2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he believe all members of his Government are handling conflicts of interest appropriately?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
Paragraph 2.59 of the Cabinet Manual states: “Ministers themselves are responsible for proactively identifying and reviewing possible conflicts of interest, and ensuring that any conflicts of interest are promptly addressed.” I expect my Ministers to act in accordance with the requirements laid out in the Cabinet Manual.
Does the Prime Minister stand by his reported comments that he, as Prime Minister, approved Melissa Lee’s decision to continue to have a role with the television programme Asia Down Under after becoming an MP, and how does that reflect on his ability as Prime Minister to identify and manage conflicts of interest?
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise as an issue the fact that the Prime Minister is answering a question about a member of Parliament, not a Minister. It is not usual for the Speaker to allow questions to be asked about MPs in the Government. I assumed that the question that was set down referred to a Minister, even though it states “members”. I ask you for your guidance on that issue.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I am sure you were listening carefully to the supplementary question, as well as to the primary question. The Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear that he was referring to advice given by the Prime Minister. Melissa Lee is on the record as indicating that she received advice from the Prime Minister on that matter. That is the Prime Minister’s ministerial role, and his judgment is being questioned, as well as hers.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
Speakers’ rulings are quite clear on this matter. Speaker’s ruling 147/2 sets out the ruling from the former Speaker Margaret Wilson. Interestingly, the Speaker said on that day “I remind members that Ministers are responsible for only those matters that fall within their responsibilities …”. She went on to say further that members are to ensure that a “question is addressed in the capacity of Prime Minister and not as leader of” a party. This was a response from her, making it very clear that the leader of a party, although he or she is the Prime Minister, does not have any accountability in this House for actions taken as the leader of the party, even though he or she may in other places be identified as the Prime Minister. Most interestingly, this was a response to a point of order raised by a member. The point of order was “I invite you to rule on whether the responsibility just referred to is a responsibility of the Prime Minister or of the leader of the Labour Party. If it is the responsibility of the leader of the Labour Party and not the Prime Minister, then the question should be ruled out of order.” The Speaker agreed. The person who raised the point of order was Trevor Mallard.
Mr SPEAKERThere will be silence. This is a serious matter that has been raised. Finally, I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard, because his name was mentioned.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
It is very clear and very easy for you to differentiate between those situations. In this particular case we are talking about the spending of a company receiving New Zealand On Air—
No. [ Interruption] I do not need assistance. Points of order are dealt with in silence. The member cannot get into the substance of the issue; he can only raise matters in a point of order to do with order. When I saw the question I must confess I was surprised by it, because members should understand the difference between Parliament and the Government. I automatically assumed that the questioner was referring to members of the Government, which means Ministers. Members of Parliament are not members of the Government unless they happen to also be Ministers. When the supplementary question was asked I contemplated intervening, because it seemed to me that, in fact, it was asking something the Prime Minister could not be responsible for because the member referred to is not a member of the Government but is a member of Parliament. The member might belong to the same party but the Prime Minister is not responsible as Prime Minister for matters where he might have responsibilities as party leader. I do not want to penalise the honourable member in losing his supplementary question, but I invite him to ask a further supplementary question that comes within the Standing Orders.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry if I did not express myself clearly in my first attempt. This matter is a matter of the expenditure of Government funding through New Zealand On Air. I submit to you that the Prime Minister does have responsibility for that and matters related to it. It is appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to ask questions and to have them answered where New Zealand On Air funding is being used for a company and then used for—
Again, the member is starting to argue matters of fact, which are not matters of order. There is a dilemma here. If the primary question had asked the Prime Minister about a member of Parliament, it would not have been approved, I would imagine. It asked about all members of his Government. His Government is his executive. In the supplementary questions, the Prime Minister cannot be questioned about members who are not members of the executive. That was the point the Hon Rodney Hide raised. I ruled in favour of Rodney Hide’s point of order because it is correct that members of the Government are members of the executive, and the supplementary questions can relate only to conflicts of interest regarding members of the executive.
Dr Russel NormanI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for clarity, in your ruling, are you saying that if one were to ask about a conflict of interest, for example about how the Minister of Broadcasting was handling conflicts of interest, that would be acceptable and the Prime Minister could be asked about how he thought the Minister of Broadcasting was handling conflicts of interest and that would be acceptable?
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be helpful for the Leader of the Opposition to recognise that if he were to take that particular advice solicited by Russel Norman, he would be talking about the Minister of Broadcasting at the time of this event occurring, which was, of course, prior to the election.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
As the former Minister of Broadcasting, I say that if that matter had been properly declared it would have been declared to me. Melissa Lee did not do so.
There will be no interjections while I am on my feet. We can see the problem the Speaker gets into when he or she allows points of order that are not points of order. I should have stopped the honourable Leader of the House, and I regret that I did not, because it led to disorder.
How can New Zealanders have confidence that all members of his Government are handling conflicts of interest appropriately, when Richard Worth’s failures to handle conflicts of interest are well documented and when last night the Melissa Lee documentary suggested that conflicts of interest are in fact endemic in Government members’ caucuses?
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Which part of that question will be allowed to stand, and why was not there a move to stop that line of questioning sooner?
I could have intervened, but I am sure the Hon Bill English is perfectly capable of handling a question like that.
As I said in answer to the primary question, the Cabinet Manual lays out the processes, and, as that member will know, when Ministers are appointed there is a post-appointment review of their personal interests conducted extensively by the Cabinet Office, and that is exactly what it did.
Which conflict of interest does the Prime Minister think is worse—Richard Worth purporting to act as a Minister while promoting his own private business, or Melissa Lee, using taxpayer funding—
The member will resume his seat immediately. The member knows that I was tolerant with the last question, whereby I did not intervene. He knows he cannot ask about matters relating to members who are not members of the Government. He knows that. He deliberately sought to flout my ruling. I will not tolerate it again. That part of the question is ruled out.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just curious to know from you how the Leader of the Opposition can frame his questions in a similar way that was done when Opposition members asked questions about Taito Phillip Field, who was not a member of the executive, but day after day of questions were asked by a member of Parliament on that matter, and those questions were all allowed. I wonder whether you could perhaps give some advice as to why you think those questions were in order about Taito Phillip Field, but today you do not believe these questions are in order about Melissa Lee, apart from the fact that one of those members is in the National Party.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. All of the questions that related to the Field case, which are easily able to be researched in Hansard, were asked primarily of the Minister of Immigration at the time. Questions that were asked of the Prime Minister were asked of him in that capacity. As we have said, there have been numerous times during my time in Parliament when this particular issue has arisen. There was the famous explanation from Helen Clark in about, I think, 2001 about the hats that various members wore in this House at different times. There is also the very clear ruling I spoke of before that does back up the position you have taken this afternoon, and I think that regardless of any way Opposition members may try to get around it, they must remember that it was their pleadings to the Speaker that got us to this position.
We do not need to spend more time on this issue today. The matter is very clear. The primary question is about members of the Government, and conflicts of interest regarding members of the Government. Supplementary questions must relate to that and cannot veer off into issues around members of Parliament who are not members of the Government. I have ruled on the matter, and taking that matter any further will not be productive. As members will have forgotten, I am prepared to allow the honourable member to ask the first part of that question again, but not the part that relates to a person who is not a member of the Government.
Has the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Broadcasting to examine whether there have been any conflicts of interest or misuse of NZ On Air money to produce party political advertisements?
That would have been a matter for the previous Prime Minister to address, because the events being referred to, which were outside the House, occurred under the Labour Minister of Broadcasting.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I do take personal exception to that. If someone stole money on my watch—
The member will resume his seat. If he wishes to make a personal explanation about the matter, he can seek leave to do that. But he cannot dispute an answer using a point of order; it is totally outside the Standing Orders.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take personal exception to that comment, and I ask that it be withdrawn and apologised for.
The issue of what the Minister said cannot be debated under points of order. I take it that the member possibly wishes to use—and I am just trying to find the Standing Order he is using to address that issue of order—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Well, it is a personal reflection on me, because he said I didn’t do my job properly.
There should be no interjection. The member could possibly use Standing Order 115, in particular, or Standing Order 116. In Standing Order 115, the words used by the Minister would have to be “offensive or disorderly”. If there is a dispute over the accuracy of an answer, that is not “offensive” or automatically “disorderly”. Standing Order 116 refers to a personal reflection: “A member may not make an imputation of improper motives against a member, an offensive reference to a member’s private affairs, or a personal reflection against a member.” The dilemma in whether I insist the Minister withdraw and apologise is that it does not appear to me that he has used words that could meet those requirements. That is why, if the member feels offended by it, he could seek leave to make a personal explanation about it.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I just want to make it clear that I regard as a personal reflection on me the suggestion that I should have stopped Melissa Lee using NZ On Air funding when she did not declare it.
Such a debate is not provided for in the Standing Orders. On the basis of what I heard the Minister say, I could not ask him to withdraw it as meeting the requirements of Standing Orders 115 and 116, because it did not automatically appear to be offensive. If the member feels that it is a personal reflection, then he can explain to the House under the personal explanation provisions. But there are no other provisions. So if it is not a personal matter—
—and the member should not be interjecting, but I will allow him because I know he is trying to be helpful in this—it is then a matter of debate, and he cannot insist that the matter be withdrawn under those circumstances. Now I have lost track of where we had got to, to be quite honest; the Minister had just given an answer?
Hon David ParkerMy point of order goes to the denial of responsibility that the Minister articulated in his answer, on the basis that the alleged wrongdoing happened before—
How many times—the member will resume his seat—do I have to point this out to the House? I know that the House got into some bad habits, but the point of order procedure is not a process for debating issues and questioning the accuracy of Ministers’ answers. There are further supplementary questions. The Minister has given an answer; supplementary questions can be asked about it, to elucidate whether it is an accurate answer.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. About a month ago, the Speaker stood me down before I had finished my point of order, in a way that led to a disorderly exchange. I would suggest that you listen to my point of order before you sit me down, because I had not said enough in respect of my point of order for you to judge whether it was in order. The Deputy Prime Minister, acting on behalf of the Prime Minister, said that he did not have to answer the question as it was not within his responsibility, because the events that were being considered had occurred before the date of the appointment of the Minister concerned. With respect, that is not correct. The Minister has responsibility—
There will be no interjections. The member will resume his seat, because he is debating; he is not raising a point of order. That is why I have sat him down. That is not a point of order. He is debating the accuracy of the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer. I cannot judge that, but it is in the hands of the questioner to question it. If the answer to the question appears to be inaccurate, he can dive into that. Anything the Deputy Prime Minister has said in answer is now open to questioning.
Hon David CunliffeI will let the Hon David Parker continue, because I do not want to make him feel that I have not listened.
My point of order is that the Deputy Prime Minister did not address the question, because he denied that there was responsibility to address the question and therefore declined to do so. In my submission, he had responsibility for it and ought to have addressed it, but he did not, because he denied responsibility.
I do not want this to go on any further. In my assessment, in my judgment, the Minister absolutely answered the question. I can see that Opposition members did not like the answer, and if we let the Leader of the Opposition get on with it, I am sure he has some very good questions.
Has the Prime Minister asked his Minister of Justice to report on whether there have been any conflicts of interest that might have led to a breach of the Electoral Act in terms of failure to declare donations?
David GarrettDoes the Prime Minister perceive a conflict of interest in politicians advocating the spending of an extra $2 billion of taxpayers’ money to build a tunnel through the Mt Albert electorate during a by-election, and does he think the public finances could cope with such pork-barrel politics if they were to spread to every electorate in the country?
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to say that there is one rule for all parliamentarians.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
The Deputy Prime Minister, acting on behalf of the Prime Minister, was asked whether he had seen reports. That is perfectly legitimate.
We do not need to waste any more time on this issue. I found the question highly debatable as to whether it was in order. I invite the member, so that I do not cut the ACT Party out of a supplementary question, to ask his supplementary question, but I ask him to please keep it relevant to the primary question.
Has the Prime Minister seen any reports that suggest there might be a conflict of interest in politicians advocating an extra $2 billion of taxpayers’ money being spent in Mt Albert during the by-election; if so, does he think that the public finances could cope with such pork-barrel politics if they were to spread to every electorate in the country?
Having just ruled out the opportunity of the Leader of the Opposition to question the Prime Minister about members who are not members of the Government, I can hardly allow the member to question the Prime Minister about members who are not members of the Government. I am afraid that I have to rule out that supplementary question.