Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Chair. I've just noted those comments from Minister Shane Jones and I'll return back to those in a little while. But I just wanted to talk about the wider issue because when we're talking about this bill and this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) we're actually talking about 250000 people directly employed in this industry who are feeling very vulnerable and have done so for quite some time partly because of what we do in central government but also what occurs in territorial authorities. There were two things that Mr Michael Wood referred to and I just want to rebut a couple of those things. The first thing is this issue around the discussion around the role of the Infrastructure Commission and basically he was saying that it was highly debated at that period of time. I was just checking with my colleagues before. Look the issue and the role of the Infrastructure Commission was widely debated but about its function and the function—as you know—in the bill as it currently stands is essentially one of an advisory function. The commission has no real teeth and that's where a lot of the discussion was centred. Certainly I was one of those who called for greater powers around the issue of the Infrastructure Commission having greater powers together with other members of that committee. That is why we were successful in getting the mandate spread in terms of obtaining information from councils. But in terms of the specifics around what's proposed in the SOP that was not widely traversed at all. That is something that has arisen principally from the discussion last week at the Constructive forum and I think from members—and particularly I sense from amongst Labour members—there is this view that You know it's fine and we don't need to worry about it before." I just wish that you had been there to witness the experience of your Ministers—namely the Hon Jenny Salesa and the Hon Phil Twyford—as they struggled to respond to specific questions about this very issue around why is their Government still even as of last week trying to impose these onerous contracts on them as members of the building and construction industry and specifically this issue around the allocation of risk. If you were there I'm sure that you would have a different view today and you wouldn't be talking in the way that you talk about this issue as if it's some unrelated theoretical issue. It is the burning issue for the building and construction industry. The second issue that you've raised is around the jurisdiction. Michael Wood talked about the issue of whether we should use our Auditor-General to do these types of roles and he was saying that this is a replication. Well I think there are three choices of who has the best capability to these types of work. The first one is the Auditor-General but as he will well recall from the last time they did a review of this project when we asked them about the specifics around what is best practice in procurement and why couldn't they offer an opinion on that what are the tendering techniques and why they couldn't offer it—all the types of things that are covered in the SOP—they clearly said to us as a committee that they didn't have the capability. They are essentially a financially driven audit and that's the role of an internal auditor or the Auditor-General. The other one is that the infrastructure unit in Treasury has been largely disbanded and is now to be formed as part of the Infrastructure Commission. So the question you are asking and raising—and I'm just referring to Mr Michael Wood—is who is the best person or group who has the capacity and the capability. That is why this SOP gives that to the Infrastructure Commission because they will have the capacity and capability. The third element as I mentioned in one of my earlier speeches is that they will also have the independence to be able to do this. At the moment they have no specific mandate to do this and they should have this mandate. It is what the building and construction sector is demanding and wants and needs actually. I am pretty disappointed not from my perspective as the sponsor of the SOP but I know that the Hon Shane Jones was very supportive of it and I know that the leader of the Greens was very supportive of it at a personal level. This is a bill that should go through and I'll be disappointed if we find that in time the Government has played politics on this and that at a later date—even at third reading—they seek to introduce some changes because the industry will not regard that well."