Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 14 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14702. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Can he rule out the partial sale of Air New Zealand proceeding prior to 30 November 2013?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: No final decisions around the timing of the reduction in the Government’s 73 percent holding in Air New Zealand have been made.Hon David Parker: Why is he so worried of the outcome of the referendum that he is sneakily selling off Air New Zealand as quickly as he can?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We are not worried about the result of the referendum although we do know that it is a waste of $9 million of public money and actually we made our commitments in this whole area very public at the 2011 general election. As was said by Russel Norman that election was a referendum on the whole mixed-ownership model and National won the election.Hon David Parker: Why then is the Government planning to sell off Air New Zealand in blocks to institutions and brokers rather than the so-called Kiwi mums and dads whom he promised at the election would be at the front of the queue?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The first thing is that no decision has been made. The second issue is that those shares are already trading on the market. It is fundamentally different from those two initial public offerings that have progressed so far so the sale structure is going to be very different.Tim Macindoe: What does Air New Zealand tell us about the benefits of the Government’s mixed-ownership programme?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Air New Zealand is listed on the New Zealand and Australian stock exchanges. For the last 12 years the Government has held a stake in Air New Zealand of around three-quarters of the company. That makes Air New Zealand a very good working example of a mixed-ownership company. It also demonstrates the benefits and disciplines of a sharemarket listing. I would like to thank the former Minister of Finance Michael Cullen for leading the way on the mixed-ownership model. It is one of the very few good decisions made by the last Labour Government.Hon David Parker: Can the Minister assure the House that Air New Zealand will be at least 85 percent New Zealand - owned after the sell-down process is completed?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The first thing to say is that no final decisions about Air New Zealand have been made. The second thing is that we have always said that in the mixed-ownership model in the float of these assets—in this case the sell down—we are going for 85 percent Kiwi-owned.Hon David Parker: Why did the National Government say when it made citizens initiated referenda the law in 1993 that this was “to give our people a greater voice …” and bring in “a more meaningful way to ascertain the views of [the] people.” that the citizens initiated referenda law is “a sign of the vigour of our democracy.” and that it does not want to “suppress that voice with subject-matter limitations”; and further why is it that those lofty ambitions were tossed out the window around the time of the asset sales programme?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The first thing is that I was not around in 1993. The second thing is that when that member said “ambitions were tossed out the window” the person who tossed them out was Helen Clark. The trouble with those members opposite is that they pick and choose on binding referenda. So when the smacking referendum came back and said that 87 percent of New Zealanders wanted it reversed those members ignored it. But now that they think they might get some sort ofresult on the next one they are suddenly very keen on the idea of referenda. The other point that I would make is that the referendum has not yet been held but it is a waste of $9 million worth of taxpayers’ money. You and they are both responsible for that gross waste of money and it will not change a thing.Dr Russel Norman: Can the Minister tell us who the Prime Minister was in 2009 when the so-called smacking referendum happened and who was the Prime Minister the leader of the Government who made a decision to take no action as a result of that referendum?Mr SPEAKER: I am struggling to see how that has much ministerial responsibility connected to the question but I will allow—[Interruption] Order! I will allow the—Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue of relevance is that the Minister—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not—Dr Russel Norman: —raised it in his answer to the question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need—well I appreciate the attempt of assistance from the member but I do not need it. On this occasion I have said that the question is in order and I will leave it to the Minister to respond.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We all know the answer to that question. But the other thing we do know is that the economic suicide bombers of the Green Party would if they got the chance be bursting into the Cabinet room—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Minister please resume his seat? I have another point of order from Dr Russel Norman.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not attempt to answer the question. Then he started a diatribe about the Green Party. It has nothing to do with the Green Party.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty I have with this point of order is that the Minister was attempting to answer the question when the member Dr Russel Norman rose to his feet and interrupted the answer. Until the answer is completed I cannot rule on whether the question has been adequately addressed or not.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We all know the answer to that question but we also know that if the Green Party got hold of the Treasury benches the Green Party members would be going out and printing billions of dollars to try to buy these assets back. I challenge them to deny it.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you please explain to me how this has anything to do with the question I asked?Mr SPEAKER: With some difficulty but I actually have difficulty understanding the exact question the member asked anyway. If the member—[Interruption] Order! The member asked what was without doubt a political question. He is unhappy with the answer. That is not my business. If the member wants to tease it out further then the opportunity exists for the member to use further supplementaries.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was completely in order. It was allowed by you it referenced the comment that the Minister made as to who ignored an earlier citizens initiated referendum and it asked him to confirm which Prime Minister it was. It was a very simple question. It was in order and it has not been addressed.Mr SPEAKER: I have already ruled that the question has been addressed maybe not to the satisfaction of the member but the question—[Interruption] Order! If the member wants to stay for the balance of question time I would be grateful if he would not interject while I am on my feet. The question has been addressed. I accept that it may not be to the satisfaction of either the member who asked the question or the HonDavid Parker. That is then a matter for teasing out with further supplementary questions.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify before I accept this point of order that it is an absolutely fresh point of order?Hon David Parker: No you cannot clarify that.Mr SPEAKER: Well then the member would—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. If the member is going to continue to question decisions I make he leaves me no option but to ask the member to leave the Chamber. If it is a fresh point—[Interruption] Order! If it is a fresh point of order I am happy to accept it but I have ruled on that particular matter and that is final.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek a ruling from you in general terms that is related to this question. If a member asks a Minister a factual question that has an answer that is factual and the Minister knows the answer to that question and can state it with a simple fact is it a requirement that the Minister answer with that fact?Mr SPEAKER: Yes indeed it is. If a question is asked that is absolutely fair concise and simple and it is one that I would expect the Minister to be able to answer I would then expect the Minister to answer it.Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just an additional clarification on the ruling—is it acceptable for a Minister to give the answer “We all know the answer …” in response to a very specific factual question?Mr SPEAKER: To a very specific question maybe not but to the question that was asked yes I have ruled that that is the case.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you a slightly different issue but it is related to the answer that the Minister gave and it extends to the issue of ministerial responsibility. It is well established in the Standing Orders and in the Speakers’ rulings that Ministers do not have responsibility for the policies of other parties or for what other parties might do if they became Government. What is increasingly becoming a practice at the moment is that Ministers are standing up and giving a very brief answer to a question and then saying “But if that party was in Government” and then saying a whole lot of other things. Previously Speakers have sat Ministers down when they got to that point without letting them go on because they do not have any responsibility for that.Mr SPEAKER: I think that point is a reasonable one. There are occasions when I do sit Ministers down when they attempt to attack another party. But at the end of the day this is a political debating chamber and there will be times when political barbs are traded from one side to the other.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does your ruling mean that if the way to get a question answered is to ask a further supplementary question questioners on this side of the House will get an extra supplementary question or does it just use up their time?Mr SPEAKER: On occasions—as the member will have observed on many occasions—I may well give an extra supplementary question. But the point that I am making to the member and to all members of the House is that if a supplementary question is asked on many many occasions the member who asked that question may not be happy with the answer. That has been happening since I arrived in this House. The way to then make progress is not to stand to one’s feet and expect the Speaker to rule on the adequacy of the answer provided the question has been addressed. The way to do it is to ask searching perceptive supplementary questions and to attempt to get the correct answer.Hon David Parker: Who was the Prime Minister when the citizens initiated referendum was held in respect of the anti-smacking issue and who was the Government that ignored the majority recommendation of that referendum all of which were referred to by the Minister in his answer to an earlier supplementary question?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The initial question is about the partial sale of Air New Zealand proceeding prior to 30 November 2013. Although the Minister might have commented on a coming referendum to now be allowing a question to the Minister about what is simply historical fact seems to me quite unreasonable and a waste of members’ time.Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance on this particular point. The Hon Gerry Brownlee is right. It does not bear a lot of resemblance to the initial question but the members in their further supplementary questions and in the answers given by the Minister have talked about other citizens initiated referenda. On this occasion I invite the Hon David Parker to re-ask his question and it will be answered.Hon David Parker: Thank you Mr Speaker. Who was the Prime Minister at the time of the citizens initiated referendum in respect of the smacking issue and who was the Prime Minister and who was in Government when that referendum was ignored?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not have that information with me but if you would like to submit the question in writing the Minister will get back to you.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order is being raised and it will be heard in silence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can a Minister who previously said that everybody knows the answer but who apparently does not know it himself not be treating this House with anything other than contempt? This is an awful waste of Parliament’s time and it makes us look foolish in front of the public which comes naturally to some members but some of us do not like it.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am sure that you will find that the Minister has moved from that clear statement initially that everyone knows the answer to that. After such a long period of time with the House being so interested in this matter he has begun to doubt himself.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again for the benefit of the Rt Hon Winston Peters it is not for me to judge the adequacy of the answer. It is for the members of this House and the public to judge the adequacy of the answer that was given. But the answer given was satisfactory.