12. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services
Further to his answer to the House on 10 September, who decided the criteria that must be met before it is permissible to lease a home from a family trust for use as a ministerial residence and when was that decision made?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister responsible for Ministerial Services) Link to this
Ministerial Services determines the criteria that must be met before a property is leased for use as a ministerial residence. It does that consistent with the determination that is in force at the time. In this case the determination was brought down by the Rt Hon Helen Clark in 2003.
On what basis does the Minister advise the House that Ministerial Services determines the criteria, when the email I have here, dated 3 February 2009 and between an official in Ministerial Services and the chief executive of Ministerial Services, reads as follows: “We sought advice from the ninth floor whether leasing from a family trust was appropriate, and we were advised that it was, given the following stipulations:”; why does the Minister say that it was Ministerial Services that set the criteria, when the proof, surely, is that the ninth floor did?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
Prior to coming into the House before question time today—and I answer on behalf of the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services—
Hon Annette KingHon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
Very good; thank you for that, Trevor. It was very helpful; I never noticed!
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In both that answer and the answer to the primary question, the Leader of the House made reference to his answering on behalf of the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services. Mr Key is out of the country, as everyone knows, so there has to be an Acting Minister. That is either Mr Brownlee or Mr English. If the Acting Minister is actually Mr English, who is present in the House, then he has to answer these questions. It would be good for us to know who the Minister in charge of all this mess really is.
Mr SPEAKERI believe that it is not a crucial matter of order. It is totally the Government’s responsibility who answers questions. I have called the Hon Gerry Brownlee to answer the question, and I see no reason, given that he is the Minister designated to answer it, why he should not.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If he is answering on behalf of someone else, I think it behoves the House to know on whose behalf he is acting. It is clearly no other front-bench member, because they are all present—other than Mr Key. Either a very junior Minister—and I cannot see that even any of those is absent—is the Acting Minister, or, in fact, Mr Brownlee is the Minister responsible at the moment.
The only relevant issue I can see is the basis of the Minister’s answer, and maybe he can clarify that in proceeding with this answer.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
Speaking as the Acting Minister responsible for Ministerial Services, prior to—
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
That was a big revelation; I am sure it is. When one is scraping the barrel, one will take what one can get! Prior to coming into the House today, I had discussions, obviously, with relevant parties that related to all the material provided to the member in an Official Information Act release some time ago. They made it very clear to me that the communication may imply something that is not, in fact, correct. It is Ministerial Services that makes that decision, based on the determination that applies at the time.
I seek leave to table the memo, which seems to mean something else other than what I say it says, so that the Minister can take another look at it—
Is the Minister aware that two pecuniary interest tests are under current circulation: the first contained in the email of 3 February on the advice of the ninth floor, which I am about to table, and the second in a Gazette notice of 26 May of this year?
If there are two pecuniary interest tests in circulation, is the pecuniary interest test he spoke of in his answer to the House on 10 September a simple pecuniary test, as written in the email of 3 February, which I will table presently, or an expanded personal, familial, or association test, as gazetted by the Minister on 26 May?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
Two things are important here. Firstly, the determination made in February was on the basis of the Ministerial Services determination of 2003 promulgated by the Rt Hon Helen Clark. The difficulties that have arisen since then have caused the Prime Minister to make some changes, but at all times Mr English has complied with the requirements of the determinations.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague. Again, there are political implications here. The question was a very straight question as to which test was applied. Although the Minister was very good at describing both tests, he did not say which test was applied.
I am not sure that members can expect exactly the answer they want. I think the Minister was pretty clear about the test that was applied. His answer may not have been exactly the answer that the member was seeking, but he can ask further supplementary questions if he wants to further elucidate that.
Can the Minister confirm that the 2003 determination of which he speaks contains no criteria for the leasing of a home from a family trust for use as a ministerial residence, because no such occasion ever arose?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I can confirm that. The most extraordinary arrangement was in place. All I can say is goodness knows what the previous Labour Government Ministers were up to.
Why did the Minister just confirm to the House that there were no criteria in the 2003 determination, whereas earlier in this questioning it was, apparently, those precise criteria on which he had relied; what is true here?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE Link to this
I think the questioner is scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit here. I made it very clear that the 2003 requirements were met in the early part of this year. It is quite simple.
I seek leave to table the aforementioned email of 3 February between an official from Ministerial Services and the chief executive of Ministerial Services, speaking of advice from the ninth floor.
I seek leave to table the 2003 ministerial determination that the Minister refers to, which has no pecuniary interest in it—