5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this
to the Minister of Finance
Has he received any recent advice on the appropriate boundaries of his role as shareholding Minister in Television New Zealand?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) Link to this
No, not since I answered written question No. 16594.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Now that Television New Zealand (TVNZ) has admitted it was wrong to produce the “in plain English” ad, will he now admit that he was wrong to star in it?
Mr SPEAKERI apologise to the honourable member. A point of order has been raised, and members must show some courtesy to this House. That is all I am asking for.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Clearly I caused offence by referring to the Minister of Finance as a star, and I withdraw and apologise.
The honourable David Cunliffe will get to his feet and apologise for that discourteous treatment of this House. I made certain that the member’s point of order could be heard, and then he just abused the point of order process. That is not good enough, and I ask him to apologise to the House for doing that.
I am flattered by the member’s description of my participation as “starring”, because in my understanding that is a description he usually applies only to himself.
Brendon BurnsDoes he stand by the statement that he made only minor factual corrections to the “in plain English” script, when documents released under the Official Information Act reveal that he changed more than 60 percent of the script?
If the member saw the original script, he would see why Mr Cunliffe might have gone on TV to say that stuff, but I thought it was nonsense and I would not say it.
Hon Pete HodgsonYes, it is. It is challenging the veracity of the answer, or at least whether the answer addressed the question. The question was around whether the Minister stood by his earlier position that there were minor amendments in the face of the facts, and he has not addressed that aspect of the question. [ Interruption]
The Hon Gerry Brownlee knows better than to interject when a point of order is being considered. In fairness I say that I think the Minister, in answering the question, pointed out that he disagreed with so much of the original script that he would not say it, even if certain members of the Opposition might have been prepared to say it. In my view that was an adequate answer to that particular question.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question I put to the Minister asked whether he stood by the statement that only minor factual corrections were made to the script when in fact documents released under the Official Information Act show that substantive changes were made.
Hon Gerry BrownleeMembers must not interject on points of order. I have ruled on the matter. I do not accept the point the member is making. In the Minister’s interpretation of the changes he made, he considered them minor because they were not changing the whole substance of the script. I gather from what he said that he was removing stuff he felt would make him look silly in saying it. In his view, that was minor. So I cannot help the member get a further answer to that.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Further to the Minister’s admission that he did, in fact, change two-thirds of the script, how can he maintain there is no conflict of interest when TVNZ said that it was “happy” to give him “final sign-off” and that he would “really like it”?
I understand that the member’s main concern as expressed this morning at the select committee was that he did not feature in the promotion alongside me—to which I can only say that if he had something worthwhile and relevant to say, he would have been in that promotion.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
In response to a straight question, the Minister has misrepresented the questioner, and that cannot be addressing the question. [ Interruption]
I am not sure where members have been this morning but it surely was not a helpful place. I invite the Hon David Cunliffe to repeat his question, but if he expects a concise answer, he had better make it a concise question.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
Given that the Minister has now admitted that he changed two-thirds of the script, how can he maintain there was no conflict of interest when TVNZ executives gave him an assurance that he would have final sign-off rights and would be “happy with the outcome”?
I seek leave to table an email from Peter Parussini of TVNZ to Craig Howie of the Minister’s office, in which TVNZ seeks the Minister of Finance’s assistance in promoting a series of programmes on TVNZ.
I seek leave to table an email from 14 September from Scott Spicer of TVNZ, attaching for the Minister’s press secretary, Craig Howie, a very rough indicative script for the promotion.
I seek leave to table an email from the Minister’s press secretary, Craig Howie, to Scott Spicer and Peter Parussini of TVNZ. The email details the Minister’s shoe size, shirt size, and trouser size, and contains an amended copy of the script, which the Minister was happy with.
Leave is sought to table that document. [ Interruption] I guess it is members’ day so it is the members’ own time that they are wasting. Leave was sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection.
I say to the member that this is getting disorderly. If there is a set of documents he wishes to table, I ask him to seek leave to table them as a set, not individually.
I seek leave to table the balance of the documents received under the Official Information Act in relation to the “in plain English” promotion.