8. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) Link to this
to the Prime Minister
Does he agree with his Minister for Ministerial Services’ answer to a supplementary question on Question No. 11 yesterday, regarding whether he is in charge of processes in Ministerial Services: “It depends. It depends on the circumstances. I was not responsible for this particular instance, because it was not brought to my attention, and there was no reason for it to be.”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) Link to this
Yes. I was not responsible for the decision made by the department, as it was an operational matter for the chief executive.
Well, members should read the Cabinet Manual. Section 3.5 of the Cabinet Manual states that Ministers “should not be involved in their department’s day-to-day operations.” However, I acknowledge that I am responsible for answering questions in the House on operational matters.
Is it his expectation that Ministers in his Government will read papers before signing them, particularly documents relating to the overall direction of their portfolios, such as statements of intent?
Yes. Yesterday in the House the member was making the claim that I had made the decision on the purchase of new BMWs. Let us actually quote from the statement of intent—
Mr SPEAKERMembers are entitled to raise points of order. I expected to hear a different point of order from the member.
I am not very sympathetic with the point of order that the member has made, but to me he would have had a legitimate grievance given that he asked a very simple question: whether that is the Prime Minister’s expectation. The Prime Minister answered that; therefore the rest of the answer was really superfluous to requirements. I invite the member to ask a further supplementary question.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let us go to the Hansard of yesterday, where the question from Mr Robertson—
No, no—no! We cannot litigate matters in that way. I have not supported the member’s point of order; I have simply pointed out that the member asked a very simple question about whether the Prime Minister expected Ministers to read important documents, such as statements of intent, prior to signing them, I think. The Prime Minister answered that; he said yes, he did. Going on further, given the simplicity of that question, was unnecessary, I think, and that is why I invited a supplementary question.
Does he expect Ministers in his Government to be aware of a major capital purchase within their portfolios, particularly one with some political risk attached to it; if not, why not?
Yes, I do. That is why I have changed the procedures with Ministerial Services. I am not actually responsible for the capital budget; that goes somewhere else. But I have changed the procedures, and I have made it quite clear to the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs that I expect there to be an improved performance when it comes to the no-surprises policy.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Has he received any advice of any inconsistencies in Hansard yesterday about what was in the statement of intent for Ministerial Services as compared with what the member claimed was in it?
Yes. I will quote from yesterday’s Hansard a question from Grant Robertson: “Is it correct that the decision to replace the VIP transport fleet was put to him, as Minister responsible for Ministerial Services, four times through March and April 2009, as part of the statement of intent process, and that as Minister responsible he signed off those documents … ?”. Let us quote from the statement of intent, which says: “The ‘Property, plant and equipment’ category includes expenditure on computer hardware associated with infrastructural asset projects, office fit-outs and associated furnishings, and cyclical replacement of the VIP transport fleet.” That is not a decision.
I apologise to the member. I cannot hear the question that is being asked. The House will come to order.
Does he think it is acceptable for his Minister responsible for Ministerial Services not to have read a briefing on a major capital issue in his department until 2 months after he received it, and then to have read it only because, to quote the Minister: “I saw an item on the news concerning the replacement of BMWs.”?
That Minister reads a lot of very large documents, and when he sees a one-line reference to “cyclical replacement” it does not present a proposal to the Government. If a proposal had been put to the Minister, I am sure he would have remembered that. It never was.
I seek leave of the House to table a Department of Internal Affairs briefing sent to the Prime Minister on 17 December 2010, which goes into some detail about the proposal.
Would he deem it appropriate for a Minister to take responsibility for an issue in his or her portfolio, such as the replacement of the vehicle fleet, when it is mentioned in four different briefings to him, when a driver tells him it is happening, and when his chief of staff is briefed on it by the department?
I am responsible for answering questions in the House. As the Cabinet Manual says, I am not responsible for purchase decisions, because those are within the delegation to the chief executive. As I said, I was disappointed with the decision made by the chief executive, in that he did not inform me of it under the no-surprises policy.
Does he agree with John Armstrong that the key doctrine of ministerial accountability is weak and boils down to two words: “it depends”; or would he prefer the description “see no detail, hear no detail, speak no detail”?