Did the Minister seek any specific advice on the implications of the decision ofFitzgerald v Muldoon before signing the heads of agreement; if so what was that advice?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I did not.Metiria Turei: Has the Minister sought advice on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications of signing a deal to amend the Gambling Act 2003 before there is legislation before the House to do so; if so what was that advice?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Sorry I did not quite get that.Mr SPEAKER: Hon Steven Joyce do you want the question repeated?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes that is right.Mr SPEAKER: Could the member please repeat the question.Metiria Turei: Has the Minister sought advice on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications of signing a deal to amend the Gambling Act 2003 before there is legislation before the House to do so; if so what was that advice?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I have not but I would point out to the member that in many examples of legislation the agreements go on to be then put before the House—for example in an agreement. So you can take just for example Treaty settlements with the Treaty of Waitangi and also international trade agreements where agreements are signed and then put before the House for the House to consider and decide whether to endorse those agreements.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take personal offence at the comparison of a Treaty settlement that provides for the rightful compensation to iwi and hapū with this dirty deal about gambling.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. It is not reasonable to take offence at that answer given by the Minister.Metiria Turei: Could a select committee amend the concessions in the intended legislation concerning this deal without affecting the contract and triggering a compensation requirement?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; I did not get that.Mr SPEAKER: Again we are having trouble hearing. Can the member actually speak directly into her mike so that—Metiria Turei: I will turn it round.Mr SPEAKER: That would help I am sure.Metiria Turei: Could a select committee amend the concessions in the intended bill concerning this deal without affecting the contract and triggering compensation?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The intention—and I stress again that this matter has not been brought before the House in any way yet—is that the bill that comes before the House would seek the House’s endorsement in terms of the agreement. So obviously no compensation would apply if a select committee and then the House subsequently rejected the terms of that agreement. That is what the House will have the opportunity to assess—whether it decides to proceed with the legislation that would give effect to the agreement.Metiria Turei: Will Skycity be entitled to any compensation if the legislation enacting the Gambling Act concession does not pass and is he concerned that the future of this whole deal relies on two MPs who are teetering on the edge of political oblivion?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think that the point that the member sort of seeks to raise is: “Are we dependent on Parliament?” and the answer is “Yes.” Governments are always dependent on Parliament in terms of passing legislation. So I do not think this is anything new. But if the Greens decided to move in favour of supporting jobs and growth in the New Zealand economy—which I know would be rare—I would welcome their support as well.Metiria Turei: Will Skycity get compensation if his Government fails to get the numbers to pass this dirty deal?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have no idea what dirty deal the member is referring to. As far as I am concerned the member is trying to offer a characterisation that probably applies much more to Green Party policy than to National Party policy.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have in fact asked this question twice now. At neither of those times did the Minister answer it. I was very specific in my final question: will Skycity get compensation if the legislation does not pass—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wanted that answer she should have asked it without the political implications.