Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8324. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2012 state that the Government’s operating balance before gains and losses will be worse off by $441 million over the next five years if the Government proceeds with the partial sale of state owned assets; if so why does his asset sale programme increase the Government’s budget deficit? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes it does show that. That is one measure of the impact of the sale of the assets on the Government’s books. Other measures show the Government in a slightly better-off position. For instance in terms of straight cash we will get more cash in than we forgo. However any of those calculations are based on the assumption that interest rates on Government debt stay at 50-year lows and that these companies continue to make the currently predicted profits. I think we have all learnt in the last couple of weeks that there is no guarantee of that just because these companies are owned by the Government. As in the case of Solid Energy the forecast profits and dividends are not going to show up so if we did not own it we would actually be much better off. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The primary question had two legs. It has been previous Speakers’ rulings that both parts of a primary question are to be answered. The second part of the question—why the asset sales programme will increase the Budget deficit—was not answered in my opinion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister of Finance to address the second part of that question more specifically. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It shows that because on that particular measure if you assume that current interest rates on Government debt remain the same and that the companies continue to make the currently forecast profits and dividends then on the operating balance before gains and losses measure—I will not go into all the explanations of what that is—the Government’s books would be slightly behind. We of course have weighed that up against other facts like the fact that we will avoid having to borrow another $5 billion to $7 billion. The logic of the member’s question is that the Government would be better off— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Order 383(2) is very clear: “The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked”. The Minister had answered the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And so must the question be. The Minister has now very adequately addressed the question and it is over to the member whether he has further supplementary questions. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask the Speaker to consider why when the member Russel Norman raised the point of order which you accepted you took a flick at him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not. I acknowledged that questions need to be concise and answers need to be concise. The question had been answered very satisfactorily and I invited the member if he wished to to raise further supplementary questions. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister agree that the operating balance before gains and losses measure is the main conventional measure of a Government’s deficit and that asset sales increase the Government’s deficit using that measure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is the current measure although I have to say it has got arbitrary elements to it as any measure does. Whatever measure you pick—and the calculations are done against three or four different measures—in some the Government is a bit ahead in some it is a bit behind. But the logic of the member’s question is that the Government should go— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very specific. It asked whether the operating balance before gains and losses was the usual measure used. The Minister agreed with that. He answered that question and he agreed that the $400 million is a deficit increase. He has finished answering the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. If the Minister goes on for an unnecessarily long period of time I will bring that to order. On that occasion the Minister was very satisfactorily answering the question for the benefit of the member and I think the Minister should have been allowed to continue his answer. We are going to get nowhere in this House today if every time a question is not answered to the satisfaction of the member asking the question a point of order is raised that the answer is too long. If the member has further supplementary questions I invite him to ask them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the point of order was not that it was too long; it was that it was out of order because the answer had been completed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is certainly not the way I took the point of order from the member. I took it that Dr Russel Norman had decided to his satisfaction that the question had been answered and did not need any further addition. But we are moving on. I am inviting the member to have further supplementary questions if he so desires. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reason why I am insisting on a black and white interpretation of the Standing Orders is that on Tuesday you told us that Ministers would be kept to the black and white interpretation of the Standing Orders that they must only address the question not answer it. So I am insisting that you apply the Standing Orders fairly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has no right through either the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings to insist on a black and white answer. Does the member have further supplementary questions? Otherwise I intend to move to the next question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can the Minister claim to be fiscally prudent when he intends to spend over $440 million on this particular Government programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not know whether I can emphasise any more that although there is a calculation that has been made the number is uncertain. According to the member’s logic the Government could fix its accounts by buying every business in New Zealand because they might make a return greater than the cost of debt. So why do we not borrow $100 billion and buy all the supermarkets and farms? Of course the Greens will not have to do that; they will just print the money to fill the gap. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you once again to apply the Standing Orders to the Minister. These are the orders of the House; I do not make them up—right. They say— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now attempting to use the point of order process to debate the quality of the answer. If he continues to do that we will move to the next question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can the Minister confirm that the claim of a $441 million cost to the asset sale programme by increasing the Budget deficit is not a claim made by the Green Party; it is made by his own department called Treasury? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I can confirm that Treasury has done that calculation but of course that is uncertain. Last year it did a calculation about Solid Energy that has proven to be spectacularly wrong OK? So we have not made a lot of money by keeping Solid Energy. These businesses are all risky and if we were to follow the member’s logic we could solve the Government’s Budget problem by printing $100 billion and buying every business in New Zealand. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Supplementary question Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Tracey Martin 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry Mr Speaker I know I am new but I understood that points of order were to be heard in silence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes they are and the member is now asking a supplementary question; otherwise we are moving on. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the Minister seen the other Treasury estimate—if he reads Treasury papers—that shows that 95 percent of New Zealanders will not be able to buy shares in his newly privatised State-owned enterprises? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not recall that estimate. If that was in a Treasury paper I do not agree with it. We will get to find out over the next few weeks when the Government offers the opportunity for pre-registration. Of course there will be thousands of New Zealanders who are able to buy the shares who will decide not to because they think they have got better ways of spending the money and that is one thing National believes in—Kiwis making their own choices about how to spend their own money. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table the Treasury request for proposal—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have had yelling— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It is a point of order and it will be heard in silence. The member may start again. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table the Treasury request for proposal dated 24 May 2012 which says— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will the Minister pledge to listen to the results of a specific referendum on asset sales now that we have the numbers needed to have a citizens initiated referendum or are we now living in a country where the board of Skycity Casino has the ear of the Prime Minister but this Government does not listen to ordinary New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the referendum that we think is the most credible one—and the Greens might have a different reason because they prefer referendums where they pay their parliamentary staff to collect the signatures. However we prefer the referendum—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The tone of the question was very political; a political answer has been given in return. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There was a referendum in 2011 where we did not have to go and pay people to sign up. It was called the election. As I recall it National and its coalition partners won the election. That member had had 12 months to persuade New Zealanders that asset sales were a bad thing and he failed. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Far from disputing your ruling I am agreeing with your last ruling but could I just ask you this question. Is it correct that that member asked I think at least three very specific and straight questions with no political loading in them by my count and on each and every occasion you allowed flicks political comment and irrelevant information to be hurled back at that member? I simply ask you this: are you going to be consistent with your last ruling—which I endorse—or are you going to be inconsistent as you have been in my view with that member? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is quite a dangerous point of order where you are questioning the ruling of the Speaker. I am attempting to be consistent with all my rulings. You must acknowledge that every question every answer has difficult connotations but I gave my assurance on my election to this position that I would operate in an absolutely unbiased fashion and I am genuinely attempting to do that. I thank the member for his point.