Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 19 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7929. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
David Shearer 
: In light of his statement that he is not losing any sleep over the Deputy Auditor-General’s report can he confirm that he personally attended the dinner with Skycity on 4 November 2009 and that he personally instructed officials to stop their normal work on the tender process; if so are the officials responsible for his personal actions or is he? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not think the member is actually representing the report accurately. I certainly went to dinner on 4 November but let me go through the Office of the Auditor-General report which says: “The main question underlying this inquiry was whether the Government’s decisions to negotiate with SkyCity had been influenced by inappropriate considerations”— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question. It did not ask for general lines in the Office of the Auditor-General report. It was a detailed question and the Prime Minister showed no intention of getting close to it. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think it is interesting to note that the primary question asked the Prime Minister whether he stood by all his statements. To then go on and ask him about when he attended a dinner or did not seems to be wildly away from statements he has made. The fact is that the material facts of that matter are in the report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My difficulty with the answer frankly is that I could not hear it because of the noise that was coming from the Labour benches. I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to re-ask the question. The Prime Minister is quite within order to say whether it is specific enough. He does not have that information. The member may ask the question again but I would like to have the ability to hear the answer in some degree of silence within the House. 
David Shearer 
: In light of his statement that he is not losing any sleep over the Deputy Auditor-General’s report can he confirm that he personally attended the dinner with Skycity on 4 November 2009 and that he personally instructed officials to stop their normal work on the tender process; if so are the officials responsible for his personal actions or is he? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I attended the dinner and no I did not ask them to stop any tendering process. As I said before I was interrupted the main underlying question of the report was “whether the Government’s decision to negotiate with SkyCity had been influenced by inappropriate considerations such as connections between political and business leaders.” 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He answered the question. We do not need a long rambling explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Prime Minister has very satisfactorily answered the question. If the member does not want any further answer to that question that is OK. 
David Shearer 
: Can he explain the Deputy Auditor-General’s comments that “The meetings and discussion between the Government representatives and SkyCity were materially different in quantity and kind from those between the Government and the other parties …”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Again the report needs to be read in context. What the Deputy Auditor-General makes quite clear in her report is that there was nothing inappropriate—in fact it was quite normal that the Government and Skycity and others would have discussions. The nature of those discussions was always going to be different because of different proposals that were there. The Deputy Auditor-General actually supports that because she says it is an unusual process. And as I said she herself says: “We have seen no evidence to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with SkyCity was influenced by any inappropriate considerations.” which is total vindication. We did nothing wrong.  
David Shearer 
: In light of this last answer can the Prime Minister explain the Deputy Auditor-General’s comment that “We do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent or even-handed.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Deputy Auditor-General makes it quite clear in the report that she has some procedural issues but no substantive issues whatsoever. She says there was no different conclusion that would be drawn and goes on to say: “We have seen no evidence to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with SkyCity was influenced by any inappropriate considerations.” She also says at length in the report that this was not a normal procurement and that in fact the Government would always be looking for innovative and creative ways of doing things. 
David Shearer 
: Why did Skycity send designs for a 5000-seat centre directly to the Prime Minister’s office after a 4 November 2009 dinner meeting between the Prime Minister and Skycity? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: People send proposals all the time to our office. And the Deputy Auditor-General says in her report that it is absolutely totally appropriate that Government Ministers and organisations would have discussions. What then follows is an expressions of interest process and that process followed. 
David Shearer 
: Do these meetings that he held with Skycity as the Deputy Auditor-General’s report alleges represent an unfair advantage to Skycity or not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Deputy Auditor-General notes there was no substantial advantage. What she says is there are some procedural issues around an unusual and bespoke different way of procurement. She also says that is quite normal in the environment we are in and fundamentally there were no substantive issues. I also note and I should say that the other participants who put in bids said themselves that they were not worried not concerned. Then she goes on to say that there were substantial advantages that supported the Skycity deal.