Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Harawira Hone: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18334] 
12. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Acting 
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does the survey and drilling arrangement between the Government and Petrobras have the prior and informed consent of Te Whanau-a-Apanui; if not will this lack of consent breach the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 No. 
Hone Harawira 
: Did the Minister consult with the Maori Party before calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Te Whanau-a-Apanui and what consultation will the Minister engage in with the Maori Party before calling out the armed forces against the tangata whenua of Te Tau Ihu— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask the relevance of any questions in respect of the Maori Party as the Minister has no responsibility for the Maori Party and what we do honourable as it is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is perfectly within the member’s right to ask whether a Minister consulted with the Maori Party. There is some question though over the wording of the supplementary question the member has asked. I ask him to reword his supplementary question to make sure that it links pretty closely to the primary question but he certainly is entitled to ask whether a Minister has consulted with another party. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Did the Minister consult with the Maori Party before calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Te Whanau-a-Apanui and what consultation will the Minister engage in with the Maori Party should the Minister call out the armed forces against the tangata whenua Te Tau Ihu if they decide to challenge the Government’s decision to grant survey and drilling permits to the Chinese-backed Australian mining company Greywolf Goldmining? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I have no responsibility for the operational arrangements of the New Zealand Police. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Minister know that calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Tuhoe and Te Whanau-a-Apanui has seriously undermined the relationship between Maori and the Government’s coalition partners in the Maori Party and what formal protest was lodged by the Maori Party about the Government’s actions being in breach of the coalition agreement which states: “The relationship between the Maori Party and the National Party will be one of good faith and no surprises.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question is not within the Standing Orders so I do not see any ministerial responsibility in any part of that question. However if the member can bring a question within the Standing Orders I am prepared to allow him to ask one but it is his last question. 
Hone Harawira 
: Can the Minister advise whether any formal protest was lodged with the Minister by the Maori Party about the Government’s actions in calling out the New Zealand armed forces against Te Whanau-a-Apanui being in breach of the coalition agreement which states that “The relationship between the Maori Party and the National Party will be one of good faith and no surprises?”. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I answered before I have no operational responsibility in energy and resources for those operational decisions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question asked whether the Maori Party had protested to the Minister about something that had taken place. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question is set down to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. The question was about the Defence Force and its involvement. How can the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources have any responsibility for the Defence Force? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need further help. The final question simply asked whether the Maori Party had protested to this Minister. It is pretty easy to answer that question—either it has or it has not. The focus of the question was not on the details of who called out either the police or the Defence Force it was simply whether this Minister had received protests from anyone and that does not seem unreasonable. It may be that she did not receive any protests at all. Anyway I would have thought that it is not a difficult question to answer. It does not need to involve any answer in respect of the police or the Defence Force. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked about a protest about specific activities for which I have no responsibility so why would a protest be made to me about matters outside my portfolio? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is absolutely appropriate that as the Minister who is generally responsible for these mining and drilling issues the Maori Party should approach her about the Government’s approach on these matters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is an interesting issue. The Minister raises a reasonable point. Although I argued that she should answer in respect of whether a party had protested to her if it was about nothing to do with her responsibilities then I think it is a valid point that she is not answerable for that. I think I have to accept the point made by the honourable Minister. Ministers are answerable only on issues for which they have ministerial responsibility. The Minister cannot be asked whether some other member or party had protested to her about something she has no responsibility for. Certainly as I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Minister herself pointed out whoever was called out in relation to this particular event was nothing to do with the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. I think I have to accept that the Minister’s point of order is a fair and reasonable point of order and that I am in error in suggesting that she should answer the question. I accept her point that in fact she has no ministerial responsibility. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to disagree with the ruling you have just made and I know I am treading on some tight ground here. Under the delegated arrangements the Minister does have responsibility for permitting drilling and supervision. It would be entirely proper for the Minister of Defence to consult her about the security arrangements for that. It would be entirely proper for the Commissioner of Police to consult her on security. It is also entirely proper for the arrangements around security to be the subject of a protest from any member of Parliament to her. Members can do so if they want to. She could send them away and say “It’s none of my business.” but they could still approach her. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes some good points. I think he is correct that the Minister could have been asked whether certain Ministers who were responsible for those actions consulted her but that is not what this question asked. The question asked specifically whether anyone had protested to the Minister about the calling out of either the police or the Defence Force—I am not sure who was involved. I think that is where the question erred. If the question had been more along the lines that the member has suggested in the first part of his point of order I think I would have been more insistent on the Minister answering it. But I do accept the point of order made by the Minister that I cannot ask her to answer on the matter when she has no ministerial responsibility for whether those authorities were called out in this instance. I have to accept that. I think it would be inappropriate for me as Speaker to do otherwise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I suggest on the basis that both you and I originally thought that the original supplementary question was an answer that you let Mr Harawira have another crack at it. He could ask whether the Minister was advised that the Maori Party had protested. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Nice try but I think I was pretty generous to Mr Harawira. I invited him to reword his question and I think I have been reasonable. [ 
Interruption 
] I believe I have been reasonable on this and I accept unreservedly the point of order raised by the Minister. I think I would be erring if I did not do that. I think that is where the matter should lie today.