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: 04 March 2014. Volume:696;Page:16237. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “our approach is to put everyday New Zealanders at the heart of everything the Government does so we organise services around them”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. The Government has always been up front and transparent with New Zealanders about what it is doing what exactly it is funding and precisely where the money is coming from. It is about trust—or trusts as the case may be David.Hon David Cunliffe: Should a person facing charges in relation to the deaths of 29 Pike River miners have had those charges discharged for $3.4 million?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is important to understand that Government Ministers played no role in the decision that was taken. A decision was made byWorkSafe New Zealand about whether a successful prosecution could be undertaken and the view was taken that a lot of money would be spent on lawyers without actually coming to a positive outcome. On that basis as JusticeFarish herself said the right conclusion was actually reached.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister believe that the Pike River families feel that the Government had their interests at heart when the charges against MrWhittall were discharged thus preventing him from ever being retried?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I think the Pike River families would know that in New Zealand we have a judicial system and if the judge makes a call as JusticeFarish did then they would respect that. Secondly yes I do think the Pike River families would respect the fact that this is a Government that has funded the re-entry up the drift and at all times been honest and up front with the Pike River families. I always find being honest and up front a very important trait as I am sure do MrCunliffe’s colleagues.Hon David Cunliffe: If New Zealanders are at the heart of everything he does why did he or his negotiators agree that theDaina Shipping Co. could leave theRena where it is if it pays $10.4 million?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We have not agreed to that. What is the case is that the owners of theRena are likely to make an application to the regional council to leave the shipwreck there. On that basis a decision would have to be made by the regional council and the Environment Court. But I am interested in the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is actually talking about shipwrecks at the moment—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question the Hon David Cunliffe. [Interruption] Order! I have called the Hon David Cunliffe.Hon David Cunliffe: Why will the Prime Minister or his agencies not release the economic and environmental impacts of theRena salvage deal when the Mayor of Tauranga and iwi have called for as much to be disclosed as possible?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In the fullness of time I am sure the regional council will consider all of the relevant information and if required so will the Environment Court. But I am interested to see that the Leader of the Opposition thinks the biggest issue in New Zealand at the moment is whether there is a shipwreck at the bottom of the ocean rather than a shipwreck—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Grant Robertson: In the last two replies from the Prime Minister he has breached Standing Order 383 as he has pretty much every day this year. The first time you stood up the Prime Minister did not sit down. He repeated it and you did get up. I wonder what penalty there is on the Prime Minister for consistently breaching that ruling and ignoring you getting to your feet.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is right to quote Standing Order 383 but if he also looked at Standing Order 377 my job is to judge the content of the answer in light of the content of the question. If questions are asked that are very brief and concise I will do my best to assist the questioner to get answers that are equally brief and concise.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the last question asked by the Leader of the Opposition I do not believe there was anything that breached Standing Order 377 at all. He asked why the Prime Minister or his agencies would notrelease the economic impacts of the deal that the Mayor of Tauranga wanted. I do not think there was anything political in that question at all.Mr SPEAKER: The member raises a reasonable point. There was an addition to that—as the mayor had asked etc.—so it was not exactly a concise question. I will do my best as I said to the member. If the question is clear and concise I will do my best to get an equally clear and concise answer.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister have the interests of all New Zealanders at heart when on Children’s Day he has had to reveal that some 20000 additional New Zealand children are growing up in poverty bringing the total number to nearly 300000—nearly one child in four—or is there another issue that he thinks belongs closer to the hearts of New Zealanders?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What is true is that there has been an error made by as I understand it Treasury and Statistics New Zealand. I will say that that did not in any way alter Government policy but if the member is asking a serious question about what the Government is actually doing to support less well-off New Zealanders then let us just have a look at that. It includes $2.5 billion a year being spent on Working for Families; $4.5 billion a year being spent on benefits; $1.8 billion a year on subsidising housing through income-related rents and the accommodation supplement; all State houses have been insulated that can be under this Government with $350 million being spent to insulate 240000 homes; $1.5 billion a year—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the Prime Minister for that answer but I think at this stage it is long enough.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister really have every New Zealander at heart when his State-owned enterprise KiwiRail has imported asbestos-ridden Chinese locomotives despite the fact that the same manufacturer supplied contaminated locomotives to Australia and can he guarantee New Zealanders asbestos-free workplaces?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can confirm that that is in breach of the contract as I understand it that KiwiRail signed and that KiwiRail is going to ensure that the suppliers resolve that issue. But as I say it is absolutely fascinating that the Leader of the Opposition has focused on train wrecks and shipwrecks. Does that not sum it up for his week so far?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When a questioner is caught in the way that the Prime Minister is behaving your admonishment is usually to say that he will not be granted another question. What is your admonishment for the Prime Minister who despite your recent intervention carries on concluding every answer with an attack on the questioner?Mr SPEAKER: Well I am not sure exactly what the point of order is that the member is raising. Could he clarify the point of order?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will clarify it for you. My point of order is that tacked on to every answer from the Prime Minister is a personal attack upon the questioner—in this case unerringly each time he has answered a question. My question is when are we going to see him being admonished by you in the way that you have constantly and unerringly admonished questioners doing the same thing?Mr SPEAKER: Now I understand the point of order. As I said to Mr Robertson only a few minutes earlier it is helpful if I can get a clear and concise question. Then I can help the questioner get a clear and concise answer. When the answer is a little longer and sometimes has a political flick then it is likely to also get a political flick back. All I can do at the end of the day when I see the Prime Minister going into an area that is not necessarily going to restore or bring order to the House is stand and cease the Prime Minister from continuing with that answer. It would have to be a very serious offencefor me to take the matter further and actually ask the Prime Minister to leave the Chamber and not be available for members of any party to then ask him questions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The rules of this House apply to every Minister in this House and every member in this House and there is no distinction. So with respect if you are prepared to remove a questioner from the House why are you drawing a distinction where the Prime Minister is concerned?Mr SPEAKER: What I am saying to the member is that it is with very much reluctance that I ask any member to leave the House but I will treat every member the same when there is an issue of disorder being created by that member regardless of who that member is. If that is the ultimate punishment I have to deliver with some regret I will so deliver it.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. The first is to follow on from that to say that of course there are other sanctions that are available; for instance offering extra supplementary questions. It does not have to lead to the Prime Minister leaving the Chamber and you have previously added extra supplementary questions. My second point of order is a different one which is that when you have risen to your feet throughout today and the Prime Minister has completed what he feels he wants to say when you are on your feet I think that is a different point of order. It is one that will lead to further disorder in the House if he keeps doing that.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I feel obliged to make a comment and that is to back up your assertion around Standing Order 377 where in fact the opening comments from the Hon David Cunliffe in his speech did breach Standing Order 377(1)(a). They went on to involve a breach of 377(1)(b) and although they did not go as far as breaching 377(1)(c) they went very close to that.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. There will be occasions when because of the particular year we are in and the fact that this is a debating chamber there will be political barbs exchanged from one side to the other. If members do not expect that to happen then I suggest they are not going to see Parliament operate that way. In regard to the point made about further questions being given that is a tactic I have used on occasion and I will continue to use it when I think it is justified.Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Kia ora Mr Speaker. I am concerned actually. My point of order is about the respect given to you by both sides of the House when you stand on your feet. I wonder whether it is possible to speak to the sound people after today’s session so that when you rise to your feet the microphones are turned off so we can actually hear you without hearing everybody else.Mr SPEAKER: I will check that that is happening but when I rise to my feet I can assure you that anybody who is in the midst of an answer has their microphone cut off at the time. That is certainly the case. I will check that that has happened. I thank the member for the point she raises.