Cunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 03 December 2013. Volume:695;Page:15124. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: What is the current estimate of proceeds from the Government’s asset sales programme?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Treasury’s most recent published estimate included in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update in May was $5 billion to $7 billion. The member will of course be aware though that that included Solid Energy which is no longer part of the programme.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has not addressed the question which was on notice and which asked for the current estimate of proceeds not the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update.Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the Prime Minister to answer the question as he had not quite completed the answer. He certainly started with the latest Treasury figures but we will see where it gets to.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Treasury’s most recent published estimate included in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update from May is $5 billion to $7 billion.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has again referred to the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update and is alleging that that is the most recent—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister said the most recent Treasury figures so that is an answer to the question. I will allow the member as he continues his supplementaries an additional supplementary question.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question did not ask for the most recent published figures; it asked for the current estimate of proceeds. That was a question on notice—as you will admit very straight—and I would ask that you hold the Prime Minister to the question on notice.Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has used the current published figures by Treasury to answer the question. That is not to the satisfaction of the member and I can understand why. I am not responsible for the answer that is composed by the Prime Minister provided that it addresses the question. On this occasion the best way forward is—[Interruption] Order! The most appropriate way forward is that I will allow themember additional supplementary questions to see whether he can delve into it and I will be watching carefully those supplementary questions.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a separate matter from that point of order. In an answer during question No. 1 from Dr Norman the Prime Minister actually gave a figure of $4 billion. He actually gave that figure during question No. 1. So it is very difficult for us on this side of the House to understand how we can now relate back to a previous figure when he actually gave the figure of $4 billion in another answer.Mr SPEAKER: The member is making a reasonable point which is why I have suggested that the best way forward now is allowing the Hon David Cunliffe to continue his supplementary questions knowing that he has an additional supplementary question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member needs to go and look at his own question. The question was what is the current estimate—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have moved past that. We have accepted that your answers have been given. I can understand why the member is not happy with that answer and I have said that the way forward now is additional supplementary questions. That is the way we will proceed.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We seem to have got ourselves into an interesting situation here because I have received a copy of an answer to a written parliamentary question which refers directly to a subsequent Treasury update—subsequent to that of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then the way forward is for the member to now use his ability to ask supplementary questions. I invite the member to ask a supplementary question.Hon David Cunliffe: According to the Treasury reportEstimated Proceeds of the GSO Programme which was provided to Ministers in October 2013 subsequent to Budget 2013—which was forgettable but which was in May—what are the estimated proceeds from the asset sales programme according to this more recent update?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have that data in front of me. If the member wants to direct the question to the Minister of Finance he has that data.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table an answer to a written parliamentary question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No no. We do not go down the track of tabling written questions. The member has made his point. We are not going to start tabling written questions in question time.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do seek your guidance here. It was a worthy primary question a question on notice—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need to understand what the point of order is. If it is relitigating a decision I have already made that will lead to disorder.Hon David Cunliffe: No it is not relitigating; it is seeking your guidance on a more general implication of the ruling you have made which I think is a legitimate follow-on point of order. A question on notice has been provided that was specific and straightforward in asking for not a previous but a current report. It is clear from an answer that the Government has provided in writing to the Opposition that a report exists and has been received by Ministers that is chronologically subsequent to the one referred to by the Prime Minister. We are not dealing with a supplementary question as you well know but a question on notice which was very specifically worded.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! We are now relitigating exactly where we were. The member asked a very clear and concise primary question. The member is disappointed with the answer. I share some of that disappointment. Therefore havingaccepted that the Prime Minister had addressed that question I gave the member the ability to ask a further supplementary question. He has used that supplementary question to show very clearly that there is some more recent data. That has made the political point. But to continue now to relitigate whether the first answer was satisfactorily addressed or not will lead to disorder.Hon David Cunliffe: Which of the following two statements is true in relation to the Treasury reportEstimated Proceeds of the GSO Programme presented to Ministers in October 2013: first that the Prime Minister has no knowledge of it and does not know how much the asset sales programme is on track to generate or second that he does know but is not frank with this House or the New Zealand public?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will leave the Prime Minister to answer that.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I will take the third option none of the above.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that the previous supplementary question sought a binary yes or no answer how could he possibly—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The member asked a good political question and got a political answer back.Hon David Cunliffe: Why is the Prime Minister so terrified of the citizens initiated referendum that he is hiding the estimated proceeds until voting is over and why does he not want New Zealanders to be able to make an informed decision?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well unless the member knows something I do not know about the end date of the citizens initiated referendum the Minister of Finance advises me that at the Finance and Expenditure Committee meeting tomorrow he will give the latest update.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that in answer to I think my second supplementary question the Prime Minister said that he did not know what was in the Government share offer report of October and then in a subsequent question said that he neither did not know nor did know would he like to clear up the confusion and restore his name for heroic transparency by releasing the document in question to the House which is the Government share offer report of October 2013?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the member needs to wait only one more sleep and the Minister of Finance will update it. Secondly if one looks at the bottom end of the range it was $5 billion and that programme as I was trying to point out while the member interrupted me included Solid Energy. We know that about $4 billion has been raised so far and we have got Genesis to go. It is very very simple. If the member wants to be heroic then he will do what the Greens do. He will print some money and he will buy back the assets.Hon David Cunliffe: In relation to the Prime Minister’s reply to the previous supplementary question that he looked forward to the proceeds of the Genesis sale can he confirm that he will indeed proceed with the sale or would he accept this challenge: if over a million people vote in the asset sales referendum against the sale of State assets will he suspend the sale of Genesis Energy—will he suspend the sale of Genesis Energy?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me refresh the member’s memory. In 2011 there was a general election. Labour ran an entire campaign opposed to the mixed-ownership programme and got the worst result in 85 years of the Labour Party. The National Party ran on the ticket of the mixed-ownership model and got the best result it has ever had in MMP history and the second-best result ever. Over a million people voted. When it comes to arrogance it is pretty simple. The member has asked the question through the referendum about whether people support the programme. If the answer to that from New Zealanders is no then the one who will not be listening to the public will be DavidCunliffe if he does not guarantee that he will buy the assets back. As we saw his weasel words were out in full display the other day—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: I am just waiting for the member’s own team to assist him.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table figures from the 2011 election that indicate that more people voted for parties opposed to asset sales than voted for parties in favour of them.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. Every member if they cannot recall the election details will easily be able to research it.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have listened to this question because I did not want to interrupt the flow. I would ask you to reflect that the primary question was to do with the current valuation. The Prime Minister’s primary answer was a 7-month-old valuation and then in his following answers he said that he has access to a current valuation. How can you possibly say that he answered the primary question when he said that he has access to a current valuation as to what he is going to get for selling the assets? How can you say that he answered the primary question?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard an interjection at one stage where he did not have that information. He was aware the information was going to be released. He was arguing that he did not have that information.Hon David Cunliffe: Given the Prime Minister’s apparent ability to change his tune within—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! That sort of question is not helpful either. Could the member rephrase his question—[Interruption] Order! It was only the Thursday before the adjournment when I was asked by the Labour Party to make sure that Ministers did not start with a personal reflection on a member on this side of the House. Today we have just in this particular question had a very clear reflection on the Prime Minister. I cannot have rules for one side of this House and not for the other. [Applause] I thank the Labour Party particularly for acknowledging that. Now we will have the supplementary question.Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker in order to facilitate progress of the House—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question.Hon David Cunliffe: I am thanking you for the ruling. Can we clear this up once and for all by the Prime Minister giving an unequivocal answer to the following question: will he continue with the sale of Genesis Energy no matter how many people in New Zealand vote against his asset sales in the citizens initiated referendum?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said the Government went to the election in 2011 and campaigned on this asset sales programme. It is very simple. The Government has gone to the people of New Zealand and got a majority. The reason the member asked that question is that he does not want to answer the question of whether he will buy the assets back. It is pretty simple David. Put up the money. Your mate—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: I am just waiting to assist the member for both sides of the House.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That question simply asked whether the Prime Minister would proceed or not—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member cannot expect to have a yes or no answer to that particular question. [Interruption] Order! Does the member wish to stay for the balance of question time? [Interruption] Order! Does the member wish to stay for the balance of question time?