12. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
to the Minister of Trade
What steps, if any, is he taking to manage his interests in the 40,000 shares he owns through a trust in New Zealand Farming Systems Uruguay Ltd to dispel any perception of a conflict of interest as Minister of Trade?
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) Link to this
I am going to do two things. First, I am going to carry through on the additional disclosure I made to the Cabinet Office about the shares I put my retirement funds into, additional to the requirements of the Register of Pecuniary Interests, and I am going to take all necessary steps to avoid any conflict of interest in the unlikely event that one would occur. The second thing that I am going to do is ignore this beat-up and get on with the job that I am appointed to do.
Mr SPEAKERWhy did he quit the India trade group so quickly last year when his co-owner Dr Richard Worth started to get into a pickle, but has not quit this much more valuable asset that some might say leaves Uruguayans feeling like tenants in their own country?
I apologise to the honourable member but I could not hear the question. I invite the member to start again with his question, and I ask members to keep the level of interjection down so that at least the Speaker can hear the question being asked; otherwise I cannot determine whether it is in order.
Why did he quit the India trade group so quickly last year when his co-owner Dr Richard Worth started to get into a pickle, but has not quit this much more valuable asset that some might say leaves Uruguayans feeling like tenants in their own country?
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask where the ministerial responsibility is for anything in that question.
If I heard the question correctly, the member asked the Minister about certain actions he had taken some time last year. If I remember it, the question started with asking why he quit something. I presume that is asking the Minister something to do with his interests. Therefore, I believe that the Minister has responsibility for that.
Hon Rodney HideI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, with the greatest of respect, you need to think a bit more carefully about your ruling, because you are saying that if Ministers are asked anything whatsoever about property or their personal details, then they have a responsibility as a Minister in this Parliament to answer it. I do not see how a Minister could possibly be answering a question in this House as a Minister about why he or she might or might not sell particular shares. It seems incongruous to me.
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
Further, Mr Groser answered the first question very, very appropriately, I think, and made it clear what the situation is. I think that for him to then be put through a bit of a test as to why he did that last year when he is doing this this year, steps far too far. He has been very open with regard to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament—that is why the Opposition is able to ask the question. But I think that if you were to look at that particular question again, you would see that it steps well outside what might be reasonable for Ministers to answer in this House.
I appreciate the points raised by members, and this issue needs to be handled carefully by the Speaker; I fully accept that. I accept the point made by the Hon Rodney Hide that individual Ministers are not responsible for the Register of Pecuniary Interests. That is a thing that members of Parliament are required to comply with. However, Ministers are responsible for their management of conflicts of interest, and it was my interpretation of the question—and I would not mind seeing whether the Clerk agrees with my view on this, but it is my view—that where there is a potential conflict of interest with the Minister’s portfolio interests, then there is a legitimate ground for questioning. But I certainly confirm that the Minister is not responsible as Minister for the issues surrounding the declaration of pecuniary interests. I think on this occasion, rather than have me rule out the question, the Minister would be capable of handling it, but he is required to handle it only in so far as it involves conflicts of interest relating to his portfolio interests. On that basis, I invite the Hon Tim Groser to answer it.
Well, there is a very straightforward answer, and it is that I resigned as a director of the company because I was told it was not appropriate to be a director of the company and a Minister.
That answered the first part of the question, but that will do. Now that he has told the media that he did not tell anyone that he owned shares in Uruguayan land because no one had asked him, but “if anyone had asked me, I would have told them”, will he list what else his trust, Jolimont, owns—because I am asking him?
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not appropriate to ask members of this House, whether they are Ministers or otherwise, whether they will do something that is not required by the Standing Orders, and if this question stands, then we are in very deep trouble. Therefore, we should be able to ask Mr Hodgson whether he is a KiwiSaver, where his KiwiSaver funds are going, what shares his KiwiSaver fund holds, and what interest he has to declare to the House when it comes to voting on matters that might affect those shares. It has been widely accepted for a long time that where members of Parliament have an interest that is no greater than any other member of the public or is no less available to any other member of the public, then that is not a conflict of interest. That question opens this thing up very, very widely, and I suggest that no one in the House could cast a vote on any matter if that type of question will call his or her integrity into public scrutiny.
I think that this is an important issue, because it is impossible for Ministers to have any responsibility as Ministers for where their superannuation funds might be invested or where, maybe, trusts that they are involved in invest money. Ministers are required to declare their pecuniary interests. That is not what is in play here; what Mr Hodgson is attempting to do is to ask a Minister about his personal investments, which, as a Minister, he surely is not responsible for. He is responsible for that as an individual member of Parliament but not as a Minister.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I think all of that would be right if the original question was not predicated on the conflict between the role of the Minister of Trade and his personal arrangements. I think that is where this issue goes to. The question could not have got there if there was not at least a perception of a conflict of interest; and the question, I think, is then properly asked as to whether the Minister has other conflicts of interest with his role as Minister of Trade. He has already accepted, I think, in this House, that there is one. He has got rid of part of it and has retained some of it, but the point I am making is that we need to know that Ministers do not have that conflict of interest. For Rodney Hide to indicate that it is not possible for a Minister to have a conflict of interest—of course it is—
No, I have indicated that I do not need to hear any more on this matter. What the Hon Trevor Mallard just said was correct if the Minister had been asked about conflicts of interest, but he was not. He was asked whether he would list in his pecuniary interests any further interests or shareholdings a certain trust might have, and that is not within the Standing Orders. Even though the member might say that the Minister said he is happy to make a declaration of pecuniary interests, in making that statement the Minister cannot actually be questioned on that statement, because it has nothing to do with his portfolio area. Members asking questions need to be very clear on that. Members cannot question Ministers on their declaration of pecuniary interests, as the Hon Rodney Hide pointed out. What members can question them on is their management of conflicts of interest, indeed, and normally Ministers can be questioned on any statements that they make. But where a statement relates to a declaration of pecuniary interests, the Minister is not answerable on that statement in this House. So I have to rule that question out.
Does he agree with the remarks made by the Prime Minister earlier this month about China and New Zealand working together in agriculture where “they put up capital, we develop farms in Latin America and export food to China,”; if he does agree, does he also agree that as soon as China does enter the market, the value of his shares are likely to rise?
Hon Gerry Brownlee Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that question is accepted, then the Speaker is effectively accepting the speculation that the member includes in it. It is nasty, it is guttersnipe—
The member will sit down. There will be silence. This is a very serious issue and has to be treated with respect by this House. Members in this House have a right to hold Ministers to account. Where questions relate to conflicts of interest, those questions are perfectly proper. This question asked whether the Minister agreed with the statement relating to a trade matter—and the Minister did not need to answer the second part, because there were two parts to the question—and then went on to ask about whether that trade prospect could influence the value of shares. I do not see that question as being out of order, because it relates to a statement in the trade area, and it has an implication of a possible conflict of interest. I believe that Ministers do have to be mindful of the management of conflicts of interest. I invite the Hon Tim Groser to answer the question.
The answer to the first part of the question is, absolutely, yes. On another occasion I would welcome the opportunity to expand on this theme, because I think this is absolutely central to taking New Zealand forward in terms of getting the intellectual property of our extraordinary agriculture system and exporting it not just through exports but through the services that New Zealand—almost uniquely, in some areas—has. So I think this will be a huge and interesting question before New Zealand agriculture in the next 20 years. In respect of the second part of the question, I could imagine an argument that would draw exactly the opposite conclusion in respect of investment in another country.
Can he confirm that earlier this month another company, a Singaporean company rather than a Chinese one, did just that—entered the Uruguayan dairy market—and that his shares rose from 41c to 55c in 2 weeks, as a result?