Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Shearer David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 21 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4533. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because they are hard-working Ministers focused on building a brighter future for New Zealanders. 
David Shearer 
: Did the Minister for Social Development abuse her power when she released the personal private details of an individual? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. The matter has been looked at by the human rights director and the case has now been settled. 
David Shearer 
: Is he still comfortable as he said with his Minister releasing personal private information as he said he was at the time or has he changed his view? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am comfortable with the actions of the Minister and that is why there was an agreed position by all the parties involved in this case. 
David Shearer 
: Is he confident that the Minister is unlikely as he put it to release private and personal information again as he is reported as saying given that she said she would do it again depending on the circumstances? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Minister has indicated to me that she is unlikely to do it again. 
David Shearer 
: Does a Minister releasing personal private information for political gain meet the standard to which he holds Ministers to account? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If one looks at the politically motivated campaign that was run around this issue there is at least a bit of context there. But as we can see from the director of human rights there was no case to answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Land Information when that Minister with plenty of time to prepare gave the House seriously erroneous information about a major court case? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I understand it the Minister did make an error but he also came down to the House and corrected that error. That is the normal and standard procedure and I remember other members of this House having to make similar corrections to their answers from time to time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he have confidence in the Minister for Land Information when the Minister told the House last week that the Overseas Investment Office was powerless to act while a stay was placed on four farms owned by May Wang yet later told the  
New Zealand Herald  
that his officials were working on getting the farms sold before the case against Mrs Wang is complete? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not going to go into the individual details but I am confident that the Minister has carried out his duties as required by the law and in a professional manner. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You recall the Prime Minister saying that the Minister for Land Information came down and gave this House an explanation. You recall very well because you were involved in the two points of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] No. Order! I am on my feet. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! No. Order! This is question time. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet and the member is trying to question the answer the Prime Minister gave. The member asked how the Prime Minister has confidence given these factors. The Prime Minister explained in his answer why he has confidence. That is the end of the answer to that question. It is in the hands of members the precision of the questions they ask. When they ask how the Prime Minister can have confidence in some Minister there may be a whole range of reasons why the Prime Minister has confidence in a Minister. On this occasion I believe that the Prime Minister said he thought the Minister had complied with the requirements of the law and that is why he had confidence in him. If the members want particular answers they have got to be very particular about the wording in the questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You would know full well that he came down and he gave an explanation which you recall we allowed to happen— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] The member will resume his seat. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member is litigating an answer by way of a point of order. That is totally outside the Standing Orders of this House. The member has been here just as long as I have. He knows that the Standing Orders do not provide for that. The Prime Minister answered the member’s question. The member asked how he can have confidence in the Minister given certain circumstances and the Prime Minister answered why he had confidence in the Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Land Information on the basis that he came down to the House and gave an explanation when that explanation demonstrably and palpably was wrong and false in every respect as to the court case’s timing? How can he have confidence on that basis? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member would really need to direct that at the Minister involved but my understanding is that the Minister— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the second week I have asked these same simple questions and now we are being fobbed off on the basis that I should ask someone else. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] If the member does not resume his seat while I am on my feet he will be leaving this Chamber. I am not going to tolerate it any further. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! And the member will stop interjecting. Goodness! This is Parliament. We have just had a serious debate about New Zealanders losing their lives overseas and we carry on like spoilt brats. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will leave the Chamber. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will leave the Chamber and if he carries on like that he will be named. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to look carefully at what just happened. You invoked people fighting for freedom and at the same time stopped a member asking a question which was a real one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Speaker did not stop the member asking the question at all. The member asked his question and the Prime Minister started answering it. The member actually was concerned about the way the Prime Minister was answering and had the legitimate right to raise a point of order which he did but then he sought to use the point of order the wrong way. What he could have done in his point of order was argue that the Prime Minister was not answering the question. I would have had some sympathy for that because the question asked how the Prime Minister could have confidence in a Minister and that is something the Prime Minister is responsible for. But a member has to comply with the Standing Orders and I will not tolerate in this House the point of order process being abused like that. And I will not tolerate members just answering back from their seats. The member has an absolute right to raise a point of order but it must be focused on what the Prime Minister is doing. He could have in my view raised a legitimate point of order because the Prime Minister was starting to answer in a way that perhaps was not appropriate. The Prime Minister is responsible for his confidence in Ministers and therefore to answer that the question was better directed at the Minister in question was perhaps not an appropriate answer to a question asking about the Prime Minister’s confidence. But the member asking the question did not pursue the point of order correctly. He tried to litigate information instead of questioning the Prime Minister’s answer and then proceeded to argue with the Chair. I am simply not going to tolerate that. In the last few days I have continued to receive numerous communications from members of the public who are concerned about the behaviour in their House. We need to pick up our standards a little. I do not want to turn this place into some boring place but we need to pick up our standards a little and that is not the way to do it. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am sure you will go in the fullness of time and reflect on what has taken place this afternoon as you always do. In looking at that tape I would urge you to look at my answer. The member was asking me a question that really spoke to the motivations of a Minister as he was answering a question in this House last week. The point I was making to him was that I was not the person to do that but I was about to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I must not allow any member to litigate even their own answers. The question—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! No the Prime Minister must not do that either. The member’s question was absolutely in order because he asked why the Prime Minister has confidence in his Minister given certain circumstances. That was absolutely within order to ask the Prime Minister that question. And the Prime Minister perhaps got his answer in the wrong order; perhaps he should have answered why he has confidence and then suggested that for the detail of the matter questions should be referred to the Minister. That is where I think there could have been a legitimate point of order raised. But the issue remains that he will not litigate answers in that manner and we will not behave in that manner in the House.