Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 09 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11764. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements regarding Solid Energy and the Future Investment Fund “Well again I think he’s saying that technically it was in the rules it might be possible. I haven’t actually seen—can’t recall either seeing [indistinct] and marked those things that are in the budget is an allocation process” and “If Bill’s saying it’s there there might be a [indistinct] allocation”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes. For the benefit of members Ministers have agreed to a facility of up to $100 million to provide liquidity support for Solid Energy if it is needed and so far it has not been—Grant Robertson: I thought you said yesterday they had it.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well wait till to we get to the end of the answer. Secondly the facility cannot be used as a capital injection so it is not about bailing out Solid Energy as Mr Cosgrove claims. A range of options for this facility was put to Ministers but the only one they have considered is a secured loan repayable in the short term. Officials advised a secured loan would not be a charge against the Future Investment Fund.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Despite that answer could the Prime Minister given that he stands by that statement explain to the House exactly what he meant by that statement?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes because the member is a bit slow I will do it for him.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon Trevor Mallard: I think you indicated either last week or the week before that you were going to tighten up on Ministers to get them when they are asked relatively non-political questions not to abuse members. I think that has just been breached and I would note that there have now been five interjections since I restarted the point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the member is making. I do not think he can argue to my satisfaction that it was a non-political question. Having said that it would be helpful if the Prime Minister would simply address the question without equally adding politics at the start.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your ruling is interesting in that the Prime Minister and your office accepted the primary question. My supplementary question could not have been ruled political. It simply asked him to explain what he meant. Could you point out to me what is political about that?Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please resume his seat.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Ministers were asked to consider a facility that could be used for Solid Energy to pay for wages and things in the short term if—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why didn’t you tell the truth?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —the company actually went broke and could not achieve that.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why did you black out the figures?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That was actually something I remember—the member actually running around saying exactly that.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why did you black out only one set of figures?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I am not going to bother answering if you are going to carry on like that.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wanted to inquire whether the Prime Minister has finished his answer.Mr SPEAKER: Order! He decided not to because of the interjections that were coming from the member. If the member wants to continue raising points of order that I do not consider are appropriate or relevant then he will not get the ability to ask further supplementary questions.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he stand by his statement this morning on Firstline regarding loans to Solid Energy that Bill English could “if he wanted to do it unsecured he could do that as well”; if so does he also stand by his statement yesterday at his post-Cabinet press conference that “we’ve never ever considered giving [Solid Energy] an unsecured loan”—which is it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why did he say yesterday morning on Newstalk ZB that asset sales money was not going to be used to support Solid Energy and that I was making it up then 10 minutes later on Radio Live he said that there might be an allocation of $100 million for Solid Energy when an hour beforehand on yet another radio station Bill English confirmed that asset sales money has been appropriated for Solid Energy recovery facilities saying “the Government decides what the Future Investment Fund is spent on.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because in answer to the first part of the question it is true: we are not putting money out of the Future Investment Fund into Solid Energy and secondly the member was making it up.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table the Cabinet and Treasury documents signed off by Cabinet and the Prime Minister that show that Cabinet has set aside $100 million from the Future Investment Fund for so-called “Solid Energy recovery facilities”.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Is he aware that his Cabinet has approved $10 million of spending from the Future Investment Fund on the National War Memorial; if he can recall that how is it plausible that he can remember a $10 million spending item approved by the Cabinet that he chairs but he cannot recall a $100 million item derived from the same source the Future Investment Fund and noted in his own Cabinet documents that he signed off on?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes; in answer to the second part of the question the member is just plain wrong. What Cabinet has done is establish an authority to allow the Government to lend money if it wants to. If it was done on a secured basis it would not come out of the Future Investment Fund. The only way that the Government would lend money to Solid Energy would be on a secured basis but because the accountants are truly conservative and because we gave ourselves a range of options that was the way they accounted for it. No $100 million has been there. But what is interesting now actually is Clayton Cosgrove is telling the people—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may anticipate my point of order. He had a lengthy—Mr SPEAKER: I could not possibly anticipate a point of order from that member at all.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am very happy to enlighten you. The Prime Minister gave a lengthy answer and now he is starting to attack me. He has given a lengthy answer—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think that that was a significant enough attack to worry the member. He is bigger than that.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order. [Interruption] Not as big as you Gerry. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been called and it will on this occasion be heard in silence.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: This is a serious point of order. Is it then your ruling that a member needs to be subjected to the attack before you will then pull the Minister up?Mr SPEAKER: No that is not my ruling. Question No. 6 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Would members on all sides of the House settle down so we can hear from Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi. Question No. 6.