Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11843. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.David Shearer: Why does he stand by his statement on the prices New Zealanders are paying for power: “I think that they are paying a price … in relation to the environment we find ourselves in”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is true.David Shearer: Did he fulfil his undertaking to the House yesterday to check the figures that show New Zealand households will pay an extra $370 on average for power because his Government insists on taking out $1.16 billion in Transpower dividends?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I did two things yesterday. One was that I went and looked on the Infratil website to see how it is bagging the Labour Party for misleading the country—David Shearer: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That piece of information has nothing to do with the question.Mr SPEAKER: I think that on this occasion the Prime Minister has adequately answered the question.David Shearer: Does he accept that pulling dividends out of a company that needs to invest $5 billion to strengthen the network means that family power bills are hit twice: first to pay for the upgrade and then second to pay for his Government’s dividend; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Dividends actually make no difference in terms of the pricing of power. I am surprised the member does not know that. What actually sets the transmission part of pricing is the Commerce Commission’s weighted average cost of capital charging. It has got nothing to do with dividends. Secondly yes Transpower has gone through a substantial upgrade. By the way it started under Labour in 2005 when it invested $252 million and then in 2006 when it invested $288 million. So yes it has invested about $3 billion for which it will get its weighted average cost of capital return and that obviously has some impact. I suspect that what the Leader of the Opposition should do is that he should go and look at this State-owned enterprise and then he should go and look at another State-owned enterprise called New Zealand Post because it has got a letter waiting for him from the Labour Party caucus.David Shearer: That was a strain. Does he think it is fair that his Cabinet awarded the chief executive officer of Mighty River Power a 34 percent increase on top of a $500000 retention bonus at the same time as forcing New Zealand families to pay more than $370 extra in power?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Decisions on remuneration are made by the board of Mighty River Power. So the board of directors at Mighty River Power said to Doug Heffernan their chief executive: “Doug we love you.” But we know that in the Labour Party no one would go to—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! That is sufficient.David Shearer: Is he saying therefore that his Cabinet did not tick off the approval for the chief executive officer to be awarded a 34 percent pay increase and a $500000 retention bonus; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I am saying is that decisions of compensation are made by the board. Those decisions are held by the board. They may well tell the Government under a no-surprises policy but they are made the board.Dr David Clark: How about answering the question?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Were you on the letter or not? Actually last night—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! There is no need to bring the Speaker into this debate.David Shearer: Is he aware that under the Labour Government it did not take dividends from Transpower and instead invested it back into the company rather than having to take dividends out and then ask consumers to pay for that?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Maybe I can answer that question by asking a question.Hon Members: No!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can see why your caucus meeting went so badly yesterday.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could the Prime Minister just address the question that has been asked.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: OK I will address the question. Was Labour the Government in 2002? If it was it took a dividend from Transpower. Was it the Government in 2003? If it was it took a dividend from Transpower. Was it the Government in 2004? If it was it took a dividend from Transpower. Was it the Government—Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! I have a point of order from the Hon Annette King.Hon Annette King: I believe that in question time the members of the Opposition ask the questions and the Ministers answer. What we have had from the Prime Minister is a series of questions back to the Labour Party.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] No I need no assistance from the Prime Minister. The question was asked and the Prime Minister chose his way of answering it. It was addressed.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does the Prime Minister justify paying $1.9 million to the “feed the schools” programmes and then $1.7 million to the chief executive officer of Mighty River Power—how can that possibly be equitable or fair?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The two are not correlated. For a start off the Government spends about $70 billion - odd a year so you can go and draw any particular thing. But in the end the compensation for the chief executive of Mighty River Power is determined by the board. It might be that he happened to be doing a good job. I know David Shearer is not but Doug Heffernan—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Metiria Turei: Given the Prime Minister’s statement that he opposes a conscience vote on the Skycity convention centre bill what pressure has he or his office placed on National MPs to vote against their conscience on the first reading of the bill?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I never said I opposed that. What I said is that all National MPs will be voting for the legislation. The reason they will be voting for it is that this party went on the campaign trail and campaigned on this issue. Every single member of this party was elected on the back of that policy just like the members of the Green Party were elected on some of the mad policies that they campaigned on.