4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) Link to this
to the Minister for Social Development and Employment
What due diligence did she undertake before and after recommending the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families Commission?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) Link to this
Due diligence is defined as undertaking voluntary investigations, and I can assure the member that I undertook voluntary investigations into Ms Rankin’s commitment to fighting child abuse. I found her to be a strong and dedicated advocate on behalf of children. I do not pass judgment on gossip and speculation. I am cautious about delving into anyone’s private life, whether it be in relation to an appointment, an MP, or a member of the public.
What questions did she ask and what information did she receive from Christine Rankin when she personally undertook her own due diligence, as was stated by the Prime Minister in the House yesterday?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I can assure the member that proper process and due diligence were followed, as, no doubt, they were followed when the previous Government appointed the member’s colleague Dr Rajen Prasad to the same organisation just a few years earlier.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I took particular care in the preparation of my questions today, in line with the rulings you have given in this House over many weeks. I asked a very specific question of the Minister. I asked her what questions she had asked and what information she had received from Christine Rankin, when the Minister personally undertook her own due diligence, as stated by the Prime Minister in the House yesterday. The Minister then gave an answer about due process having been followed.
Mr SPEAKERI invite the honourable member—because, obviously, the member has more supplementary questions—to pursue the matter, and let us listen to the answer.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked you to rule, based on the fact that you have ruled before that when a specific question is asked without any other surrounding information being included—when a straightforward question is asked—the Minister is required to answer it. I have only a certain number of supplementary questions. You are asking me to give up one of my questions in order to ask the Minister a question that she should have answered in the first place.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
By any measure the Minister has addressed the question. To expect that the Minister should be required to give detailed answers on a matter like this seems to me to be a little over the top. The answer that came from the Minister was that the same level of attention was paid to this appointment as had been paid to appointments by successive Governments in the past. That, surely, is a satisfactory answer. It does address the question. It will not make the questioner happy, but that seldom occurs.
I absolutely accept that there is a bit of a dilemma in the nature of the question asked, because it is highly questionable whether it would be in the public interest for the Minister to try to detail the exact questions asked. I am loath to rule that the Minister should give a more precise answer, because it seems to me that it would be extraordinarily difficult for the Minister to tell the House precisely which questions she asked. I think the member has the right to pursue the issue through further supplementary questions, but it would be very difficult for me to rule that the Minister must tell the House exactly which questions were asked of a private citizen.
Hon Darren Hughes Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you took into consideration in your ruling the fact that normally, for an appointment such as this, officials would do due diligence and give advice to Ministers. What has been clear from questioning in both the week before last and this week is that the Minister took more of a personal involvement in the level of due diligence. That is what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The deputy leader of the Labour Party said to you, Mr Speaker, that she carefully constructed her question based on previous answers. There was no political language in the question, unlike the answer, which came back with a political attack on a Labour member. Mrs King is making the point that the Minister has taken a personal level of involvement, so she should be in a position to answer the question, separate from what officials would do if they were giving departmental advice.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
That is most surely a debatable point, because it requires the House to accept that the assumption made by the Opposition is the basis on which all questions should be answered from that point. Perhaps the assumptions are a leap too far. The Minister has indicated how she dealt with this matter. That surely has to satisfy the answer.
I appreciate members’ contributions to this issue. I accept that it is a serious issue. I ask the Hon Annette King to accept the dilemma she places the Speaker in, because if I were to rule that the Minister had to detail exactly every question she asked, it would mean that I was setting a precedent for this House that members could ask exactly which questions any Minister had asked of any ministerial or Government appointee to any public position. I think it would be a fairly dangerous precedent for the Speaker to set. To ask about the principles of how the matter was handled is perfectly proper, but to ask the Speaker to rule that the Minister should give that kind of detail is being a little unreasonable. I invite the honourable member to pursue her questions.
Hon Peter DunneI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been listening to this exchange with some interest, because I was involved in the original appointment of Dr Prasad, which was the subject of the comparison. Without going into detail, and just to pick up on your final comments—I think there are matters of personal information that should not be bandied around the House—in that instance the process was quite rigorous. It involved a short list process, consideration by officials, and a series of subsequent reports being made on the suitability or otherwise of some of the nominees. It seems to me that that level of questioning is in order; it does not go to the heart of what particular information was available. But it raises another issue, and that is if the Minister is saying that the process that was followed in this case is comparable with the process followed in that case, then she does open herself up to having to answer questions about the extent of that comparability and whether, in fact, those steps were followed. So I accept the point about no delving into personal information, but surely there is a line about process that can be tested.
I appreciate the honourable member’s contribution to the issue at hand, and I think what he has just said is perfectly reasonable. I invite the honourable member to pursue her questioning along those lines.
I am not ruling that the Minister must provide that personal information—exactly which questions. It is the process—
Hon Ruth DysonMembers will not question my ruling. It is perfectly proper to question the Minister on the process undergone.
Did the Minister directly ask Christine Rankin if the rumours circulating about her personal life, which were subsequently discussed by Christine Rankin on Television New Zealand’s Sunday programme, were true; if so, why did the Minister not warn the Prime Minister of the potential for criticism and ridicule, before the appointment was made?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
Rumours and speculation fly around this place all the time. I am one who chooses not to listen to them and not to engage too much. When I heard what was very much speculation in respect of Ms Rankin—and I have heard much other speculation in respect of this matter—I told her that there were rumours circulating. She assured me that none of them were true; I took her at her word.
Did the Minister ask Christine Rankin about her relationship with the For the Sake of Our Children Trust, including the payment she received from it and why it was not a registered charitable trust at the time she was on Dancing with the Stars, seeking votes from the public, with any money raised to go to the trust?
Will she remove Christine Rankin from the position of Families Commissioner if it is shown that she did not tell the truth in her recent public announcements?
Hon PAULA BENNETT Link to this
I have no reason to believe otherwise. If that member has any proof, or anything that she would like to put on the table, then we would be more than happy to look at it.
Hon Phil GoffI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, it was a very straightforward question—will she remove Ms Rankin—
I ask members to be reasonable about this matter. The honourable member cannot expect a precise answer to a “what if” type of question. The member asked what the Minister would do if something was shown to be correct. A precise answer cannot be expected to that kind of question. I do not believe that the Leader of the Opposition is being reasonable.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought you were rising to your feet because a number of members of the Government were interjecting while I was raising a point of order. That is against the Standing Orders. I would like you to address that question, and then I will come back my point of order, which you interrupted before I had even got to it.
I invite the honourable member to reflect a little on how helpful he is being. I did not hear members of the Government interjecting, because I was concentrating on the point that the member was making. It seemed to me immediately that he was being unreasonable. I am not prepared to waste the time of the House on points of order when I have judged—and I am the sole judge of that matter. I have shown myself to be pretty reasonable to members of the Opposition; I have required answers that no other Speaker in recent memory has ever required. I have been pretty reasonable to members of the Opposition, but when I hear a point of order that, to me, is simply unreasonable, I get to my feet and rule on the matter. That is what I did.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 377 on the content of replies requires that an answer must seek to address the question asked. I ask you, Mr Speaker, in respect of those two questions, where in any way the Minister on her feet sought to address the question asked.