1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
When did he first tell his Minister of Finance that he had ruled out ever initiating the privatisation of Kiwibank?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
At the same time as he told the rest of the country: before the last election.
When he said yesterday that he had ruled out the full or partial sale of the parent company of Kiwibank, did he mean that he had ruled out completely the sale of New Zealand Post?
Well, that is the problem. If that was what he meant yesterday, why did he tell Newstalk ZB on 8 June that it was possible for New Zealand Post to be sold and that Kiwibank was the asset that was off the table?
Of course the Prime Minister was correct—it is quite possible. However, the Government has made a different decision.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised this with you yesterday: this is a serious forum, where Ministers can be expected to be held to account. That means that they must make real efforts to answer and address questions. I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister did that. He is talking in riddles.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
One cannot get a clearer answer than the answer that was given to that question: it is possible, but the Government has made a different decision. That is perfectly reasonable; it does not need any elucidation. It is not the answer that the Opposition wants, but it is perfectly reasonable and it is factual.
Mr Speaker, that cannot possibly be the answer, when the answer to the primary question was that this decision was made before the election.
Mr SPEAKERThe difficulty we are in now is that we are litigating the quality of the answer by way of a point of order. I think that on this occasion the Minister’s answer was a reasonable answer to the question. He said the Government had made a different decision on something. In fact, I was more concerned about the answer to the previous question, but the member seemed to be satisfied with that one.
If the sale of New Zealand Post is being completely dismissed now, how does the Prime Minister explain the fact that the Minister of Finance contradicted him completely in the Minister’s answers to questions before the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 10 June, which was last week, by saying he was going to “kick the tyres” on the sale of New Zealand Post and see whether it should be put up for sale? That is a total contradiction.
The Prime Minister has said, consistently with National’s undertaking, that there will be no asset sales in this term of office. If that were to change, then the Government will go to the people with a different policy and campaign on it in 2011. That does involve kicking the tyres.
How can the New Zealand public believe anything that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say, when they said one thing in public last week, they contradicted it in Parliament this week, and they will contradict it again next week; why should this Government be given any credibility, at all, on this issue?
Because the Government has stuck to its commitment to New Zealanders, which was that there would be no asset sales in this term of office, and that if the Government changes its position, then it will campaign on that at the 2011 election.
If Kiwibank and New Zealand Post are not to be privatised, why did the Prime Minister tell his post-Cabinet press conference on 31 May that it was possible there would be a partial float of Kiwibank shares to small investors; and when did he actually change his mind?
The Government will articulate a position on asset sales, consistent with its commitment, before the 2011 election. I suggest that the Labour Party get out and get on with trying to sort out some of its policy, because it actually does not have any for the 2011 election.
How is it that the Prime Minister promised the country, on no fewer than nine occasions before the election, that Kiwibank would never be privatised, when the week after the Budget he talked about floating shares in Kiwibank for small investors?
Hon Jim AndertonHow does the Prime Minister reconcile his statement that the Government has done no work on privatisation with the Treasury statement that it is doing work on privatisation in order to find out why New Zealanders do not like it; and can he think of anything, at all, that might help Treasury to understand why New Zealanders do not like selling their publicly owned assets?
Treasury has spent most of its time working on improving the appalling levels of management we inherited of the $200 billion worth of assets that the taxpayer owns. Consistent with the Government’s position, in the Prime Minister’s words we will kick the tyres. Treasury will, from here, be doing some work on whether or not that is feasible.
As the Minister has not answered as to the advice that Treasury might get in order to help it to understand the public’s opposition to the sale of publicly owned assets, does the Prime Minister need any help on that, because there is plenty coming from this side of the House?
Well, Treasury gets all the advice that it can get, from anywhere. That member could probably do with a bit of help from Treasury advice on his month-long world trip that included thousand-dollar dinners.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is that an appropriate comment from a Minister who spent half a million—
That was a flagrant abuse of the point of order system, and the member knows that. I will not tolerate that again; let me be very clear about that. The member’s question was extraordinarily free, in terms of the kind of answer that could be given. If members ask questions like that, Ministers are free to say darned near anything. The remedy lies in the hands of the questioner to ask clearer, more precise questions.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a wide-ranging question, although it dealt with a specific issue in terms of help for Treasury. But is it in order for the Minister to go even further and accuse a former Government Minister—as he has done, by implication—of expenditure excesses while on Government business overseas, when that was paid for by Ministerial Services—
The member will resume his seat. I understand why the member is concerned about that. I just ask Ministers to be careful about that sort of thing. It will lead to disorder, and it is not helpful.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
How can he, with any credibility, give the answer that he gave to the last supplementary question, when he has gained, as a family, over half a million dollars from pretending to live in Dipton?
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is to the Prime Minister, and it needs to be addressed accordingly.
The member makes a perfectly good point of order, and if the member’s supplementary question is to be in order, he needs to reword it.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
How can his Minister of Finance have any credibility, when the Minister of Finance’s family has gained half a million dollars—
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question went directly to the issue of the Opposition’s allegation that Kiwibank is being privatised. It did not stray from that, nor did any of the supplementary questions that have been asked around it. Indeed, the exchange with the Hon Jim Anderton was related to his desire to ask a question about the advice that Treasury has received on the privatisation issue. This supplementary question strays well off that particular focus on the primary question.
I accept that the question asked by the Hon Jim Anderton did not stray a long way from the primary question. The answer given by the Minister, though, introduced material that was somewhat different from the primary question. I thought about it as the member was asking his question—about whether it was in order. Given the answer of the Minister, though, he introduced a whole new dimension about members’ expenditure, and that has opened up this question somewhat further.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
How can his Minister of Finance have any credibility in these matters, when he has gained half a million dollars from pretending to live in Dipton?
The member’s allegations are ridiculous, despite the fact that he makes them every day. I suggest that he takes those matters up with the former Speakers of the House, whom he is now accusing of having not followed the procedures.
I apologise to the honourable member. I have warned the Hon Trevor Mallard today, very clearly, and he has just abused the procedures of the House once more. What does he expect me to do—just ignore that abuse of the House? I say to the honourable member that on this occasion I accept that tensions are fairly high on both sides of the House, but he is on very, very thin ice. The Hon Trevor Mallard will get to his feet, and he will withdraw and apologise sincerely to this House for that serious abuse of this House.
I seek leave to table a transcript of the Finance and Expenditure Committee meeting on 10 June at which the Minister of Finance said the Government is working on the privatisation of New Zealand Post.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What is the status of that document? If it is a committee document that has not been released—
It is my fault that I did not clarify that for the benefit of the House. I ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition for the source of the document.
The source of the document is a transcript provided by Hansard, not yet available publicly, in which the Minister of Finance made the comments that I said in my question he had made. [ Interruption]