6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of Energy and Resources
Is she satisfied that prices charged to New Zealand consumers for electricity are fair and properly constrained by adequate competition?
Hon HEKIA PARATAHas the Minister been advised, either formally or informally, whether the Electricity Authority will overturn the extra $57 million charged by Genesis Energy for electricity over a mere 7-hour period on 25 and 26 March; if so, what is that decision?
The establishment of the Electricity Authority, an excellent part of the electricity review that this Government undertook, established it as independent, so I am awaiting its report.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked whether she had been advised, formally or informally, whether the Electricity Authority will overturn that decision, and she has not addressed that question.
Mr SPEAKERI presume she did, because she said she is waiting for its report. The impression she has given the House is that she has not been advised. Does the Hon Trevor Mallard have a point of order?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is the same point of order. I think we listened and we heard different things. What I heard was that the Minister was not going to release it publicly, which she has the right to say—
No, no, I do not think we need to take this further. The Minister said she was waiting for the authority’s report—its advice, in other words. The member has further supplementary questions. If the member wants to pursue the issue about informal advice, he has further supplementary questions in which to pursue that.
Has the Minister been advised whether the Electricity Authority will overturn the extra charging by Genesis Energy?
I have been advised by the Electricity Authority that it is imminently to deliver its independent report on this matter.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer the question. It was a very straight question, which asked whether she has been advised. She can say: “Yes, I was advised, but I am not going to release it.”, but she has not told us whether she has been advised.
She said she has been advised the report is about to come out. The member can pursue that still further, though. It is not hard to think of a question to test that further.
Did the Minister meet with the head of the Electricity Authority, Brent Layton, at Parliament yesterday?
Does the Minister expect Parliament to believe that she did not learn from Mr Layton yesterday whether Genesis Energy will be forced not to charge that additional $57 million?
Does the Minister expect Parliament to believe that during her discussions with Mr Layton yesterday, she did not learn whether the authority will overturn the payment of the charges by Genesis Energy?
I was advised by the chair of the independent Electricity Authority that it was imminently about to release its independent report on its investigation into this matter.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that for the third time now, we have had answers about process, and not substance. You will note that my colleague has not asked the Minister to reveal the decision, but just whether she knows what the decision is. He has now asked that question three times, and on every occasion she has answered by saying what the process is, and not whether she knows what the result of the process is.
I have some sympathy for the member’s point of order. The only problem I have is with the wording of that last question, which was whether she expected Parliament to believe something. That is very much about an opinion, and had that question been worded differently I might have responded differently. But that wording, to my mind, gives the Minister some wriggle room, because whether or not the Minister expects Parliament to believe something is simply an opinion. The facts of the matter could still be pursued further, because there are still further supplementary questions available.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take on board your ruling, but I recall the member’s first, or possibly second, supplementary question, where twice—it was a very straight question—he asked whether she had been advised, which was the question you said the member should have asked. He asked her that two questions ago, and you allowed the Minister to dodge it. I think there is an issue of consistency; you cannot have it both ways.
The Minister answered the question about the advice she had received. She told the House that she was told the report is to be released, obviously very shortly. The member could have pursued that by asking specific questions about what she was actually told. Instead of that, the member went on to ask questions about what she expected Parliament to believe. I cannot help members to get answers they might wish to get; I have to deal with the questions that are actually asked. The first answer, I believe, was a legitimate answer, and there was an opportunity to pursue it with absolute precision. It is exactly the kind of situation that question time lends itself to—to ask really incisive questions—and it was thrown away with the question about whether the Minister expected Parliament to believe something. That was not an incisive question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My request to you on this occasion will be to review the tape on this, as I know that you always do, and to look carefully at it, because I think we have different memories. My memory is that in between those two questions the member did exactly as you suggested he should, and when that was taken up by way of a point of order, you suggested that he ask yet another supplementary question.
I will certainly look at it, because it is a very fair point. I do encourage the tight questioning of Ministers, and I want to try to ensure that members are rewarded for asking tight questions. But I seem to recollect that the question in between related to whether the Minister met with the chairman of the authority, and the Minister answered and confirmed she had. I will review the tapes, but I listened very carefully, and to me the disappointing question was the final one. Asking Ministers whether they expect Parliament to believe something to me is not incisive questioning.
I will reread my first supplementary question. Has the Minister been advised, either formally or informally, whether the Electricity Authority will overturn the extra $57 million charged by Genesis Energy for electricity over a mere 7-hour period on 25 and 26 March this year?
Why is the Minister putting political objectives to limit the fall-out from uncompetitive, excessive prices totalling a massive $57 million on just 1 day ahead of the interest of New Zealanders who are paying excessive prices for their electricity?