8. Question No. 8—TransportCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 8—TransportHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry; I was just so engrossed in the answer that we got before! Each week under these different circumstances the Government has provided a list of Ministers to the Opposition in order that we might be able to more appropriately organise our questions to Ministers each week. This week the transport Minister has not been here; the two associates were due to be here today—that was the information we got—and we have organised our questions accordingly. Now I know we don't speak about members not being present but all I can say is that it would not be possible for an associate transport Minister let alone the transport Minister to answer the question today as we would have expected taking the advice from the Government as to who would be here today.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Mr Speaker I have supplied the Opposition with a list of Ministers who will be available at question time each day and I have indicated to the Opposition that where they ask questions to Ministers who are not present or to portfolios where the Minister that holds the portfolio is not present we will ensure that there is a Minister fully briefed and able to answer questions on their behalf.SPEAKER: I just want to check first of all—was Mr Twyford's name on the list supplied for Ministers to be present today? It wasn't? OK. Thank you.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Speaking to the point of order further I'm not going to dispute the fact that you have followed that process. All I'm saying is that there is an issue that this question relates to that has come to light this week and it is reasonable for us to assume that we look at your list and say Who are the associates?" We knew that Mr Twyford wasn't going to be here. There were two associates set down to be here today. We can't ask the question and have it answered by one of those associates today. So I think we need to have a slightly better process. Hopefully we're only going to be carrying on with this for another two days but at this stage we don't know.Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking further—SPEAKER: No I'm going to deal with it now. The Standing Orders are very clear and that is that any Minister may answer on any other Minister's behalf and there is no obligation if an Associate Minister is present for that person to be answering for the Minister who is absent.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That is not my point. My point is that we are sitting here by agreement in a House structured in a way that does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders—we've set those aside. We've set aside the proxies. We have an arrangement where to give some validity to the question time we're told what Ministers are going to be here. I'm simply pointing out that we're extremely disappointed that the Government has not been able to get the two associates here one of whom might have answered for Mr Twyford who we always knew was not going to be here.SPEAKER: OK. The member has recorded his disappointment but I will reiterate my comment and that is that while it might be his preference that an Associate Minister answer a question for an absent Minister it is not a requirement of the Standing Orders and it is not a practice of the House on all occasions.8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: When is the Transmission Gully project expected to be completed and open to the public and did the New Zealand Transport Agency receive legal advice that advised the agency not to provide $190.6m of financial relief to CPB HEB JV which it agreed to do in February 2020?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) assures me that they are committed to seeing the Transmission Gully project completed as quickly as possible. They're currently working with the builder to confirm and agree a new completion date. Without waiving legal privilege in the advice that the New Zealand Transport Agency received prior to its settlement with the joint venture they have confirmed that they did not receive legal advice that it should not provide $190.6 million of financial relief.Chris Bishop: Why has the five-week lockdown period ostensibly caused months or even years of delay to the opening of Transmission Gully?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my primary answer the extent of the delay has not yet been determined and NZTA is currently negotiating a new completion date with the builder but it is important to note that seasonal factors do come into play here and that different parts of the road can be completed at different times of the year.Chris Bishop: Was the board of the Transport Agency advised to enter into litigation against the contractor for Transmission Gully rather than settle?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I am not privy to the legal advice that the New Zealand Transport Agency board has received and they have not waived legal privilege. I was able to get confirmation from them to answer the primary question but if the member wants to have something more specific about the legal advice the board has received then he would be best advised to put down a more specific question.Chris Bishop: Why did the Transport Agency settle with the contractor for Transmission Gully?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The New Zealand Transport Agency wants to get the roading project finished.Chris Bishop: Will the Transport Agency enforce the penalty clauses in the contract with the Wellington Gateway Partnership for late delivery of Transmission Gully?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is not the habit of the Minister or the New Zealand Transport Agency to undertake commercial negotiations through question time.Chris Bishop: Is he confident that the wholesale changes to the Transport Agency board and management in 2018 and 2019 have had no impact on the ability of the Transport Agency to manage the risks associated with the Transmission Gully project?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes."