Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 08 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17695. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to theMinister of Immigration: Why did he personally call onDonghua Liu to receive his representations on immigration policy followingDonghua Liu making a donation to the National Party?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Firstly this was not a personal call. I have no personal relationship with Mr Liu and I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no knowledge of or responsibility for donations to the National Party. When I met Mr Liu in 2013 I had no idea he had made a donation. I meet with a number of people up and down the country in my role as the Minister of Immigration and there is nothing unusual about that.Hon Trevor Mallard: When did he first become aware that this meeting was controversial as a result of Mr Liu’s donation?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility the Hon Michael Woodhouse.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not accept that the meeting was controversial then or is controversial now. It is perfectly appropriate for Ministers to hear from a range of people on a range of views and that is what happened.Hon Trevor Mallard: Did Mr Liu offer cash?Mr SPEAKER: I just want to consider that question. I will allow it. It is a marginal question. I will allow it but it gives a very wide—Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will give the answer but I do want to point out that Speaker’s ruling 50 I think or something like that is very clear about imputations of corruption on members. That is what that question is. The answer is emphatically no.Mr SPEAKER: I agree—[Interruption] Order! I agree this question is very close to implying cash for access. I am left with two choices: to rule it out which I am tempted to do; or to leave it there for the Minister to respond to and it gives a very wide leeway for the Minister to respond. That is probably the best way forward on this occasion.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In fact the Minister has responded and has responded appropriately.Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the response then.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well he is happy to give it again. The real point here is that there is a point where Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders can be determined somewhat by what happens in the House. I did not speak about this at the start of the question because I am very confident about the position that the Hon Michael Woodhouse is in in relation to this and because the question comes from someone who is well known for spraying this sort of thing out there—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Stick to the point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: My point though is that I think there has to be some bounds established by way of a Speaker’s ruling. Otherwise every time we hear that someone from the Labour Party for example has gone to speak to someone at a union we would be wanting to know how much was involved in that deal etc. etc. Somehow that seems to be acceptable. Similarly no one has yet been told how much the Green Party has got from the visit to the Coatesville mansion.Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are now straying from the original point of order. I am aware of the difficulty around this question. There was significant discussion around its acceptance and as Speaker’s ruling 153/5 acknowledges there was the requirement then for some give and take before the final question was accepted. I am aware that both the Minister and in fact the questioner are unhappy with the question. The issue then of allowing it was as I say a marginal call and gave considerable licence to the Minister in response. On reflecting on the particular supplementary question that has been asked I have now decided that it is a supplementary question that will lead to disorder. It is effectively implying cash for access and I am ruling that supplementary question out of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would again just ask you to look at the question. The question did not in any way imply that the Minister took the cash that was offered.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a most unhelpful point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I will listen to the member in a minute. That is most unacceptable and that equally leads to disorder. That sort of behaviour will leave me with little choice but to conclude this particular question. I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker I called first.Mr SPEAKER: Well I took the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: The comment made by Trevor Mallard needs to be expunged from theHansard record. It is extremely offensive to everyone on this side of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member has taken offence then the Hon Trevor Mallard will stand and withdraw that comment.Chris Hipkins: No. That’s an outrage.Mr SPEAKER: Order! A member has taken offence at Mr Mallard’s remark. Some members of the House have taken offence. I have instructed the Hon Trevor Mallard to stand and withdraw that remark.Chris Hipkins: He shouldn’t have to.Mr SPEAKER: Chris Hipkins will immediately leave the Chamber.Chris Hipkins withdrew from the Chamber.Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Trevor Mallard stand and withdraw that remark.Hon Trevor Mallard: I decline to. It was not unparliamentary.Mr SPEAKER: Then the Hon Trevor Mallard will leave the Chamber.Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. May I remind you that when Mr Mallard was taking his point of order I was calling at the same time. That is why—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not see that and that has been established. Now would the member give his point of order and do it rapidly.Rt Hon Winston Peters: You have made a ruling based on an appeal by Mr Brownlee whose integrity in respect of that appeal was destroyed when he attacked both the Labour Party and the Greens during his complaint. Therefore if that was a valid complaint he made why did you not rule him out of order at the time?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let me explain it very carefully. As I mentioned earlier supplementary questions are questions that I need to make a relatively quick decision on. For that particular supplementary question when I reflected on it and listened to Mr Brownlee’s point of order I reconsidered my original decision and ruled the question out of order. That is the end of that matter. With regard to Mr Brownlee then straying into some further superfluous information after his point of order that was not helpful and on that occasion I stood and told Mr Brownlee to cease.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a separate point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I am looking forward to it.Grant Robertson: During the exchange that took place before Anne Tolley made a statement suggesting that the Labour Party took cash for policy. I take great offence at that and I would ask that it be withdrawn.Mr SPEAKER: I certainly did not hear the interjection. If that interjection was made by the member she is now required to stand and withdraw that comment.Hon Anne Tolley: I withdraw.Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that he has not met with MrDonghua Liu at any other time to discuss immigration policy?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes I can.Grant Robertson: On how many occasions has Mr Liu raised or attempted to raise with him specific immigration cases?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have met Mr Liu on one occasion and it was on that occasion that he raised immigration issues. As far as I can recall that is the only time.