3. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Minister of Defence
Is he satisfied that the removal of a document entitled Defence Review 2009 from the office of his then Associate Minister does not represent a security breach?
Will he confirm to the House the written remarks of the honourable Heather Roy that ACT board member Nick Kearney has a copy of another paper, a Cabinet paper dated 23 June 2010, which she describes as “extremely sensitive in nature”, and that he, the Minister of Defence, “believes Rodney Hide has passed this paper on, and he is upset that he could not trust a ministerial colleague to keep a paper he gave him to himself”?
Mr SPEAKERI call the Minister in so far as the Minister is responsible for some of those things; part of the question quoted a person for whom the Minister is not responsible.
Hon Rodney HideI will hear the member briefly. Leave is being sought, but if it is helpful, I will hear the Hon Darren Hughes.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
It is convention to allow a member to make a personal explanation, but if this is a matter concerning ministerial business, the ownership of ministerial papers, and where those ministerial papers have gone in a ministerial capacity, surely it should be a ministerial statement that Mr Hide makes to the House.
It depends. I cannot predict what the Hon Rodney Hide is wishing to do, but he understands the Standing Orders. If he wishes to make a personal statement, then it must be a personal statement. If he were to be granted leave to make a personal statement, it should not be on a matter to do with ministerial business; it should relate to him personally. So leave has been sought by the Hon Rodney Hide to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
The reason I am making a personal statement—and I am happy to correct that—is that it does not relate to my responsibility as Minister of Local Government or as Minister for Regulatory Reform. It concerns a defence document. I am happy to change my leave and seek leave to make a ministerial statement, if people would feel better about that.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not stopping the member, but the point should be made that Ministers can, of course, talk about things they do in their ministerial capacity, as members of Cabinet committees or working with other Ministers. That is a ministerial rather than a personal explanation. He would not have had the paper that is being talked about, if he was not a Minister. We will not object to his making a ministerial statement as he offered to do.
A ministerial statement is a very different matter. It can be debated, and it is a very different matter. Leave has been granted for the member to make a personal statement. He is an experienced member and he understands what a personal statement is. I am sure that if the member departs from making a personal statement, we will discover that. Leave has been granted, and I call the Hon Rodney Hide.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the House. The allegation was that I in some capacity had passed a Cabinet document on to Mr Nick Kearney, or, indeed, to anyone who was not authorised to have that document. In this House—and I know the full consequences of what I am saying—I emphatically deny that allegation. I have never ever given a Cabinet document to a person who should not have it. [ Interruption]
That is quite enough. We are on question No. 3. The Hon Pete Hodgson may wish to ask further supplementary questions. [ Interruption] I have called the member’s colleague. I ask him to show some courtesy to him.
Will he confirm to the House the written remarks of the honourable Heather Roy that “he had never initiated contact” with the Hon Rodney Hide but that “he said that Rodney Hide had approached him on more than one occasion to tell him things, including a rumour about drug use”?
In so far as the Minister perceives any ministerial responsibility, the Minister is welcome to try to answer.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
Thank you for that. The document from which I believe the member is quoting is not an official document, and there is no ministerial responsibility for any of its contents.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not based on the document. The question was whether the Minister of Defence had been approached by Mr Hide in relation to rumours of drug use by the Associate Minister of Defence. That goes exactly to his responsibility.
I am on my feet. We will not debate the question by way of point of order. A question was asked and the Minister answered it, and that is where the matter lies. The member may ask further supplementary questions if he wishes.
Leave is sought by the Hon Rodney Hide to make a personal explanation about—I ask him to clarify for the House.
Leave is sought for the member to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
I thank the House again. I can emphatically say that I have never approached any Minister with concerns about drug use by Heather Roy, as alleged by the member opposite. I think it is appalling that he would say such—
No, the member will resume his seat immediately. I say to the Hon Rodney Hide that the House extended him the courtesy of allowing him to make a personal explanation. He will not use it again to criticise another member, and neither will this matter be pursued further by way of point of order.
I alert the Hon Trevor Mallard that he will not use the point of order process to debate an issue, and he will not in any way use the point of order process to criticise another member in this House. With that warning, I will hear the honourable member.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I seek leave to table the document of Heather Roy’s that makes allegations about Rodney Hide.
This time it is the Hon David Parker. I ask him to show some courtesy to his colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson. He has the floor to ask a supplementary question, and unnecessary interjection like that is not assisting the order of the House.
Hon David ParkerI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the comment made by Sandra Goudie accusing the Opposition of being sewer rats, to which I responded with my interjection.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, Mr Speaker, a member has taken offence at what I suspect that you, and every other member of this House, would deem to be an extremely unparliamentary comment. He has taken offence. A number of us have taken offence at it. You—[ Interruption]
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
Well, I will deal with that comment, as well. He has compounded it by saying it was true.
The member will resume his seat. This childish behaviour will stop immediately—immediately. We are adults in this place, and I ask members not to behave like children. If Sandra Goudie offended the Opposition, I invite her to withdraw and apologise for whatever she said. I apologise that I did not hear it. If she did offend the Opposition she will know—I do not want her to repeat what she said. If she did not, I am prepared to take her statement that she did not make any such statement.
Sandra GoudieThis is where that matter will lie. The member will resume his seat immediately. This is such childish behaviour that it is an insult to this House and demeaning of the dignity of this House. The Hon Pete Hodgson has the floor to ask a supplementary question, and that is where it will remain. [ Interruption] And that is enough of that nonsense from the back of the House.
Did the Minister of Defence advise his Prime Minister that the Hon Rodney Hide had, reportedly, told him that the honourable Heather Roy was rumoured to be using drugs; if so, when; if not, why not?
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have already given a personal explanation that I did no such thing. Therefore, that question is out of order.
I accept that point, because the House must take the word of a member when a member has made a personal explanation. The consequences of misleading the House on a personal explanation are high. Therefore, the House must take the word of a member. I therefore rule that question out.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could bring to your attention an obvious problem, which is that I am accurately quoting nothing more or less than the written word of another member of this House. That is all I am doing.
But the facts remain that a member has made a personal explanation in relation to that matter, and the House must take the word of that member. If that member has wilfully misled the House in making a personal explanation, the consequences of that are very severe. That is why members making personal explanations have to be very careful what they say to this House. But I cannot allow a question that contravenes a personal explanation given by a member.
What were the “other defamatory statements” that Heather Roy said the Minister of Defence had been told by the Hon Rodney Hide?
Leave is sought to make a personal explanation; I take it that it is on the point just made. It is up to the House whether it grants it. Leave is sought. I put it to the House. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is just to assist the House to find a way forward. There is a series of questions that the member wishes to ask, based on information that has become available from a member of the party of the member making the personal explanations. If, at the conclusion of the questions having been asked, the member wishes to make a personal and full explanation about the matters he is concerned about, then I do not think there would be objection from the Opposition. What we do object to is his jumping up every single time and ruling himself out of certain matters, as a way of shutting down questions, when the base document that the Hon Pete Hodgson is using is actually from the parliamentary ACT Party.
The member is entitled to seek leave to make a personal explanation, if he finds an allegation contained in a question to be highly offensive to him. He is entitled to seek leave; the House is equally entitled not to grant it. But there is no way that I can ask the member, because if he does not seek leave to make a personal explanation, it allows to go on the record of the House things that the member may consider are untrue, offensive to him, and in any other circumstances may be defamatory of him—but that is not a remedy in this House, of course. So I have a dilemma there. I realise that the member Darren Hughes is trying to be helpful, but the House declined that leave, so I am obliged to accept that. I probably have to ask the member to repeat his supplementary question, because such time has gone by now that members have probably forgotten what it was.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that the Opposition has exercised its privilege to deny me the right to make a personal explanation, but I would just make this point. We will find ourselves in quite a difficult position in question time, because the member is getting up and asking questions that make an allegation against me—a highly offensive allegation. I have the opportunity, as any member of Parliament does, to stand up, make a personal explanation, and say it is not true. What the Opposition has done has denied me that opportunity. What that means is that it will become a currency in this Parliament that, under the cover of asking a question, or, indeed, in giving a speech asking questions of the Government, any defamatory or offensive statement can be made about a member. One seeks leave to give a personal explanation to say it is not true—which is the strongest statement one can say in this Parliament—leave is denied, so it will just continue.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
If it was a fresh allegation, or something that was new or not known to the House, then the member might have a point. I think the problem he has is that this is not an allegation made by Mr Hodgson; it is one made by Heather Roy, and he is merely quoting it.
The member has raised a relevant issue. Under the Standing Orders, members must not insert into a question an allegation that is contrary to the Standing Orders. That is why the member, in asking a supplementary question, could not make a statement about another member, because that is strictly outside the Standing Orders. I do not stop members, I do not intervene, when members do insert allegations into questions, because I would be intervening far too often, but when it comes to a matter relating to a member, then I would intervene. As the Hon Trevor Mallard points out, on this occasion the member asking the question is not himself making an allegation against anyone. As I understand it, he is quoting from something. Again, if it was an outrageous quotation, then that would not be acceptable in this House, either. I realise that this is a sensitive matter, and it is not an easy matter for me to rule on, but I think we need to hear the supplementary question to be satisfied that the member asking it is not himself making any allegations against the Hon Rodney Hide in the question. The question must be relevant to the Minister’s responsibilities; otherwise, it is unreasonable. I should not allow a question, even though it might be quoting someone, on a matter for which the Minister has no responsibility, just because a member wants to try to get something on the record of the House. That would not be reasonable, either. So I ask the experienced member the Hon Pete Hodgson to respect the Standing Orders of the House in wording his supplementary question. We will listen to it very carefully, but it must not contain any allegation that he might be making, it must not quote any outrageous allegation, and it must be within the responsibility of the Minister of Defence.
What were “the other defamatory statements” that he reportedly told the honourable Heather Roy that the Hon Rodney Hide had told him?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question today stated: “Is he satisfied that the removal of a document entitled Defence Review 2009 from the office of his then Associate Minister does not represent a security breach?”. Since then we have had a series of questions that relate to an internal party document that has various allegations in it. It is not an official document. It is a matter of record in this House only because it was tabled, and it was tabled only because it is freely available on the New Zealand Herald website. I would ask you to rule why Ministers in any circumstance, given the Speakers’ rulings that I think you will find relating to incidents that took place in 2002, should be required to answer any questions about another party’s internal document.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I think all it could go to is the possibility that the other defamatory statements that are alleged to have been made by Mr Hide about Mrs Roy went to any question of security risk or her ability to do her job as Associate Minister of Defence. If those were the sorts of allegations that were made—and I can think of no other reason why a leader of a party would make such allegations to the Prime Minister—
I think we have heard sufficient. We risk getting into debating the merits of the issue. I realise that it is a very sensitive issue, and I hear what the Hon Gerry Brownlee said—that the primary question related to security. The supplementary questions have moved more towards matters relating to an internal party document for which the Minister is certainly not responsible. In answering the question—because at this stage I have not ruled the question out—I think the Minister should guided by the fact that he is responsible for the conduct of the Associate Minister of Defence only in so far as any of it relates to the defence portfolio. He is not responsible for the private conduct of such a member; neither is he responsible for any relationship between another member and that member. So, in answering the question, I invite the honourable Minister to reflect on the limitations of his responsibility there. Rather than simply say it is unreasonable for me to have allowed the question to be asked, because it is distanced from the primary question, I ask him to simply think about his ministerial responsibilities in answering it. It would be, in my view, perhaps going a little too far for me to rule out the line of questioning totally.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I am unable to confirm anything that is in the particular document referred to by the member.
A point of order has been called. This was provoked by the Hon Trevor Mallard, who interjected when a point of order had been called. He is an experienced member—and, actually, often a very good member—and should know better.
I have called the Hon Pete Hodgson on a point of order, and he will be heard first. And he will be heard in silence.
My point of order relates to the personal explanations given by the Hon Rodney Hide, and speaks on behalf of another member. What has happened is, as I have explained in my questioning, I have done no more than accurately quote the written word of a member. That has been denied by another member in this House. My question to you is should the first member, on her return, want to offer a personal explanation in rebuttal of another personal explanation, will that be in order?
I am not about to rule on such a matter; as an experienced member, the Hon Pete Hodgson should know that very well. This is an important matter. I realise that members are taking it very seriously, and I appreciate that, but we should be aware that under Standing Order 371(1)(c) “discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression” cannot be included in a question, including in a supplementary question. Even if a quotation is being used, if it makes discreditable reference to another member of the House, strictly it is outside the Standing Orders. I do not like preventing members from questioning too far, but I just mention this—and members are welcome to look at Standing Order 371(1)(c)—because we do need to be careful here. I have allowed the questioning to go ahead, but, as the Minister has pointed out, he has no responsibility for a certain document, and that is a perfectly fair answer.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to take this matter, I think, one step further, but in respect of Standing Order 371, I would like your judgment as to which discreditable reference you refer to. Is it that the honourable Heather Roy—
The member will resume his seat immediately. In pursuing this point of order, the member is about to do exactly that—perhaps make some discreditable references. We will not have that by way of point of order, either. If the member has no further supplementary questions, we should move on.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let me have another go, and I apologise. I will try to do it generically. Under Standing Order 371, was the Speaker referring to a discreditable reference made by one of the members of the House or about one of the members of the House?
It does not matter. If it is about a member of the House, it is strictly out of order. Even if the member asking the question is quoting from material, and even if the member is quoting from material that derives from another member of the House, strictly, under the Standing Orders, one cannot make discreditable reference to another member of the House. In terms of the formation of questions, I do not apply the Standing Orders strictly day in, day out, because I would be intruding far too much into question time. At least half the supplementary questions asked today have not complied strictly with Standing Order 371, but I leave it to Ministers to exercise their judgment as they listen to questions, and they know that when a question is fairly wide in respect of the Standing Orders they have a lot more liberty and licence in answering it. I would rather let the game, if you like, flow like that, rather than my intervening all the time. But when it comes to an important issue like this, where members’ integrity is at issue, I need to apply the Standing Orders, I believe, correctly, and I believe I am doing that.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for that ruling. It is a difficult issue, because I recall a very considered and important line of questioning by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in respect of Taito Phillip Field where allegations of corruption were made. Those allegations of corruption were quite properly questions for the floor of this House, and were not ruled out of order under that particular Standing Order.
I ask the Hon Rodney Hide not to abuse the point of order process like that. I will not tolerate that further. The difference was, in fact, that I made no allegations whatsoever. If members check back in the Hansard, they will find that I was very, very careful, for that reason. The Speaker should not be brought into the debate on this matter, anyhow, but I invite the member to check back. If, in fact, I had made all sorts of allegations of corrupt behaviour, the line of questioning would never have lasted as long as it did.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for raising one more point of order. Sooner or later your interpretation of Standing Order 371 may get us into trouble, because it seems to me that if, for example, this document I am holding up were an affidavit—it is not—and it had some degree of legal supremacy to it, you might be of a mind to allow any allegations or disreputable remarks contained in that affidavit to stand in the House. I wonder whether you could contemplate that, perhaps not now but in time to come.
I seek leave to make a personal explanation about the contents of the questions that Mr Hodgson made against me.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are minded to agree to that request for leave, but we need to have slightly more specific reference as to the personal nature of what Mr Hide is seeking to correct on the record of the House, rather than a generic reference to issues raised by Mr Hodgson.
I think it is not an unreasonable point the member is making. The House has already given leave for two personal explanations. For this one, it would be helpful to know what specific reference he is referring to.
I seek leave to make a personal explanation that I never made any defamatory statements to Dr Wayne Mapp about Heather Roy.
Leave is sought to make such a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection.