Overseas Posts—Operation

Smith Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this

Oh, he does not miss much, does he? We can see why he did not last 5 seconds as deputy leader.

What a poodle! Come on, poodle.

I can tell the member who looks like a poodle. He should have a look in the mirror; he will see who looks like a poodle—a French one. Can I start again, Madam Speaker? The answer is yes. The ministry’s planning and operations are subject to rigorous internal scrutiny and annual external audit. Audit New Zealand has assessed the ministry’s financial management control environment as being excellent. Our overseas posts are making commendable progress towards achieving the ministry’s stated objectives.

Does he believe that the taxpayer got value for money from the chef employed from New Zealand to cook full-time for the current deputy secretary, Derek Leask, at his residence when he was the ambassador in Brussels, or is that just one of the many baubles of office that this Minister is now in favour of?

King Hon Annette King Link to this

I have to say that seeing that all this happened prior to my obtaining this office, I have no knowledge of it. If the questioner puts down a written question, I will find out whether it is true—[ Interruption]

Somebody’s been cooking for him.

—knowing fully that somebody has been cooking for him for a long time and it is obvious.

Hon Brian Donnelly Link to this

That was unnecessary.

Does the Minister regard the priority given by publicly funded broadcaster TVNZ to allegations of financial mismanagement at the ministry post in Taipei as justifiable, given that these allegations have already been proven to be unfounded?

Roy Heather Roy Link to this

I made it very clear at the time to TVNZ as to what we believed the facts were, that we had followed the same rigorous administrative standards in Taipei, and that the New Zealand Government and public could expect that our representation overseas would carry on in that manner. The member can be assured that the matters raised have been fully investigated by the ministry, as TVNZ was told. But as usual TVNZ is on a headhunting venture, and is being helped by Rodney Hide.

How can the taxpayer have any confidence in Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade spending when Taipei office administrator Rowan Tautari has blown the whistle on over-budget expenditure, questionable purchases, and a failure to adhere to foreign affairs guidelines—or has the Minister’s own niece got it wrong?

My niece got a job in Taipei 5 years ago, I understand, and the events about which the member speaks happened under my predecessor. Having said that, the investigation in Taipei has demonstrated that nothing untoward did in fact happen. Notwithstanding that, we do encourage anyone in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, wherever he or she might be around the world, who has a concern to promptly raise it. This issue was raised and it was investigated. There is nothing to be further accountable for in respect of this issue.

Given the Minister’s commitment to good spending of taxpayers’ dollars, does he believe in principle that the taxpayer should be funding chefs to cook for foreign affairs officials at their residences each and every day in Brussels and Paris, or does he think that is a waste of taxpayers’ money?

I would like to find out for myself the facts on that matter.

You’re the Minister!

King Hon Annette King Link to this

Yes, but I do not know every event to do with dining, unlike the member himself. I might add that if the member puts forward a written question, I am happy to answer it. On the issue that was originally raised as to whether taxpayers are getting value for money, let me say that they were getting no value for money at all when this document was put out by the ACT party last year during the campaign proper.

Who paid for it?

King Hon Annette King Link to this

It was paid for by the taxpayer—a parliamentary crest. A total disaster.

When was it published?

This was published in 2005 in the election campaign period, and was all paid for by the taxpayer. It states what ACT brings to Parliament—well, apparently—

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that on past occasions when Ministers have not been able to answer a simple question like this, the right honourable gentleman himself would have required them to reflect on the fact that they had the salary, they had the cars, they had the offices, and they should know the answer. I see that in this case there is a degree of confusion. I suspect it would be a good idea if one of the people from the Government who is responsible for him was to take him out the back and tell him what the question was, and we could get him back later to give us the answer.

Speaking to the point of order, I say that was the kind of desolate arrogance that the National Party is becoming famous for. Apparently, a Minister is meant to know the dining habits of everyone, wherever he or she might be in the world. I have given the members opposite a chance to have an answer if they put the question down in writing.

Madam Speaker—

No, it is all right; I do not need any further assistance.

It was a fair point of order.

Yes, it was a fair point of order. The Minister is responsible for matters relating to his foreign affairs vote. He is not responsible for the spending on publicity of other political parties. That part of the Minister’s answer was out of order. The other part was perfectly in order. He in fact, as he said, addressed that question.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We get into a disorderly situation when a Minister comes into the House and is asked a straightforward question, stands up, reads the pre-prepared answer in which he says everything was above board, there was no problem here, and it was all fine, then is confronted with a situation that on the face of it looks pretty shonky, and says perhaps it was not all fine. So which part is right?

I am sorry, Mr Brownlee; please be seated. That is not a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order is that the issue that was raised was whether the taxpayer was getting value for money, and that is why I used the ACT example by way of analogy.

Thank you for that explanation, but it was a long, long bow and I do not think it was a valid one in this instance.

I seek the leave of the House to table a letter and two memos that were prepared by Rowan Tautari on 10 November 2005.

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.