5. Question No. 5—Regional Economic DevelopmentCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 5—Regional Economic Development5. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: When did he become aware of N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd's application to the Provincial Growth Fund and what prompted him to get Cabinet Office advice relating to a potential conflict of interest? Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: I have known about Mr David Henry and Brian Henry's wood processing ambitions for several years. I first declared my association with Brian Henry as a potential conflict with the Cabinet Office in 2017 after becoming a Minister. Upon returning from a personal holiday in October 2019 I was informed by my office of an application involving Brian and David Henry that was soon to come to the regional economic development Ministers for consideration. On that same day—14 October—I wrote to the Cabinet Office declaring this conflict and recusing myself from any decisions about it. The decision by other Ministers to decline the application in accordance with the recommendation of the provincial development unit thereafter occurred on 7 November 2019. Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you to the Minister for that very informative reply but the first part of the question is quite important which was about when he became aware of the N.Z. Future Forest Products' application to the Provincial Growth Fund. There was I think a reference to—Rt Hon Winston Peters: He told you. Chris Bishop: No no. There was a reference to an awareness of Mr Henry's ambitions for a number of years but not specifically about the application. SPEAKER: I think there was a date given but can we just have it reinforced that that was the date the Minister became aware of it. Hon DAVID PARKER: I think the relevant part there was I first … declared my association with Brian Henry as [giving rise to] a potential conflict with the Cabinet Office in 2017 after becoming a Minister." SPEAKER: No that doesn't address the question and I think the second part of the answer may have. Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of the first date—that he was aware that there was an application coming for consideration by Ministers—it was on 14 October. Chris Bishop: Is he aware of whether he was the only Minister or Parliamentary Under-Secretary to declare a conflict of interest in relation to the application for provincial growth funding and if there is another Minister or Parliamentary Under-Secretary who has declared a conflict who is it? Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for that matter. Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order the Minister surely has responsibility for awareness of that fact. The Deputy Prime Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister yesterday made reference in two supplementary questions to more than one Minister declaring a conflict in relation to the applications. So I think it's well within the—SPEAKER: And I think that is a responsibility of the Prime Minister. Matters to do with conflict and awareness of that are a matter for her department for advice and for the Cabinet Office for which some might say "Thank goodness Mr Jones doesn't have responsibility." Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We seek leave for an urgent question to be asked now of the Prime Minister on the matter you've just suggested is her responsibility. SPEAKER: The normal approach for an urgent question is very well set out in the papers and the member has until the end of question time to fulfil that. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I've sought leave. SPEAKER: Well there is no question—I mean you can't seek leave to ask a non-existent question. If the member gets the question in in the appropriate way it will be properly considered. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave of the House to ask the Prime Minister the question: was there other Ministers or Parliamentary Under-Secretaries—SPEAKER: "Were there other Ministers". Hon Gerry Brownlee: —were there—who declared a conflict of interest in this matter? SPEAKER: That matter is a question of leave. Is there any objection to that process? No there's not. Hon Gerry Brownlee: To the Prime Minister: were there other Ministers or Parliamentary Under-Secretaries who declared a conflict of interest in the matter being discussed as mentioned by the acting Prime Minister yesterday? Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will well know through questions that are being asked through written questions and through the House Ministers with decision-making power who have conflicts of interest transfer that decision-making power as is appropriate. Any other Ministers of course I would just expect to deal with the Cabinet Manual responsibilities in declaring conflicts of interest in the appropriate manner. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was an outline of process not an answer to the question. The question was: were there other Ministers or Parliamentary Under-Secretaries? SPEAKER: And the Prime Minister—leave having been given—should address that. It might be that the Prime Minister is not aware of anyone else who did it but—Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To the best of my knowledge the only Minister with a conflict of interest transferred decision making to another Minister. SPEAKER: Thank you. The member wants to go back now? Chris Bishop: Well that was a sort of—SPEAKER: Does the member want to continue the previous question? Chris Bishop: Yeah that's right. That was a sort of interregnum right? We're still on the—Hon Gerry Brownlee: It was an extra. SPEAKER: It's a novel approach but I'm being exceptionally flexible with the Opposition today. Chris Bishop: Well thank you Mr Speaker. Did he advocate to decision-making Ministers about the merits or otherwise of N.Z. Future Forest Products Ltd's application to the Provincial Growth Fund? Hon DAVID PARKER: No. Further in preparation for this question I also inquired whether the Minister had any discussions with the provincial development unit regarding the application and I can also confirm that the Minister had none of them either. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm that the request for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) to conduct an investigation would mean the SFO would have to be investigating into why the application failed—surely a comedic outcome? SPEAKER: Order! That may or may not be an appropriate question for a Minister with responsibility for the SFO—[Interruption]—but it is certainly—[Interruption] Oh for goodness' sake! But it is certainly not a responsibility of Mr Jones. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think on reflection that question raises quite a concern because the Deputy Prime Minister has just suggested that there has been a request for a Serious Fraud Office investigation into this matter. Now if that's the case then it's not known to us and I think it should be known to the House. So can we get a clarification on that? SPEAKER: Well I think some of us just need to read the paper but Mr—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. The person that suggested that was Mr Bishop himself. Chris Bishop: I did not. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes you did. Chris Bishop: Completely wrong—completely wrong. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Showing how dumb you are.Chris Bishop: Completely wrong. SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Bishop has made it clear to the House that he has made no such request and that is the end of the matter. Chris Bishop: Did someone say to him that there may be a potential conflict of interest in him considering the application from Future Forest Products Ltd; if so who was that person? Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said in the primary answer the Minister or I—speaking on behalf of him—was aware from the start of our term in Government that the potential for a conflict of interest arose which was why notice was given for that in 2017. I further said that when I returned from holiday on 14 October my office advised me that an application was pending and that that meant that there was perhaps a real conflict of interest. That was declared I recused myself from the decision and the decision was taken thereafter by other Ministers who turned the application down. Chris Bishop: Did officials recommend to the regional economic development Ministers considering the Future Forest Products' application that the company should receive funding? Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister answering the question is not actually David Parker; it is Shane Jones. David Parker is answering on his behalf and it's very clear that the Minister has recused himself from consideration of the matter. He therefore cannot answer the question about what advice the Ministers who did make the decision received. Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order the Minister has recused himself—as I understand it based on Dr David Clark's answers yesterday and written questions—from considering the application to the Provincial Growth Fund but he still has responsibility for the advice provided by officials to the wider regional economic development Ministers' meeting. It's true that Mr Jones recused himself from that meeting but he must still have advice for the provincial development unit's recommendations to that committee. SPEAKER: OK OK. I don't want to litigate a question by a way of point of order but I think that the Minister answering on behalf of Mr Jones had already indicated by way of his research something which might help us clear up this point of order. Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said in response to an earlier question in preparation for question time on behalf of the Minister I did inquire whether the Minister had any discussions with the provincial development unit regarding the application and I repeat that I can advise the House that he had none. SPEAKER: Right. So I think—Chris Bishop: Mr—SPEAKER: Well is this to the point of order or what are we doing? Chris Bishop: Well it's just a point of order to point out that that doesn't address or answer the question which is about what the officials' recommendation to the ministerial group was. SPEAKER: Well no I think we've dealt with that as well. I think there's a basic problem here sometimes with members not listening to answers. I mean I heard the Minister acting on behalf of Mr Jones say that the officials recommended that it not be approved. Is that—did I hear that correctly? Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes. SPEAKER: Well that's the end of it really isn't it? Chris Bishop: Is he aware of why Dr David Clark said yesterday in question time in relation to this matter that he declined the Provincial Growth Fund application when in reality it was declined by the regional economic development Ministers' group? Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has declared a conflict of interest. He is not responsible for the answers given by Dr David Clark who does have ministerial responsibility. The Minister now answering the question does not have responsibility for that. He's recused himself from it. SPEAKER: Well I think we might—I mean the member's absolutely right. I mean it is again—as I've now said I think for about the fourth time this week—sometimes really important that people listen to the answers if they want to stay within the bounds of order. Where there are some relatively complicated matters which go to the ethics and integrity of Ministers I think I am pretty flexible in allowing appropriate questions to be asked but where it's been made clear that Ministers were not involved in decisions and not involved in meetings they can't be asked about why those decisions were made. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One of the problems that we face here is that—firstly can I just concede that you are right. It is an important issue. It is a complex issue. There is potential for significant reputational damage if it is perceived in a particular way. But the House is not helped in trying to clarify matters by successive Ministers acting on behalf of a Minister. Now I accept that in this case matters pertaining to the decision were transferred to another Minister—that's fine. But when the other Minister is further transferring responsibility for answering questions on a particular day to another Minister again then I think it's very hard to keep a consistency on who said what. The point that was just made by Mr Bishop was that Dr David Clark yesterday presumably acting as the Minister to whom the responsibility was transferred said that he made the decision. Now asking the Minister David Parker today answering presumably on behalf of Dr Clark the same question—Hon Grant Robertson: He's answering on behalf of Shane Jones. Hon Gerry Brownlee: —we get a different answer. Now that's not reasonable. SPEAKER: No. I think I'm ready to deal with it and I don't think I need the help of the Minister of Finance. I think it was clear to all of the House yesterday that the request went to a group of Ministers which Dr Clark was a member of and that group was the group responsible for turning it down and that Mr Jones was not part of that. If members want to look at Speaker's ruling 156/3 they'll be able to work out why Mr Jones has no responsibility for Dr Clark."