Peters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 23 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4610. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker tēnā hoki koe te kaiwhiu pātai.[Thank you Mr Speaker and to you as well the questioner.]Yes in the context that they were given.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he give an assurance to the Māori Affairs Committee that his staff had not questioned the composition of the panel for the Native Affairs Whānau Ora debate when that answer was false?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: As I said in the context that they were given at that particular point in time in front of the Māori Affairs Committee that was the information that I had. On returning to my office afterwards to respond to questions given by the member Ms Curran I found out about an email tree and since then that has now become part of the record of Parliament.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is so why when he was specifically asked subsequent to the Māori Affairs Committee meeting “did he or his office discuss the planned Native Affairs debate on Whānau Ora?” did he answer no when he knew that answer was also false?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: If the member is asking about my response in the select committee I answered no because I believed that to be—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I am going to invite the member the Rt Hon Winston Peters to repeat that question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why when he was specially asked “did he or his office discuss the planned Native Affairs debate on Whānau Ora?” which is in the Hansard did he answer no when he knew that answer was also false?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: At that point in time I did not as I have explained have that information to hand and I found that out subsequently.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he tell this House on 17 June which is the Hansard for the last question that his office “also told Māori Television … that I”—that is him as Minister—“was prepared to appear on that programme.” when that answer was again false?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The staff have advised me that the events of my appearing on that programme are as follows. On 14 May Māori Television’s Native Affairs made a request to myself. There was an interaction between my staff and Māori Television of which I was aware as often happens. On 14 May my staff responded affirmatively on my behalf to appearing on the programme. On 20 May we were advised by email that the programme had been pulled. That is as far as the information I had in front of me at the time.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is correct why did he tweet on 8 June—18 days after the programme was cancelled—that he had never been invited to talk in the Whānau Ora debate when he knew that information was again false?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The interplay that the member is referring to is an interplay between my staff member and Māori Television. I was unaware of it at the time and believed when it was tweeted that that was the correct situation.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why after seven emails between his office and Māori Television and within 1½ hours of seeing the chief executive of Māori Television was the proposed Whānau Ora debate torpedoed?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The accusations have been made that I interfered with television programming and I reject that absolutely. Just for the record the email exchange between the Native Affairs programming states something along the lines of: “We thought it timely to discuss the programme in greater depth”—in greater depth—“to get a better understanding of what Whānau Ora is how it operates what its intended outcomes are its successes or otherwise and areas of improvement/criticism.” The response from my press secretary was—and this is no direction whatsoever—“Just wondering what would be the purpose of this korero? I don’t think the issue will be covered in any depth if you have New Zealand First on it for example.” There is no direction in that.Marama Fox: Did you at any time direct your staff to interfere with the programming of Māori Television?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: The answer to that question is absolutely no. As I say the opportunity for press secretaries to engage with media outlets is a regular occurrence. They talk backwards and forwards all the time and at no point as I have just stated was there any directive given. In fact the response that came back from Māori Television on 20 May—just so the full record is noted—states: “A quick note to say that there has been a scheduling change here and so we’ve unfortunately had to cancel the planned Queen’s Birthday Whānau Ora discussion.” That should set the record straight.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Referring specifically to section 10(1) of that Act the Māori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Māori) Act which relates specifically to Ministers or their staff is it not a fact that he broke the law by committing an offence against section 10 of that Act—as clear as daylight—for which he should now resign?Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL: Today I am not feeling very happy about those sorts of accusations and I will just have to tell the member that I intend to stick around for as long as the Prime Minister wishes me to be here.