12. GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of Maori Affairs
Did he satisfy himself, when appointing directors of Te Ohu Kai Moana, that they were independent of the Labour Party and the Labour Government; if not, why not?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) Link to this
No. Appointments are made on the basis of merit.
If Shane Jones’ position as a member of Parliament and as chairman of Te Ohu Kai Moana does not involve a conflict of interest, why did the Prime Minister summon him to her office about 12 months ago and tell him that she did not expect him to be in that position very long, after he had repeatedly told the New Zealand Herald newspaper that he had no intention of giving up the $86,000-a-year job of chairman of Te Ohu Kai Moana?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The first question is the relationship between the primary question, which has to do with appointments made by this Minister to that commission, and the supplementary question. Shane Jones, of course, was appointed by the previous National Government.
Well, I suppose it depends on how you rule, Madam Speaker. I think Mr Mallard is obviously showing some sensitivity here. The reality is that Mr Jones serves on that commission at the behest of the Minister.
Madam SPEAKERThe Minister is responsible for the appointment, but the Minister is not responsible, and cannot answer for, the Prime Minister. So if the Minister responds just in terms of his ministerial responsibility.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
I reiterate that Shane Jones was appointed to the commission in 1993 by the National Government. I am not too sure whether it checked whether he was a member of the Labour Party. Shane Jones has previously advised publicly that he will have stepped aside as chairman of Te Ohu Kai Moana by the time of the next annual general meeting in February 2007. This was announced by Mr Jones at Te Ohu Kai Moana’s AGM this year.
Is he aware that on 5 October 2005 Mr Jones said that he was “in transition from the world of Maori fisheries into the realms of parliamentary life”, and that he would give up his position with Te Ohu Kai Moana once he had made that transition; and by allowing Mr Jones to maintain his position of conflict of interest, is the Minister implying that Mr Jones has still not fully taken up the role of a member of Parliament, even though he chairs Labour’s Māori caucus?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think there are two points. One is the question of responsibility, and, again, there is an implication that there is a conflict of interest, when, in fact, there is not.
Yes. The question has to relate to the Minister’s responsibility. The Minister has no responsibility for Mr Jones as a member of Parliament, though he does for him as a board member. So would Mr Brownlee like to work his way around that.
The pedantics of asking a question and avoiding the sensitivities of the Labour members are becoming more difficult.
Madam Speaker, how many times have you ruled that a Minister may give an opinion? This question asked “Is he aware …?”.
Because that is the Standing Orders. The awareness has to relate to the ministerial responsibility. All I am asking is that there is no reference to Mr Jones as a member of Parliament. But, of course, there is responsibility for his appointment in that position.
If I may respond to you, Madam Speaker, the Minister is responsible for ensuring that there is a board for Te Ohu Kai Moana, he is responsible for making sure that there is a chairman of that particular organisation, and he is responsible for the $86,000 that Mr Jones is currently double-dipping in salary. Surely the Minister can answer questions that relate to the various comments that Mr Jones has made about his potential exit from this particularly, one might say, enriching position.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It is not hard to create a question round that. If the member wants a seminar later, I will give him a hand.
No, that is not relevant, either. If Mr Brownlee could just re-put his question in terms of the Minister’s responsibility. The Minister can give an opinion, but it must relate to his ministerial responsibility.
All right, I will ask this question. Why does the Minister consider that Mr Jones can carry out the dual roles of the $86,000-a-year chairman of Te Ohu Kai Moana and a member of Parliament, when his own fellow member Maryan Street was required to relinquish her position on the Crown Forestry Rental Trust because it was considered inappropriate for her to hold the two roles?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
We need to go back to the beginning. Section 44(2)(f) of the Act requires that we have regard to the purpose of Te Ohu Kai Moana. The directors of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd are to have commercial expertise and business skills, and are to be well versed in matters of tikanga. The other issue is that the initial directors of Te Ohu Kai Moana were appointed from the incumbent Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission commissioners. Mr Jones has all those abilities that are needed in that role.
Is the Minister telling Parliament that there is no one else capable of filling this position, and that only Mr Jones can take the $86,000-a-year salary—in addition to his parliamentary salary—for that position?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Matters relating to the finances of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd are its responsibility. I want to be very clear, just taking a basic commercial step forward, that it was important to continue the confidence in the leadership that really had attracted the Japanese investors—and Mr Jones had that. Most certainly, that was his role. It is important that members take note that he has stated when he is transitioning out. I would ask the question of the members on the other side of the House who are on 70 directorship boards—what about that?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
When the Minister is making his decisions as to what is appropriate and what is not, will he take into account practices such as the case of Nathan Guy—I think he is a member opposite—who indicated he would stand down from a council but has not done so, or the practice of over 70 directorships currently being held by double-dippers opposite?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
I am very thankful the member reminded me of that, because I am quite certain that Jim Bolger is not a member of the Labour Party, and he does a good job at a great bank that this Government set up. Mr Jones was educated at St Stephen’s College, he is a graduate of Harvard University, and he is renowned for his prowess in the sense of talking on the marae. He is both bi-literate and bilingual, and it is hard to find directors like that in this country.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It may surprise the Minister that Jim Bolger is no longer a member of this House, and therefore he is not double-dipping. Not one of the members who hold directorships on this side of the House has been appointed by the Government.
Would the Minister consider it appropriate and acceptable for Mr Jones to take a parting gratuity from Te Ohu Kai Moana in addition to his $86,000-a-year salary when he finally relinquishes the chair and seat on the board, or would such a gratuity fall into the category of lafo or koha?
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
Matters relating to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd are not my responsibility. But I do want to talk about koha, and I want to ask the question—[ Interruption]
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Did you hear that outrageous interjection?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Well, an absolutely outrageous interjection was directed at the Minister by a member opposite.
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA Link to this
I am used to outrageous insults. Seeing that the member brought up the subject of koha, I ask myself whether Te Ohu Kai Moana ever provided koha or some other form of contribution to the Labour Party. As Minister I have no responsibility for such matters. [ Interruption] Yes, that is right. I am aware that when the Maori Fisheries Act was passed in 2004 the commission provided crayfish as a koha for the celebratory function here in Parliament, and Gerry Brownlee subsequently boasted that he ate more crayfish than anyone else—even more than me. That is the truth.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. At the risk of making an unbecoming comment, I think it is abundantly clear to everybody that I have certainly not eaten as much crayfish in my life as has that Minister.
Phil HeatleyI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you could give me some guidance on an issue of misleading the House. Both Trevor Mallard and the Minister of Māori Affairs claimed that National appointed Shane Jones in 1992 to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. Of course, under the Maori Fisheries Act that was passed 2 years ago, what Mr Jones chairs at the moment is a new entity. I find it surprising that the Minister—