Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5986] 
3.  
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What progress has there been made on the acquisition of new ships for the New Zealand Defence Force? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that the request for proposals for the acquisition of new naval vessels which is matched to New Zealand’s wider security needs and known as Project Protector is about to be released to six short-listed companies. 
Tim Barnett 
: Will New Zealand industry get an opportunity to be involved in this project? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes. The Ministry of Defence and the Industrial Supplies Office are actively promoting the capabilities of New Zealand industry with the short-listed companies. As part of the tender response process companies are required to report in writing on what they have done to afford opportunities for New Zealand industry involvement. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister guarantee that all new vessels being built for the New Zealand Navy will be built to a military engineering specification rather than a civilian commercial specification; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can assure the member that the ships will meet the specifications as designed and arrived at by the agencies involved. The purpose is to ensure that we have the right vessels to do the job we require of them. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister once again try to explain to the House whether these vessels will be built to military specifications or civilian commercial specifications? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can explain to the member that the process by which the invitations— 
Opposition Members 
: Just answer! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will have an opportunity to answer and I want him to do so. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The vessel designs submitted by the six companies or groups that are being invited to do so are to meet set operational specifications. The companies are being invited to put forward the sorts of ships that will meet those requirements and we will make the judgment about which is the best tender on that basis. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When the Opposition took umbrage at the way the Minister started to answer the question you insisted that the Opposition should be quiet and give the Minister a chance to answer. In fact you directed the Minister to answer the question. The Minister has been asked twice whether the specifications are civilian or military. We know the process. The Opposition is not interested in the process we want to know the specifications and at some stage surely the Minister has to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the member want to speak to the point of order? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. Whether it is satisfactory to the Opposition is not my concern. 
Simon Power 
: Do “set operational specifications” mean that the specifications will be military or civilian? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Those specifications mean that the vessels will be required to meet the needs of military and civilian functions because the vessels are required to meet a wide range of defence and civilian capabilities. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think this is one of those questions where you would be justified in allowing Mr Mark and the National Party to ask some more questions because that answer is a piece of nonsense. We all know what the Minister has been asked. A military ship is built to a different specification so it has things that mean it will still be able to operate if it is hit; a civilian ship does not. There is really no reason that the Minister cannot tell us whether the specifications are military or civilian. Of course a civilian ship can be used for military purposes—we all know that. That was not what the Minister was asked and I do not understand why—[ 
Interruption 
] I know that Mr Cunliffe is very proud of being rewarded and of being a Minister but I do not think that is a reason for him to interject on a point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No he should not. He will leave the Chamber please. 
Hon David Cunliffe withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am really interested in the answer. I suspect that the Minister must know and I think we should be allowed to ask some more questions; otherwise we have wasted our time this afternoon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister does not have to answer according to the questioner’s prescription; he has to address the question as he sees fit and he did so. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Prior to the Easter break I raised a point of order about Ministers not answering questions and you gave us a ruling on that after Easter. The question addressed in part of the ruling was whether a Minister could be considered to be trifling with the Chair if he or she did not give an answer. Your answer was yes. As for the question of whether that would therefore allow more supplementary questions Speaker’s ruling 128/4 states that if a Minister is trifling with the Chair further supplementary questions can be permitted. In this case I put it to you that the Minister has not answered the question and therefore could be considered by you to be trifling with the Chair. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I always listen to the member’s comments with care because he does not often raise points of order. On this occasion I do not agree with him.