Parker David: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 November 2015. Volume:710;Page:8168. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does the withheld NZTE-funded report on why most of the lambs died on the taxpayer-funded farm in the Saudi desert confirm or disprove the statement by Hon Nathan Guy on 18 June 2015 that he thought the lambs could have died in a sand storm?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of theMinister for Economic Development: The information sought is commercially sensitive and was provided to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise with an obligation of confidence. I do not think it is in the public interest to provide it to the House. I would note that at the time the Minister for Primary Industries made it clear that he understood the mortalities could have been due to a sandstorm but that he did not have the full details. Brownrigg Agriculture issued a press statement later that day which indicated the mortalities were due to a rain storm and a range of illnesses.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask for your assistance. This is an area of public interest—funded by the Government overseas New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the point of order please.Hon David Parker: I think the Minister does have a responsibility to answer to this House and I would ask that you request him to do so.Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to familiarise himself with Speakers’ rulings and particularly Speaker’s ruling 193/3 “Obligation to answer”. An answer must be given “if it can be given consistently with the public interest”. In this case the Minister has responded on two points: one it is not in the public interest; and two it is commercially sensitive. That is his opinion. It is certainly what he is allowed to say and it addresses the question.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There must be a point where those claims just are not credible and so what I am asking you to do—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The Minister has given an answer. It may not be to the satisfaction of the member. My job is to see whether it has been answered and addressed in accordance with Speakers’ rulings. I have done that. I have gone so far as to reference it to the member. That is the end of the matter. Proceeding with further supplementary questions is the best way forward for the honourable member.Hon David Parker: If it was not a sandstorm in the desert that killed the lambs does the report show whether poor maternal ewe health caused by heat-stress or an unsuitable diet contributed to the 80 percent lamb death on the farm in the desert funded by the New Zealand Government?Hon NATHAN GUY: On behalf of the Minister I have not seen the report so I cannot answer the details of that.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders are clear that when Ministers come answering on behalf of other Ministers they should inform themselves of the details. Also this is the Minister for Primary Industries who was willing to answer questions at the select committee and yet comes here contriving to be ignorant of the answers.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Very very soon we will be moving to the next question. The Minister is responsible for his answer. If he rises and says he has not seen that particular report then I must accept his word. If the member has other information or feels that this is a case of misrepresentation then there is a very appropriate course of action but it does not involve raising it on the floor of the House. We will proceed with further supplementary questions—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. We will proceed with further supplementary questions but if there are any more of what I consider to be pointless points of order I will not hesitate to move to the next question. I am trying to assist the member but he must accept the answers that are given if they are in line with the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the primary question which references the report in question that my colleague David Parker is asking about. In his answer to the primary question the Minister said that he did not believe it was in the public interest for him to make further comment on the report. How could the Minister make that claim if he has not read the report?Mr SPEAKER: That is for the Minister to judge and for the public of New Zealand to judge. That is the answer—[Interruption] Order! That is the answer that has been given by the Minister. It may not be satisfactory to members on my left-hand side. They will judge that. The public of New Zealand will judge that. The way forward is further supplementary questions.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A fresh point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I would be grateful.Chris Hipkins: A fresh point of order and it is purely for a matter of clarity because the Minister is answering on behalf of another Minister. Is he answering that the Minister has not read the report or he as the acting Minister has not read the report? That is just for the purpose of clarity so that we can tailor our supplementary questions accordingly.Mr SPEAKER: The member in answering should have addressed the question by answering on behalf—he did not. I will allow the Minister to clarify because I would judge that he is answering that as the Minister for Primary Industries not as the acting Minister for Economic Development. But I will allow the Minister—Hon NATHAN GUY: I was answering on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development.Mr SPEAKER: Then that statement has been made.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling that according to early Speakers’ rulings it is for a Minister to decide whether something is in the public interest.Mr SPEAKER: Can I have a point of order then?Hon David Parker: I ask you to reflect on whether it is right for you to say that it is fair for the Minister to say that he had not read the report given that the report is in the primary question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not say it was fair for the Minister to say he had not read the report. I am saying that the Minister did state that he had not seen the report. The Minister is responsible for the answer not me as Speaker.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No we are now—Hon David Parker: There are Speakers’ rulings on this.Mr SPEAKER: Well if the member wants to quickly refer me to one I will have a look at it.Hon David Parker: Yes Speakers’ rulings say—Mr SPEAKER: Number?Hon David Parker: Yes I will give it to you.Hon Gerry Brownlee: 192.Hon David Parker: Speaker’s ruling 168/1 actually Mr Brownlee. Speaker’s ruling 168/1—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I require silence from my right-hand side.Hon David Parker: —says that “Ministers should be in a position to answer supplementary questions.” Given that this was about a New Zealand Trade and Enterprise - funded report the Minister answering on behalf of the other Minister should be in a position to answer questions about the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise - funded report otherwise it is pointless asking questions.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is in a position to answer the questions—[Interruption] Order! He is then not answering them to the satisfaction of the member. That frequently happens in this House. Does the member have a further supplementary question?Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is the Speaker now making a ruling—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Parker: I am asking for a ruling as to whether you are making a new ruling as Speaker that Ministers do not need to have read the report in the primary question and can now just say “I didn’t read the report therefore I don’t need to answer.”?Mr SPEAKER: No I am certainly not saying that and the member is now trifling with the Chair and wasting time. I am certainly not saying that Ministers can come to the House ill prepared. If they come to the House ill prepared that is for the members of the Opposition to judge and it is for members of the public to judge. If the member has a further supplementary question I will hear it but otherwise I am very tempted to move to the next question immediately.Dr David Clark: What a hopeless Government.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not want another interjection from that member this question time. It has been consistent—Hon David Parker: Supplementary—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. There have been consistent interjections from the member. That will be the last one for this question time.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled.Dr David Clark: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?Dr David Clark: I have been out of this Chamber for most of question time. I cannot accept that comfortably. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. I have been hearing interjections from that area. I did not realise the member had not been here so if it was not him it is somebody in his very near vicinity and I immediately apologise to the member. [Interruption]Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: If it is a genuine fresh point of order I will hear it. But if it is the member continuing to waste the time of this House I will take a very very dim view.Chris Hipkins: A different issue. You just warned a member that if he would interject further you would ask him to leave the Chamber. While you were on your feet doing so there was significant interjection from the Leader of the House. Does the same standard apply to him?Mr SPEAKER: There has been significant interjection from both sides of the House through a number of points of order. To sort out one side at this stage I do not think would be appropriate. I should perhaps be dealing—[Interruption] Order! If I addressed Dr David Clark the wrong way I have apologised. That is the end of that matter.James Shaw: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could help me with this. In reference to the Speaker’s ruling that you just referred to Mr Parker said that Ministers should come prepared to respond to the primary question and you said that if they were not prepared then that was a matter for public judgment. Does that mean that when the Speaker’s ruling says that they should come prepared that there is no consequence if they do not—other than the court of public opinion so to speak?Mr SPEAKER: If Ministers come illprepared and do not answer questions to the satisfaction of this House the public are also watching and they will then judge the performance of Ministers. It has been like that ever since I arrived here.Hon David Parker: Given that his Government was warned that flying heavily pregnant sheep to a farm in the hot desert was risky why did he allow his Government department to proceed with and fund this ludicrous plan?Hon NATHAN GUY: This is about a food security partnership and an agri-hub to showcase New Zealand technology. It is a prudent long-term investment that this Government has decided to make.Hon David Parker: Is it the ultimate shame of this whole saga that even after dishing out the $4 million bribe building a $6 million farm in the desert—Hon Gerry Brownlee: You can’t say that.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will determine that but if it is an inflammatory type of question it will possibly get an inflammatory answer. Carry on with the question.Hon David Parker: —and spending a million dollars flying sheep his Government has now admitted that the deal will not even get the free-trade agreement that he was wanting to get across the line completed?Hon NATHAN GUY: I refute those allegations. This is about a food security partnership an agri-hub and this is about showcasing 30 New Zealand companies and their goods and services and what we have to offer to the Gulf State. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for his supplementary question can I ask that members on my left-hand side also listen to the answer.Hon David Parker: How much extra trade with Saudi Arabia in New Zealand agricultural products and services has resulted from the demonstration farm in the desert excluding of course the $12 million of taxpayers’ funds that have already been spent?Hon NATHAN GUY: What that member does not seem to appreciate is that this is about a long-term investment—[Interruption]—that we are prepared to make a food security partnership showcasing New Zealand technology—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is just no point in continuing with an answer.Hon David Parker: Given the Minister’s recent experience with inflatable sheep did he consider using them because they might have a better survival rate?Hon NATHAN GUY: What we have seen this week is that Labour’s books are in tatty shape and they are very under-inflated.