2. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he stand by his answer to question No. 11 yesterday that Sammy Wong did not accompany Pansy Wong on any ministerial trips to China?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes, because yesterday’s question specifically asked whether the Prime Minister had approved Pansy Wong having private time on any of her ministerial trips to China, and whether her husband had accompanied her on any of those visits. Mr Wong did not accompany Pansy Wong on any ministerial visit where she had private time.
Does he think it was a good idea to be a smart alec with the truth when yesterday answering a primary question on notice?
Mr SPEAKERThe Standing Orders do not allow members to ask questions that include remarks to the Minister that are unparliamentary, really. I invite the member to repeat his question in a way that brings it within the Standing Orders.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to ask you what your ruling is. There are a number of words that, as you say, are unparliamentary. Is “smart alec” one of them now?
I hear the honourable member; the member makes a fair point of order. I chose my words poorly. In respect of debate, the member is quite right that “smart alec” is not an unparliamentary expression. The Standing Orders around the asking of questions, though, are somewhat different. Questions are not meant to contain allegations or assertions that are unfortunate. And I think the expression was unnecessary to the question being asked. I am sure the question can be phrased in a way that does not accuse the Minister of being a smart alec, and that is the issue. I accept the member’s point of order, which was well made. I am not ruling out that language; it is just that, in respect of questions, they should not contain that sort of language.
Does he think it is a good idea to answer a question on notice in that manner, especially when the Prime Minister has already answered a written question—No. 35737—and decided to give a completely different answer?
Can he recall that he—the Prime Minister—himself when to China in April 2009, and that before Mr Sammy Wong joined him on his trip Mr Wong’s private, self-funded business travel included a visit to one or more schools in Wuxi city as “Macleans College’s sole agent”; if so, why did Mr McPhail conclude in paragraph 96 of last Friday’s report that Mr Wong’s “Chinese business interests [are] limited to the hovercraft company …”?
Before I call the Minister, I may have to invite the member to rephrase his question, because the Prime Minister has no responsibility for trips that are not ministerial visits, and neither does the Prime Minister have any responsibility for the investigation conducted by the Parliamentary Service. But I do not what to deprive the member of his questions, so I suggest that he rephrase his question.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Generally in the House members are not given the indulgence of having several attempts at re-asking several questions. Mr Hodgson appears to have been given that opportunity, and I would be interested to know just what the rules are now about questions that are either out of order or misdirected, and how often any member of the House will get the opportunity to re-ask a question.
That is a matter for the Speaker. What I could have done, if I had been absolutely certain of the entire question, is say that a certain part of it was in order, because I believe that a certain part of it was in order. Had the entire question been out of order, I think I would have had more sympathy with the member’s point of order. Part of the question, in my view, was not out of order, but in its totality it was not within the Standing Orders. That is why I am asking him to rephrase it—to make sure that the whole question he is asking is within the Standing Orders.
Can he recall that the Prime Minister himself went to China in April 2009, and that before Mr Sammy Wong joined him Mr Wong’s private, self-funded business travel included a visit to one or more schools in Wuxi city as “Macleans College’s sole agent”; if so, does he understand why Mr McPhail concluded in paragraph 96 of last Friday’s report that Mr Wong’s “Chinese business interests [are] limited to the hovercraft company …”?
The dilemma I have with the question asked is that the Prime Minister has absolutely no responsibility for Mr McPhail’s report, and neither does he have any responsibility for private travel by Mr Sammy Wong. The Prime Minister certainly has responsibility for the Prime Minister’s own trip that the member referred to in his question, but the dilemma I have is that the question goes way beyond the Prime Minister’s responsibility. That is why I asked the member to rephrase it, and it seems to me that he has essentially asked the same question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there are two points you have indicated on the question of responsibility. My colleague did make it clear that Mr Wong, as part of his private travel, joined the Prime Minister as part of the business delegation. No. 1, that is a link that goes to responsibility for someone who is part of the business delegation that the Prime Minister was leading to China. The other point was—and you have ruled on a number of occasions, from what we regard as National patsy questions—that Ministers can be asked about reports. This is a report, it is a report that has been made public, the Prime Minister has commented on it, and the Prime Minister has used that report in his decision-making process as far as the formation of his Cabinet is concerned. It is not his report, but it is no different from, in my opinion, his being asked to comment on a report in the Dominion Post.
The point is fairly made in that under the Standing Orders at the moment opinions can certainly be sought, as long as that is the way that the question is interpreted—that it is only an opinion being sought. I will allow the question, but it would have been helpful if the linkage to the Prime Minister’s business delegation that the member has just made in a point of order had been made in the question. That linkage would have helped. But I will allow the Minister to answer the question.
Is he aware that Mr Wong visited other schools at other times, too, including a high school affiliated to Nanjing Normal University; and noting that he has had many taxpayer-assisted trips to China, and that there are a lot of schools in China, does he still believe that no business was done on any taxpayer-subsidised trips?
The dilemma the member is getting into is that he is asking the Prime Minister to accept a report for which the Prime Minister has no responsibility. What is more, the trips the member is referring to—from what has transpired already—were not part of the business delegation. They were part of a private trip, it would seem, and the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that private trip. That is the dilemma the House faces. These are important issues—I accept that, absolutely—but questions do have to be within the Standing Orders, and Ministers cannot be questioned on matters for which they have no responsibility. I have allowed the member to rephrase two questions so far—both supplementary questions—yet I feel that this third supplementary question is not within the Standing Orders, at all.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have the Prime Minister relying on the word of one of his former Ministers, as did Mr McPhail, that Mr Sammy Wong had only one business interest in China, which did not include these schools. The Prime Minister has relied on that report—as I think you have, Mr Speaker, though we cannot ask you questions about it—and I think, with the Prime Minister having indicated that he has relied on the report, it is appropriate for him to be questioned on it.
This issue bears on ministerial responsibility. The fact is that the MP Pansy Wong resigned from Cabinet, and at that stage the Prime Minister’s responsibility ceased. The matter that then proceeded regarding reports on parliamentary travel was a matter for the Parliamentary Service and for the Speaker. It is drawing a very long bow to say that privately funded trips of the spouse of an MP who is eligible for Parliamentary Service support are the responsibility of the Prime Minister. It just cannot be the case.
Having listened to the points of order—which are made in good faith, I fully accept—I believe I do have to rule that supplementary question out.
The dilemma, again, I have with that question is the Prime Minister is not at all responsible for the McPhail report, and asking the Prime Minister whether it is appropriate is asking him to accept some responsibility for it. That is the dilemma I have with the question. I will give the member a chance to get wording that is reasonable.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You conduct the office of Speaker with generosity, but I would have to say that it is exceeding the generosity the House would afford to any MP to give that member, who prides himself on his competence, a third go at asking a third supplementary question. I have never seen that before, and I do not think it is a habit the House should get into.
A point of order—[ Interruption] There will be no interjections. I accept the point of order that the member made, but the difficulty that the Speaker is in is there is interest in this issue. It is very important that the Speaker, who is also involved in this issue because the Speaker ordered an inquiry into it, is not seen to be preventing members from being able to pursue the matter within the Standing Orders. But the questions asked do have to come within the Standing Orders; I have to insist on that. Although I accept that maybe the Speaker is being unduly generous, I have said that the member could attempt to rephrase his supplementary question, but it would have to come within the Standing Orders. I offer the Hon Pete Hodgson the chance, but the supplementary question must come within the Standing Orders.
Has he read the McPhail report into the activities of a person who was until recently a member of his Cabinet; and what did he think of that report?
Does he think that asking the Auditor-General to investigate, as he did in the case of the Hon Phil Heatley, may now be a good idea after all?
The Prime Minister has made it quite plain that if anyone has information that may be relevant to this issue it can be put in front of the Auditor-General to be investigated.
I seek leave to table two documents. They are both off Chinese websites, they are both in Mandarin, and they are both translated in parts into English. Both documents refer to visits of Sammy Wong to schools. One is dated March 2009 and the other date is unknown.