Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 16 April 2014. Volume:698;Page:17315. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]6.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to theMinister of Justice: Why will she not identify the senior Chinese border official with whom she met on 20October 2013 and disclose the business that was discussed at the dinner with him that evening?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): It was a private dinner with friends the Chinese guest is entitled to privacy and no business was discussed.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When she spoke to the Prime Minister’s office and the Prime Minister did she provide it and him with all the facts and details so that he could make a prime ministerial decision on her behaviour?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has she repeated denials in this House when she knows that she was enlisted specifically to address issue 2 page 2 of the 6 August Oravida letter to the Hon Tim Groser and the Hon Nathan Guy about border testing?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is quite incorrect and he knows it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did she try to tell this House and the media and the country that she merely stopped off at Oravida on the way to the airport for a cup of tea or later that she merely went to a private dinner when she knew at the time the name and the status of the senior Chinese official and more particularly why she and he were at that meeting?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I actually had difficulty following what the member was saying. Perhaps you would like to try it again.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll repeat it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the best way forward. Would the right honourable gentleman repeat the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much. Why did she try to tell this House and the media and the country that she merely stopped off at Oravida on the way to the airport for a cup of tea or later that she merely went to a private dinner when she knew at the time the name and the status of the senior Chinese official and more particularly why she and he were at that meeting?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well I count at least three questions in that so I will deal with just one of them and the one that I will say is this: I do not try to say anything. Whatever I have said I have said.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to how does it work that she and her colleagues give Oravida $40000 of taxpayers’ money and then Oravida gives the National Party $56000—was that for services rendered by her to that company?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think that the member is confusing me with himself.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That cannot be a satisfactory answer to a serious question.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty was that it was not a very satisfactory question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Who says so?Mr SPEAKER: I did.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that is the case you should have said so before I gave the Minister a chance to speak.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I did not say that the question was out of order; I said that it was a question that was full of opinion and was alleging money-swapping from one to another. [Interruption] Order! If I am on my feet the Hon Ruth Dyson will remain quiet. So the question got an answer that addressed the question. It was not to the satisfaction of the member I accept but the question was addressed.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. These documents categorically set out that Oravida got $40000 from the taxpayer. Other publicity disclosed by Oravida says that it gave $56000 to the National Party—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member has documents he wants to table he should seek leave to do so.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am surprised that you made the comments about the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ question. A question might be about something distasteful but it does not make the question out of order in terms of the Standing Orders. Your comments implied that it did.Mr SPEAKER: No I was quite clear. I will relook at theHansard and I invite the member to do so. I did not rule the question out of order. I was quite clear about that when I spoke earlier.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just understand what the fresh point of order is?Hon David Parker: Your response to the Rt Hon Winston Peters was that he could not expect an answer because it was a distasteful question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member now is just trifling with the Chair. I said that the answer the Minister gave addressed the question within the frame it was asked. Question No. 7—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You do not mind if we have our quota of supplementary questions too do you?Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to take a supplementary question well he rises—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of course I do.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! The member has been here a long time. If the member wants to ask a supplementary question he rises to his feet and says “Supplementary question.”Rt Hon Winston Peters: You were in such a rush to move on. Now we know why. Is she telling the House that she has disclosed everything to the Prime Minister’s office and the Prime Minister because if that is the case both she and he are involved first in a deep conflict of interest and second in committing in her case and abetting in his case a corrupt action by the Minister?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well that question is so loaded with allegations that are false I cannot be bothered answering it.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to reflect on what is clearly concerning you which is a level of disorder in the House and from where that generates. It generates from a Minister who has simply over the last 2 weeks not been prepared to answer straight questions about her actions as a Minister on a ministerial trip to China. I ask you Mr Speaker what the remedy is for the Opposition when a Minister will not answer questions about the business she does on a ministerial trip.Mr SPEAKER: I would have thought that the remedy available to Opposition members is the one that they are using. My duty is to listen very carefully to the question and then to judge whether I think the Minister has addressed that question. Many times the answer that is given will not be of satisfaction to the questioner in this case the Opposition and then the tactic that is used is for the Opposition to continue to ask supplementary questions.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have previously ruled in this House that a Minister is entitled to use the defence that answering a question is “not in the public interest”. I seek your clarification of whether the phrase “I cannot be bothered.” is the same thing as “not in the public interest”.Mr SPEAKER: No. In my opinion it would not be.Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to hear a point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a speech about clean and open Government given by Judith Collins in Beijing.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that that speech has not been made freely available I will put the leave and it will be over to the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that particular speech. Is there—[Interruption] The Minister is saying that it is already a published speech.