Auckland, Local Government Reform—Māori Representation on Auckland Council

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

Before I invite the honourable Minister to respond to that question, I say I am not sure of the responsibility the Minister has for the views of members of the National Party—

Hon Darren Hughes Link to this

Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I will hear the Hon Darren Hughes on the matter.

Hon Darren Hughes Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have raised this point of order with you on several occasions, because we are often the victim of the ruling you are considering making, when questions from Government backbenchers ask Ministers whether they have received any reports about comments, statements, or actions by members of Parliament who are in the Opposition, and that then opens it up for the Government to have a whack at the Opposition. You have ruled that because those Ministers have been asked whether they have received any reports, that is in order, and that is what the Hon Parekura Horomia has done, as well, on this occasion.

Hon Rodney Hide Link to this

Mr Hughes would be right, except for one point: the reports that get asked for have to relate to the Minister’s portfolio. Unfortunately for the Hon Parekura Horomia, the reports he is seeking from the Minister of Māori Affairs bear no relationship to that Minister’s portfolio. The Minister would not be receiving such reports in his capacity as the Minister of Māori Affairs. He has no responsibility for such reports in this House.

Hon Darren Hughes Link to this

I think this goes back to a point that was made right at the beginning of the year about what the ambit of the Minister of Māori Affairs is. We have five, six, seven, maybe eight quotes from the Minister of Māori Affairs, who has said he wants to take a role on the leadership of Māori issues and make representations on Māori issues, and he has particularly tied it to this issue. In fact, there are Cabinet papers, I understand, in the names of the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Local Government together, who have been taking ministerial responsibility for this issue. Clearly, both Ministers are acting on this issue within both their portfolios. I would be happy to come back to the House very shortly with quotes from the Minister of Māori Affairs where he talks about his dual role, both as co-leader of a party—which, clearly, he cannot be questioned on in here—and as portfolio Minister of Māori Affairs, in which he says he will be taking a clear role in resolving this issue.

Hon Rodney Hide Link to this

Again, I am afraid that Mr Darren Hughes is wrong. He is seeking reports about the behaviour of MPs in another party. Mr Sharples, as Minister of Māori Affairs, has no responsibility for that even on a particular bill that he may be shepherding through the House, let alone on a bill that he is not.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I think that I have heard sufficient on this. I have been listening to the helpful advice, because it has been helpful advice, of the members who have contributed, while I pondered what I freely acknowledge is a difficult issue. The dilemma I have with the question is that it did not ask the Minister whether he had received reports in relation to his ministerial responsibility; it asked specifically about letters from members of Parliament to do with something that may not have been his responsibility. I am sure that the Hon Parekura Horomia could phrase a question that did ask whether the Minister had received any reports in the area of his ministerial responsibility relating to the matter. I invite the member to see whether he can reword his question to bring it within the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I do not see how that is within order, at all—

Hon Darren Hughes Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning the Minister of Māori Affairs was in the media as Minister of Māori Affairs, calling for there to be a free vote on this issue, which directly affects Māori people in our country, particularly in Auckland, and for which the Minister himself has publicly, on repeated occasions, said is part of his ministerial responsibility to advocate for. So his responsibility in this area as an advocate is well established. He attended Cabinet yesterday to lobby on this particular issue, and this morning he has called for there to be a vote on the very point that my colleague is now asking whether he has received any reports on.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I am not unsympathetic to the point the honourable member is making. The dilemma is that if he reflects on the question that the Hon Parekura Horomia just asked, he will realise that it did not remotely meet the Standing Order requirements. The Minister has no responsibility, whatsoever, for possible reports about members crossing the floor of the House. Neither does he have any ministerial responsibility for what the Prime Minister may have said. I am not saying the Minister cannot be questioned, at all—the Minister most certainly can be questioned—but the questions must come within the Standing Orders. That is why I invited the Hon Parekura Horomia to try to bring his question within the Standing Orders. The last question—and I ask members to forgive me, but we cannot allow this to go on for too long—was just nowhere near to complying with the requirements of the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I ask the member to resume his seat for a moment. Clearly, no Minister has any responsibility for what a backbench member might say. [ Interruption] I am ruling on the matter. There will be silence in the House. [ Interruption] Order, I say to National backbenchers. I realise that this is a difficult area, and there is no way in the world that I am trying to prevent the member from questioning the Minister; some Minister has to have responsibility for these issues, so I am not trying to prevent the member from questioning the Minister. But, clearly, no Minister has responsibility for what a backbench member may say. This question cannot go on for too long, but I invite the member to ask a supplementary question that is in order.

Hon Darren Hughes Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for hearing our submissions on this. The supplementary question that you allowed previously asked what the Minister said to a quote from Tukoroirangi Morgan; a quote from that person was given, and the Minister responded to it. Mr Horomia started his question by saying “What does he say to Tau Henare, who last week”, and then explained what the quote had been. In April 2009, in question time, Dr Sharples said: “As the Minister of Māori Affairs I have an interest in all the affairs that affect Māori and I have a responsibility to reflect their views.” We are trying to question him on an important constitutional point. A quote from a certain individual was put to the Minister for him to comment on, he did that, and we did not object to it. Now exactly the same thing is happening, and you are considering ruling it out.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I may have—

Hon Simon Power Link to this

There’s no ministerial responsibility.

Hon Annette King Link to this

There wasn’t for Tuku Morgan, either.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

There will not be interjections. I may have misheard the previous question. I apologise to the House if I misheard it. I had understood that it was about some correspondence between Mr Morgan, from Tainui, and the Minister of Māori Affairs. I might have misheard; I apologise if I did. If it was my error, I am sorry, but, clearly the Minister cannot be responsible for what either private citizens or backbenchers say. I allowed the question, but perhaps I was in error in doing that. I apologise; I misheard it. Clearly, the Minister has no responsibility for what a backbench member says—none whatsoever. It is not difficult, in my view, to question the Minister in a manner that comes within his ministerial responsibilities.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

That question specifically asks the Minister about something outside his ministerial responsibility.

Hon Parekura Horomia Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Māori Affairs has a portfolio that—with due respect, Mr Speaker—pervades all sorts of situations in this country. Certainly, there are not many things that Māori people, as the other people in this country, are not involved in.

Hon Darren Hughes Link to this

As I mentioned earlier, we went through this issue earlier in the year at quite some length. The Minister told the House: “I have voiced my displeasure at the taking away of those seats, and I’ve done so as the Minister of Māori Affairs because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Māori people.” The Minister himself, by his statements in this House, has opened up the ability for the Opposition to question him on his portfolio. It is clear that the Minister of Māori Affairs’ remit goes far wider than the narrow portfolio boundaries that the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Education, or the Minister for Social Development and Employment might ordinarily have.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I accept the point the honourable member makes: obviously, the Minister of Māori Affairs has a pretty wide brief. I allowed a number of supplementary questions from the Hon Parekura Horomia because in my view they came within the Standing Orders in respect of the responsibilities of the Minister of Māori Affairs. But the last question asked specifically about the reorganisation of Auckland city. It was specifically about matters to do with the reorganisation of that city, which the Minister does not have responsibility for. The Standing Orders permit Ministers to be questioned only on matters for which they have responsibility, and, clearly, the Minister does not have responsibility for the reorganisation of Auckland city.

Hon Parekura Horomia Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does that then mean that the duty that the Prime Minister has set for the co-leader of the Māori Party Dr Sharples and the leader of the ACT Party, Rodney Hide on its way in relation to the composition of the city council is null and void, through your statements?

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

Forgive me, but the honourable member has lost me. I cannot assist.

Hon Parekura Horomia Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [ Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

The point of order will be heard in silence.

Hon Parekura Horomia Link to this

Mr Speaker, I do not want to lose you. I want to bring some concise understanding to this debacle. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister has, through edict of his seat, directed the co-leader of the Māori Party and the leader of the ACT Party to get their heads together and sort out something for the council’s composition—

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

Points of order have to relate to order in the House. What the Prime Minister may have asked Rodney Hide and Dr Pita Sharples to do is not a matter for the order of this House. I have allowed the member to ask questions that fall, in my view, within the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders these days permit opinion questions to be asked; questions that seek opinions can be asked, and some of the questions that the member has asked have fallen, I believe, within the Standing Orders. But he cannot ask the Minister specifically about the reorganisation of Auckland city, because it is not within his ministerial responsibility. I think the House has spent quite sufficient time on this matter.

Hon Peter Dunne Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to the point you have just alluded to. Many years ago one was not allowed to seek an expression of opinion from a Minister in a question, and I seem to recall—and you will, too, Mr Speaker—that during the reign of Mr Speaker Wall the device emerged of members asking Ministers whether they had received any reports on a particular topic, as a way of getting round their not being able to seek an opinion from a Minister. One would ask: “Has the Minister seen a report on the reported comments of so-and-so?”. Now that we have a more lenient view of questions that seek opinions, it may be timely to look again at the device of members’ seeking reports or seeking advice; it is to some extent redundant in that there is the capacity in certain circumstances to seek a more direct opinion of a Minister. I just wanted to raise that point; I do not know whether it is within your jurisdiction, Mr Speaker, or whether it is something the Standing Orders Committee should look at. It has been of concern to me for some time that we have questions that exploit the device to the maximum, when—as you said yourself—there are other ways of asking questions that comply with the current Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

The Hon Peter Dunne has raised a very interesting point, but, sadly, the device of asking whether the Minister has seen any reports relates to more than the old ban on seeking opinions in asking questions. It relates to asking questions about matters that are very marginal in terms of ministerial responsibility, and that are often to do with policies of the previous Government or the Opposition. The use of the device of asking whether the Minister has received any reports is a way of enabling Ministers to talk about those kinds of matters. So I doubt whether the House is likely to let go of that device, but it is something that is certainly within the bounds of the Standing Orders Committee to give consideration to.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to labour the debate on this matter, but I ask you to make a considered ruling, because I think two points are germane. The first is that the last question from Parekura Horomia went to the point, as you quite rightly said, of Auckland representation, and the chief Opposition whip pointed out that the Minister has written at least one Cabinet paper on that issue. I would like to be given a view from you as to how one cannot be responsible for an issue that one has written a Cabinet paper on. Secondly, the Minister has also widened by his own quotes his definition of his ministerial responsibilities as they pertain to Māori affairs, as the chief Opposition whip has said. Given those two issues, with the first being specific—about a Cabinet paper relating directly to my colleague’s question that now the Minister is somehow not responsible for—and the second being wider questions around the Māori affairs portfolio, with regard to which the Minister, in historical quotes, has widened his own definition of responsibility, we have grave difficulty in defining what is and what is not his ministerial responsibility. I fail to see how one can pen a Cabinet paper on a specific issue, and then stand up and say one is not responsible for it. I just invite you, if it is more efficient in terms of the House’s time, to consider that matter and come back to the House.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I appreciate the point the member has made.

Hon Simon Power Link to this

In respect of the first point, as members opposite will know, from time to time when Prime Ministers require groups of Ministers to go away and look at an issue, whether or not responsibility accrues to a decision-making process in that context is quite different from ministerial responsibility accruing to individual Ministers in this forum, where the Standing Orders are quite specific about what individual Ministers have responsibility for.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

I appreciate the contributions of both members. [ Interruption] I am ruling on the matter. Both members have, I think, made very useful contributions; I thank both the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and the Hon Simon Power. With regard to the interesting point raised by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that a Minister may be involved in the preparation and the presentation of a paper, I say the Minister can certainly be questioned on that paper and on any statements relating to that paper, but that does not alter the fundamental area of ministerial responsibility, as was pointed out by the Hon Simon Power. So both members who have made points are correct. Where a Minister has been involved in the preparation of a paper for Cabinet, he or she can be questioned on that paper, even if it is on the margins of his or her ministerial responsibility. But in general terms, the area of ministerial responsibility remains as such.

I say to the House that clearly this area is difficult, and the issue of a Minister saying he or she has no responsibility for a matter, in my view, is not good enough when questions are lodged earlier in the morning. If a Minister does not have ministerial responsibility, then the question should be transferred to the Minister who has ministerial responsibility, because some Minister has ministerial responsibility for every issue that is an issue relating to the administration of the Government and to Government policy. I make the point that I am not entirely happy with what has transpired today, and that is certainly not the Opposition’s fault.

What I would like to see happen in the future, where there are questions about where ministerial responsibility lies, is that the Clerk’s Office is advised very early that a Minister feels that he or she does not have ministerial responsibility, so that either the question can be renegotiated with the questioner to bring it within the bounds of the responsibilities of that Minister, or, if the Opposition wishes to stick with the wording of the question, it is transferred to the Minister who does have responsibility. I am not prepared to have this House trifled with by way of simply using the device of a Minister saying he or she does not have ministerial responsibility and that is the end of the matter, because some Minister does have responsibility. I hope that is helpful to honourable members.

Hon Darren Hughes Link to this

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a question that we want to hear the answer to. The Opposition would like to hear the Minister’s view on that issue, but the irony goes to the exact problem we have been raising with you this afternoon. In addition to the approaches you have outlined, if we could have consideration by you of how Ministers who have responsibility for populations within this country across all portfolios could be handled, then I think that would make for a much easier system of questioning. We want to hear Te Ururoa Flavell’s question be answered, but this situation goes to the heart of the problem we have been having this afternoon.

Mr SPEAKER Link to this

The interesting thing about the question was that I believe that the first part of the question was in order, because it asked whether the Minister was prepared to do something to encourage some outcome in respect of his responsibility as Minister of Māori Affairs. The second part of the question was irrelevant. The Minister has no responsibility for what some person outside this place may think. I invite the Minister of Māori Affairs to answer the first part of the question.