Ministerial Accommodation—Legal Advice

How can the Minister substantiate that answer in light of an email dated 3 February between an official of Ministerial Services and the chief executive of Ministerial Services, which says: “I attach the relevant information, a declaration signed by the Hon Bill English together with a copy of his legal advice from the Office of the Clerk of the House.”, and the memo then concludes that therefore conditions have been met; how is it that the advice of the Office of the Clerk of the House was not part of the Government’s decision?

Earlier in the week I gave the House an explanation about the status of the email that Mr Hodgson refers to.

If the status of the email is that it says something other than what it meant to say, what did it mean to say?

I do not know what it meant to say. What I do know is that it is wrong. If the member would like to put down a written question, then Ministerial Services will provide a proper explanation of the circumstances—[ Interruption]—the proper explanation for the email sent on 3 February by an employee who no longer works for Ministerial Services.

Who, then, did sight the Endeavour Trust deed to confirm that the pecuniary interest that was publicised in 2008 on the register is now declared to be no longer the case; who did sight the trust deed to ensure that the truth was being told here?

The member gets very excited about his own question when he should simply refer to the fact that the executive travel, accommodation, attendance, and communications services declaration 2003, brought down by the Rt Hon Helen Clark, was the provision in place at the time he is concerned about. It simply required that a pecuniary interest was denied. That was done.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that this is a very political issue but it was a very straightforward question: who sighted the trust deed? That was not addressed by the Acting Minister responsible for Ministerial Services when he answered.

It is because the question is being asked on an unreasonable premise, given that the questions around this arrangement can relate only to the determination of 2003, which all of the previous Labour Ministers operated under. Therefore, the question the member asks is irrelevant.

The Minister has answered the question under the point of order. It would have been helpful if he had answered the question when he was asked it. I listened very carefully, and there was an interesting explanation around things, but the specific issue was not covered. I think that under the point of order the Minister has now clarified the situation.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister clarified it, as well, but I just want to check the understanding that no one sighted the—

No, that is not a matter of order. That is a supplementary question. If the member is seeking to ask a supplementary question, that is fine, and he can ask that if he likes.

Can the Minister confirm that no one sighted the Endeavour Trust deed?

What I can confirm is that the requirements that related to ministerial accommodation at the time were the same requirements that operated from 2003. There was no need for anyone to sight any trust deeds. There was a need for those responsible to be satisfied that there was no pecuniary interest. The test applied to that is the same test that is applied to every other member of Parliament.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that in that fuller explanation the Minister has, in fact, put himself in a position whereby he has made it clear that he is not answering. I want him to take this very, very carefully. He indicated that there were people responsible who had to make a determination. He had made that point in the middle of his answer. There were people responsible who had to make a determination, but he did not indicate that they had sighted the trust deed in order for that to happen. He was asked a very simple question as to whether they had sighted the trust deed. He indicated very clearly that someone had to sight it to determine it, but he did not indicate that that had happened.

I have listened fairly carefully and long enough. I listened very carefully, obviously, because of the circumstances, to the Minister’s answer. As I heard the Minister’s answer, the Minister made it very clear that the issue of the trust deed was irrelevant. There is a further supplementary question available to the member, and he can ask further about it, but I cannot force the Minister to answer any more clearly than that. He made it very clear that it is an irrelevant document.

Can the Minister confirm that the Endeavour Trust is listed as a pecuniary interest of the Hon Bill English in the 2008 register of MPs’ interests but that the Hon Bill English declared on 1 February this year that he had no longer any pecuniary interest—

If I can assist the member, the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services has no responsibility for declarations of pecuniary interest.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would the question have been in order if the member had said: “Did the Minister take into account the declaration—”

The Speaker cannot get involved in coaching members as to what they should ask, and neither should the honourable member get involved by way of a point of order in assisting his colleagues. I am fairly familiar with the Hon Pete Hodgson’s university record, and I am sure he is perfectly capable of asking his own supplementary questions.

Can the Minister confirm that if the Hon Bill English still had a pecuniary interest in the Endeavour Trust, as listed in the 2008 register of MPs’ pecuniary interests, he would not have been able to divert $48,000 per annum of taxpayers’ money into his pocket?

That goes well outside the responsibilities of the Minster responsible for Ministerial Services.

No, no. It goes right to the core of the responsibilities.

With respect to the yelling and screaming that is going on on the other side, I say to the member that what he has failed to understand is that what was in place at the time were Helen Clark’s rules for how these things are dealt with, and they required, simply, that there was no pecuniary interest in the property. That situation was satisfied according to the terms of the rules.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I offered the Minister a hypothesis: if that, then this—question mark; and that, of course, was not addressed. I wonder whether it could be.

Hypothetical questions are difficult, but I invite the member to repeat his question, because I can understand his concern.

Can the Minister confirm that if the Hon Bill English still had a pecuniary interest in the Endeavour Trust, as listed in the 2008 register of MPs’ pecuniary interests, he would not be able to divert taxpayers’ money into his pocket at the rate of $48,000 per annum?

As I said before, that goes well beyond the responsibilities of the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services.