Local Government, Minister—Confidence

Does he think Rodney Hide met the highest ethical standards when on a Television One Close Up programme he encouraged New Zealanders to break the law relating to the Building Act, by saying: “Look as a Minister I can’t recommend someone breaking the law but I believe he should.”?

I am advised that he was not actually advocating breaking the law—because it was not the law.

Does he think a Minister who told an audience that the Prime Minister, John Key, does not do anything, and who suggested it was easy to ram proposals through Cabinet, as was reported in the Christchurch Press, demonstrated the highest ethical standards?

Any Minister will have an opinion about how Cabinet is run or how his or her colleagues perform. Mr Hide is no exception.

Does he think that a Minister’s endorsing a dental firm, in breach of the Cabinet Manual, demonstrates the highest ethical standards?

That is an assertion. The Prime Minister would expect any breach of the Cabinet Manual to be brought to his attention.

Does he think that a Minister’s charging people to hear him speak on his portfolio demonstrates the highest ethical standards?

That issue has been discussed and dealt with in the past. I have to say it is a bit rich to be lectured by the Labour members about ethical standards, after Labour’s previous term in office was a trail of ethical breaches, ministerial incompetence, and untrustworthiness.

Does he think that a Minister who has been accused of bullying another Minister, as was reported in numerous media outlets, shows the highest ethical behaviour? [ Interruption]

Before I call the Minister, I say to members that the level of interjection is getting too high. I was finding it difficult to hear the Hon Annette King.

Grant Robertson Link to this

If the Prime Minister was to receive an allegation of ministerial bullying, he would refer it to the Labour members, who are experts in these matters.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [ Interruption]

Grant Robertson Link to this

A point of order has been called.

In a number of the answers that the Hon Bill English has given today, he has not actually addressed the question. In that one he immediately turned to talk about Labour, rather than answering the question that was asked.

I think that is a fair point. There was a lot of noise while the member was asking the question, and I invite the Hon Annette King to repeat her question.

Does he think that a Minister who has been accused of bullying another Minister, as was reported in numerous media outlets, shows good ethical behaviour?

As I said, if the Prime Minister received an allegation of ministerial bullying, one option would be to refer it to the Labour members, who are experts in these matters.

Smith Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this

I accept that the question was seeking an opinion and there is no particular answer to an opinion, but I do not think that the question justified an attack like that on Labour. I invite the Minister to re-answer that question, because he can answer the question without attacking the questioner.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can it be proper for a member, in a question, to accuse a Minister of bullying but not proper for the Minister, in response, to refer to many complaints of bullying by members of the Opposition? Is it not tit for tat in this House? [ Interruption]

Carter Hon John Carter Link to this

This is not a game of tit for tat; it happens to be question time in Parliament. The member who asked the question referred to reports, and the member does not need to think back far to when a former Minister was reported as making such a claim. The member has based her question on that. Admittedly it was a supplementary question and therefore could not be validated, but I do not believe that the question justified an attack on Labour. The questioner did not attack National; the question just asked whether certain behaviour was considered to be ethical behaviour. I do not believe that it deserved an attack to be made on the questioner’s party.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We get to these situations because we are now into political issues. We get to the stage where one party asks another party a political question and then the respondent, the Minister in this case, responds in a political way. For example, an Opposition member has raised the issue of an accusation of bullying by one Minister against another. In the same way, the Minister may well have been referring to the fact that the Opposition accused one of its members of being mentally unwell—and that, again, is a form of bullying.

I have listened to the member long enough. The question was not out of order. Members may not like the question. I can think of many times when I have asked a question in this House and certain members did not like the question. But that does not mean to say questioners should be treated with contempt. No attempt was made to answer the question. I accept that there is no precise answer, but simply to attack the party of the questioner is not good enough. I stress again that the questioner did not attack the Minister’s party. The question did not make any attack on National in respect of anything at all. It just asked whether certain behaviour would be considered to be ethical. I accept that the question is hypothetical. It seeks an opinion, and there is no precise answer, but to attack the questioner’s party is not acceptable.

As far as I am aware, the Prime Minister has not received any substantiated complaint of that nature.

Does he think Mr Hide’s use of taxpayers’ money to take his girlfriend on a round-the-world trip and attend her brother’s wedding, after he had campaigned against such behaviour, demonstrated the highest ethical standards?

Hipkins Chris Hipkins Link to this

It is the style of this Government that Ministers deal with the consequences of any decisions they make, and that matter has been aired publicly. I can assure the House, though, that when National members make judgments that get them into trouble, we do not accuse them of being mentally ill, as is the habit of the Labour Party.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of the question, in the hope that the situation would improve. I am sitting just two rows directly behind Annette King, and those of us in the back row can barely hear what is going on today. I waited for the duration of question No. 1, as I hoped the situation would improve. We could not hear what John Carter was saying when he spoke to the point of order, and we could not hear what the Clerk was saying when she read out the items of business at the beginning of the day. I wonder whether the volume could be turned up a bit. We seem to go from one extreme to the other. Some weeks it is incredibly loud and I cannot hear myself think, and on other days, such as today, I can barely hear what is going on.