Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 30 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2663. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that Whanau Ora is aimed at “families who need significant support”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by my full statement which was: “In terms of the wider overall issues about Whanau Ora that is aimed very much at families who need significant support and are using a multitude of different agencies and the Government is looking at ways to improve the outcomes. Given the successful track record we have had in the past of being totally unsuccessful with those families I would have thought that trying new ways was not a bad idea.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does he believe that just some Maori families should be receiving significant support in the form of thousands and thousands of dollars in grants to develop plans to “promote who they are” to “take control of their lives and move out of the status quo lifestyle” and “to weave the strands of whanau together with the collective goal of reconnection” and much more psychological babble like that? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not know where the member is quoting from but I can say the overall ethos of Whanau Ora is to support vulnerable families and to try to get them to empower changing their own lives. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he reconcile the fact that his Government is taxing paper boys earning a pittance while he and the Maori Party are spending over $12 million of taxpayers’ money financing projects such as Whanau Ora helping a family to “promote who they are”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: You are talking about very vulnerable families who are probably already incurring significant costs to New Zealand taxpayers. If we do not address some of their issues all probability is that they will cost New Zealand a lot more. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So which was the vulnerable family or families involved in the $60000 Whanau Ora grant to conduct research and hold a community day at a sports club in Otaki and how did they qualify to be in need of—to quote his words yesterday—“significant support”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Individual cases need to be directed to the Minister for Whanau Ora. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is he aware that hundreds of Whanau Ora plans which are being prepared at great expense to the taxpayers are plans that actually involve applying for further Whanau Ora funding to implement these very same plans? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot confirm that. If the member wants to find out a little more he should ask questions directly to the Minister for Whanau Ora. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister saying therefore by that answer that he does not know what is going on in respect of the Minister in charge of Whanau Ora’s future plans; if that is the case why has he not apprised himself of that as every other former Prime Minister would have? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I am saying that if the member wants to ask individual questions about specific cases he should direct them to the Minister for Whanau Ora. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking the Prime Minister as Prime Minister of this country. I do not need to hear references as to whom I should ask the question in respect of a specific Minister. I am asking the Prime Minister the No. 1 Minister in this country as to whether he agrees with these plans. I cannot get his answer from Tariana Turia— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The very reason why we have a number of Ministers covering a range of portfolios is that they have the detail on those portfolios. I do not think anyone has ever expected the Prime Minister to be able to cover all detail in all portfolio areas. That is the risk of directing questions to the Prime Minister on other portfolios—the Prime Minister may not have all the detail on those matters. That is not unreasonable. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that is the case that is the Prime Minister’s answer. He does not need you to give it with respect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No let me finish. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No I am not going to listen to any more of this rant. The member will resume his seat. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well I’ll be back with another point of order then. I am not going to be ramrodded out of this place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! If the member carries on with this he will just leave the House. It is his choice. I am not going to have that sort of nonsense. If the member wishes to pursue details about a particular portfolio that is why we have Ministers—they can be asked. The Prime Minister cannot be expected to have detailed information in every portfolio area. The Prime Minister said he did not have that information and that is a perfectly proper answer for the House. The remedy is in the member’s hands. If he wishes to pursue that issue he can pursue it through questioning the Minister responsible for that portfolio. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that was the Prime Minister’s answer he was open to give it but he is not correct to then say that someone is offending against the House’s traditions under the Standing Orders by asking him and not the Minister. Let me give you an example. I asked about the Mongrel Mob in Dunedin. That Minister knew nothing about it and put a full-scale departmental research in place to find out whether I was right or wrong. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that I was wrong. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I’ve got a letter to you on that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Order! We are not going to take more time in the House on this. The member knows full well that Governments can transfer questions to other Ministers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: But he didn’t transfer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Look the member is normally very respectful of this House. I accept that he is grumpy and grumpy with me. I accept that. But the Standing Orders—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. The Standing Orders must apply equally to all members and all members know that if they question the Prime Minister on certain detailed portfolio areas the Prime Minister cannot be expected to have all the detailed information in every portfolio area. I do not recollect questions in the House to the Minister for Whanau Ora. I might have forgotten. Forgive me I may well have forgotten but I do not recollect— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You have forgotten Mr Speaker. We do. We recollect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In recent times then.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s all right—last week! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! So I am not being unfair to the member but the Prime Minister has answered that in that way and that is a perfectly acceptable answer and there is nothing that I can do about that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would it be in order then for every question that the Prime Minister gets to be answered in this way: “Please refer that question to the Minister who is directly in charge of that portfolio.”? Would that be in order? I am asking the Prime Minister—and this happens in every other British democracy that I know of; every English-speaking democracy. The Prime Minister is required to either answer the question or say he cannot. But he cannot say that the member is acting improperly by not referring it to the Minister. That is why he was made the Prime Minister for goodness’ sake! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! If the member got that impression I apologise to him because I am sure it was not intended to mean that the member was not addressing question time properly by not directing the questions to the Minister. That should not be implied. But what I am trying to point out to the House is that there are some limitations on questioning the Prime Minister over detailed portfolio areas. That is all I am trying to point out to the House. Members are absolutely at liberty to question the Prime Minister—that is their absolute right. But there are those limitations around what information the Prime Minister can have at his fingertips.