Hide Rodney: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Hide Rodney: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3882] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is very good to see the Hon. John Tamihere given a job in this Parliament by the Government. I know that the Hon. John Tamihere will clearly and comprehensively rebut all claims that he has been muzzled by the Prime Minister Helen Clark.  
We are discussing Part 1 and I have some questions to raise with the Minister. I am hoping that he will dispel all those outrageous claims people have been making that the Prime Minister has jumped down the throat of the second to highest ranking Maori in her caucus and has muzzled him. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I want to raise a serious point of order. We are speaking on Part 1. The status of various Cabinet Ministers has nothing whatever to do with the subject matter. I sat here last night for 45 minutes and I believe that the way this Committee behaved itself then—and I have spoken to many people today who listened on the radio—brought Parliament into disrepute. Madam Chair today I would like you to rule specifically that people stick to the point that they speak to the wording of the part and that they do not stray again into extraneous matters. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s not even a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I tell Mr Hide that I am on my feet and ruling on the point of order. Would he please be silent. The member is quite correct. I ask the member now to speak to clauses 2 and 3 and to stick to those clauses. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you for the ruling. We are discussing clauses 2 and 3. I would like the Minister to take the next call and answer these questions. With regard to clause 3 how many spouses currently have their annuities suspended? Could the Minister take a call when I sit down prove to the world that he has not been muzzled and answer the simple question: how many spouses currently have their annuities suspended? Would the Minister do that?  
The second question is: what is the fiscal cost of this bill to the Crown? What will this bill cost the Government Superannuation Fund and what will this bill cost the taxpayer? I would like the Minister in the chair—[ 
Interruption 
] We now have an interesting situation. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Mr Copeland who is very very big about points of order is now having a serious conversation right beside where I am trying to give my speech. I would like you to rule as Speakers rule—that that is unacceptable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to resume his seat. A lot of people were speaking but the member should not be standing up. 
David Benson-Pope 
: It has to be within the order of the Committee and it is provided for in the Standing Orders specifically for the whip of one party—in this case myself—to discuss a procedural matter with a whip of another party. In this case it is Mr Copeland. 
Rodney Hide 
: Speaking to the point of order—  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No please be seated. What we must ensure is that the conversation is not interfering with the speech of a member and it was close to the member. Please continue. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I will recap my questions which Mr Copeland who has come down to the Chamber does not seem to be interested in. Firstly how many spouses have their annuities currently suspended? Second what will be the cost to the taxpayer? Third what will be the cost to the Government Superannuation Fund? I want the Minister in the chair who is collecting ministerial pay and pretending he is a Minister to stand in the Chamber and do his job while he is in the chair—that is answer some questions.  
Also I would like the Minister in the chair to put these costs into some sort of context. What does the cost of providing for these spouses—which I hasten to add the ACT party is supporting—mean in relation to the costs to the Government Superannuation Fund compared to what the fund has lost in the last 14 months? Under Michael Cullen the economic wizard of New Zealand the Government Superannuation Fund has lost $380 million. The Minister Dr Cullen says that is not much; that is normal variance. Well $380 million is a lot of money. Given that this bill has been lying around on the Order Paper for months and months and now my colleague from United Future wants it to pass without debate it would seem I would like the Minister the Hon John Tamihere who has boldly taken up the chair to explain the cost of providing for these widows compared to what Dr Michael Cullen has lost from the fund in that time. I guarantee that we could look after a lot of widows and a lot of spouses who have remarried when we compare it to the $380 million that has been lost. We know that the Hon John Tamihere has plenty of ideas. He is bursting with ideas. He is busting with ideas. I want him to take a call and say: “Why don’t we decentralise and devolve the Government Superannuation Fund to Maori?”. Is it a good idea to devolve it to housing for Maori?  
I refer to clauses 2 and 3. Did that Minister when he was at the Cabinet table discussing this provision talk about his bold initiatives and ideas? Or do we have a case of a Minister who is a lion out in the electorate well away from the ninth floor well away from the Cabinet room but not prepared to speak in this Chamber?