5. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Minister of Internal Affairs
Can he confirm that as Minister of Internal Affairs he has met all the requirements of a Minister of the Crown as set out under “Conduct, public duty, and personal interests” in Part 2 of the Cabinet Manual?
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) Link to this
Yes, I confirm that to the best of my knowledge I am meeting the requirements set out in Part 2.58 of the Cabinet Manual.
Why does the Minister still own 5,000 shares in WSD Global Markets Ltd, a company substantially owned by Mr Riaz Patel of the House of Patel, a company that originates from India, trades in India, and has a physical presence in India; and how does that reflect on his judgment?
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH Link to this
The shares in that company, which are a minimal holding—I am not sure what the total capital of the company is, but it is a big number—are held by my family trust and are in the process of being sold. In fact, I had a discussion with the secretary of the company about that issue yesterday.
Why did the Minister obtain those shares, while he was a director of the company, on the day before last year’s general election, when most members of Parliament had other things on their minds; and did he pay for those shares?
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH Link to this
I do not believe that the date the member has offered is correct. That may be the date the shares were entered on to the register. I did pay for the shares.
Hon Annette KingNo, he bought them himself. Is the Minister happy to rise to the challenge posed by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that he place in the public arena receipts for his own costs of travel, accommodation, and other requirements incurred on his recent trip to India?
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH Link to this
I think the member should accept the accuracy of the statements that I make in this Parliament. The costs have been correctly identified and the details published in the media.
Is the Minister aware that WSBC, a company that the director of the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office described as “an associated entity”, was thrown out of the Cook Islands last week, and that last Friday the Minister of Finance for the Cook Islands issued a press statement praising the role of the Pacific anti - money-laundering programme; and how does that reflect on his judgment?
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH Link to this
I do not know of those matters. That is a different company. The company I was involved with was WSD Global Risks Ltd, which is a New Zealand company.
Why did the Minister tamper with his own Wikipedia entry earlier this week, and does he intend to take the advice Wikipedia gave him yesterday afternoon that he should consult Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines?
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although some of these questions stray outside what might be normal in the circumstances, I know that my colleague is keen to answer them, but for goodness sake! Yesterday we had Mr Cunliffe getting upset about suggestions that he had been Twitter-ing on some site in cyberspace. How on earth does this particular Wikipedia entry have anything to do with the primary question that was asked today?
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
The primary question today was about the Cabinet Manual requirements in relation to conduct, public duty, and personal interests. That is a very wide set of requirements upon Ministers, and the supplementary question comes within that ambit. The primary question is not specifically related to the matters of shareholding.
Mr SPEAKERIt is a difficult issue. Obviously, I have to try to ensure that questions fall within the area of ministerial responsibility and relate to the primary question. I acknowledge the primary question is reasonably broad in terms of conduct under the requirements of the Cabinet Manual. But anyone, as I understand it, can seek to alter what is on Wikipedia, and I have some difficulty in believing that that question falls within the Standing Orders. So that I am not seen to be unfair in taking a question away from the member, I invite him to reword his question to see whether he can bring it reasonably within the Standing Orders.
Can the Minister recall that the Prime Minister had undisclosed shares in a railway company last year, some of which were also in a family trust, and that when confronted by that the Prime Minister chose to not to hide behind that particular veil—so why does Dr Worth?
I must say to the honourable member that the dilemma is that the Minister of Internal Affairs is not in any way responsible for what the Prime Minister may or may not have done, and that is the dilemma I have with that question. I accept that the member is seriously trying to pursue a matter and I do not want to unduly constrain that, but I feel that what the Prime Minister may have done is not the Minister’s responsibility.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am slightly reluctant to challenge your ruling, but I ask you to consider this matter. The question was not asking the Minister to answer for the Prime Minister, but it gave the Prime Minister as a very good example of proper transparency in these matters, and all that was being asked was whether this Minister is prepared to match the level of transparency that the Prime Minister has given and that Ministers in the previous Government were also expected to give.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
It would be appropriate if the member were to be allowed to rephrase the question and to see whether he can bring it within your understanding—
Noting the Prime Minister’s expectation on all Ministers, does the Minister of Internal Affairs believe that he should follow the example given by the Prime Minister in respect of family trusts, and not chose to hide behind that veil?
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH Link to this
There is nothing unusual about family trusts. If the member was to look at the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament, he would find that there are a significant number of members of Parliament who have trust arrangements. My recollection is that the previous Prime Minister has such an arrangement. There is nothing inappropriate about a family trust.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I have a number of documents to table, and to assist the House I have grouped them. The first set of documents are various share registry records and directors’ records from the New Zealand Companies Office. I seek leave to table them.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Secondly, there are assorted documents from court cases, including an affidavit, a court finding, and commentary from the British customs intelligence. I seek leave to table those documents.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I seek leave to table a press statement dated last Friday from the office of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Cook Islands.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Finally, I seek leave to table Dr Worth’s view of himself on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia’s comments to Dr Worth in response.