2. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does she stand by her statement yesterday that “improving transmission on the grid into Auckland is a very high priority for the Government”; if so, what specific actions are proposed by the report to the Cabinet policy committee which she told the House would be received today?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, the Government has asked for a full analysis of the causes of the outage and for advice on actions to be taken to prevent such an occurrence in future.
Can she advise the House whether any of the recommendations received today are brand new, or did the report contain recommendations that have been patently obvious to everybody else in the last 7 years of her Government?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
I can advise that the advice I have received today is that under the current Government, Transpower has been investing, on average, around $300 million per annum in its system. That is six times the $50 million per annum invested under National. That is the sort of action we get under a Labour Government.
Why do the Prime Minister and her Ministers continue to deny that the Resource Management Act has caused considerable problems to Transpower in its endeavours to upgrade the national grid, when Transpower told the then incoming Minister of Energy, Trevor Mallard, in December 2004 that it strongly supported a revamp of the Resource Management Act to boost the Government’s powers to intervene in projects and has, indeed, made a similar point in every annual report since 2002?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Transpower has been in touch with the Government today to say that it has not said anywhere that it blames the Resource Management Act for Monday’s blackout. That is the fact.
What has been achieved by the high-level ministerial infrastructure group chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister since it was set up 3 years ago, and did it ever consider the weakness of the national grid’s single entry point into Auckland?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
The purpose of that committee was to undertake an infrastructure stocktake. The stocktake revealed years of underinvestment because of failed market models. Under this Government, investment in transmission is running at six times the level that it ran at under National.
Why will the Prime Minister’s Government not take responsibility for the fact that it has now been in office for 7 long years and just deliver the solutions so clearly needed by New Zealanders, instead of receiving yet another report stating that something should be done by somebody, sometime?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
Far from something being done by somebody sometime, the Government has seen investment in transmission go up more than six times. The Government does not rely on failed market models of the kind that that member and his party endorse.
Rodney HideWhat responsibility does the Prime Minister take, as Prime Minister, for the power blackout in Auckland on Monday, and does she believe that as Prime Minister she can do anything to improve the situation?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK Link to this
As Prime Minister I lead a Government that is committed to infrastructure investment and has increased the expenditure on transmission to six times more than the expenditure under National. That is how we on the Government side of the House deliver.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on the answer the Prime Minister gave to my supplementary question. The question was quite specific. I asked what responsibility the Prime Minister accepts for the power blackout—she chose not to answer that—then what she as Prime Minister could do to mitigate the situation and make it less likely to happen again. The Prime Minister chose not to address that. She chose to address neither part of the question. The Standing Orders require that the Prime Minister address the question.
Madam SPEAKERThe Prime Minister did address the question, by addressing what had been done. If the answer did not satisfy the member, then that is not a matter for the Speaker. I do not arbitrate—
I have not finished. As members well know, it is not for the Speaker to arbitrate on the quality or fullness of answers. The question must be addressed, and the Prime Minister did address the question.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I beg your indulgence to explain how the Prime Minister’s saying that the Government has increased investment sixfold—or a hundredfold or a thousandfold—in any way addressed either part of the question. The question asked what responsibility the Prime Minister accepts. She chose not to address that part of the question—not once; not in any way. She was asked what she could do as Prime Minister to mitigate the situation. She chose not to address that part of the question, either. The point I am making is that of course—[ Interruption] Look, I would need to live a long time to expect to get an answer out of this Government that satisfied me, but it is required to try to address the question. The Prime Minister repeatedly chose not to do so.
I have ruled that the Prime Minister did address the question. It is not for the Speaker to explain anything more than the fact that the question was addressed. If it was not addressed to the member’s satisfaction, as the member has said, then that is not a matter for the Speaker.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Maybe you could help the House in this way. Is there any answer to any question that the Prime Minister could give that would be deemed by you not to have addressed the question?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
The member is now clearly challenging your authority and your rulings. The rules around that have not changed during his long absence from this Parliament.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Maybe for the benefit of those of us who are in Opposition you could, at a suitable time, provide that explanation for us, to stop the confusion.