Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:664;Page:11727] 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When did he first tell his Minister of Finance that he had ruled out ever initiating the privatisation of Kiwibank? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: At the same time as he told the rest of the country: before the last election. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When he said yesterday that he had ruled out the full or partial sale of the parent company of Kiwibank did he mean that he had ruled out completely the sale of New Zealand Post? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: He said what he meant. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Well that is the problem. If that was what he meant yesterday why did he tell Newstalk ZB on 8 June that it was possible for New Zealand Post to be sold and that Kiwibank was the asset that was off the table? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Of course the Prime Minister was correct—it is quite possible. However the Government has made a different decision. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raised this with you yesterday: this is a serious forum where Ministers can be expected to be held to account. That means that they must make real efforts to answer and address questions. I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister did that. He is talking in riddles. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: One cannot get a clearer answer than the answer that was given to that question: it is possible but the Government has made a different decision. That is perfectly reasonable; it does not need any elucidation. It is not the answer that the Opposition wants but it is perfectly reasonable and it is factual. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Mr Speaker that cannot possibly be the answer when the answer to the primary question was that this decision was made before the election. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The difficulty we are in now is that we are litigating the quality of the answer by way of a point of order. I think that on this occasion the Minister’s answer was a reasonable answer to the question. He said the Government had made a different decision on something. In fact I was more concerned about the answer to the previous question but the member seemed to be satisfied with that one. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If the sale of New Zealand Post is being completely dismissed now how does the Prime Minister explain the fact that the Minister of Finance contradicted him completely in the Minister’s answers to questions before the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 10 June which was last week by saying he was going to “kick the tyres” on the sale of New Zealand Post and see whether it should be put up for sale? That is a total contradiction. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has said consistently with National’s undertaking that there will be no asset sales in this term of office. If that were to change then the Government will go to the people with a different policy and campaign on it in 2011. That does involve kicking the tyres. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How can the New Zealand public believe anything that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say when they said one thing in public last week they contradicted it in Parliament this week and they will contradict it again next week; why should this Government be given any credibility at all on this issue? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because the Government has stuck to its commitment to New Zealanders which was that there would be no asset sales in this term of office and that if the Government changes its position then it will campaign on that at the 2011 election. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If Kiwibank and New Zealand Post are not to be privatised why did the Prime Minister tell his post-Cabinet press conference on 31 May that it was possible there would be a partial float of Kiwibank shares to small investors; and when did he actually change his mind? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government will articulate a position on asset sales consistent with its commitment before the 2011 election. I suggest that the Labour Party get out and get on with trying to sort out some of its policy because it actually does not have any for the 2011 election. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How is it that the Prime Minister promised the country on no fewer than nine occasions before the election that Kiwibank would never be privatised when the week after the Budget he talked about floating shares in Kiwibank for small investors? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has stuck to his commitment: Kiwibank has not been privatised. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his statement that the Government has done no work on privatisation with the Treasury statement that it is doing work on privatisation in order to find out why New Zealanders do not like it; and can he think of anything at all that might help Treasury to understand why New Zealanders do not like selling their publicly owned assets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Treasury has spent most of its time working on improving the appalling levels of management we inherited of the $200 billion worth of assets that the taxpayer owns. Consistent with the Government’s position in the Prime Minister’s words we will kick the tyres. Treasury will from here be doing some work on whether or not that is feasible. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: As the Minister has not answered as to the advice that Treasury might get in order to help it to understand the public’s opposition to the sale of publicly owned assets does the Prime Minister need any help on that because there is plenty coming from this side of the House? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well Treasury gets all the advice that it can get from anywhere. That member could probably do with a bit of help from Treasury advice on his month-long world trip that included thousand-dollar dinners. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is that an appropriate comment from a Minister who spent half a million— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was a flagrant abuse of the point of order system and the member knows that. I will not tolerate that again; let me be very clear about that. The member’s question was extraordinarily free in terms of the kind of answer that could be given. If members ask questions like that Ministers are free to say darned near anything. The remedy lies in the hands of the questioner to ask clearer more precise questions. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a wide-ranging question although it dealt with a specific issue in terms of help for Treasury. But is it in order for the Minister to go even further and accuse a former Government Minister—as he has done by implication—of expenditure excesses while on Government business overseas when that was paid for by Ministerial Services— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I understand why the member is concerned about that. I just ask Ministers to be careful about that sort of thing. It will lead to disorder and it is not helpful. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How can he with any credibility give the answer that he gave to the last supplementary question when he has gained as a family over half a million dollars from pretending to live in Dipton? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question is to the Prime Minister and it needs to be addressed accordingly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly good point of order and if the member’s supplementary question is to be in order he needs to reword it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How can his Minister of Finance have any credibility when the Minister of Finance’s family has gained half a million dollars— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The primary question went directly to the issue of the Opposition’s allegation that Kiwibank is being privatised. It did not stray from that nor did any of the supplementary questions that have been asked around it. Indeed the exchange with the Hon Jim Anderton was related to his desire to ask a question about the advice that Treasury has received on the privatisation issue. This supplementary question strays well off that particular focus on the primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the question asked by the Hon Jim Anderton did not stray a long way from the primary question. The answer given by the Minister though introduced material that was somewhat different from the primary question. I thought about it as the member was asking his question—about whether it was in order. Given the answer of the Minister though he introduced a whole new dimension about members’ expenditure and that has opened up this question somewhat further. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How can his Minister of Finance have any credibility in these matters when he has gained half a million dollars from pretending to live in Dipton? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member’s allegations are ridiculous despite the fact that he makes them every day. I suggest that he takes those matters up with the former Speakers of the House whom he is now accusing of having not followed the procedures. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. I have warned the Hon Trevor Mallard today very clearly and he has just abused the procedures of the House once more. What does he expect me to do—just ignore that abuse of the House? I say to the honourable member that on this occasion I accept that tensions are fairly high on both sides of the House but he is on very very thin ice. The Hon Trevor Mallard will get to his feet and he will withdraw and apologise sincerely to this House for that serious abuse of this House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of the Finance and Expenditure Committee meeting on 10 June at which the Minister of Finance said the Government is working on the privatisation of New Zealand Post. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What is the status of that document? If it is a committee document that has not been released— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is my fault that I did not clarify that for the benefit of the House. I ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition for the source of the document. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The source of the document is a transcript provided by 
Hansard not yet available publicly in which the Minister of Finance made the comments that I said in my question he had made. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A matter is being considered— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I should add that that was said in an open session. It was open to the public. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Given that I am advised that the material is not yet publicly available yet it was a public session of the select committee I will seek leave of the House for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.