Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:631;Page:2977] 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that “it is time to move to the next level in the economic transformation agenda” in light of today’s IMD  
World Competitiveness Yearbook 
 scoreboard which shows that New Zealand has dropped six places in the past 12 months; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister)  
on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes; in part because the issues outlined in the report are under active consideration by the Government. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister really expect us to accept that she and her Government are on the right path to economic transformation when the IMD scoreboard shows that New Zealand has plunged 15 places from 15th to 30th in terms of economic performance; and what specific measures will her Government take to make the New Zealand economy perform better? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The interesting thing about that question is that if the member had read the report as perhaps he might read his emails on occasions he would see that the New Zealand Government made in this report—which is based on subjective data primarily—the sixth-highest contribution to competitiveness of any of the 61 countries measured. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Prime Minister at all concerned that Australia is ranked sixth on the IMD scoreboard in stark contrast to New Zealand’s 22nd place; and will she now finally accept that her Government’s economic policies are ensuring that New Zealand is left trailing in Australia’s wake? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Australia ranked ninth in terms of its positive contribution from the Government to economic competitiveness. The main difference between the two countries is that Australia digs itself up and exports itself to China and Japan. Unfortunately we do not have the gas and coal supplies to do that. 
Dr Don Brash 
: If as Dr Cullen claims on the Prime Minister’s behalf she is so unconcerned about New Zealanders moving to Australia for higher after-tax wages why is her Government today launching an expensive Australian advertising campaign to lure expat Kiwis home? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We are not in the least saying that we do not want to see New Zealanders coming back to New Zealand but I was stopped outside and told that Dr Lockwood Smith was chasing people around and finding out they were going to Australia. If Dr Lockwood Smith was chasing me I would think about going to Australia. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the IMD scoreboard which states that New Zealand is ranked 55th out of 61 countries for both personal and corporate taxes and will she now admit that her Government’s high-tax low-growth policies are anything but the economic transformation that New Zealand so desperately needs? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have had over 20 percent growth. On the numbers released today we have created 313000 jobs and we have the highest labour force participation rate in our country. The figure the member cites shows the danger of subjective surveys. [ 
Interruption 
] Almost every country that rates higher than us in this survey has a higher proportion of tax as a proportion of GDP. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Was it the level of noise? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That barrage from the National members was a disgrace to any parliamentary democracy and any debating chamber and they should be stopped now. I have never seen that level of behaviour in the House before and it is happening every day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No please be seated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker I am on my feet. I have not finished my point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the member has done his point of order. I am on my feet. I thank the member. His point of order on the level of noise is well made. I was looking to see whether people could hear at the back and I could see that some were straining. I say to members at the beginning of question time that of course they are allowed interjections but the barracking that is so loud that members cannot hear is discourteous to the House. Could we please just keep the level down. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Perhaps the very sensitive leader of the New Zealand First Party has not seen barracking of that order before because he has never had the opportunity to watch himself in Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. First when I was making my point of order National members recommenced another barrage. That is totally outside the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings and those members should be ejected. The second part of my point of order arises from Mr Brownlee’s penchant for rising in the House without any Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings to back him up throwing out an insult and setting his big frame down. With respect he should be told that if he does not have a point of order and he abuses the Standing Orders process then he will be ejected from this Parliament. He has done it over and over again. Yesterday he made an allegation that was totally false and he knew it. The person concerned has denied it and sought parliamentary time to put their side of the story but Mr Brownlee got away with it. [ 
Interruption 
] There is no use Dr Brash raising his hands. He wrote the emails. I have evidence of what he did. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member who interjected “Is this a point of order?” during the point of order will please leave the Chamber. Points of order are heard in silence whether or not members agree with the content of the point of order. As members know most points of order that are raised are not points of order and we have already had some examples of that today. I have been asking members to please comply with the Standing Orders so we can conduct question time in a way that all people can hear and questions can be asked and answered. I do not know who the member was who interjected but while that point of order was being made I clearly heard a member ask “Is that a point of order?” and it came from the Opposition side of the House. 
Hon Bill English withdrew from the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I appreciate that. It is just until the end of question time unless he has a question in which case he may return for that. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The leader of New Zealand First routinely abuses the point of order process. He made a lengthy speech that was not a point of order. I very much regret that you felt it necessary to expel my colleague. He was making a point that all of us were feeling. This is an abuse of parliamentary procedure. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but that was not a point of order either. That makes the point really—people want to express themselves. The point of order raised by the shadow Leader of the House was clearly not a point of order it was a comment on the proceedings. The reason the member had to leave is that yesterday there were numerous breaches of the point of order process when members were speaking laughing joking and interjecting. I am asked to apply the Standing Orders in an even way. I appreciated the member’s honesty. Can we please proceed in a proper way. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You put members in a difficult position. I would like you to give this matter some thought. The Standing Orders of course do require—and Speakers’ rulings require—that members should be quiet during a point of order. But that requirement is built on a presumption that points of order will be legitimately taken and that there will not be an abuse of the point of order process. I suggest to you Madam Speaker that if you wish to retain order in the House then it requires you to vigilantly police whether members indeed have a legitimate point of order that they are pursuing. Otherwise it is very difficult for members who take exception to something that has been said—an abuse of the Standing Orders process—to restrain themselves from correcting this matter or indeed to directing your attention to the fact that an abuse has actually taken place. That I believe was the cause of Mr English’s undoing—indeed he was trying to draw your attention to the fact that a flagrant breach of the point of order process was being engaged in by Mr Peters. I think the answer to that is for you to give some thought to the enforcement of the requirements of a legitimate Standing Order. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I want to support the member in that respect. I think it would be very helpful if you started clamping down further on members who continue to raise frivolous points of order that are not points of order and perhaps those who continue to act in transgression in that respect might be invited to leave the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I thank members for their comments and I am sure all members have noted them. Can we please now proceed. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that in explaining yesterday Australia’s higher after-tax incomes by reference to Australia’s generous endowment of mineral resources she was implicitly accepting that on present policies New Zealanders will never again enjoy Australian living standards? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because even the Lucky Country will sooner or later run out of gas and coal. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that as a trading nation New Zealand’s competitiveness will be severely affected by the impact of peak oil; if so what strategies does the Government have to future-proof New Zealand from those impacts given her recent acknowledgment that New Zealand should be preparing for a post-oil economy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because I regard in this context oil as being rather similar to taxation. We ranked 22nd in this survey and by my count of the 21 countries above us 12 have significantly higher tax rates than New Zealand while of the 39 countries below us 28 have significantly lower rates than New Zealand. A fairly high proportion of the countries above us in this survey have little or no oil for example Hong Kong Japan Switzerland Iceland Finland and so on. Clearly oil is not the key matter in terms of competitiveness when some countries that are relatively oil-rich can rank quite low in these kinds of surveys.