Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11996] 
6.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Why did he dismiss barrister and solicitor Irene Kereama-Royal’s letter as the concerns of a “disgruntled former employee” of the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust and how many people from each marae attended the hui for the planned Waikato prison paid for by the Department of Corrections? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I did not dismiss her concerns. I received her letter in July last year and looked into her claims. I was advised that her concerns related to among other things her lack of involvement in the consultation process and an internal employment dispute within the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust which is still unresolved. With regard to the numbers of people attending marae hui I am advised that over 700 Tainui people attended such hui. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did the Minister rely on his own department for that advice; and why would he not treat seriously the claims of a woman of her experience and qualification that his own department had bought off a select group of Maori who had no mandate to represent their people to push this prison through? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I did not just rely on Department of Corrections’ officials; there was direct discussion with Tainui. I think it is important for the member to know that the Tainui parliament Tekaumarua voted to enter into a consultation agreement with the Department of Corrections and mandated the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust as the consultation agent. That is significant in that there was a high level of support given to consulting with the department. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What scrutiny has there been of the consultation process to date? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Independent environment commissioners appointed by the Waikato District Council and Environment Waikato heard 17 days of evidence at a public hearing on the Spring Hill prison application at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003. Those commissioners accepted both the department’s evidence and the adequacy of the consultation process. This case is set down to be heard again in the Environment Court in May. I consider that people have had ample opportunity to have their views heard on this issue. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: What action will the Minister take regardless of the veracity of these particular complaints to ensure that under his watch consultation with tangata whenua is a genuine attempt to find out what they think rather than an expensive means of picking who agrees with the department? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I reject the last part of the question. The consultation on this issue has been very wide and extensive. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Can the Minister confirm that his officials knew by December 2001 that Mr Tom Moana was being charged with fraud yet continued to contract him through to April 2002; and that Tom Moana received $131000 for attending just four hui? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As far as I have been advised the facts that the member points out are correct. It is one of the issues I am looking into as part of a report that is due to me shortly from the department. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that when he made his comment that Mrs Kereama-Royal was a “disgruntled former employee” he was unaware that the personal grievance happened after she had first written to the Minister; and is the Minister able to give the House an assurance that no consultancy fees as listed on the schedule that he tabled in the House were actually paid to people who were at the same time employees of the Department of Corrections? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I was advised that the person who had written to me in July had already left and my understanding was that there was already an employment dispute going on. As far as the second question is concerned I have been advised that there was a clear separation between people employed to organise hui and those who had contracts with the organisation but that is another matter that I am looking into as part of the report. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister confirm that one of the people at the heart of this controversy Mr John Hamilton of Jagcon is the same person who was investigated in 2001 as a result of his gaining a $200000 contract from the Department of Corrections 2 days after he had left its employment; and that he also is the person who was accused of offering Mrs Beadle $150000 to drop her objections to the Ngawha prison and who was overheard by Department of Corrections staff to have said when preparing to go to Waikato: “I wonder how many beads and blankets this will take.”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have not heard those claims and make no further comment on them. As far as the first question is concerned I am aware that Mr Hamilton was involved as a former employee and received a contract. When we look at the complexity of the nature of the work that is going on with four new prisons being built around the country I think he is doing a good job. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In light of the Minister’s claim on radio this morning that paid consultation with iwi is a requirement under the Resource Management Act will he advise the House which section of that Act he was relying on because I believe that his Government is shovelling out millions of taxpayers’ dollars when no such requirement exists under the Act? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The final comment was not part of the question. It was just a remark made. The first part was the question and can be answered. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Under the Resource Management Act consultation is required with local Maori. I think it is sections 5 and 6—I am not sure—but there is certainly a requirement. It has been part and parcel of the Resource Management Act since 1991. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister confirm that for the Waikato prison $1.3 million was paid to Maori for consultation and a very small sum—and perhaps the Minister can tell us what it was—was paid for Pacific Island consultation; but no money was paid to any other group for consultation; if so how come Maori get $1.3 million and everyone else gets next to nothing? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: For a start funding was paid to a large number of consultants including lawyers tax accountants etc. A lot of consultation was undergone. However the whole issue is now under consideration by the Government. 
Rodney Hide 
: Could the Minister give a date when he will be receiving this report from the Department of Corrections and given that it is Mr John Hamilton who has overseen the payments and bullying that have gone on through the resource management planning process that has been revealed does he not think it appropriate that someone independent be brought in to make the investigation particularly given that the Minister has been kept in the dark apparently by his own department? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No and no. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked for a date. I do not understand how saying “No” can be addressing the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were a number of legs to the question and the answers to two of them could have been “Yes” or “No”. The Minister chose to answer those two. He is entitled to. 
Rodney Hide 
: My question and you can go back to  
Hansard 
 asked for a date. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I always allow two questions to be asked. If members add stuff if they add legs to the question then of course the Minister can comment in the way he did. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to think very seriously about the rulings you are giving that allow Ministers to escape off the hook at question time. I believe that in giving those rulings you are bringing this House into disrepute. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not. I take full advice on all those sorts of issues and the member knows full well that I did so on this occasion. I certainly did not do that and I object to the member’s comments. He will now stand withdraw and apologise for the implication he made at the end of his question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem is this. Time after time we come down to this House to ask supplementary questions. It is not a matter of whether the answers address the question; they do not even come close. But you always give rulings saying that that is satisfactory. The public of New Zealand do not think it is satisfactory. It might be OK sitting in this Parliament to say it is satisfactory but I suggest that if we want Parliament to be treated seriously by the people of New Zealand then we have to be—[ 
Interruption 
] There we go again. I am interrupted all the way through a point of order and you do nothing. What is the point? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer the member to Speakers’ rulings 141/5 and 141/6. Indeed you have been very generous. You have allowed two questions to be asked in a supplementary question. The traditional Speakers’ rulings are that only one question should be asked—Mr Speaker Arthur in 1984 and Mr Speaker Algie in 1963. The member asked a question then added two more questions and expected to get three answers. Well two is greater than traditional tariff. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If members ask multiple questions they run the risk of Ministers answering the parts that they regard as less important. They have to tighten their questions. As far as I am concerned I have probably been more lenient and generous about the asking of questions than any preceding Speaker that I have heard in the time I have been in this House.