Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:481. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has he had time to read and digest the judgement of Justice Miller regarding the Crafar farm deal; if so does he stand by his comments made in the House yesterday? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: He has read the judgment and he stands by his comments. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: To which law was the Prime Minister referring when he claimed in the House yesterday that the law—and to use his words—“does not allow Ministers to reverse OIO advice”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think what the Prime Minister was referring to was the requirement that all Ministers act within the law and that the expectation that the advice coming from the Overseas Investment Office would in fact be within the law. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That was worse than yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the Prime Minister yesterday argue that the Ministers Jonathan Coleman and Maurice Williamson should rely on the same view as the Overseas Investment Office? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The expectation of all Ministers is that they should be able to rely on the advice of their officials. In relying on that advice they come to their own conclusion within the law.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Do the two Ministers not have their own officials? That being the case what scrutiny independent of the Overseas Investment Office— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Stupid question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well I will say it again very slowly for the so-called learned gentleman down there— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order!  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: But you heard what he said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am on my feet and that will be the end of any further interjection. I get to my feet to stop this childish backwards and forwards across the House. I say to the honourable gentleman on my right that such interjections do not exactly help with good order in the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What scrutiny independent of the Overseas Investment Office did his Ministers apply to the Overseas Investment Office report on the Crafar purchase? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Prime Minister would expect all Ministers to exercise their judgment based on the advice that is put in front of them. It is patently obvious that all those decisions are reviewable. That is why we are in this situation now. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are not going to get anywhere if we are going to get that sort of answer. I asked whether the two Ministers concerned had got independent advice independent of the Overseas Investment Office. That is what I want to know. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In the circumstances I will allow the Rt Hon Winston Peters to repeat the question he asked to make sure everyone understands exactly what it is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What scrutiny independent of the Overseas Investment Office did his Ministers apply to the Overseas Investment Office report on the Crafar purchase? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I doubt that is the first question word for word. However what I would say again is that the Prime Minister expects all Ministers to exercise their judgment based on the information that is provided to them by their officials. Their officials in many cases are not aligned to the Overseas Investment Office. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I got the Prime Minister’s answer but the question asked of him was did they receive or did they seek any advice independent of the Overseas Investment Office. That is pretty simple. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is correct; his question did exactly ask that. In his answer the Minister referred to advice from the officials. Although he did not specifically say the Ministers received advice from their own independent officials I picked up that from his answer. But if I am wrong there he had better correct me. It seems that that is what the Minister intended. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did the legal test always require the benefits from overseas ownership to be substantial and identifiable? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: What I understand is that is the case but it is the way in which that conclusion was reached that is the contention and ultimately the judgment that has come down. So instead of that test—better before or after—it is now with or without. It is a fine technical point. The judge makes that clear. He has also invited Ministers to reconsider it on that basis which they will do. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did the Prime Minister ignore section 17 of the Overseas Investment Act in response to a question in the House yesterday asking how he had arrived at the view that his two Ministers to use his words had no discretion at all? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well the first point is the Prime Minister has no responsibility in this case directly and he was correct in saying that his Ministers were appropriately following advice given to them by their officials assessed and judged by themselves. The point is that the decision in any event has been reviewed by the court and the court has made a recommendation about a reconsideration and that will take place. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the reality not that the court did what his Minister failed to do: it applied the economic benefit test and found no identifiable evidence that the overseas buyer would produce any substantial benefit to New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The test applied by the Overseas Investment Office was the same test that it used to advise a former Minister the Hon David Parker in his decisions on these matters. The question is should the test be applied on a before or after basis or on a with or without basis? The court has ordered it is with or without and has invited Ministers to reconsider and that is what they will do. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How were the Ministers able to exercise their judgment in this case while at the same time following the Prime Minister’s direction that they had no discretion? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the point is that all of these decisions are reviewable and on the evidence put in front of the Ministers it was patently clear using the before or after test which has now been decided is inappropriate they had—[ 
Interruption 
] It was decided that on the before or after test asking the questions that are required through the four points inside that particular part of the more than 20 points that have to be considered in the test they had exercised their judgment appropriately. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to why the public should not assume that the two Ministers in question took the view that the Prime Minister keeps on defending which is that they had no discretion at all and therefore applied no independent thought or judgment at all and just rubber-stamped the Crafar deal? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Ministers have acted totally appropriately. They were entitled to believe that the advice they had got from their officials was consistent with the advice that had been offered over the previous 7 years. For a large number of those years the member himself was supporting the Government in those decisions. It was never a problem when he was supporting the Government; apparently it is now. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He cannot go on to a personal attack of me when it is well known that he and others got rid of New Zealand First and Winston Peters because we were stopping their— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The right honourable member knows that is not a point of order under any guise whatsoever. It was successful though in stopping the Minister’s answer. I presume the Minister therefore has finished his answer. Yes he has finished his answer. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister have any other concerns about the way the Overseas Investment Office is carrying out its functions in light of comments this morning from the director of the Overseas Investment Office that in applying the economic benefit test they never take any account of the economic downside or economic detriment that might result from foreign investment such as an increase in the current account deficit? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. They have applied the law appropriately for 7 years and have got to a point where one small aspect of the tests that were put in place all those 7 years ago does need to be reconsidered in a different light—so going from before and after to with or without. I would ask why it is that after you know 7 years of this Act being operative suddenly those who were party to passing it are so very concerned— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is sufficient. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister now accept that those of us who have opposed the operation of this system all along such as the Green Party have been absolutely correct to oppose it because the Overseas Investment Office has been incorrectly applying the test as Justice Miller pointed out in the judicial review? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Justice Miller has made that point and Ministers will act within that judgment for any future applications and for the reconsideration of this application. Other than that the Overseas Investment Office has operated inside the bounds that were prescribed in the law by a previous Government.