Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 21 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4543. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 First can I say to the member welcome back. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not acceptable. The Minister should not refer to the absence of any member from the House and under the particular circumstances it was doubly unacceptable. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes I do stand by all of my recent statements particularly my statement in the House last week that we have always said that if he had a shave that meant the challenge was on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have already tossed somebody out for repeat offences in the House today. That Minister was warned by you last week. He was warned part-way through that first response. I invite you to consider whether this Minister is upholding the standards that you require of others in the House. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The point of order is a totally reasonable point of order in that the primary question asked was simply: “Does the Minister for Economic Development stand by all his recent statements?”. There is no political provocation in that question whatsoever and therefore I ask the Minister to stand and withdraw his facetious comment at the end and apologise to the House for having made it. [ 
Interruption 
] I have required the Minister to stand withdraw and apologise and that will happen before I hear any other points of order. It is the last comment I want withdrawn and apologised for because it was totally unnecessary and facetious. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I hear the member I hope the Minister was actually genuine in withdrawing and apologising—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The alternative will be if this carries on further that the Minister will be leaving the House just as the other member did— 
Hon Member 
: How is that possible? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —because questions that are straight questions must be dealt with with integrity. If there is a political loading in a question or statements that have political connotations then Ministers are perfectly at liberty to focus in on those and respond to them. But this primary question had none of that and that is why I am taking the matter seriously. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that you have made strong rulings this afternoon and are wanting to take a firm line on a certain type of response and indeed as we have seen with a certain type of question. However I would point out that the question does ask: “Does he stand by all his recent statements?”. I do not think it is unreasonable then for him to refer to one of his more controversial recent statements which he could reasonably expect the Opposition to be upset about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the member has said and we will not take this any further right now. There is some merit in the point of order the Leader of the House has raised. It is one of the risks around asking such a question: “Does the Minister stand by all their recent statements?”. But today I do not resile from the action I have taken because in recent times there has been too much needling going on when the question does not provoke it. But I do accept the point that the Leader of the House has made—that where such a question is asked there are risks—but I want to leave it at that today. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand you want to leave it at that but I think it would be unfortunate if it was left that way. The Minister is responsible for ministerial statements. He has no responsibility for whether my colleague shaves or not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are going to leave it here and we are not going to take it any further. But of course the question did not actually ask about his ministerial statements although I do accept the point that the member is making—that the Minister should be responsible only for statements he makes as a Minister. But I think the exchange has been an interesting one because loose questions are always a little more dangerous. It is very difficult for the Speaker where questions ask: “Does a Minister stand by all their statements?”. It is always a difficult question to deal with. But I want to avoid this—where there is no political provocation in a question I want Ministers to resist the temptation to make political comments in their answers because I am confident they will get the opportunity if they hold their breath and wait for the appropriate supplementary question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister stand by the export document that he released last week which mentioned “competitive advantage” and “science” only once each yet cited “brand” 21 times and “story” 25 times? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes of course I do. If the member would like to take the two documents together—the one released today and the one released last week—and perhaps add up all the words and divide them by the number of times they say “science” I think he will come to a different answer. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he stand by his use of the phrase “voodoo economics” when it was originally used by George Bush Snr to describe exchange rate policies that the Minister himself now describes as orthodox? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not sure the member is correct but I would describe the term “voodoo economics” as describing something that cannot possibly occur or perhaps selling something that other people might describe as for example a snake oil solution. I do stand by my comment in that regard. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister stand by the innovation document issued this morning which does not even aspire to lift Government research and development investment to one-third of the level of that of Finland; and can he assure the House that if the Government joins its proposed small countries group with Finland he will not send Mr Brownlee as a goodwill ambassador? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Mr Speaker this must be the time that you were referring to! Can I say to the member that I am confident that the target in the paper this morning is a correct target. Can I also say that I note that the two co-leaders of the Labour Party Mr Shearer and Mr Cunliffe have released a document today saying that they would ask us to support Finland more. Can I say that we will be working with all small countries— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Generous as it may be of the Minister to advertise the Opposition’s— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. It is lucky that I cannot see the Minister in the back row there. I said Ministers only need hold their breath and a question will come where they can have a lot of licence and that question gave the Minister a lot of licence. Clearly I could have ruled it out but I did not because it gives the Minister the chance to respond. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why if the Minister stands by his innovation pamphlet did he simply re-announce initiatives already under way or in the case of seven of the 49 initiatives matters already completed; why did he rely on Business New Zealand to post a draft on its website before the document was actually launched; and why did he rush out invitations to its launch as late as Friday in a desperate attempt to cover up for the failure of last week’s export brochure? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I appreciate the member has obviously got not much to do since he has come back from holiday but the point I would make is that— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Oh that’s unnecessary. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well actually the comments made by the member were reasonably unnecessary. But the point I would make is that this is a progress report so it outlines a number of initiatives that are new a number of initiatives that are ongoing and yes a few initiatives that have finished to lay out for the business sector which I must say was very supportive of the report this morning of what is actually more than a dozen new items. Some that have recently started include the investment in science and engineering the investment in increasing the Performance-based Research Fund and some from as recently as November of last year. I think the member is pointing out that the Government has a very busy and very full science and innovation agenda.