Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 05 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14306. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the insurance industry is “a highly efficient market”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I will certainly stand still when I read back my statement. Yes I do stand by it. According to the public register believe it or not a total of 96 insurance firms have a full licence from the Reserve Bank’s carry-on insurance business in New Zealand. I have heard of a group proposing to set up a 97th insurer. The only point of difference is that that insurance business would put hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money at risk by entering a market in which that group has no expertise and for which it cannot offer any competitive advantage. That cavalier attitude to taxpayers’ money comes from who else but the Labour Party.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that answer would the Prime Minister rather put hundreds of millions of dollars at risk making the insurance market more competitive or would he rather do a Soviet-style renationalisation of a large telecommunications company that he says is about to go broke?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member can rest assured that we are not about to take over some large telecommunications company. The second thing that has been quite useful actually in that question is that the member himself has admitted it would put hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money at risk. He clearly read the editorials today. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am having difficulty hearing members.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that roughly 60 percent of the insurance market is owned by just two players what percentage of the telecommunications market does the Prime Minister think is necessary to justify his Soviet-style renationalisation of Chorus?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well what the member is clearly demonstrating is that he is so out of touch with the issues that actually matter to New Zealanders that despite having hours and hours of warning he put the wrong question down today. He did not ask me one about Chorus so I am not going to give him an answer.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister got a little bit of whatever it is in his system out of his system but he has not—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. When a member raises a point of order they should succinctly and tersely come to the comment and not refer to the member. I will hear the member.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am interested in the point of order you were raising.Grant Robertson: Indeed thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. The point of order I was raising is that the Prime Minister failed to address the question as he is required to do under Standing Order 383.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No I believe the Prime Minister did address the question. I will give the member a supplementary question.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect—[Interruption] Is this a point—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. [Interruption] Order! Points of order will be heard in silence.Grant Robertson: Although the question contained a phrase that might be regarded as perhaps outside the strict reading of the Standing Orders it was very similar to phrases that were in earlier questions from the National Party. The Prime Minister is required to at least address the question and I invite you to tell me how he did that.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well I will quite happily tell the member how he did that. The supplementary question was in two parts. It referred in the first instance to insurers with two of them having 60 percent of the market and then referred to telecommunications companies. The Prime Minister responded to the part on telecommunications companies.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Prime Minister’s party received over a million dollars in donations in 2005 from the insurance industry how much in donations would it take for him to undertake a Soviet-style renationalisation of a large telecommunications company?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no responsibility for donations to the National Party. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No I agree.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table this rather charming DVD calledThe Hollow Men which features the Prime Minister and backgrounds his receipt of a million dollars in donations from—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand—[Interruption] Order! I understand that the DVD is in the public arena.Hon David Cunliffe: I am not sure it is very freely available. Perhaps members opposite could raise their hands if they have already received a copy. We would be happy—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The DVD is in the public arena. Does the member have another supplementary question?Hon David Cunliffe: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order—[Interruption] Order! There is just too much clatter going on during points of order. There will be silence while there are points of order.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table the hard copy ofThe Hollow Men which in more detail points out the million dollars of donations that the Prime Minister’s party received from the insurance industry.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That book is also in the public arena.Hon David Cunliffe: Is it not true that the Prime Minister called Kiwibank a “failing institution” after almost a million Kiwis signed up as customers; therefore why could not KiwiAssure also provide a locally owned competitive and high-quality option in the insurance market?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is great that it has taken to supplementary question No. 4 but we will get to the heart of it. These are the reasons. For a start off let us just take Kiwibank. Yes it is a good little business. I might point out though that it has taken $860 million of taxpayers’ money and it has never paid a dividend in over 10 years. Secondly the insurance market is hardly a free ride because insurance companies happen to be in the process of paying $20 billion out in Christchurch. So if we had KiwiAssure which the member wants to talk about then New Zealand taxpayers wouldbe paying a fortune into Christchurch. Thirdly it is a competitive market at the moment. So if one assumes that they are just going to lay off their risk they will be laying it off with the same reinsurers. Fourthly—Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not finished. Sit down.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No—[Interruption] The Prime Minister must yield to a point of order. I will rule whether the point of order is in order.Hon David Cunliffe: The Standing Orders provide that Ministers’ answers should be brief to the point and germane to the question.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I think the Prime Minister was doing his best to answer what was quite an expansive supplementary question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: To my fourth point as to why an insurance company would be a bad idea—name another major bank that operates in New Zealand that has an insurance company. It would not make sense to lend money—[Interruption]; no lend money—and actually have the insurance on the same property they are renting. They do not do that.Hon David Cunliffe: Given the fourth of his long answers there is he aware that ASB Bank owns Tower Insurance; if he is why is he asking such a stupid question?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and it does not provide insurance in the form that we are talking about.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Prime Minister heard of KiwiAssure over the weekend did he liken it to that brilliant policy announced by New Zealand First on 20 October called KiwiSure and did it put him in mind of the famous English adage “Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: With the greatest of respect to the member it did not get any better an idea when Labour announced it.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Prime Minister has now beaten up on Kiwibank KiwiSaver KiwiRail and now KiwiAssure when these policies have all been very popular with New Zealanders why is his Government so out of touch and why does he persist in being such a “KiwiSpoiler”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well we can go through them if you like but as we pointed out with Kiwibank it has got $860 million of taxpayers’ money and has not paid a dividend. KiwiRail—well that is very interesting but if we want to go through the details of that the Labour Government as part of an election policy decided to waste hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money paying Toll a huge amount of money. This is the same Labour Party that went into the election campaign in 2008 promising to underwrite deposits which cost this Government $1 billion. There is one part—I am prepared to accept this bit. I am prepared to accept this bit. There is one gap in the market for insurance that KiwiAssure could provide. OK I will accept that and that is income continuity because if you are about to lose your job because there is no place welcome for you in the Labour Party like Trevor Mallard and Phil Goff you would need—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will—[Interruption] Order! Question No. 3 Katrina Shanks. [Interruption] Order! There is just too much noise. I am having difficulty hearing any of the participants.