Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 25 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11182. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was he aware before the Government’s delayed licence fee deal with MediaWorks was approved that MediaWorks had a substantial and escalating tax bill that was not being met?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he was told as it is reported inHansard of 27 September 2012 that the company was as the market said going belly up and tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money was going to be lost what did he do about it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not for me to wade into a publicly owned company and seek to restructure it. What the Government did do was when there was the issue of licences that had to be paid for up front and it was obvious that MediaWorks amongst a number of players at the time might have had difficulty in actually meeting that cash flow it looked to spread those payments over a period of time. It did so by ensuring there was security over those licences and it did so also ensuring there was an above-market interest rate. That was actually done to protect—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That has got nothing to do with my question. I am talking about—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear the point of order in silence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am talking about a growing then escalating tax bill which got to $22 million at the time of receivership. That is what I am talking about.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The supplementary question as I remember asked when he was told such and such in the House at some time in September what he did about it. The Prime Minister said that he did not do anything but then he went through a number of things his Government did and he was still answering that question when the member rose to his feet to interrupt him. The member has further supplementary questions if he wants to use them.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is MediaWorks being allowed to go into what has been described as a “ ‘technical’ receivership” to dodge its tax debt of $22 million when that is not available to other taxpayers in this country be they a company or individuals even though they may be mates of Mr Steven Joyce?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly it is very important to understand that there is a clear separation between the responsibilities held by the Inland Revenue Department and Ministers of the Crown. The member knows as a very longstanding member of Parliament that it would be quite wrong of me to engage myself as Prime Minister in the tax affairs of MediaWorks and if I did so the member would be on his feet in this House saying things. The second point I would make is that it is not for me either to understand fully the financial circumstances that the receivers face at MediaWorks. But I can say this one general point—and it may well apply; I have not looked deeply intoMediaWorks—and it is this: it is highly likely that this particular case when it comes to this particular tax liability is an unsecured creditor. It is also highly likely that the secured creditors that are the banks which are owed a considerable amount of money and have now put the company into liquidation even if they did not do this particular form the unsecured creditors would not have their liability met. So whatever way it happens it is highly likely that in fact the tax bill would not be met by MediaWorks because the company is fundamentally broke.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister acting on behalf of six foreign-owned banks behind MediaWorks by claiming that he cannot—Hon Steven Joyce: Don’t be a clown. Silly old clown.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask this question without Steven Joyce—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! It would certainly be helpful if there were no interjections from this side of the House. Would the member just ask his question.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that when you were on your feet you were referred to as an old clown by the Minister for Economic Development.Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear it and it is not useful for the order of this House for the member to raise that as a point of order. Would the Rt Hon Winston Peters please continue with his supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: He meant a bald crown talking about himself. But look—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants to ask his question—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am entitled to ask the question. Your job is to—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is entitled to ask his question but he is not entitled to start it in the way he started that question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it the ruling of this House that you can actually get a question out without constant interruptions from the front bench of the National Party or is that allowed—including insults as well?Mr SPEAKER: I am trying to assist the member. I have told the front bench of the National Party they are not to interject. The member then rose and started with a comment that was unnecessary to his question. I said that was out of order. I am trying to help the member to have the opportunity to ask his question if he wants to do so. [Interruption ] Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did you hear that interjection?Mr SPEAKER: No I did not. If the member wants to ask his question he should do so otherwise we are moving to the next question.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When Paula Bennett interjected you looked at her and called her to order. You cannot say that you did not hear her.Mr SPEAKER: It is a matter of which interjection he is referring to. [Interruption ] Order! If the member—for the last time—wants to ask his question he will rise to his feet and ask the question. There will be absolute silence from this side otherwise a member will leave the Chamber. If the question is not asked then we are moving to the next question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister and his Government not move to put this outfit into statutory receivership thereby enabling the recovery of a tax bill of now $22 million which was agreed by MediaWorks when it signed off with the Inland Revenue Department in the Alesco case—why is he allowing it to get out of this by using a technical receivership that is not available to the balance of New Zealand companies?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I do not have any technical advice—or any advice I should say—about ultimately whether the company could have been put into statutory receivership. At no point was I asked to do that. Secondly there is nothing specific or unique as I understand it to the way that MediaWorks is acting in relation to its receivership. That is not specific to that company—any company could technically do that. Thirdly like I said to the member earlier it really depends on how much debt is owed in terms of secured creditors whether the Inland Revenue Department would have received anything.