Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:659;Page:8296] 
12.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: Has Hon Bill English received a self-drive car; if so what requirements if any are placed on where such cars should be located? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House)  
on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: Yes; all Ministers are entitled to one self-drive car for use at their discretion and since May of this year there have not been any requirements as to where that car should be located. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Hon Bill English take delivery of his self-drive car before 26 May this year? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My understanding is that the answer to that question is yes. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Therefore noting the provisions of the Civil List Act 1979 how does he explain his role in allowing until 26 May the law to be broken? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are big issues to be dealt with in this country and the location of Ministers’ cars and the garages where they keep their cars is not something that has occupied a lot of the Minister’s time. The reality is that when it became clear that a number of Ministers had decided to have their families here with them in Wellington and to also have their self-drive cars here in Wellington it was necessary to make a change. There is no net loss to the taxpayer. Ministers are still entitled to only one self-drive car just as they were through all the 9 years of the Labour Government and just as they have been for many many decades. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question—I will not repeat it unless you ask me to—was how does the Minister explain his role in breaking the law? I have given the law. It is the Civil List Act 1979. No attempt was made to address that aspect of the question and that is all that the question was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister responding on behalf of the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services actually said that bigger issues were occupying his attention. Whether that is a very good answer to the question is perhaps debatable but it certainly is an answer to the question. That is how he justifies the assertion the member has included in his question—that there were actually more important things occupying his mind. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why in his ministerial role did he sign off his colleague as living in Dipton in February but signed off that same colleague as needing his car in Wellington in May? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The first point is that it is the Speaker who signs off on where people are determined to have their primary place of residence. The second thing is that the Minister was most uninterested in where Ministers garaged their self-drive cars. Given the circumstances this country faced it was of bugger-all relevance. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called the Hon Pete Hodgson. I ask members to respect that fact that I have called the Hon Pete Hodgson. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague. I want to know whether you can reflect on the words that the Minister used right at the very end of his answer. You have made a point about the dignity of the Chamber and certain interjections are not allowed to be used by members yet the Minister used a profanity. I am just surprised that it was allowed to go— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This matter was dealt with by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt when the Toyota ads were so prominent in New Zealand advertising on television. It is interesting that we are talking about cars and we refer to the Toyota ads. It is totally appropriate that Labour’s fixation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was fine until that point but—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask front benches on both sides of the House to be silent. The member was going fine until that point. One can get pedantic about these things but as the Hon Gerry Brownlee has pointed out this matter has arisen in the House before and the context of the use of the language did not seem to be unduly offensive. But I would ask members to be a little cautious in their use of language. Unless members took particular offence I think we should move on to the supplementary question asked by the Hon Pete Hodgson. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can the Minister confirm that had there never been a decision to regularly disclose MPs’ expenses the Minister of Finance could still be siphoning $47000 worth of taxpayers’ money into his own pocket as well as driving a taxpayer-funded car around in the wrong town? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I know how much it hurts former Labour Ministers that they no longer have those opportunities available to them. In any other circumstance the suggestion made in that question would be totally defamatory. I think the member needs to think very carefully about what he is asking for. I can tell the member that there is a determination the requirements of that determination had been met and the fixation the Labour Party has on this matter sums up why it is in so much political trouble.