Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6123] 
2.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Following his reply to question for written answer No. 253 lodged on 13 February 2003 what is the total value of contracts Te Mangai Paho let to Maori Sportscasting International over the last 3 years through to 13 February and does he stand by the answer he supplied on 19 February 2003? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 No. As I have indicated in my replacement answer to question for written answer No. 253 which I lodged today the total value of contracts Te Mangai Paho let to Maori Sportscasting International over the last 3 years was $709540. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why has it taken the Minister so long to come down to this House to apologise for incorrect answers when he accepted the apology of Te Puni Kokiri head Mr Leith Comer on 30 May for having embarrassed him with incorrect answers; and when will he make a proper apology? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is likely to invite disorder if a member asks when a Minister will make an apology after the Minister has been denied leave to do precisely that.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Certainly the member has some validity in his point of order. However the question was asked and can be answered and the Minister can reply. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I said yesterday in the House I had instructed my officials to assess those answers to parliamentary questions in the light of the external review report. I also said that my officials were also reviewing the other 200 parliamentary questions relevant to Te Mangai Paho since 2003 in order to find out whether any corrected replies are required and that is what I tried to do at the outset of the House. I want to thank that member while I am on my feet for the note he sent the review team thanking them for a job well done.  
Mahara Okeroa 
: Will the Minister provide corrected replies to parliamentary questions for written answer concerning Te Mangai Paho if they are found to be incorrect? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes. As I said in my statement in answer to the previous question I have answered over 200 written questions on Te Mangai Paho. I have already lodged corrections to a number of those answers—five today. As information comes to hand that any further answers are incorrect I will immediately move to correct them. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Could I ask the Minister whether he could tell the House when—on what date—he discovered that his reply to question for written answer No. 253 was incorrect; and what steps he took at that time to correct his response? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The reply to question for written answer No. 253 was given to me at a meeting where I and one of my staff members were with the board chair and chief executive on 20 February 2003.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be quite a stretch for anyone to accept that as an answer to the question just asked. It certainly did not address the question which related to when the Minister was advised the answer was of an incorrect nature. If the Minister knew in fact that the answer was incorrect as far back as February then I think he is in considerable difficulty. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister said that he was given an answer on 20 February. That is perfectly specific. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was the date on which the Minister found out that the answer was wrong. The Minister’s answer said he found that out on the day he received it. In that case why did he submit it to this House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right. I will ask the Hon Parekura Horomia if he would clarify the answer. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I tried to say at the outset of this day that quite certainly the review has brought about two parts: one the forensic check-up on Mr Tame Te Rangi’s computer and the other the issues that have come out in the review. The answers to that question are in the answers I have forwarded to the Clerk today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked “on what date”. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He was asked for the date on which he found the answer was wrong. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Shortly after. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister’s answer is that he found out that the answer he gave to this Parliament was wrong “shortly after”. Now I struggle to understand when he found out the answer was wrong—shortly after what? Was it shortly after I had said to him it was wrong shortly after he delivered it to Parliament or shortly after he received his report? What sort of answer is that from a Minister who has been caught misleading this Parliament? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the Minister gave an answer. There can be further supplementary questions. He addressed the question. He might not have satisfied the member with the answer but then the member can carry on further. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I do not think we should challenge the credibility of the House to that extent. It is not an answer with due respect to say “shortly after” when he was asked when he found out a particular event. That is not acceptable and I think it lowers the standards of this House if we let that pass as an accepted answer. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There are a number of matters in here that are actually quite important ones. The first is that it is not a matter for members of this House to judge whether something is not acceptable. I have heard these phrases used rather frequently over recent weeks: “We find this answer unacceptable” and “We find this unacceptable”. Mr Speaker that is only up to you. You are the only person who can determine whether something in this House is acceptable; no other member of the House can make that judgment. Secondly the important point is whether the question was addressed and not whether the answer was one that members found satisfactory. The answer was “shortly after”. Members may now wish to ask the rather obvious question: shortly after what? [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no interjection during points of order and that is the last warning for one member. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If I was still in Opposition I would be happy to give those members some lessons on how to ask questions like that quickly instead of spending all their time trying to get there by way of points of order. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I think a possible explanation of this train of events is that the Minister may have misheard or misunderstood my supplementary question. I was going to ask whether the order of the House might best be served if I was to repeat the supplementary question and give him another opportunity to respond to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can ask a further supplementary question. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Can I seek leave for that course? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member seeks leave. Is there any objection? There is. I just want to say that as far as the member is concerned he is perfectly entitled to ask a supplementary question. I want to make one point. If I start ruling on how adequate an answer is that goes right against every Speaker’s ruling that has occurred since I have been in this House. The Speaker is not required to judge the adequacy of the answer but to judge whether the question has been addressed. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Opposition gets a certain number of questions in a day and you keep a very strict tally on that. Dr Cullen is asking that you accede by way of a ruling that when a Minister is asked for the date on which something happened the response can be “shortly after”— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Or “Green cheese”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Ken Shirley will leave the House. I will not have any interjections during points of order. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It was a valuable contribution. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was not. The member will please leave. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: You can say “rhubarb” “green cheese” or whatever you like. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please leave or he will be named. 
Hon Ken Shirley withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: The Opposition has a certain number of questions in a day which you keep a very strict tally of Mr Speaker. If a Minister when asked for the date that something occurred or the date he was made aware of something says by way of answer “shortly after” and Dr Cullen’s view is that that is acceptable because the Opposition can then ask the obvious question “Shortly after what?” then that brings the House into disrepute. Ministers are effectively answering questions in a way that they know for the information to be given will cost the Opposition another question. I believe that at the end of the day you have a responsibility to uphold the rights of the minority in this House. Lots of questions ask about the day that something occurred and if Ministers answer “shortly after” or “just before” those sorts of answers make this place a nonsense. I appeal to you Mr Speaker to think of the rights of the Opposition parties. This is our only forum in which to ask questions. If we are denied that right by that sort of tactic then there is no point in question time at all. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What is really threatening to make this place a nonsense—and a number of members have received a lot of correspondence on this—is the continued raising of points of order that merely repeat a matter raised in a previous point of order that has already been ruled on. I suggest that we have an endless waste of time in question time well beyond what is reasonable because members will not accept the rulings that are given. 
Ron Mark 
: In support of the concerns expressed by the Hon Roger Sowry I ask you Mr Speaker to look at Standing Order 372(1). That Standing Order states: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” I put it to you Mr Speaker that the gamesmanship that is going on here in a play on the simple ruling that you are not responsible for the quality of the answer—which might even lead some to conclude that the standard is that there is no standard—means that when one reflects on that Standing Order surely one cannot support the line that has been suggested by the Leader of the House. 
Stephen Franks 
: I wonder whether it might help Mr Speaker if you were able to indicate those occasions on which it would be possible to ask another supplementary question without affecting the availability of subsequent questions to a party. I believe that that might be a straightforward way around this situation whereby you are not required to rule on the adequacy of the reply. That would enable you to give an indication when it appeared that a reply may be trifling with the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised a very valid point. I gave a full ruling on that matter some weeks ago and I have repeated it a few times subsequently. If I think there is a trifling with the House then I will certainly not count that in a party’s allocation of questions. All I would like to say to the Minister of Maori Affairs is that perhaps he may want to give just a little more extension to his original answer. That just might help a little but it is up to the Minister whether he wishes to do so. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I was about to say earlier on the timing of a lot of these questions from the two members who have been leading the entry are on what dates—when and where? I well understood that I was to give the correct answers. We worked talked and discussed in February—earlier this year. Over a period of time there has been information that has not been correct and I have lodged that correctly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is there any sense in asking him whether “shortly after” is after 20 February because it assumes that it is a date after 20 February or is this sort of inverse racism the kind of thing that the Prime Minister tolerates in her administration? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the second part of that question is out of order. The first part may be answered. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: If there was enough sense in that it was after the 22nd. 
Rodney Hide 
: Given that the Minister tells this House that he found out that his answers to this House— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague Rodney Hide but after numerous points of order and a question as to when after 20 February the Minister learnt the truth—because that was the clear inference from his original answer and he said shortly after the 22nd—we are no wiser. With the greatest respect my point regarding the Prime Minister is correct. It is my belief that that sort of behaviour is an acceptance of a performance that you would not accept from anybody else and it is inverse racism of the very worst sort. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes it is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not argue with me when I am on my feet or he will not be here in the House for very much longer. The member gave an answer to a question. I am not judging the quality of the answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: Given that he found out his replies to questions in this House were incorrect “shortly after” why did he tell the House in respect of those very questions yesterday in answer to question for oral answer No. 6 “the advice given to me at the time was correct” when clearly the advice he was given was incorrect and he knew that it was incorrect because the Te Puni Kokiri head had apologised to him on 30 May for giving him incorrect advice? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I think the member has asked the question in answer to himself. That is correct. There were mistakes in the information given to me. I received this material on Monday 9 June which is a summary of all the correct answers I hope to date. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know where to go for advice. I honestly do not. Yesterday the Minister told us that the advice given to him at that time was correct. So OK— 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That’s right! 
Rodney Hide 
: So the advice was correct back then but it is not correct now? Do you see the dilemma we get into Mr Speaker? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not here to judge the quality of the answers. I am here to see that the question is addressed and it was. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: By his earlier response that he learnt that the answer supplied by him to question for written answer No. 253 was incorrect “shortly after” and given that he yesterday told the House his answers were correct does his answer mean he found out shortly after he gave his answer yesterday—or was he referring to some other date on which he found out—that his answer to question for written answer No. 253 was wrong; if so what was that date? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No. In the sense of the response and the mistakes made I corrected them like I said—as I have lodged this morning and as I was trying to explain at the beginning of this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In most Parliaments and it used to include this one this sort of question and answer session when the date was itemised would see a potential breach of privilege case. Now with what we have seen eventuate here there is no possibility of that because no answer has been given at all after about 20 minutes of questioning on the issue including a series of points of order. Whatever the requirements of the Minister may or may not be there cannot be a circumstance where he can avoid an allegation of a breach of privilege because he has failed to give a certain specific date which has now been asked for about five times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot talk about breach of privilege here in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I know that and the Clerk knows I know that. I am saying that by this procedure and your failing to ensure that the Minister gives an answer to Parliament and this country he avoids what would be a potential regulatory mechanism against his non-performance. That is a new phenomenon in this Parliament or any other Parliament for that matter—that is when a person could be gravely implicated because a date is important he fails to give the date even after numerous questions. That is what has crept into this Parliament. I want to know how that complies with any past Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings have not basically changed in that regard since I have been in this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Maybe it is just the way that they are being interpreted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not correct. I know that I interpret the Standing Orders in the same way as my predecessors did. I have the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings there to guide me and I have a very good Clerk of the House who can give me assistance. However I accept that what I say is my responsibility and no one else’s. The member can bring up the issue in the general debate or the debate on the Crown entities. It is a debating matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can do all that but I cannot seek a refuge somewhere else to get action because the critical item of information the date is being denied us. That is my very point. That was never envisaged in Speakers’ rulings or the Standing Orders in this or any other Parliament. I want to know how we have got as far as this down the track and though Mr McCully again specifically asked for the date in the third part of his question he was not given it. In my view that does not comply with the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does because the Minister addressed the question with an answer. The quality of the answer is nothing to do with me. That is for the House to judge. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you are correct and I assume that you may be my question is this: what is the date that Mr Horomia has given in this House? If he has not given that date when it was specifically asked for—and he did not say that he would refuse to answer the question—then surely he has not complied with the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He has and I judged— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is the date then? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. The Minister has complied with the Standing Orders. He gave a date and he then gave an answer to another question. That of course is open to debate. 
Rodney Hide 
: On what date did the Minister of Maori Affairs learn that his reply to question for written answer No. 253 supplied to this House on 19 February concerning the number and value of contracts let by Te Mangai Paho to Maori Sportscasting International was incorrect? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have the total summary here corrected completely I hope on 9 June. I am prepared to table this in what I was to lead with which has the information in it. I repeat again I have the summary after that member thanked the people for the rigour and the job well done in getting that summary together through the review. I have got it here. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was a simple one—that is on what date? Not once did the Minister indicate the date on which he— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully. The Minister said “9 June.” 
Rodney Hide 
: No he didn’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said “9 June.” I heard that date. 
Rodney Hide 
: If he said that he is dead. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said “9 June.” I heard him give a date. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The 9 June date relates to the date of the documentation that he was seeking to table. It is not the critical date that is being sought here. The date that is being sought is the date that the Minister learnt that his information was incorrect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I understood the Minister to say quite clearly that that was the date. That was what I understood him to say. If he did not then perhaps he could indicate to the House whether what I understood was correct. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is what I said and I have this document here that I am prepared to table. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is this House to take from you and the Minister of Maori Affairs that he first learnt that the reply to question for written answer No. 253 was incorrect on 9 June 2003—yes or no? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is up to the Minister as to how he answers the question. I cannot put the answer into his mouth. I heard an answer. I heard a date given. I assumed that was it. I then asked the Minister whether he was correct. He gave an answer.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the date is 9 June then how come it post-dates the explanation from Leith Comer the head of his department alerting him to the fact that he was incorrectly answering parliamentary questions? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is when it was confirmed on a whole lot of other issues too—not just that question specifically. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Do I understand the Minister to now be telling the House that it is his belief that when Mr Comer his chief executive took responsibility for incorrect answers being given on behalf of the department to the Minister—which the Minister then gave to the House—Mr Comer was not telling the truth; if that is the case what steps is he taking against Mr Comer as a result of his giving an untruthful explanation at that time? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Mr Comer did not have all the information at the time that he made that statement. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister of Maori Affairs now confirm to this House that he first learnt that his reply to question for written answer No. 253 supplied to this House on 19 February this year was incorrect on 9 June 2003? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is what I said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the Minister repeat that please. I had not finished calling him. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is what I said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He confirms that.