Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 06 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3225. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he still accept assurances from officials that concrete used in New Zealand is fit for purpose?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):The member some months ago sought assurance on whether imported high-alkali cement was fit for purpose. The current issue is not about the standard of cement but concrete. One of Firth’s batching plants in Auckland had a malfunction due to a faulty load sensor resulting in the incorrect mix and about 1000 cubic metres of substandard concrete being supplied to 35 customers. The cement used was not high-alkali was not imported and was not at fault. The member seems confused about the difference between cement and concrete. The former is costing—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It will be apparent to you that this was a very simple question. How the member could be confused with anything else which is what he saying now is surely nothing to do with the question. I have asked him a simple question—is the concrete fit for purpose—and he is now attacking me for no good reason at all. I have not started on him yet.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any assistance. The issue of the question is has he accepted the assurances that everything is in order? If that could be addressed I would be happy.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Yes I will hear from the member.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The question is in respect of “does he still accept assurances”. The assurances that I gave in the question in February as you will clearly see from Hansard was in respect of cement not concrete. I have given this member—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member simply answer the question today—has he accepted the assurances? That is the question that is being asked. I will invite the Rt Hon Winston Peters to re-ask his question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you Mr Speaker. Does he still accept assurances from officials that concrete used in New Zealand is fit for purpose?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have not given the member any assurances in respect of concrete. I did give him assurances in respect of cement. It is a pity the member does not understand the difference. Perhaps I will take him to a building site.Rt Hon Winston Peters: You sound like a concrete block right now. Is he—Hon Maggie Barry: Says the member who’s named after one.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh lighten up honey. Is he aware that a batch of imported cement in 2014 exceeded the 0.6 percent alkali safety level; if so what did he do in response to this issue at the time?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I sought advice from my officials. The member has not produced a single qualified engineer who has concern about the high-alkali cement. The concern is that if the cement is used correctly—as per the New Zealand standard—and is mixed correctly it produces perfectly safe and credible concrete.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case if his officials were able to assure him that imported cement is meeting the standard and does not pose a safety risk to the public as he has stated again today why then have officials in his office on 22 July 2014 stated that they were in a state of panic on getting questions on this issue?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Last year I asked for advice from officials about the cement. They said that it complied with the standard. I made the point to ask whether there were any engineers—people who are actually qualified in this subject—who were concerned about it. The answer was there were not. My simple challenge to the member is if he has got a concern about high-alkali cement rather than talking to those parties who do not want to have imported cement competing with that in New Zealand give us an engineer’s report that has got concerns.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it is good enough for Firth to do full plug inspections of its concrete to ascertain the quality of it why was he not prepared to do that on the buildings that allegations of faulty cement were made about rather than rely upon industry-conflicted assurances?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I relied on the advice of officials who I do not believe are conflicted. In respect of the difficulty that has occurred with Firth it is not an issue with the integrity of the cement. The issue is that a weighing device failed the correct mix did not occur and the concrete is not up to strength. That has been picked up in the testing and the responsibility rests with Firth to work that issue through with the 35 customers who were supplied with the understrength concrete. I stress that the cement that was used in the Firth issue is perfectly up to standard.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When will the Minister understand that this is not a question about Firth but about substandard concrete from imported cement that itself was substandard and why has he not conducted one test on any of the buildings in which it is alleged this concrete cement was used?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I repeat the simple challenge I gave the member at the time to table a single qualified engineer’s report of concern about the alkali cement and I am happy to then seek a review of that. Without that evidence the member is simply playing a game of competition within the industry.