Smith Lockwood: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Smith Lockwood: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3885] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 I rise with some trepidation to speak on Part 1 because when I was speaking on the title only last night I managed to be evicted from this Chamber for the first time ever in 19 years in this Parliament. So I fear this bill may bring me bad luck but despite that nervousness I will do my best to address Part 1.  
Part 1 covers the commencement and the purpose of the bill. The commencement clause is interesting because normally the commencement date indicates a little bit about the Government’s legislative programme. What is interesting is that the commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal 
assent.” What is interesting about that clause is that it shows that the Government’s legislative programme is a shambles. The Government has no idea when this bill is going to come into force—none whatsoever. What is more the fiscal cost of this bill gets greater every week that it does not come into force because the bill goes back to July 2002. So the estimated cost of the back-pay shall we say gets greater with every week that goes by. The Government has no idea when it will get this bill through the Parliament—the bill demonstrates that quite clearly. The Government’s legislative programme is in a shambles. The Government cannot specify a date when the bill is to come into force so it just says that that will be on the day after the date on which the bill receives the royal assent. That is a way of saying: “We haven’t got a clue and that’s the only safe way to put it.” That is the first thing I would say in respect of Part 1. Clearly it demonstrates that the Government’s legislative programme is a shambles.  
The other clause in Part 1 is clause 3 “Purpose” which is I think what my colleague from Rodney Mr McNair from New Zealand First was trying to describe— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do apologise for interrupting the honourable member on his feet but throughout Craig McNair’s speech and now during Dr Lockwood Smith’s speech a conversation has been going on between two MPs. It is not a short conversation; it has gone on for some time and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member himself was speaking quite loudly. Indeed I nearly called for order when Mr McNair was speaking so I suggest that the member refrain from raising those sorts of points of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member be seated. I will not entertain spurious points of order. I am warning the member now.  
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. What I want you to do is point out to members that if they are going to engage in a long conversation—and successive Speakers have ruled on this—they should go into the lobby. I am not actually complaining but it is very hard to hear. The conversation has gone on now through two speeches and I think it is quite within the rules for the Chair to point that out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. There were several conversations going on including his own as I pointed out.  
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. May I suggest that you ask those members who are having lengthy conversations to have them outside the House. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes certainly. They are aware of that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. If it is a point of order on what I have ruled on— 
Rodney Hide 
: No it is not. It is a point about consistency. I raised precisely that point of order. You did not rule in my favour. I know that Mr Dail Jones is probably more eloquent than I am and probably has more legal training than me but he raised the point of order and you accepted it. What is going on? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member is raising trifling points of order and he will desist. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Clearly the purpose clause does change the Government’s fiscal position because it provides the annuity to be paid to spouses after they remarry. It means that the old arrangements under the 1956 Act become consistent with the amendments that were made when the new schemes were brought in in 1985.  
I do have a question for the Minister and I want him to answer the question that my colleague Rodney Hide from ACT asked him. The commentary on the bill has not spelt out the fiscal costs. There clearly is a fiscal cost. Most members support the bill but we deserve to know what the fiscal cost is. I expect the Minister in the chair the Hon John Tamihere to inform us of the fiscal cost. We know that he is in the chair because he is being punished. He is being punished for being a naughty boy and for saying things that the one who is not to be questioned—the Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark—does not approve of. We know that. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We have already been down that road once this afternoon. Those comments are irrelevant to the part of the bill that is under discussion and need to be ruled out of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: Madam Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I do not need any assistance. The member will keep to the issues in the part being debated.  
Rodney Hide 
: Madam Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I do not need any assistance. Please be seated. It is my decision whether to accept a contribution to a point of order and I am not accepting your contribution to this point of order. Please be seated. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson.  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes. It is quite appropriate to be asking the Minister in the chair questions when— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. Please be seated. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well what’s your ruling? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. The member is continuing to challenge the Chair. The member has been warned. The member will now leave the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: How long for? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There will be no further comments on rulings I have made. The member will leave the Chamber until 10 to 6.  
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: If one were to read the purpose of this bill one would find that it has a fiscal cost associated with it. My colleague whom you have just demanded leave the Chamber asked the Minister two speeches ago to tell us what— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member be seated please. It is against the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 for a member to refer to my ruling that a member withdraw from the Chamber. Please continue.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: My huge apologies Madam Chairperson. The fact is that my colleague asked the Minister two speeches ago to inform us of the fiscal cost of the purpose of this bill. A closure motion was moved before the Minister had even responded to Rodney Hide. Why is the Minister refusing to answer that question? Is it because the Prime Minister has muzzled him? Does he not have a note from the Prime Minister telling him what he can say on this bill?  
If he continues to refuse to answer questions on the bill the only conclusion we can come to is that he has been muzzled by the Prime Minister and therefore will not answer our questions. When a fiscal cost is associated with the purpose of a bill we are entitled to have that answer from the Minister in the chair. I want the Hon John Tamihere to tell us whether he is allowed to answer questions on this bill or whether we are just wasting our time. Does he have the Prime Minister’s approval to speak on this matter or has she forbidden him to speak on this matter? If the Prime Minister does not allow John Tamihere to speak on the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) he should get out of the chair and let into the chair a Minister who will answer our questions and does have the approval of the Prime Minister to talk on this issue. It is not within the procedures of this Committee for the Minister to ignore valid questions. Sure the Minister can ignore stupid questions but a question about the fiscal cost of the purpose of this bill is a perfectly valid question. The fiscal cost is not mentioned and is not in the commentary on the bill. If members read the commentary on the bill they will see that it tells us how many people might be involved and how many children might be involved but there is no estimate of the fiscal cost. It should be in the commentary on the bill. It is a fair and valid question for that Minister to answer.