Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8161. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he agree with his predecessor Hon Simon Power that in 2009 the Government was “looking carefully” at the make-up of SOE boards and “commercial expertise is at the forefront of our minds”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that his Government refused a capital injection for Solid Energy’s expansion plans in 2009 and the board moved ahead to progress those plans anyway two independent valuations in 2010 found that Solid Energy was worth half what the company claimed and further the scoping study that he received in 2011 revealed serious problems with the company why given all this information did he take no action to deal with the precarious financial situation Solid Energy found itself in? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The premise of the member’s question is quite incorrect. When Ministers became aware of issues raised in the scoping study they took the appropriate steps. There were discussions with the board we commissioned additional advice and as the member knows the chair has changed and the board has changed. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that answer why does he keep misleading New Zealanders that he could take no practical action to intervene regarding Solid Energy’s financial position when in fact he had at least three options: firstly under section 13 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act shareholding Ministers may from time to time direct the board of a company to take actions via the statement of corporate intent process; secondly he could have sacked the board—they resigned he did not sack them—and thirdly he could have called the chair in and provided direction in the same way that Bill English and his predecessor Simon Power called in the chairs of State-owned enterprises in 2009 and demanded additional dividends for the Crown? Why did he do absolutely nothing of any practical nature? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The member can repeat whatever he likes. The simple fact of the matter is when Ministers became aware of the issues raised in the scoping study at the end of 2011 we took the appropriate steps to address the issues that were raised. As the member knows the company now has a new chair and new board and we are currently dealing with the banks to resolve those issues. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is it correct that the former Solid Energy chairman John Palmer after announcing his resignation in November 2012 but immediately prior to his official departure signed off the renewal of the chief executive’s contract which included a substantial salary increase and as such led to a far larger amount of taxpayers’ money being spent on the chief executive’s severance package and why did he take no action even though he and the Minister of Finance were from June 2012 receiving at their request monthly reports on the state of that company? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: First of all the premise of the member’s question is quite incorrect. Mr Palmer had ceased being the chairman in November 2012. My understanding is that the allegations that that member is making are not correct. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a photograph from the National Party Flickr site which details Solid Energy— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! As I have ruled last week in a considered ruling on the tabling of documents it has to be something that adds to the quality of the debate—that informs the House. I do not consider that that photograph does. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have ruled that it does not add to the debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Add to the value of the debate. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Add to the value. Well I put it to you that this is absolutely— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now disputing my ruling. He will resume his seat. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to make it clear because I think I and a number of members last week were quite surprised at your ruling. Because of events last week we thought we would let it run at the time but are you ruling that you are the judge of whether something adds to the debate in the House? That is something that no Speaker has done before. They have always given considered rulings or groups of areas. If you are taking that power to yourself I am sure that there are going to be negative consequences. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member is trying to assist in that ruling that I made. It was a ruling about the availability of information. I am happy that the member rereads the ruling. It was around the ready availability of the material that members were seeking to debate. It was also around whether the information would be of value to the House and therefore there was definitely a quality issue in it. It is a considered ruling that was given to the House. I invite any member to come and discuss that at any time but my predecessor the Rt Hon Dr Lockwood Smith had moved to the extent where we did not have incessant tabling of documents so that when members actually sought to table documents they actually had more chance of those documents being accepted by the House. If you consider question time last week where there were a significant number of documents tabled they were tabled with the agreement of the House. If you go back some time in the past it became almost automatic that when Opposition members in particular sought to table documents leave was inevitably denied. So I am trying to get to a situation where what is tabled is useful to the House. Certainly that is what I ruled. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speaking further to the same issue the changes that the former Speaker introduced were a result of a discussion at the Standing Orders Committee and consistent with that report in that there were objective criteria set out. What you have done is introduce a subjective area that says that you are the judge of that rather than as the Standing Orders Committee and the whole House agreed that there would be groups of areas that would be ruled out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The fact is that I think most members agree that we do not want to waste the House’s time with frivolous tabling of documents but we are going to make ourselves look rather ridiculous when courts of law accept photographs as being critical parts of evidence and this House says that they are not. So all I am saying is: use caution in your judgment because that absolutist judgment I do not think we can live with. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has raised a point of order. I will take one more point of order on this matter and then I will rule further. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: From Mr Peters’ point of order the item that I sought to table is evidence of both culpability in and support for the expansion of Solid Energy’s lignite programme in Southland. That is evidence of it and I would have thought that if it is good enough for a court it is good enough for you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that point. At the end of the day I think that it is a long bow but the easiest way to resolve this matter is to actually allow leave to be sought. I am going to do that in a second but I invite the Hon Trevor Mallard at any time to discuss a ruling that I make. I am quite happy that the matter be further discussed at the Standing Orders Committee because what we are trying to do is to deliver to the House the opportunity of tabling relevant documents and eliminating the tabling of irrelevant documents. But on this particular occasion to resolve the matter I will allow the member to put his leave to have a photograph tabled. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection to that course of action. 
Rt Hon John Key 
: Is it true that in 2004 the then Labour Government started allowing Solid Energy to expand into lignite operations in Southland; is it also true that in 2005 it allowed it to acquire land for lignite conversion in Southland; and is it also true that in 2008-09 when National became the Government— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When did that Minister whom Mr Key is addressing the question to become responsible for Labour’s actions or policy? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was not anything about responsibility—and I think the question has been quite long enough. The question was not about any responsibility; it was about whether the Minister was aware. Would the Minister— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do want to reinforce that and ask you to consider that the Prime Minister asked a series of questions—is it true that a Labour Government did this; is it true that a Labour Government did that; is it true— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It is getting to the stage— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: —none of which I think can be answered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I suggest the quickest way forward without asking the Prime Minister to repeat his question is to ask the Minister to succinctly answer the question that has been put forward. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member beside Clayton Cosgrove please put that paper down. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You have already heard a submission by the Hon Trevor Mallard that the question directly referred to the Labour Government and alleged actions in that respect. The way to deal with it is not to allow the Minister to answer a question that is out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Ministers may be asked historical information or questions about previous Governments. They should not stray— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I have for you is: if you were to follow the logic of Mr Mallard then it would mean that if a Minister is new to a portfolio then any activities undertaken by a previous Minister in that portfolio cannot be questioned by the House. I think that would be a very backward step. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. In this case the question— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not taking any further points of order on this matter. The question is in order. The Minister can and should answer it but should not stray into anything beyond his own responsibility. The question is: what is he aware of? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can confirm to the Prime Minister that I am aware of that information and further I am also aware that in September 2008 Solid Energy started an at-risk payment system to its staff where 90 percent of its staff got some of this so-called $11 million that only executives have got. The fact is that that all started under the Labour Government as well. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table the financial statements of Solid Energy from the period 2000 to 2008 showing the huge profits that it was making and I think it also mentions that it won a few export awards as well back then. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because of the long period of time of the documents the member is seeking to table I will put the leave—2000 to 2008 financial reports from Solid Energy. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. The material can be tabled. 









Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.