8. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Minister of Defence
Did he raise concerns about the performance of the former Associate Minister of Defence with the Hon Rodney Hide; if so, did he inform the Prime Minister about those concerns?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) Link to this
In reply to the question, may I say this: no, I did not have concerns about the former Associate Minister’s performance. However, I did have concerns about inappropriate language in two documents generated from the former Associate Minister’s office, which I did raise with Mr Hide. It was not necessary to raise those issues with the Prime Minister.
Was he “informed by a National Party activist that ACT Board Member Nick Kearney has a copy of” a Cabinet paper entitled Defence Assessment, dated 2010, as the former Associate Minister of Defence wrote last week; if so, did he advise the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
I actually have asked Mr Kearney about that, and, no, he does not have such a document. I am absolutely confident that there has been no inappropriate treatment of documents held in the former Associate Minister’s office.
Did he or his staff raise any security issues regarding ACT Ministers or their staff with the Prime Minister or his staff; if so, what and when?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
There was an occasion when I was given some information by Mr Hide, which is now in the public domain. I ensured that that was raised with Ministerial Services.
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will help the member by saying he surely cannot have a question that asks what a Minister might have said. The Minister either said it or did not say it.
Hon Gerry Brownlee
Mr SPEAKERI appreciate the assistance of the honourable Leader of the House, but this is a point of order. Members these days are entitled, under the Standing Orders, to ask questions that are speculative like that, as long as they are not outrageous. They must not contain any outrageous content, and I ask the member to be careful of that. I think we should hear his question.
What might he have said to his former Associate Minister of Defence that caused her to write on a document dated 17 August: “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.”?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
Nothing of that nature was said. In fact, I received a phone call from somebody else.
Was his former Associate Minister of Defence broadly correct when she wrote on 17 August: “Rodney Hide also told Wayne Mapp that he wanted me removed from my Associate Defence Minister role. Wayne Mapp told me, subsequently, he protested vigorously about that saying that we (Mapp and I) were an effective team and I was well regarded by his colleagues in the Defence Force.”?
I simply could not hear that question at all. Because I could not hear the question with the level of interjection, on this occasion from National backbenchers, I cannot determine whether the question was in order. I have to be able to hear the question. I ask the member to repeat it, but I ask him to keep it short and to make it no longer than is necessary to make the question clear. It should not contain further material than is necessary to make the question clear.
Was his former Associate Minister of Defence broadly correct when she wrote on 17 August: “Rodney Hide also told Wayne Mapp that he wanted me removed from my Associate Defence Minister role. Wayne Mapp told me, subsequently, he protested vigorously about that saying that we (Mapp and I) were an effective team and I was well regarded by his colleagues in the Defence Force.”?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
I have no ministerial responsibility for anything in an internal document from the ACT Party, but I can say the Associate Minister and I had an effective working relationship.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Acknowledging that the last part of the question was answered, I take issue with the idea that the Minister of Defence has no obligation to address a question about comments made around him by his former Associate Minister. Of course he is responsible.
A serious and interesting issue has been raised. The Minister has responsibility for statements in respect of defence made by the Associate Minister; there is no question about that. The question here is whether the document that is being referred to contains information written in the capacity of a person as Associate Minister of Defence. Maybe I need to seek a little further advice on that. At the end of the day I have to be guided by Ministers as to whether they have ministerial responsibility, but then the balancing issue there is that I cannot allow Ministers simply to claim that they do not have ministerial responsibility for something that they do have ministerial responsibility for. On this occasion I probably have to take the Minister’s word for it at the moment and undertake to look into the matter for the honourable member, because I do not want to rule incorrectly on something that has some significance. Ministerial responsibility is important; Ministers are responsible for what Associate Ministers say in their capacity as Associate Ministers. As to what they say in their capacity as ordinary members of Parliament, I am not clear about that. I undertake that I will look into the matter further and come back to the honourable member. If, in fact, I need to come back to the House, I will do so; otherwise, I will come back to the honourable member.
Does he believe that the issues that the Minister raised with me were appropriate to raise with me, and does he believe that I handled the issues that he raised entirely appropriately? [ Interruption]
A serious question has been asked. This is a matter of some substance, and I think the Minister should be given the courtesy of being able to reply on it.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very interested in what this answer will be, but, just so that we are clear, I ask you for clarification. Are you ruling that this Minister has ministerial responsibility for the behaviour of Rodney Hide?
No, no—not at all. The Minister was asked about whether he felt that his comments, his advice to another Minister, had been treated appropriately. As a Minister I think he has certainly a reporting responsibility for that. I do not think that is unreasonable.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do acknowledge the possibility that the Minister of Local Government has an interest in this or that aspect of defence, but it is more likely, it seems, that in Mr Hide’s conversation with the Minister of Defence, Mr Hide was acting in his capacity as the leader of the ACT Party. The Minister of Defence has no responsibility for that.
The Minister clearly was acting as the Minister of Defence. The Minister of Defence raised issues with me. I am asking as a member of Parliament whether he believed he did the appropriate thing as the Minister of Defence by raising them with me. And I am asking him as the Minister of Defence whether he believed that my response was entirely appropriate. That is a question from a member of Parliament to a Minister.
I do not care which member of the Labour front bench is not interested; I as Speaker am interested. I think the point made by the Hon Rodney Hide is not unreasonable. What he has asked, as a member of the House, is whether the Minister of Defence feels that what he said to him as the Minister of Defence was treated appropriately. The Minister is not being asked to comment on something that a member of Parliament has said publicly—that would not be his responsibility—but simply on whether his communications were treated, in his view as Minister of Defence, appropriately. I realise that there is a fine line with these things, and I acknowledge that I am not finding this to be absolutely easy, but I think that is a reasonable question for the Minister to be asked to respond to.
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
To the extent that they were related to my areas of ministerial responsibility, yes, they were dealt with appropriately by both me and Mr Hide.
Hon David ParkerI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In respect of the issue that you may report back to the House on, it seems to me that the Minister, in response to that question from Mr Hide, actually showed that he had ministerial responsibility in respect of the earlier issues. If it was within his responsibility to answer that question from Mr Hide, how can that be different from the answers that he was asked to give in respect of Mr Hodgson’s questions about other comments made to him in his capacity as Minister?
I appreciate that. Mr Speaker, the questions that I asked were actually about the behaviour of the Minister of Defence and about his opinion on whether he thought the response of someone else was appropriate. The question that the Opposition was asking was actually about a document that the Minister of Defence had no hand in preparing.
No, I do not want to spend more time on this. I have undertaken that I will look into the matter. I am satisfied about that last question; I think that the Minister of Defence has responsibility for what he says to other members, and that to question him on whether he is happy with the way they have treated that information is not unreasonable. The Minister certainly has responsibility for anything that the Associate Minister says as Associate Minister. What I want to look into further—because this is an important matter—is whether a document being referred to was prepared by the Minister as Associate Minister or as a member of a political party. We well know in this House that there is a difference between a Minister acting in his or her role as Minister, and a Minister acting in his or her role as a member—in some cases, the leader—of a political party. I think this issue is important enough for me to satisfy myself on the basis of the proper way of looking at it. I do not want to give an incorrect ruling to the House; I promised the honourable member Pete Hodgson I will investigate the matter. If it is important for the House, I will come back to the House on it; otherwise, I will come back to the member.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for that clarification. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that the point that Mr Hodgson was making was not about the source of the quote that was being put to the Minister, which was the subsequently prepared document. He was actually questioning the Minister in respect of the statement as recorded in that document, which was a statement put to the Minister in his capacity as the Minister, according to that later document. So it is not the later document—that is just the source of the information.
The member is simply relitigating the issue. I have acknowledged that I need to satisfy myself as to the status of such a document. Whether it quotes anyone is irrelevant if the document does not relate to a Minister. If it relates to a private member, especially in respect of political party matters, then I suggest that, on the face of it, it is not a matter for which a Minister can be responsible, even if such a document quotes the Minister. If a Minister says he or she is not responsible for what that document contains, then that would, on the face of it, be the end of the matter. But I want to look into it, to make sure that my instincts are not wrong. They may well be wrong, and I am prepared to accept that I may be wrong. I will certainly come back to the member who asked the question, and if the matter has importance for the House I will come back to the House on it.
I cannot imagine what the point of order is. I ask the Hon David Parker to be careful not to keep wasting the time of the House.
Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. The point I was making, with respect, was that what I think you have to consider does not relate to the source of the document that Heather Roy prepared, which is a subsequent document. The underlying issue that the Minister can be questioned on, in my submission, is the quote in that document, which is a quote of her earlier statement to the Minister of Defence. My submission is that the question for you to consider is whether the statements that Heather Roy said she made to the Minister are within the responsibility of the Minister—not the later document.
Is the Minister of Defence satisfied that the concerns that he took to Ministerial Services were handled with the utmost professionalism, integrity, and competence by Ministerial Services?
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP Link to this
I passed them to Ministerial Services. Of course, they have their own standards as to whether they are appropriately handled. I cannot actually speak on behalf of Ministerial Services.