11. SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) Link to this
to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs
Who represented the Pacific Economic Development Agency throughout its negotiations with the Government, which resulted in it being awarded $4.8 million of taxpayer funding in Budget 2010?
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) Link to this
No money has been awarded to anyone or any organisation in Budget 2010.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague, but I am just reflecting on the answer. The suggestion that no money has been allocated in Budget 2010 cannot possibly be true. The answer does not address the question, and it could not be a factual statement.
Mr SPEAKERThe question asked who represented the Pacific Economic Development Agency at negotiations “which resulted in it being awarded $4.8 million of taxpayer funding in Budget 2010”. The Minister in her answer seems to have disputed that that outfit was awarded that money. The Minister is at liberty to dispute part of a question. It is a little unusual, I accept, because one would have thought that the question had been validated, but the Minister has disputed it, and that is where the matter stands at the moment. There can be further tests by way of further supplementary questions.
Whom—and when—did she meet from the Pacific Economic Development Agency that has led to this Government saying that $4.8 million can be awarded to that organisation?
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU Link to this
No money has been awarded in Budget 2010. If the member is referring to an appropriation of new money in Budget 2010, then that is a different matter.
I seek your assistance. My question was specifically about who was involved in negotiations with this Government—
To assist the member, I invite him to repeat his question, because I did not clearly hear the start of it. The House will be silent while we hear the question repeated, as there is some concern over the answer given. I invite the member to repeat the question asked, without any penalty or loss of question.
Whom did she meet from Pacific Economic Development Agency that has led to this Government announcing $4.8 million of taxpayer funding going to that organisation?
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU Link to this
No money has gone to that organisation at this point, and if any money passes to it, the Government will make sure that there is an appropriate purchase agreement in place that is transparent and that will achieve the objectives the Government is seeking.
Hon Pete HodgsonI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked whom the Government had met from the Pacific Economic Development Agency that—
I may be able to assist the member. The problem with his colleague’s question was he did not just ask whom the Minister had met from the organisation; he referred to it resulting in certain money being awarded. [ Interruption] Members will not interject while the Speaker is ruling. The Minister has disputed the statement built into the question. I cannot help that. The Minister has disputed it, and the Minister must stand on her answer. As Speaker, I cannot judge whether the Minister is correct in disputing that part of the member’s question, but if he wants a particular answer, he should not include allegations in the question. He should just ask a straight question.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not at all trifling with your response, but I put it to you that the question referred to leading to money being announced, whereas the Minister said that no money has been voted—
Hon Ruth DysonAwarded—I am sorry. The fact that the money has been announced is public information, and the fact that the Minister said that it has not been awarded is irrelevant to the fact that it has been announced.
I refer back, though, to my advice to the honourable member that to avoid this kind of difficulty in getting answers to questions he should keep the question absolutely to the point. That leaves the Minister no wriggle room. Where a question contains a statement of alleged fact, that enables the Minister, rightly or wrongly, to dispute it. I cannot be judging down to the finest detail the Minister disputing that part of the question. But there are further supplementary questions, and it would not be very difficult to ask a question that left no wriggle room.
Was she present when Mr Bill English met with representatives of the Pacific Economic Development Agency prior to, and immediately after, the 2008 general election, and will she confirm that those meetings led to the agency being awarded $4.8 million of taxpayer funds by this Government?
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU Link to this
I say again that no money has been awarded to that organisation.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU Link to this
I have met with a number of individuals from Auckland, some of whom may or may not be associated with the Pacific Economic Development Agency. But I say again that this was an appropriation of new money in Budget 2010, and it was appropriated for economic development initiatives in Auckland.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has attempted to avoid answering the earlier question—
I know what the member is going to say, and I think I can assist him. This particular question relates absolutely to the primary question asked; the Minister must know whom she has met with, when it relates directly to the primary question asked. It may not be in the public interest to divulge the answer, and if the Minister says that it is not, I fully respect that. But the Minister was asked a straight question about whom she had met with from a particular organisation. That relates directly to the primary question, and I invite the Minister to answer it.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a very interesting interpretation of the question, but I think somewhat irrelevant, simply because the Minister has repeatedly said that no contract has been let. Therefore, any questions about discussions over money, as the questioner asked, are somewhat irrelevant.
The primary question read: “Who represented the Pacific Economic Development Agency throughout its negotiations with the Government,”. The Minister has not denied that there were any negotiations with the Government; she denied that money had been awarded. The primary question was absolutely specific; it was about who represented the Pacific Economic Development Agency. Up until the last supplementary question, the questioner had made all sorts of statements in the questions being asked. The final supplementary question asked whom the Minister had met with. It related directly to the primary question, and the House deserves an answer, unless it is not in the public interest.
Paul QuinnI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was a two-part question. The fact that the Minister did not answer the first part does not necessarily mean that, in fact, she entered—
The member will resume his seat forthwith. The Speaker has had some years to understand the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings. I invite the Minister to answer the question asked.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU Link to this
I met with a number of people during the year who were interested in offering the Government a set of skills that the Government was looking for in terms of economic development and entrepreneurship. There were no negotiations with any particular individual for any money that was appropriated in Budget 2010.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I seek leave to table a document from the Minister, which states that the Budget provides $4.8 million in operating funding over the next 4 years for the Pacific Economic Development Agency.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that the Minister has attempted to answer the question, but, as you rightly say, it was a specific question about whom she had met with. Also, it was my second attempt to get an answer from her. Her office is not responding to specific written questions—
I hear the honourable member; we do not need to take further time in the House. The Minister may not know whom she met with, and it is fine for her to tell the House that she does not know whom she met with. But I believe that Parliament has a right to know, when a direct question is asked, unless answering it is not in the public interest. I do not know what the difficulty is. The Minister has been asked whom she met with in relation to this matter. If answering it is not in the public interest, I will support the Minister absolutely, but I will not support the Minister trifling with the House. This is Parliament. I call the Hon Georgina te Heuheu to answer the question. [ Interruption] I have asked the Minister to answer the question, and the answer will be heard in silence.
How can the public have confidence in her announcement of the awarding of $4.8 million of taxpayer funds to a little-known private company that has no track record, has no infrastructure, and has not undergone a thorough due-diligence check of the people involved?
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU Link to this
No money has been awarded to the Pacific Economic Development Agency or any other organisation. If any single dollar of taxpayers’ money passes to any organisation, it will be because the Government is satisfied that certain economic objectives will be met, that there will be transparency, and that there will be value for money from that expenditure. No money has been awarded. No contract has been let.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I seek leave to table a document in the name of the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs, which says that the Budget provides $4.8 million in operating funding over the next 4 years for the Pacific Economic Development Agency.
I want to get the facts straight. If that is the same document that the member was given leave to table before, well, we do not seek leave twice for the same document.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Did the Minister issue a press statement, as part of the Budget process, saying that the Budget provides $4.8 million in operating funding over the next 4 years for the Pacific Economic Development Agency; if so, why did she deny it in the House earlier?
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU Link to this
I have not denied; I have said that $4.8 million was appropriated in the Budget. That $4.8 million will become the subject of a purchase agreement, potentially, between the Government and the Pacific Economic Development Agency, and we will make sure that not one dollar of that sum passes over until we are satisfied that it will deliver the economic objectives we seek.