Hudson Brett: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHudson Brett: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6795. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]9.BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent reports has he received on the electricity market?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): The latest energy quarterly released by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment today for the June 2015 quarter shows that the average residential electricity cost fell by 1.4 percent driven by a fall in both lines charges and retail costs. The last time there was a fall of any kind was in late 2001. The largest factor in this drop in residential electricity cost was an increase in the effects of competition—that is discounting by retailers. This Government believes that competition is the best way to keep downward pressure on prices and the latest data shows competition action making a real difference for households.Brett Hudson: What does the energy quarterly show in relation to electricity generated from renewable sources?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It makes clear that nearly 83 percent of electricity was generated by renewables in the last quarter. Hydro geothermal and wind were all up and non-renewable generation was down by nearly 20 percent. Geothermal electricity generation in particular had a very good quarter. More than 1800 gigawatts was generated from geothermal the highest level on record.Fletcher Tabuteau: How does the Minister respond to Northpower which said that the rebalancing of transmission costs would have a material adverse impact on the Northland community’s social and economic well-being?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The transmission pricing methodology process that the Electricity Authority is running is independent and has an incredibly long way to go. It is looking at many options so I would say to the people of Northland that it is far too soon to be jumping to those sorts of conclusions which I appreciate the member tries to scaremonger on.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will not help the order of the House.Fletcher Tabuteau: What has Electricity Authority chair Dr Brent Layton done to deserve $200000 a year for a pricing methodology that makes regions like Northland subsidise profitable generators and foreign-owned energy intensive businesses?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Unlike that member he has degrees. I think the other thing you will find is that he has made an excellent contribution to the electricity sector—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am hoping this is a point of order.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is to do with Standing Order 286. The Minister included personal references in relation to the person who asked the question which should not be permitted.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker the question asked about what qualification he had and he gave the answer. Presumably the person asking the question is making a statement about the person who is the subject of it which is also I think inappropriate in this House. It is quite inappropriate to bring a servant of the State from outside the House into question time. But clearly that comparison was made and the Minister answered appropriately.Denis O’Rourke: The particular point is that the Minister referred to qualifications in respect of the person who asked the question which is completely irrelevant and is not permissible in the Standing Orders.Mr SPEAKER: I do not think it is right actually. I think the answer was perhaps not particularly helpful to the order of the House. However given the tone of the question—“What qualifications did Mr Brent Layton have to receive his salary?”—the Minister took the opportunity of effectively saying: “Well substantially more qualifications than the member.” I do not think that that is at all derogatory to the member. I think it is the sort of answer you may well have expected to a question like that. It is not a helpful answer but my job is to see whether it addresses the question. It addressed the question. If members are not happy with it I guess they should tighten up the conciseness of their supplementary questions.Fletcher Tabuteau: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No I have dealt with that point of order. If the member has a fresh point of order I will hear it but I have dealt—Fletcher Tabuteau: Could I seek leave to make a personal statement Mr Speaker?Mr SPEAKER: The member can seek leave. That is over to the House. You want to make a personal explanation about what?Fletcher Tabuteau: I at no point referenced qualifications—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No no. The member wants to seek leave to make a personal explanation. I am inviting him to briefly describe it and I will put the leave. [Interruption] No the member—[Interruption] Order! I do not need that help from Mr Brownlee. I should not have to read the Standing Orders. The member has been here a long time; he now should understand the way this place works and the way the Standing Orders work. I doubt whether he has got a legitimate point but if he wants to try it he can. I would suggest that a quicker way forward would be to continue with his line of questioning.Fletcher Tabuteau: Thank you Mr Speaker. I actually asked what the—Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question is it? [Interruption] Order! If the member does not know—[Interruption] Do you want to ask a supplementary question. [Interruption] Sorry?Fletcher Tabuteau: Supplementary question.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary—[Interruption] Order! Supplementary question Fletcher Tabuteau.Fletcher Tabuteau: Why can the after-tax profits of Transpower New Zealand not be used to smooth electricity line charges?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Because it is a State-owned enterprise.Ron Mark: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the member starts his point of order—and I want to hope that it is a genuine point of order—can I warn the member that if it any way relitigates the territory that I have just covered and ruled on the member will be immediately leaving the House. [Interruption] Question number—Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Again I need to caution this member as well in the same way. Fresh point of order Tracey Martin.Tracey Martin: Mr Speaker I seek your clarification. With regard to Mr Tabuteau’s question he did not ask—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. I did not issue the same warning I did to Mr Mark so I will not act on it. I said that that matter is closed. I have ruled on it. If the member is then to—[Interruption] Order! To Mr Mark I am on my feet. If members then take the opportunity to relitigate those decisions that I have made whether they agree with them or disagree with them they must accept them. To continue to relitigate leads to disorder and as I have said to Mr Mark—I did not issue the same warning to Tracey Martin so on this occasion I will not carry the matter further—in future after giving a warning as severely as that the only action I then have is to be asking members to leave. Question number 10—Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order? Is it in any way—Tracey Martin: It is speaking to the point of order to ask for your clarification Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No no I have already dealt with the matter. The member will immediately resume her seat otherwise she will be leaving the Chamber.