5. Question No. 5 to MinisterDr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of TradeQuestion No. 5 to MinisterMr SPEAKER: Question No. 5 Dr David Clark. [Interruption] Dr David Clark: Point of order. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both interjections—but particularly it started from the Deputy Prime Minister—are certainly unhelpful to be referring to any members who are not here.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I seek leave to hold the question over until the Minister of Trade himself is available to answer the question.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. Leave is sought to do that. Is there any objection? There is objection.Trade China—Retaliatory Export Restrictions5. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Trade: How and by whom was he or his office informed on or around 25 May" of "possible trade retaliation"; and what was the content of that communication?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Trade: The Minister was informed via an email from his office staff on 25 May. In terms of the content of that communication as the Minister said yesterday there are limitations to what detail can be provided publicly given legislative and World Trade Organization (WTO) constraints around the reporting of what may be competition issues that are not yet under investigation.Dr David Clark: Where did his office get that information from and from whom?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said in answer to the primary question in terms of the content of that communication there are limitations as to what detail can be provided publicly given the legislative constraints and WTO rules around the reporting of what may be competition issues that are not yet under investigation.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very clear as to where that information came from. He did not even address that part of the question.Mr SPEAKER: Well I accept he did not but he gave a very good reason for why—if the member just wants to resume his seat for a minute. The Minister gave a very good reason why he is not prepared to address the question and I refer the member to Speaker's ruling 193/3. He is effectively saying that for privacy reasons commercial sensitivity or national security it is not in the public interest to give further detail. That is an acceptable position for a Minister to take.Dr David Clark: Given his statement in the House yesterday that there are "legislative constraints" around the reporting of competition complaints that are not yet under investigation and his reiteration of that today what specifically are those legislative constraints?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are constraints under New Zealand competition law and also under WTO rules that any complaint about competition issues between countries cannot be reported publicly until such and if an investigation is conducted.Dr David Clark: Given his statement yesterday and again today what specifically are those legislative constraints?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have the exact clause and chapter of the law to hand but—Grant Robertson: It's just an excuse then.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No it is not an excuse Mr Robertson. It is actually the WTO rules and competition law and the Minister is not in a position in the public interest to disclose further.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If a Minister is going to refuse to answer a question in the House on the basis that it is not in the public interest which I think is what the primary Speaker's ruling that you referred to relates to surely there must be some responsibility on that Minister to cite with some specificity the legal basis on which they are making that claim.Mr SPEAKER: No listen again to what the Minister said. The second question was effectively the same in terms of specific legislation and the Minister said he could not give you the specifics. That is an answer that is given by the Minister and that addresses the question.Dr David Clark: Can he confirm that he is in fact relying on section 10 of the Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act 1988 to protect the identity of either Pacific Steel Group or the country of China; if not what legislation is he relying on?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not prepared to confirm the contents of the member's question.Dr David Clark: Why did he not think it was sufficiently important to inform the Prime Minister in the face of threats of possible trade retaliation to some of our biggest exporters in our biggest export market for 2 whole months?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Minister has already acknowledged publicly that he should have provided the Prime Minister with a fuller account of the issue and done so sooner. He has apologised to the Prime Minister for that."