Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7911] 
11. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
 to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues: Does she stand by her statement to the House that “the infrastructure of Auckland and New Zealand cannot be funded on the basis of people on fixed incomes”; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues) 
: 
 Yes and the full sentence is: “The infrastructure of Auckland and New Zealand cannot be funded on the basis of people on fixed incomes who are often in expensive properties.” My point is that the rating system based on land or capital value of a property is not one that takes into account the income of the person who lives in that property. 
John Key 
: How does the Minister reconcile her statement of 6 August when she said: “The regional council made a democratically arrived at decision. It’s not for Parliament to attack that decision” with the Prime Minister’s comments on Monday that the Auckland Regional Council had set off “a bonfire” that the system adopted by the Auckland Regional Council was “biased against lower and middle income people” and if she is truly doing her job as Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues why did she not make those comments before the Prime Minister did? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I think if the member had bothered to read the  
New Zealand Herald 
 last Saturday he would see that I had said almost exactly that but I had made it very clear that I was making those comments as a citizen and not as a Minister. I do not believe it is useful for Parliament or Government to attack local government for doing its job. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Now that she has admitted to the  
New Zealand Herald  
on Saturday that as a citizen she deeply disagrees with the Auckland Regional Council’s new rates will she as the Minister responsible for Auckland Issues apologise to 88-year-old Mrs Janie Farquharson and her blind son for saying on Radio Pacific that if they could not pay their rates they should “talk to their bank or their insurance company and use their assets to pay an $8500 rates bill”; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: It is very unhelpful to personalise this issue. This is about trying to find the funds to build the infrastructure that Auckland needs so that New Zealand’s economy can grow. What I was saying about the individual—and it applies to every individual—is that people have to make sure their assets are used for their own benefit and to pay for their outgoings. That is the choice every citizen every ratepayer every homeowner and every renter has to make. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a point of clarification is it acceptable to you and to this House that a Minister can go on Radio Pacific and personalise an issue then come here and say she is not prepared to personalise the issue? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a political debating point not a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it your understanding—it is important for us when asking questions—that a Minister can go on public radio and say “I am speaking as a private citizen” and therefore not be able to be asked questions in this House on that exact issue as a Minister; or is there no such thing as a Minister going on the public record as a private citizen and speaking on an issue? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not ruled out any question so far in this regard today. I most certainly will listen to the questions. 
Helen Duncan 
: Why is improving Auckland’s infrastructure so necessary for New Zealand’s well-being? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Auckland is pivotal to the economic and social well-being of the whole country. Auckland’s regional economic development strategy for example advises that Auckland’s economic development is being held up by its infrastructure much of which has reached design capacity. We need to get the problems fixed. 
Mike Ward 
: Does the Minister agree that the public transport component of the Auckland rate increase would be more fairly funded from the same central government vote that pays for the motorways in this country? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: A large proportion of it is. It comes through Transfund New Zealand in the form of a public transport subsidy. 
Paul Adams 
: Does the Minister agree her party is one that has traditionally upheld the interests of those on fixed incomes; if so what sort of message does her statement in the primary question send to the Government’s traditional supporters? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The message is that yes of course we care about individuals but we are also concerned about the economic and social well-being of the country as a whole. Politics is a matter of trying to get that balance. 
John Key 
: Has the Minister taken on board the comments made by Mrs Janie Farquharson an 88-year-old widow on the North Shore facing an annual rate bill of $8500 when she said: “If she wants to stay in Parliament she had better do a lot of thinking … because believe me she won’t have a seat there next time.”; if so how has her thinking progressed from the rather uncaring and “let them eat cake” attitude she portrayed to Mrs Farquharson last week in Parliament? 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have heard this now several times today. Just then the Minister of Health called out an interjection before the Minister got up to speak. When members on this side of the House do it you jump on us and throw us out but Ministers can do it at will. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wonder whether the member would let me run the House. He does not help by contributing in that way. I try to be fair to everybody. I thought the question was properly asked and the Minister was about to start answering. 
Rodney Hide 
: You didn’t hear my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please sit down—I have had enough. Not on that issue. 
Rodney Hide 
: You didn’t hear my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the point of order. It is not a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the Minister of Health interjected before the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues had a chance to speak. My point is that if members on this side do that we get pulled up we get asked to withdraw and apologise and we get thrown out. We have heard the Minister of Health the Prime Minister and the Minister of Education do it all on the front bench—and you do nothing. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In terms of the latter couple of claims the member is confused between answers and questions. He has continuously referred to an interjection made by the Minister of Education. I was aware of it being made. The interjection was made during an answer not during a question. I would be very happy if you were to rule that there would be no interjections during answers. It would certainly make life a lot easier on this side of the House. Secondly the Minister of Health did make an interjection but it was after the question had been finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was perfectly correct. I want to say to people that I would be very happy to have no interjections whatsoever during the whole of question time. That is the current Standing Order and Speaker’s ruling. I will want to discuss that with the Standing Orders Committee. I would be very happy to do that indeed. It would make my job very much easier all round. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you are having those discussions with the committee with power to look into those matters I hope you do not come down with a finding that would continue what I think is a recent trend in this House to make it a sterile and sanitised place. Frankly it is a debating chamber and I for my part want to see it alive. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I completely agree with the member. That is why I think we have one of the liveliest question times of any country in the world. We allow more supplementary questions than any other country I know of. As far as the flow is concerned I will take notice of it. Direct interjections and noise during the asking of a question are out of order. I did not deem that to be so in this case. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I have been thinking about Auckland’s infrastructure problems for the 27 years I have been in public life and for the whole of my life that I have lived in Auckland. I would like to quote the Mayor of Auckland John Banks who told a recent political party conference: “This Labour Government is better connected to this city than any other Administration in our country’s history. We recognise that the problems we have with our infrastructure are putting real costs on individuals and businesses across New Zealand and in Auckland and those costs have got to be met one way or the other. I would prefer them to be met through making sure we have the infrastructure so New Zealand can grow.” 
John Key 
: Does the Minister think that Auckland Regional Council ratepayers will be well served by Britomart—a building that cost over $200 million to build a building that will cost $22 million a year to run and which the operator Tranz Rail currently earns $5 million out of total revenue? Does she think Auckland Regional Council ratepayers will be well served by that infrastructure investment? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Britomart is just one step in improving Auckland’s rail infrastructure. I suggest that the National Party do more work and think about positive answers for Auckland rather than trying to bring up trivial and interim objections. That member who when introduced as a new MP admitted he would never have to work again should start doing that.