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: 13 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17731. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to thePrime Minister: Is his expressed confidence in the Minister of Justice because he has confidence in all of her statements made around the Oravida issue?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I have expressed confidence in the almost 6 years Judith Collins has been a Minister. She has made a significant contribution to the Government and New Zealand in the portfolios she has held. I have also expressed my disappointment in the Minister that the cumulative effect of her interactions with Oravida in China may give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest. It was unwise for the Minister to have put herself in this position. I made it clear to Ms Collins that she needs to better manage any situation that could give rise to a perception of a conflict.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case Prime Minister and that is all it is why did Judith Collins fail to honestly disclose the benefits she received which she is required to do under our law?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no responsibility for that. If the member is implying that she has some benefits that she should have put on her pecuniary interests that is a matter for the member.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Then why has he publicly and in this Parliament hitherto expressed confidence in Judith Collins when she has concealed pecuniary interests—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is exactly the sort of question I referred to in my substantive ruling. [Interruption] Order! The member will sit down.Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is an outrage.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that remark.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will withdraw and apologise. Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: And he will now resume his seat. That question is a direct reflection on a member of this House and I am ruling it out of order. The member may have further supplementary questions he can use but if that tone of questioning continues I will move to the next question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did Judith Collins according to this document here which is from the Registrar of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament in her declaration fail to declare pecuniary and other specified interests—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think we are going—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! I fear we are going down the same track but I am going to invite the member to ask his question again. Again if it has a personal reflection on a member of this House I will rule it out of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in Judith Collins when under this document—which I am happy to table and which you as Speaker would have read—she failed to declare pecuniary and other specified interests in her declaration to the registrar as were not disclosed in the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament 2013? I seek leave to table—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I ask the right honourable Prime Minister to answer the first part of the question—why can he have confidence in the Minister—which is perfectly in order I will say that if the member is making those sorts of allegations I remind the member of the proper way to do so and that is in writing to the Speaker at the earliest opportunity.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is obviously making some sort of allegation which he would need to substantiate. I have not seen any and he needs to show us.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in the Minister when as disclosed in this document which I am going to table the Minister failed to disclose as required by law substantial benefits and yet over 2 months earlier confidentially disclosed them to him as Prime Minister?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is the same answer as the one before.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wish to table two documents. One is Judith Collins’ return to the Registrar of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament 2013—Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no need to do that because that has been tabled.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Apparently there was.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That has been tabled already in this House. The second document?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek to table a report to Cabinet signed off by Judith Collins dated 7 November 2013 where she refers to confidentially—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. It is obviously a Cabinet report a travel document. Is it a Cabinet travel report?Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is a report to Cabinet. That is what I said at the start.Mr SPEAKER: That is right. So the document—Rt Hon Winston Peters: And I want to describe—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The purpose of tabling a document is to inform members. The member seeks leave to table a document. He gives a brief description so that members know what the document is. It is not the opportunity to make further political statements. It is the opportunity for me to decide whether that information would be valuable to members and then I put the leave. Leave is sought totable that particular Cabinet document. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister make that previous answer—that he had no knowledge—when under the document I have just tabled dated 7 November 2013—Hon Tau Henare: You said it was secret.Rt Hon Winston Peters: It was a confidential report to Cabinet—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Would the member carry on with his question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister claim to have no knowledge when the Minister of Justice advised him on the date I gave of the following: that the Chinese Government had provided to use her words “substantial support for all meetings accommodation in Beijing and transportation and facilitation …”—all of which are required to be declared to the Registrar of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We would have to go and check with the pecuniary interests register but if the member is basically making the allegation that because she was on a visit where there was a private meeting she used basically Government-funded things and that that is a pecuniary interest then my understanding is that amongst other things one of the dinners was actually in the hotel and she did not use any transport.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that I made no mention of any dinner or anything else. I am talking about substantial support—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is now disputing the answer that was given by the Prime Minister it is my job to rule here and in that case the Prime Minister addressed the question. The member will resume his seat. On that occasion the Prime Minister addressed the question—maybe not to the satisfaction of the member; that is very possible. The way forward is not to dispute the answer that was given by the Prime Minister but to ask further supplementary questions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has he claimed no knowledge of Judith Collins receiving the benefits that she referred to when she wrote to him months before the declaration giving evidence of benefits that are required to be declared and yet she did not publicly declare them when she returned that report at the end of 2013?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is not what I said. What I made quite clear was that I do not understand the information the member has got of the allegation at the time he actually asked that specific question. As I said he should have made those allegations. If there is some irregularity with her pecuniary interests we will have a look at them. On the face of it it does not actually sound like it to me but we will go and check it. From what I can see if the member could just speak a bit more clearly it might help everyone including the media.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it was good enough for other Ministers—and they all did including Mr Coleman—to declare such travel and hotel payments by other Governments because it is required under the law of this country to declare them why did that Minister not declare them and more important why when he found out much earlier that she did not declare them has he not sacked her?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We will need to check the specific details around the pecuniary interests. There are a whole lot of different rules that govern this area but I would not be entirely surprised if Mr Peters is completely utterly wrong like normal.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having received a copy of the pecuniary interests declaration which does not show these benefits required by law and knowing that on 7November the Prime Minister received a report of those benefits why was Judith Collins engaging in a cover-up and why did he as Prime Minister with that foreknowledge join that cover-up as well?Mr SPEAKER: That again is a very marginal question. I will leave it to the Prime Minister.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is no cover-up but because the member is I think actually failing to make much coherent sense at all maybe I will take the unusual step of asking the question and answering it. If the member is asking whether she should have included something in her pecuniary interests declaration the answer is that I do not know but guess what I will go and check.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—Brendan Horan.Brendan Horan: Thank you Mr Speaker.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I could have some assistance from David Bennett I would be grateful. Is this a point of order?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes it is a point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Then I will hear the point of order first.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I came to the House today with a copy of the 2013 pecuniary interests declaration that the Minister of Justice had completed. I came also with information that the Prime Minister knew months before that date—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member come to the point.Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point is in the interests of fairness why on earth did you stop me from asking legitimate questions?Mr SPEAKER: I am very tempted to ask the member to leave the House for that inference.Brendan Horan: If the leader of a party had a leader’s budget of say $2.5 million the equivalent to seven MPs and he used it as a private slush fund—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please resume his seat. There is no prime ministerial responsibility for the budget of a political party. That question is out of order.Grant Robertson: In light of his statement to the House last Wednesday in reference to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade papers released about Judith Collins’ trip to China that “all the way through it talks about a private dinner.” how does he explain the email exchanges as late as 16 October where the Minister’s office is asking why the dinner is not included in the official visit programme?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It was a generalisation. Maybe I should have said “most of the way through”.Grant Robertson: Are all of his answers about Judith Collins generalisations or does he actually have to answer the facts—that this was until 16 October an official dinner not a private dinner and that actually he misled Parliament last week?Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can answer any of those questions.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is quite wrong. In my opinion it has been a private dinner the whole way through.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table an email from the Minister of Justice’s office to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on 16 October asking why the dinner was not part of the visit programme.Mr SPEAKER: Before I put the leave is the member aware of whether that document has already been tabled in this House? [Interruption] Order! The member is seeking leave to table that particular email between the Minister of Justice’s office and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is worth noting—and perhaps you might like to clarify for members—that if members find that someone has done something that is irregular and is outside the Standing Orders for example matters relating to pecuniary interests the first point of call should be to the Privileges Committee not necessarily for the House at a much later time. The same would apply to the document that Mr Robertson received under the Official Information Act release some weeks ago.Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need assistance from the honourable member. If there are any suggested irregularities with the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament then the first port of call is actually to the Registrar of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament and that is to be undertaken as a confidential matter. As I pointed out in a substantive ruling earlier if there any serious allegations of potential corruption etc. then the way to raise those is directly with the Speaker at the earliest convenience.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was involved in the drafting of the Standing Order that you are referring to. Members have two choices. They have a choice of bringing something up for correction with the registrar and through the Privileges Committee through that route or all members have a right to bring up those matters in the House. But if they do they exclude their ability to take it to the Privileges Committee. They have always been left with the dual track.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his contribution.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can we have your view on that because you just got up and gave a ruling and said that MPs were prohibited from raising those issues in this House. Mr Mallard has rightly put what I understand to be the correct position and you have just previously warned members they cannot do that. He has put to you an alternative view that I think is correct. I want to know what your view is on that before someone else has to put up with wrong rulings from you as a Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise.Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. I invite the member to look at page 139 of the Standing Orders and it is in Appendix B from memory and to read clause 17. There he will see the procedure where there is any doubt around the way a register of interests has been filed by a member. The best course of action is to take it up with the registrar himself and we have that case with a report being tabled in this House I think at the beginning of last week on the first such investigation that the registrar undertook.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I make this comment only because I think it is starting to feel like you are being dragged into an arrangement where—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wonder why.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Rt Hon Winston Peters will leave the Chamber immediately. The member will leave the Chamber.Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber.Hon Tau Henare: Pick up the smoking gun on your way out.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the Hon Gerry Brownlee wish to continue with his point of order?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes. It is certainly making the point that—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am listening to a point of order at the moment.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Given that the line of questioning related to information that came from a Cabinet note about a Minister’s travel I think it is important to get on the public record so that there is no lack of clarity among those who might be reporting this afternoon that Ministers are not—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I have to ask another member to leave the Chamber for interjecting through a point of order I will not hesitate to do so. Would the member please carry on with his point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: The point is that Ministers are not required to declare ministerial travel on their private pecuniary interests. That is accounted for in another way and that is exactly how Mr Peters came by the information that he tried to suggest today was in fact a breach by the Hon Judith Collins. It was not.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point that the member has made.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Rt Hon Winston Peters are correct. Looking at page 138 Standing Order 16(1) it says that a member—Mr SPEAKER: Sorry can you give me that reference again?Hon David Parker: Standing Order 16(1) states on page 138: “A member who has reasonable ground to believe that another member has not complied with his or her obligations may request that the Registrar conduct an inquiry …”. It is not a must; there are alternatives.Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point that the member is making.Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you for fairness. You asked the Rt Hon Winston Peters to remove himself from this Chamber because he shouted out during a point of order. I ask you to remove the Hon Tau Henare for exactly the same reason when he shouted out across the Chamber while you were still on your feet.Mr SPEAKER: I think the member raises a fair point. The Hon Tau Henare does not help the situation by interjecting on a point of order. The right honourable member Winston Peters was not ejected from this House for speaking through a point of order; it was for the very derogatory comment he made with his interjection. [Interruption] Order! I will hear from Tracey Martin.Tracey Martin: The Rt Hon Winston Peters shouted out: “I wonder why.” Is that any less offensive than: “Pick up the smoking gun on your way out.”?Mr SPEAKER: On reflection I think the member makes a good point.Hon Tau Henare: If it helps I’ll go.Mr SPEAKER: And the Hon Tau Henare has beaten me to it.Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just speaking to the point of order that Gerry Brownlee raised earlier I want to make clear that in terms of what material that Ministers do have to place on their pecuniary interests I think it is interesting to note that the Prime Minister and others have declared on their pecuniary interests register where a foreign Government has contributed to travel costs for instance whereas I think Mr Peters was making the point that Ms Collins did not do that.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This might help clarify things. If one goes to the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament it quite clearly states in the overseas travel section: “You do not need to include overseas travel in this section if the costs were incurred by yourself a close family member the Crown or by agovernment a parliament or an international parliamentary organisation as part of an official parliamentary visit overseas.” It is not required.Mr SPEAKER: And there is one more point that is important here. There is not a prime ministerial or ministerial responsibility for a member’s failure around an inaccurate declaration of pecuniary interests. All members of Parliament here have a responsibility to fill in their pecuniary interest forms. That is their responsibility; it is then not a ministerial or prime ministerial responsibility.