Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5829] 
11.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Is he confident that Te Mangai Paho’s Chief Executive Mr Trevor Moeke is providing him with well-founded and accurate advice for his replies to written questions; if so why? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I am advised by my officials that every effort is made to ensure information provided for written questions is accurate and timely. 
Rodney Hide 
: How then does the Minister square his reply to question for written answer No. 257 in which he stated: “I am advised by my officials that there have been no payments of cash by Maori Sports Casting International ... to any employees of Te Mangai Paho.” with an email dated 15 October 2001 from Maori Sportscasting International to Te Mangai Paho’s radio manager Mr Tame Te Rangi which states: “Your payment for services will be placed into account this day. Hiamoe will have with him on his arrival the petrol vouchers/cash/copies of commentators instructions.”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It would appear from what the member is saying that I have not been provided with that full information. I would encourage the member to provide me with that information as I suggested at that time so that I can get to the bottom of any of those discrepancies. I assure him that I will do something about it. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: How many written questions concerning Te Mangai Paho has the Minister of Maori Affairs responded to since 17 February 2003? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have responded to over 100 written questions from Mr Hide and 200 from other members. That has cost the taxpayers a lot of resources and a lot of time. 
Katherine Rich 
: Who are the officials who advised the Minister that no cash payments had been made; have they told him yet that they misled him especially since they have released the smoking gun emails under the Official Information Act? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I remind the member that a plethora of emails roam around the public service. As I said to the other member I would encourage the member to provide me with that information so that I can get to the bottom of any discrepancies. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why should New Zealanders have any faith in the Minister when under his stewardship officials are openly looting taxpayers’ money then lying to him about it? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Unfounded innuendo and allegations like that need to be substantiated. Again I say to that member to supply me with the information and I will do something about it. 
Katherine Rich 
: Noting that the Minister’s answer to written question No. 257 was wrong how many other answers to written questions are wrong? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am aware that two answers were wrong. For the 300-odd questions asked of me we reply immediately and in a correct manner. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave to table the emails where Mr Tame Te Rangi says— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I also seek leave to table question No. 257 where the Minister says he was advised there were no cash payments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is that the answer to the written answer? 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have an issue of some significance with this Minister. If members go through the more than 100 questions I have asked they will see many replies that the Minister had subsequently to admit were false. He said in a subsequent reply that his earlier reply was incorrect because officials had advised him incorrectly. It seems to me that it cannot be the case that Opposition MPs have to keep asking questions and questions in order to get a correct answer. It is up to the Minister to provide correct answers. When the Minister becomes aware that not just one but several replies were false he should come down to this House and explain why. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly correct when he says “when the Minister becomes aware”—that is the key issue. If the Minister becomes aware then of course he has to do something about it because that is covered under our Standing Orders. I suggest to the member that that is the key issue. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure that you quite grasped the point Mr Hide is making. I do not recall this situation arising before. What Mr Hide is saying is that what we have had here today is a situation where the Minister has said: “The answer I have given appears to be wrong. I will investigate.” but Mr Hide is also saying that the Minister has given answers to written questions which are given on notice; the answers have been printed; it has then been drawn to the Minister’s attention that they cannot be right; and then he has amended them. I am not sure that is the right procedure. If a Minister has given an answer that answer should stand. If it is wrong I think the Minister should come down to the House make a personal explanation and seek the leave of the House to amend the written answer that has been published. I am surprised that Ministers can give written answers have it drawn to their attention that the answers cannot be right and then decide to have another go at it. That does not seem to be right. What possible regard can Parliament give to answers to written questions which are given on notice if Ministers can give any old answer they like and when it is pointed out that their answer cannot be right simply seek to amend it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 142/3. If a Minister becomes aware of an incorrect answer in answering a subsequent question it is quite proper to correct it. That happens all the time. However the member has raised an interesting point and I will certainly have a look at it. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is important to make clear that the Minister when he rose started by saying he had been advised. He provided the House with the best information that he had. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct but that does not get over Speaker’s ruling 142/3. I will have a look at this particular issue. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The statement made by the Deputy Leader of the House cannot be allowed to stand. I know that the idea of the Westminster process of ministerial responsibility is being eroded but we are now being told that Ministers have no responsibility for any answer they give. That cannot be correct. The Minister has a duty to make sure that the answer is correct. If he knows he has been giving material that is wrong then I would have thought he would be far more careful about coming to this House and cavalierly giving an answer to see how much the Opposition has found out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that was not what the Minister actually ended up saying. My original Speaker’s ruling stands as does the Speaker’s ruling I referred to. But I will look at the issue that the member has raised. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for you to advise the House on this issue. Allusion was made to how many parliamentary questions I have asked of the Minister. The reason I have made so many is that the answers are so often wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: The point of order is this—and I was trying to come to it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to it then. 
Rodney Hide 
: The Minister’s own officials released an email that contradicts his answers to parliamentary questions. He then came down to this House and said he knows nothing of it. What are we as Opposition MPs supposed to do? Do we have to do every piece of work for the Minister? Surely to heaven if officials are writing and they are getting cash from the very people they are giving the money to put into their accounts that Minister should be fronting up to the House to offer some explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a debating issue. The member is perfectly entitled to make statements or anything he wishes about it but it has nothing to do with the order of this House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the course of the Minister’s answer today he told the House there were two wrong answers— 
Simon Power 
: Two out of 300. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Two out of 300. So we now know he knows there is another wrong answer there somewhere. Rather than just saying there are two wrong answers and that he will fix it later or will do something to try to amend things later—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said there are to be no interjections during points of order. The Minister will leave please. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel withdrew from the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Minister is able in his address to the House to say that he is aware of two wrong answers—it has already been made clear to the House where the first one was—is it not appropriate for him to tell us right now what he clearly knows to be an incorrect answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that corrected answers to written questions are commonplace. The Minister said he had already corrected these particular answers. I take his word when he says that. I call question No. 12 from Paul Adams. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you are in an interesting situation. A question has been put down on notice and a Minister has given an answer that is transparently not correct—which I think he has conceded—given that it is contradicted by the email. It would appear to me that this is one of those cases where you in the Chair should allow more questions to be asked without their taking up the Opposition’s quota because the Opposition put down a question with notice and we should have had a proper reply. Basically we have lost two supplementary questions because the Minister has not answered properly and I want to suggest to you that Rodney Hide should be allowed to ask at least one more question and I think Katherine Rich should be allowed to ask at least one more question. We should find out what this Minister really does know about this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide sought the call; he still has a question left that he can ask. 
Rodney Hide 
: Have the Minister’s officials advised him of an email dated 17 October 2001 from Te Mangai Paho’s radio manager Mr Tame Te Rangi and written to Hemana Waaka of Maori Sportscasting International which was released to me last week under the Official Information Act and which says amongst other things: “Thanks for the ‘ADVANCE’— I’m surprised at the choice of words! When can I expect the balance?” and would we not expect officials to bring that to his attention if he were in any way a Minister taking responsibility for the money he is dishing out? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I get thousands of documents. Can I assure that member that I have not been shown the email and I repeat that if members supply me with the information I will talk to the officials. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have some real concerns about just where ministerial responsibility is going. We now regularly have the answer both from the Prime Minister and now from this Minister that they see thousands of documents with the implication that they are therefore not responsible for their answers in the House about any of those documents. We experienced that last week when the Opposition produced a document proving the Prime Minister was not correct in her answers. Now we also have a growing trend towards the view that Ministers are not responsible for their answers unless officials give them all the advice. The difficulty is that we cannot tell as an Opposition whether the Minister was given the advice and then misled the House or whether the Minister was not actually given the advice in the first place. 
From Parliament’s point of view it makes no difference what the officials’ behaviour was—the Minister is the only one we can hold responsible. I suggest that part of the standard of accountability that needs to be reinforced in question time is that Ministers are actually responsible for the actions of the Government because if they are going to keep saying that it is the officials as the Prime Minister does and as this Minister is now doing we will have to devise some way of allowing the Opposition to question officials. Otherwise we can use up dozens of questions—and almost certainly have—getting information from Ministers that they are either hiding or as in the last instance blaming the officials for not providing to them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to say that if members have concerns about Ministers they are at liberty to attack them politically in this House and outside it. That is part of our democratic system. Whether the officials are to blame is a matter that can be argued over; it is nothing the Speaker can judge. Of course officials are responsible for the answers they give to select committees when they are up before them at that time. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I now raise a matter I raised with you earlier but in a slightly different form. I do so under Speaker’s ruling 129/6 which allows for further questions. The ACT party now has no further questions. One of the reasons we have ministerial question time is to ensure that there is no corruption in this country. Now we have a situation where an official who we have been assured by the Minister has received no money is in an email not only saying that he has received it—and he thanks the person for it—but asking when he is going to get the balance. I say that is a question that goes to the heart of the integrity of our system and I believe under Speaker’s ruling 129/6 that is a point where the Minister’s reply is completely unsatisfactory. The ruling states: “… the Speaker will call the Minister to order and may permit further supplementary questions …”. I think we have had a completely uncooperative Minister and I believe that Mr Hide and Katherine Rich should be able to ask more questions. The Minister should get a very strong message today that it is not satisfactory on an issue as important as this just to come along and say he is relying on the Opposition to tell him what is going on in his own department. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The matter is clear. The Minister provided an answer to the question. New information was introduced. The Minister has given his clear undertaking that he—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said that anyone making a noise was going to go and I ask Mr Nick Smith to leave the Chamber. I am not having interruptions in points of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The Minister clearly indicated that he was— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise an issue regarding your request to our colleague to leave the Chamber and your calling his name out when you did so. When you have disciplined Government members including a Minister leaving the Chamber you have refrained from using their names. As you well know whether a member’s name is used does make quite a difference to people listening to the radio. I would just ask you to be consistent in using names of members on both sides of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought I did mention the Hon Lianne Dalziel. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: When the Minister made clear to the House that he had not known about the existence of the document his word must be accepted. All members are honourable members. The Minister has undertaken to look into the matter; I think the matter must rest there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way. I am left with a situation in which an answer has been given. I will adjudicate in this way: I will allow Mr Rodney Hide to ask one more supplementary question. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In dealing with an issue I raised just prior to this discussion you pointed out that officials are responsible for giving answers to select committees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Last week or the week before we had a debate on a Privileges Committee report and it was pointed out to yourself that that process can be effective only if Parliament has the strong back-up of the Privileges Committee in dealing with officials who do not answer truthfully at select committee hearings. It is now becoming the place of last resort for Opposition parties to establish what actually happened given that Ministers do not take responsibility. A case in point is the privilege application you have before you right now. On past track record that case could take from 12 to 15 months to be heard and completed and clearly that leaves the Opposition well out of time to enforce the accountability that is owed. So given your remark that if Ministers say that officials were responsible for withholding documents the Opposition can question those officials before select committees we are looking for your reassurance that the Privileges Committee will act expeditiously where it finds that officials did not answer truthfully at select committees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker is not the judge of the performance of Ministers members or officials. I deal with matters of order not with officials’ answers at committee meetings in that way. Of course as far as I am concerned the Privileges Committee being a very senior committee will judge its proceedings as it sees fit and all parties are represented on it. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I agree with everything you have said but it did not cover the principal issue I raised which is that the speed of action of the Privileges Committee is critical to the integrity of the process. That is something the Speaker does control as a matter of order and I am seeking your reassurance that if we are to accept answers in the House that officials are responsible for withholding papers—and we accept the responsibility of questioning officials at select committees—we have your support that the Privileges Committee will act expeditiously on complaints about officials who do not answer questions at select committees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot direct select committees to meet at particular times and places but concerning the issue raised by the member obviously I would hope that the Privileges Committee which is an important committee would deal with things expeditiously. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Minister of Maori Affairs set a standard for his officials that they immediately advise him of an email that contradicts his answers in this House—and in this case shows that a private company is putting cash into a civil servant’s account that is funding that private company—before that email is released under the Official Information Act; if he has set such a standard why will heads not roll? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Can I assure that member that as I said before if he supplies me with the information and there is truth in it then heads will roll. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 12. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have ruled that the Opposition cannot continue questioning this Minister at this time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not. I gave the member an extra question. Please be accurate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well if I heard it right you just called question No. 12 which means we do not have the opportunity to question this Minister further. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I gave Mr Hide an extra question. I said that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That is fine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did. I call question No. 12— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am getting tired; there are too many points of order at question time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well with all due respect if the performance from Government Ministers were slightly better and slightly more respectful of this House there might not be so many references to the Standing Orders and attempts by the Opposition to uphold them. That— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I am here to judge issues about the Standing Orders. As far as I am concerned there are too many claims of points of order that are not points of order. Some are legitimate points of order and I always listen to them very carefully but some of them are not. We have a limited time for questions and I think we are at the stage where that limited time has been well and truly exceeded today. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One of the requirements for a Minister is to answer questions if his answers can be given consistent with the public good. I ask you how it can be consistent with the public good for a Minister to stand in the Chamber and say: “Give me the information which I supplied to you and then I will take some action.” That is the effect of what Mr Horomia is doing today. He is effectively saying: “I supplied you with information about this matter so I know about it but I am not going to take any action until you give it back to me.” If that answer is consistent with the public good then I think we are in severe trouble. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not as I recall it happening and that I rule.