Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Shane: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:633;Page:5103] 
1. SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on mechanisms to support savings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen a range of reports welcoming the passage of the KiwiSaver Bill last week with only the National Party voting against the third reading. A number of those reports suggest the capped exemption from the specified superannuation contribution withholding tax will encourage greater savings. 
Shane Jones 
: What other reports has he seen on the value of tax incentives for supporting savings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a range of reports supporting tax incentives for longer-term savings particularly from Mr John Key and Mr Bill English. Despite that fact both of them voted against the changes in the House last week; they voted against a tax cut. 
John Key 
: Has the Minister seen reports in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today suggesting that the Labour Party may be looking to underspend by $400000 next year and the year after so that it can pay back the $882000 of taxpayers’ money it owes; is that his idea of savings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen frequent reports of a strange religious group spending $1.2 million on behalf of the National Party to save it from having to attribute that money in its expenditure. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I could not hear the answer to my colleague’s question and I am sitting within 5 feet of him. I really do not think that is fair to members elsewhere in the House who would like to hear the answers to questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes would the Hon Dr Michael Cullen please briefly repeat his answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports of the Exclusive Brethren spending $1.2 million to support the election of the National Party to save it from having to spend the money itself. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the House settle. That was no better than the first time so would members please enable other members to be heard when they are asking or answering questions. An essential right that members have in this House is to be heard. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am still dealing with this point of order; then I will take your point of order. 
John Key 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am asking him to repeat the answer because no one could hear it. 
John Key 
: It is a new point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I know and I will take a new point of order when we have dealt with this matter. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am continuing the point of order that was raised before which was on whether the Minister could be heard. I am very happy to take your point of order Mr Key but I just want to finish this one first. Would the Minister please give his answer as briefly as possible. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How on earth can the Minister’s answer be a continuation of the point of order? Where does that in any way comply with the Standing Orders of this House? If he is being asked to give an answer that is one thing. But to turn down a member who raised a point of order because a Minister wants to give an answer is not within the Standing Orders and it should not become a new rule for the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I thank the member but I do not need any assistance. What I was trying to do Mr Brownlee was to maintain some order in this House by dealing with matters in a logical manner. I am quite happy if you want Mr Key to take his point of order but it will not detract from the fact that we will go on and every member in this House who is not heard whether or not he or she is asking a question or answering it will get the right to be heard—however long it may take. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With all due respect a member giving an answer to a question would obviously be treated with respect if it were an answer to the question and not some extraneous matter that was simply a red herring and a dodging of the issue that was put to a Minister. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That point of order could have easily been raised on the question but since I regarded it as a patsy I thought I would answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that either of those comments is extremely helpful. But the point is that one could hear whether it answered the question. That is the whole point Mr Brownlee. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I call the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said I have seen reports of the Exclusive Brethren donating $1.2 million of pamphlets and other material for the National Party to save it from having to attribute that expenditure. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have my speaker turned on and I still cannot hear Dr Cullen’s answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have been very strict in your rulings about members asking questions in areas for which they have responsibility. Dr Cullen does have responsibility for the Public Finance Act and compliance with it. He has absolutely no responsibility for how any private organisation—the Exclusive Brethren or otherwise—might spend its money. So I simply ask that you require Dr Cullen to answer the very reasonable question about savings in a specific vote covered by the Public Finance Act for which Dr Cullen is responsible rather than allow him to stray into irrelevancies on which he has absolutely no responsibility. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank you Dr Smith and if I could hear the answer I would rule accordingly if that were the case. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports of savings being made in terms of attributable expenditure by the Exclusive Brethren donating $1.2 million for services to the National Party. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members have cleared their lungs we will now have a supplementary question from Doug Woolerton. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member Mr Mallard has just called Dr Brash a liar. That is unparliamentary and he should be asked to apologise and to withdraw that comment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member did say that I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. One of the things you are expecting of this House is some decorum and indeed my colleague Nick Smith raised a point of order just before on which you said you would rule if the Minister strayed outside his authority to answer questions. There are two issues I wish to raise with you Madam Chair— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Madam Speaker. 
John Carter 
: Madam Speaker I beg your pardon. The first is of course that the Minister did not refer in any way to the question that was asked of him by John Key about the statement in the paper and the second one is that it is very likely that we will not have decorum in this House if Ministers keep misusing the truth. The fact is that that Minister knows that what he stated in his answer is quite inaccurate and he is very likely to cause disruption and disorder in this House along with any other Minister if that is to continue. You may wish to rule on that matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order; they are heard in silence. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The first point I would make is that despite the previous attempt by Dr Nick Smith to bring Mr Key’s question inside the Standing Orders it had nothing to do with the Public Finance Act in terms of the way in which it was phrased. Indeed it could have been challenged as being irrelevant. There is a longstanding rule in this House that if one makes a silly point or asks a silly question if that is not challenged then one will get an answer back on a similar basis to the way the question was framed. Secondly if Mr Carter wishes to state in this House as a matter that is subject to challenge under privilege that the Exclusive Brethren did not fund $1.2 million worth of pamphlets and other material for the National Party then that would be very interesting indeed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. 
John Carter 
: Point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have not finished ruling on this point of order Mr Carter. I have heard what Dr Smith said and what Dr Cullen said and I think that members should take note that if they ask and answer questions within the context of the Standing Orders it would certainly contribute to the orderliness of this House. As it turned out in that particular matter obviously members of the Opposition expressed themselves in such a way as to prevent me hearing all the answer. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not privy to the donations made to the National Party—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order I remind members. 
John Carter 
:—but I would make the point Madam Chairman— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Madam Speaker. 
John Carter 
:—Madam Speaker; I beg your pardon—that to the best of my knowledge the Exclusive Brethren spent their own money on their own pamphlets and not on National Party pamphlets. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is a matter of debate not a point of order. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was challenged to make the statement and I have made it. I want that to be noted in the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That may well be the case but it is still not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Helen Clark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am looking here at a document where it states the Exclusive Brethren went to the Chief Electoral Officer wanting a budget to be spent of $1.2 million with the goal of “getting party votes for National” which directly contradicts what the member said. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Pay it back! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order Mr Mallard please. That was also not a point of order. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree with Tower Group chief executive officer Jim Minto’s comments that the rejection of a compulsory savings scheme by New Zealanders in 1997 was the result of baby boomers being traumatised by the memory of the State-controlled Muldoon era and of a desire never to return there and that Winston Peters’ idea for a superannuation scheme was right on the money? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No and somewhat sadly no. I think the scheme actually was as well designed as any compulsory superannuation scheme could be but it was overwhelmingly rejected by the public. As I said on the night the number who voted for it was probably slightly smaller than the number who thought Elvis Presley was still alive.