Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 6 to Minister 
Key John: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 6 to Minister 
[Volume:628;Page:537] 
12.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Does he accept that scrapping the proposed carbon tax would also mean the end of proposed increases in personal income tax thresholds; if not why not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 No and in fact no decisions have been taken since the election on either the carbon tax or the level of personal tax thresholds. 
John Key 
: What are the reservations he has about the carbon tax that led him to say in a recent radio interview: “Our view is that the carbon tax is unworkable.”? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: My view has always been that the way in which the carbon tax has been designed to date makes it unworkable. That is why as part of the agreement with the Labour-led Government we agreed to have an independent analysis of it before any final decisions were made. The reality is—[ 
Interruption 
]; if the member would just be quiet for a moment; he has this tendency to rush in—until that review is completed no decisions will be made on the outcome. 
Craig Foss 
: Does he agree with Treasury’s assessment that the carbon tax will have almost no effect on people’s behaviour in which case does he think the purpose of the carbon tax is solely to raise revenue; if not what is the purpose of the carbon tax? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I think that the two connections that the member has made are actually inconsistent; if it is to have no impact on people’s behaviour it probably will not raise a great deal of revenue. It is those sorts of issues that lead to the need for an independent review which is what we have obtained what will be carried out and what will be the basis of any decisions that are eventually made. 
Chris Tremain 
: Will he be listening to the results of the poll on United Future’s own website which asks: “Is Labour’s proposed carbon tax good for NZ?” and where 71 percent of respondents have so far voted “No”? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I will certainly be listening to it for the very simple reason that I instigated the question. 
John Key 
: Could the Minister confirm that when he answered my first supplementary question before and he confirmed his quote “our view” was he answering “our view” as the view of the Government for which he is the Minister of Revenue? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: In my first answer to the member I dealt with his substantive question and I said in response to it that no decisions have yet been made on either the carbon tax or the level of personal income tax thresholds. I do not recall making any reference to “our view” as the member quotes in response to that question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is fair that the House has some clarity from the Minister. In his original answer he described the carbon tax as unworkable and my colleague John Key sought clarification as to whether he was speaking on behalf of the Government. I think this goes to the core of our Standing Orders and the accountability of Ministers. It is very plain in our Standing Orders that Ministers are in fact answering on behalf of the Government. We have a quite bizarre arrangement whereby we have Ministers who pretend they are not part of the Government. I think it is proper for you to clarify to the House whether the Minister of Revenue was in fact doing just that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. When a Minister is responding the Minister is always replying on behalf of the Government. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the confusion that has arisen is that the question that was asked is as printed on the Order Paper. I have quoted twice the answer I gave in response to Mr Key’s question. I think what he meant to refer to was his first supplementary question not his substantive question. 
John Key 
: He said that. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: No he did not. He said in response to my first question and that was what I answered. I am happy to deal with the point but the question that was asked first was the one I answered first. 
John Key 
: Because the Minister said he could not recall using the term “our view” before I seek leave to table the transcript of his interview on National Radio on  
Checkpoint 
 
where he was introduced as the Minister of Revenue and where in answering the questions he said: “Our view is that the carbon tax is unworkable.” He is the Minister of Revenue and we should therefore be able to assume he is answering as the Government. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Speaker it is true of course as you have just ruled that in speaking in the House any Minister speaks on behalf of the Government. But the Minister is perfectly free in speaking on  
Checkpoint 
 to speak as the leader of United Future; “our view” is clearly referring to the United Future party’s view. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I do not want to make a confusing situation even more so but the original question from Mr Key as I said in my previous answer related to his first question. As for the supplementary question that he gave where he ran the “our view” quote only now do we discover that the “our view” quote was actually from a  
Checkpoint  
programme. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Well it is actually two different things. The reality is when I spoke on the  
Checkpoint  
programme—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is speaking to a point of order not having a debate so would the member please be heard in silence. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It is a very simple issue. The “our view” referred to in the  
Checkpoint  
programme was made in my capacity as leader of the United Future party. I do not recall—and I am happy to be corrected on this point—using the words “our view” in the House this afternoon. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I need no more help on this particular point of order. It is not a point of order. I think however the clarifications that were given were quite helpful as to who was speaking in what capacity. But I repeat that in this House when a Minister speaks he or she speaks on behalf of the Government. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider for a moment the point of order Dr Cullen raised in which he said it was quite possible for the Minister in this case to be answering a question using the term “our view” and not be representing the Government. I assume that is therefore the interpretation Dr Cullen would have when Mr Peters answers a question on foreign policy—that when he uses the term “our view” he would be referring to his own position. That is not the position in terms of their support agreement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the member is relitigating my ruling. When Ministers speak in this House they speak on behalf of the Government. When they speak outside that will be a matter of the context. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is an issue here that actually goes a little further than I think you have allowed so far in your ruling. If you have just ruled that the two Ministers who are outside Cabinet and have ministerial responsibilities when speaking outside this House are not speaking as Ministers and therefore are not accountable as part of the Government are you ruling that we cannot question them in this House as Ministers for what they say outside this Parliament? Because if you are ruling— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am not. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Well I humbly suggest that you actually clarify the situation because what you have just told this House leaves it very messy. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I would like to point out that in your ruling you were very very clear. You said that “outside” the House depends on the context. That seems to have escaped the member who raised the point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker you cannot have a different context surely for someone who is speaking about a matter that is part of a ministerial portfolio. This is one of the things that we asked you to consider a few weeks ago because we have an absolute right to question Ministers about their involvement in their portfolios as they relate to the Government. But what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to ask the Minister whether on this day he had on his Minister’s hat or his party leader’s hat? Or is it incumbent upon Ministers on each occasion to explain exactly what they are there for? There is no guidance at all for this House at the present time just press statements made by various members of the Government and also a speech— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Sit down! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please the member has not finished his point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We also had a speech from Michael Cullen saying that we live in a time of an evolving constitution. Ministerial responsibility is important. This House has a right to know what its bounds are if they are being changed. You Madam Speaker as the person who claims the privilege of the House do have a role in ensuring we know exactly what those bounds are. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The issue of whether it is in context is very important. If a member of United Future or New Zealand First was speaking at a New Zealand First conference one would expect him or her to be speaking about his or her party’s policy and the party’s position. I have noted from reading  
Hansard  
and other reports that some members in this House are being deliberately obtuse on this matter. It is best evidenced by the fact that lawyers from the National Party side of the House are not arguing that. All those who are unqualified—the sort of home-made Blackstones of the National Party—are getting on their feet and embarrassing themselves in front of their back bench. Their back bench must be deeply concerned that that is the kind of constitutional argument being put up here by the National Party—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the member is still continuing on his existing point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker I am entitled to have my point of order heard in silence not this barracking that you are hearing right now. Again they refuse to keep silent. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: They do. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point is simply this. The issue of whether a speech is being made in a certain context is fundamentally important. If one is speaking in this House as a Minister obviously one is speaking on behalf of the Government’s position. But outside this House in a range of different venues it may well be as you say Madam Speaker that the context is as a party leader with a party policy. Now anybody could understand that but I can see why Gerry Brownlee cannot. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think the position is very clear. The National Party has made a hash of question time and is now trying to resolve the matter by points of order—and we see the foremost member himself. [ 
Interruption 
] If I might point something out having the advantage of the microphone over the members opposite— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on the point of order— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is a very important point— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I wish to hear it in silence otherwise members will be leaving this Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I would have made this point earlier. The reason why no objection was taken to the original question is that it brought into issue the personal income tax thresholds which are clearly within the province of the Minister of Revenue. But the policy responsibility for the carbon tax does not lie with the Minister of Revenue it lies with the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues Mr David Parker and the Minister of— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Finance. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is right myself. So the issue that is being raised by members opposite is actually irrelevant in any case because the member who is answering the questions is not responsible for the carriage of the carbon charge policy either inside the House or outside it.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry I have heard enough. If this is a different point of order the member may raise it but the member has already spoken once on this point of order and I am ruling. There has been considerable debate and discussion on it. The point I made in my original ruling was that when a Minister speaks as a Minister in this House or if members want clarification outside the House he or she speaks for the Government. The point I made about context is that the Speaker does not know outside the House whether that person is speaking as a Minister. That is the ruling. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Does that ruling then go against the view that Dr Cullen has that someone such as Mr Dunne in fact cannot answer a question like this because he does not speak for the Government other than on the very tight and narrow bounds of his portfolio? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it does. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He can’t speak for the Government? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I rule that it does. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I am sorry I will ask a question. You have just given a ruling in which you said that if a Minister speaks in the House he speaks for the Government. Now I have just asked you whether that counters the view that Michael Cullen offered which was that Peter Dunne could not answer this because he is not the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues nor is he the Minister of Finance. You said: “Yes that’s right.” Now which is it to be? We need to have those bounds clearly understood and clearly spelt out for us. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I thank the member. When a member is speaking as a Minister within his or her portfolio obviously he or she speaks for the Government. My understanding of the point that Dr Cullen was making was that the question actually referred to matters that were outside the specific ministerial responsibilities. I hope that clarifies it for the member in which case then that would not be the case. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question then arises why did Mr Dunne answer the question? It further arises why was the question directed—given that the Government chooses who answers questions—to the Minister of Revenue? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If the member cared to read the principal question carbon tax is not actually the principal part of the question. It is a question of if the carbon tax went what are the implications for the income tax thresholds which of course is part of the portfolio responsibility of the Minister of Revenue. That is why the original question was in order. I could have raised a point of order during one of the supplementary questions but unlike members opposite I do not bob up every few minutes on a point of order just to hear myself speak. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the National Radio transcript in which Mr Peter Dunne is described as the Minister of Revenue and stated: “Our view is that the carbon tax is unworkable.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I pray for your indulgence in this because I want to refer to a number of Speakers’ rulings. It relates to the manner of questions and the manner of answers to questions and it flows on from my colleague Hone Harawira who used the piece of string and Jack and Jill answer. First of all Speaker’s ruling 154/6 states: “Questions are an important means by which Ministers are accountable to the House. For a Minister to respond in an irrelevant manner is to act contrary to the spirit of the question process. It is incumbent on Ministers to treat questions in a manner that is consistent with their constitutional responsibilities.” Speaker’s ruling 154/1 has within it the words: “Ministers should therefore take questions seriously and endeavour to give informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” Speaker’s ruling 155/2 states: “If some information can be given in addition to the bare facts asked for …” then the ruling states that the Minister can do so. So basically the Minister should reply with the bare facts and provide some supplementary answer. Speaker’s ruling 153/3 states: “An answer to a question ought to be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest; …”. 
Now I want to tell you Madam Speaker that in my 18 years in this place I have seen a deterioration in the ability of members of this House to hold the executive to account—very simple “yes” “no” questions. I remember once asking the Minister for Tertiary Education whether student debt had gone up or down. The Minister would not answer the question and the Speaker’s ruling was that he had addressed the question. I came away from this House not knowing what the answer was. I asked the Speaker Jonathan Hunt afterwards what the answer was. He did not know either. So the Minister had not addressed the question because it was specific. I can understand in some questions that are wide ranging calling for an opinion or need a fairly lengthy answer why members on this side may be unhappy with it. But when my colleague Judith Collins asked a very specific question: “Does the Minister stand by his statement?” I would like you to refer to each one of those Speakers’ rulings made by a number of Speakers and say that it is in the interests of this House it is in the interests of holding the executive to account and it is actually in the public interest for the Minister to be held accountable by you rather than the excuse “Oh well he addressed the question.” As Hone Harawira did he could just say “Jack and Jill” and he has addressed the question. If it is a specific question of that nature you say to the Minister: “It was a specific question. It deserves a specific answer” and the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings I think back that up. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his observation and dissertation on the Speakers’ rulings. They have of course been noted. I do not think any Minister has at least in this session responded in an irrelevant manner though I do accept that it may not have always been satisfactory. But I think the matters have been taken seriously.