2. Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
Has he received any reports on privatisation of the accident compensation scheme?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Associate Minister of Finance) Link to this
I have seen a report from Merrill Lynch that suggests that if National becomes the Government, it would move quickly to privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Merrill Lynch said that that will really benefit Australian insurers. It will lift their earnings by about $200 million. It goes on to say that although National is careful about its public comments, it is “giving the insurance industry a strong message that privatisation is the likely outcome if it wins the next election”. John Key should come clean about what he is telling his old company as against what he is owning up to to the New Zealand public.
The Merrill Lynch report goes on to state: “While the National Party has made no formal statement on its plans for ACC, informally, however, we understand the National Party has been very clear in saying it will privatise the ACC.” That sounds pretty much like the National Party of old that told American congressmen that the nuclear-free policy would be gone by lunchtime, while telling the New Zealand public that it had no plans to change the policy. It is also consistent with the advice followed by the National Party—as revealed in leaked emails published in The Hollow Men—that it not say anything in public about what its real agenda might be, if it would frighten the public.
Hon Bill EnglishCan the Minister tell us whether it is any surprise to him that an Australian business might think that any New Zealand Government was a soft option, when yesterday the Labour Government wrote out a $900 million cheque to an Australian company for a rail business that the Government itself says makes no money?
No, but I am sure that that business expressed some amazement that National would want to privatise the New Zealand accident compensation system in favour of an Australian-style system, when Australian levies are 2½ times those faced by New Zealanders.
Gerry Brownlee
Simon Power
Madam SPEAKERHas the Minister received any reports on the direct cost of the privatisation of Government-owned operations?
Yes, I have. In fact, it was revealed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee last month that, when in Government, Bill English spent $45.7 million in 1 year on advice on how to sell State assets—$45.7 million of New Zealand taxpayers’ money went down the drain. Again, it is somewhat interesting that of that $45.7 million, nearly $5 million went to Merrill Lynch. To do what? To help sell Auckland International Airport.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
If the Insurance Council of New Zealand is a subscriber to a political party’s coffers and gains from it a commitment to privatise ACC after the next election, what do we call that, if not venal, corrupt politics?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That member is an experienced member and knows that it is out of order to imply that someone in the House is influenced by factors outside the House.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
The member certainly raised that as a possibility; he did not state it as a fact. I think there is room for the Minister to answer the question properly.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Just because the truth hurts is no reason for someone to object in this House. Let me say this: the Insurance Council of New Zealand is a subscriber to the National Party’s coffers. Those members know it, and I—
Rodney HideThat is not correct. The Minister has no responsibility for what Mr Peters raised. And Mr Mallard is wrong, because if he were right, we would be able to raise as a possibility that Mr Peters is a tired old drunk, and we are not allowed to say that.
The Standing Orders make it clear that members cannot state that someone is under the influence of someone else for profit. However, if there is, in fact, an implication and a general question relating to that, but not a direct allegation, then if members look at our Standing Orders as to what can be asked in questions, they will find that they can actually seek opinions, etc., but they cannot make a direct allegation. I would like the member to think again and rephrase his question so that we can all be clear about it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Is the Minister aware of the money-for-questions fiasco and scandal in the British Parliament, and what is the consequence of a political party taking money from an outside body in return for promising that it would deliver a specific policy—one that National has tried before, when it was last in Government—and what do we call that?
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the first place, the Minister has no responsibility for the British Parliament, but, in the second place, that is no different from our saying that because Toll Holdings gave Labour $25,000, Labour wrote it out a cheque for $900 million.
Of course, we still have the problem of New Zealand First not explaining where all its money has come from.
That is not a point of order. In the context of the questions that were asked in the supplementary questions, I think an opinion was sought. Although the Minister has no responsibility, obviously, for what happens in the British Parliament, the question was not only about that; it related to the substance of the question.
I am aware of the money-for-questions scandal in the United Kingdom, and I am aware that New Zealanders would be totally hostile to the thought that the National Party would be paid money by donors who, in return, expected, then were given, a milch cow in the form of a privatised Accident Compensation Corporation. Let me quote something to the House, because I notice that Pansy Wong has said the National policy is not secret. During the 2005 election, the Insurance Council of New Zealand put out a memo that was leaked; the memo stated that the details of privatisation had been deliberately kept out of the announcement, after consultation with the council. That is further evidence of the very allegations—the serious allegations—made in The Hollow Men about corrupt practices, including within the National Party, and its policy of not revealing what its true agenda is.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is a long-serving member of Parliament, and he knows he cannot make allegations of corruption about any member of this House.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Hide made a comment, under the guise of a point of order, that I expected you to pull him up on. I want to give him a chance now to apologise to me in this House. If he does not, then I am going to tell the House the truth about him, which I have hitherto kept to myself. He can laugh and giggle; this is his last warning.
I am now unable to apologise, because if I did it would look like I was being blackmailed and Mr Peters had something on me that was true.
Some members are given to raising points of order that are demonstrably not points or order but points of debate. I warn members to desist from that, because it does create disorder in the House.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There was, I think, another, more serious issue in the exchange you have just heard. It is a convention of this House that we do not allow members to, effectively, blackmail other members, and what you have just heard is a very direct attempt by the leader of New Zealand First to get up in the House and say that if a member does not apologise, he will reveal personal details about him. That is certainly out of order. Madam Speaker, if you allow that kind of comment to stand, then it opens the door to a whole range of coercive statements being made in this House that up until now have not been able to be made.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Madam Speaker, you will see, if you look at the Journals of the House of Commons in the time of Winston Churchill, that the threat that if someone continues to tell lies about a member, the truth will be told about him or her is an honourable tradition in the Westminster system.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Some members in this House think they can have a free hit regardless of the facts and get away with it. All I am saying to Mr Hide is that he has a chance to apologise or take the consequences. The difference is that I will stop telling the truth about him if he stops telling lies about me.
I think that, in the context of the exchanges, I did not take it as a blackmail threat in the way in which the allegation has been made. However, I would say to members that what happens, as I said before, when interjections are made, or when points of order are made that are not points of order but could be interpreted as points of abuse, is that responses are made that are inappropriate. So I would ask all members to desist from that, and to allow us now, at half past 2, to proceed to question No. 3.