Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeJones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15068. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to theAssociate Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied with his performance in regard to his delegations as Associate Minister of Finance?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance): Firstly can I say that I am surprised to see the member here today. I thought he would be down with—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The start to that answer is just not going to help the order of this House at all. Would the Minister stand and answer the question that has been asked.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That question is for the Prime Minister to judge not me. It is perhaps worth noting though that in 5 years in the role this is the first time this portfolio has attracted a question in the House from the Opposition which perhaps suggests it has not seen too much to concern it over that period.Hon Shane Jones: Given that answer and the fact that he is directly responsible for the events that have led to the precarious financial position of Chorus as outlined in delegations transferred to this Associate Minister will he take responsibility for the catastrophic failure of Chorus for its $500 million write-down? He is not so smug now.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again I think the Opposition needs to line up its attack on this particular question because Opposition members are sitting there saying that the Prime Minister was wrong to say that the Commerce Commission would place the company at risk and now they seem to be suggesting that it does place the company at risk. This is a serious issue. The reality is that Chorus was relying on a certain amount of income from copper broadband to help pay for its share of ultra-fast broadband. The Commerce Commission has made a determination that will at least partially remove that income and some of the money that Chorus was relying on and that may lead to price reductions or it may not. The Government has sought an independent assessment of the financial position of Chorus. Once that assessment has been received we will work through the options to ensure that ultra-fast broadband is completed and done so at a very fair cost to taxpayers.Hon Shane Jones: Explaining is losing.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Shane Jones: Sorry?Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to continue with a line of supplementary questions I invite him to do so but if he is going to make an interjection like that again we will just move to the next question.Hon Shane Jones: Does he agree that he should no longer have delegated responsibility for Chorus Ltd as Associate Minister of Finance but should have in fact have responsibility for Chorus as Minister for Small Business given that that is what it has become under his watch?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again I can only marvel at the gymnastics of the Opposition which is one minute telling the Government that there is no problem that needs to be solved and the next minute is saying that there is a problem that needs to be solved. It is just playing politics. This Government’s ultra-fast broadband project is seen worldwide as a success. There is an issue to be dealt with. The Government will deal with this issue responsibly and the Opposition will carp no matter what the solution is.Hon Shane Jones: Given his close history with this issue and obvious responsibility for the fundamental failure of Chorus did it occur to him that he was fouling the reputation of Sue Sheldon the current chair of Chorus—apparently a paragon of audit and risk—and given the fact that she in her dealings with him has presided over a $500million loss does he not agree that she has no option but to resign today as the deputy chair of the Reserve Bank?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry but it is very hard to take that question remotely seriously because the reality of the situation is that the Commerce Commission has come up with a determination that is going to create some issues for that company. Those issues are being worked through in a responsible way. The Government is seeking advice in terms of its contract with that company. That is being dealt with absolutely correctly. Again I have to say that the Opposition needs to decide what its view is on this matter because that member is disagreeing with his leader who is criticising the Prime Minister for saying there was a problem.Hon Shane Jones: Given that answer and the advice he is taking on the contract of Chorus and the prospect of that contract being rewritten does he not agree that he provides a precedent for the Green Party to rewrite the contract of Skycity?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Oh dear.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Two and two equals seven.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes I think that is it. Two plus two equals 45 in Shane Jones’ world.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just address the question.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I thought he was once a Labour leadership contender. I reject completely the member’s question. It is on another planet.Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you measure the level of admonition from one side of the House to the other it is necessary for you as we take leave next week to take account of the fact that that side gets a lot of leeway from you and you are constantly threatening to throw—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Shane Jones: —this side of the House out.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please resume his seat. I have some sympathy for the point the member is raising. The question asked was a very loaded question. The Minister does not help the order of the House and on two occasions I have had to ask him to desist. He does not help the order of the House by answering a question with those sorts of initial comments. I do ask the Minister to do so. My alternative is simply to ask the Minister to leave the Chamber. I do not think that is warranted at this stage but I will warn Ministers that if they continue to do that they leave me no option but to then ask Ministers to leave the House.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not in any way challenging the ruling that you have made but I want to make clear that on this side of the House you have rightly in the terms of the strict Standing Orders admonished people on this side of the House and clearly said to them that the next time they do it they will leave the Chamber. Our concern is that Mr Joyce particularly in virtually every answer breaches the Standing Orders and we would ask that he is held to the same standard.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Steven Joyce.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I understood that the convention was that if it was a politically loaded question the Minister in response had the possibility of providing a political response. I have been very careful whenever I receive a question that is one that is not politically loaded to respond to the question. I think my history in this House demonstrates that. But when it is political—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough and I can help the Minister with his question. If a politically loaded question is asked then members who ask such a question can expect an answer back. But it is totally unhelpful for the Minister toinitiate his answer with some almost throwaway comment to members on the other side and that is what they are objecting to. To the point raised—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well—Mr SPEAKER: Order! To the point raised by Grant Robertson I say that I do not want to make a habit of asking members to leave the House. I attempt to give very clear warning to members before I ask them to leave this House. On this occasion I have given a very clear warning—Hon Shane Jones: About time.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given a very clear warning that if Ministers continue to ignore an instruction that has been given from the Chair then they can expect the same sort of treatment in being asked to leave the House.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would invite you to go back into your ruling and to look very carefully at the question that Shane Jones asked. Although it was asked with some flourish it was essentially a straight question as to whether someone who had made a loss of $500 million was—Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any more—Hon Trevor Mallard: —a suitable person to be—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member I think has answered his own point of order. When a question is asked with some flourish—I think that was the word he used—then it does not become a clear precise perceptive question. If it is asked in that way loaded with some political connotations then that is the answer that members can expect back.