12. HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) Minister of Energy and Resources) Link to this
to the Minister of Energy and Resources
Does the survey and drilling arrangement between the Government and Petrobras have the prior and informed consent of Te Whānau-a-Apanui; if not, will this lack of consent breach the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?
Hon HEKIA PARATADid the Minister consult with the Māori Party before calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Te Whānau-a-Apanui, and what consultation will the Minister engage in with the Māori Party before calling out the armed forces against the tangata whenua of Te Tau Ihu—
Te Ururoa Flavell Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask the relevance of any questions in respect of the Māori Party, as the Minister has no responsibility for the Māori Party and what we do, honourable as it is.
Mr SPEAKERIt is perfectly within the member’s right to ask whether a Minister consulted with the Māori Party. There is some question, though, over the wording of the supplementary question the member has asked. I ask him to reword his supplementary question to make sure that it links pretty closely to the primary question, but he certainly is entitled to ask whether a Minister has consulted with another party.
Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Did the Minister consult with the Māori Party before calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Te Whānau-a-Apanui, and what consultation will the Minister engage in with the Māori Party should the Minister call out the armed forces against the tangata whenua Te Tau Ihu if they decide to challenge the Government’s decision to grant survey and drilling permits to the Chinese-backed Australian mining company Greywolf Goldmining?
Does the Minister know that calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Tūhoe and Te Whānau-a-Apanui has seriously undermined the relationship between Māori and the Government’s coalition partners in the Māori Party, and what formal protest was lodged by the Māori Party about the Government’s actions being in breach of the coalition agreement, which states: “The relationship between the Māori Party and the National Party will be one of good faith and no surprises.”?
That question is not within the Standing Orders, so I do not see any ministerial responsibility in any part of that question. However, if the member can bring a question within the Standing Orders, I am prepared to allow him to ask one, but it is his last question.
Can the Minister advise whether any formal protest was lodged with the Minister by the Māori Party about the Government’s actions in calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Te Whānau-a-Apanui being in breach of the coalition agreement, which states that “The relationship between the Māori Party and the National Party will be one of good faith and no surprises?”.
As I answered before, I have no operational responsibility in energy and resources for those operational decisions.
The question asked whether the Māori Party had protested to the Minister about something that had taken place.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is set down to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. The question was about the Defence Force and its involvement. How can the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources have any responsibility for the Defence Force?
I do not think I need further help. The final question simply asked whether the Māori Party had protested to this Minister. It is pretty easy to answer that question—either it has or it has not. The focus of the question was not on the details of who called out either the police or the Defence Force, it was simply whether this Minister had received protests from anyone, and that does not seem unreasonable. It may be that she did not receive any protests at all. Anyway, I would have thought that it is not a difficult question to answer. It does not need to involve any answer in respect of the police or the Defence Force.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked about a protest about specific activities for which I have no responsibility, so why would a protest be made to me about matters outside my portfolio?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It is absolutely appropriate that as the Minister who is generally responsible for these mining and drilling issues, the Māori Party should approach her about the Government’s approach on these matters.
It is an interesting issue. The Minister raises a reasonable point. Although I argued that she should answer in respect of whether a party had protested to her, if it was about nothing to do with her responsibilities then I think it is a valid point that she is not answerable for that. I think I have to accept the point made by the honourable Minister. Ministers are answerable only on issues for which they have ministerial responsibility. The Minister cannot be asked whether some other member or party had protested to her about something she has no responsibility for. Certainly, as I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Minister herself pointed out, whoever was called out in relation to this particular event was nothing to do with the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. I think I have to accept that the Minister’s point of order is a fair and reasonable point of order and that I am in error in suggesting that she should answer the question. I accept her point that, in fact, she has no ministerial responsibility.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to disagree with the ruling you have just made, and I know I am treading on some tight ground here. Under the delegated arrangements, the Minister does have responsibility for permitting, drilling, and supervision. It would be entirely proper for the Minister of Defence to consult her about the security arrangements for that. It would be entirely proper for the Commissioner of Police to consult her on security. It is also entirely proper for the arrangements around security to be the subject of a protest from any member of Parliament to her. Members can do so if they want to. She could send them away and say “It’s none of my business.”, but they could still approach her.
The member makes some good points. I think he is correct that the Minister could have been asked whether certain Ministers who were responsible for those actions consulted her, but that is not what this question asked. The question asked specifically whether anyone had protested to the Minister about the calling out of either the police or the Defence Force—I am not sure who was involved. I think that is where the question erred. If the question had been more along the lines that the member has suggested in the first part of his point of order, I think I would have been more insistent on the Minister answering it. But I do accept the point of order made by the Minister that I cannot ask her to answer on the matter when she has no ministerial responsibility for whether those authorities were called out in this instance. I have to accept that. I think it would be inappropriate for me as Speaker to do otherwise.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I suggest, on the basis that both you and I originally thought that the original supplementary question was an answer, that you let Mr Harawira have another crack at it. He could ask whether the Minister was advised that the Māori Party had protested.
Nice try, but I think I was pretty generous to Mr Harawira. I invited him to reword his question, and I think I have been reasonable. [ Interruption] I believe I have been reasonable on this, and I accept unreservedly the point of order raised by the Minister. I think I would be erring if I did not do that. I think that is where the matter should lie today.