Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 09 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17047. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]11.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)to the Minister of Justice: What was the name of the Chinese official that she dined with during her Ministerial visit to China in October 2013 and if she will not name him why did she give details of his seniority and place of work?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):I assume that the member is referring to the private dinner in Beijing on Sunday 20 October 2013. I have stated publicly that I attended the private dinner and have disclosed the other attendees at that dinner. It is not appropriate to disclose the name of a person who was a friend of Mr Shi. He was attending a private dinner and is entitled to protection of his privacy. Even though it was a private dinner the Prime Minister’s chief of staff said that it would be appropriate to advise that in their working life the person was a senior Government official with a Chinese border control agency.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am seeking your guidance whether under Standing Order 383 the Minister is telling the House that it is not in the public interest for her to tell us the name of the official because she has refused to answer that part of the question.Mr SPEAKER: No I did not hear her invoking that; I just heard her say that it was not appropriate.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would refer the Speaker to Speaker’s ruling 174/1: “Ministers have a responsibility to the House and through the House to the country to account for the public offices they hold. Question time is an important element of this accountability. Ministers should therefore take questions seriously and endeavour to give informative replies to the questions that they are asked.” I would suggest that unless there is some ground that I would not understand that a public interest can be claimed in pursuit of not answering the question then the Minister has a duty to this House to answer it.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Strictly speaking this matter is not a matter for the House. It was not a ministerial meeting. It was not at the funding of the taxpayer. It was a private dinner and I have answered the question appropriately.Mr SPEAKER: The question was clearly accepted as in order. I listened very carefully to the answer and in my opinion she has addressed it. She did not invoke the use of the words “It is not in the public interest.”; she just said that it is not appropriate. Members can make their conclusions. I cannot accept the argument that the question has not been addressed satisfactorily. The member has further supplementary questions. That is the way the member must make progress.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have accepted the Minister’s answer—and it is her judgment but it is yours really—which was that it was not appropriate. However when you have got ambassadorial staff there at the meeting like the Ambassador to China—[Interruption] Excuse me. I am raising a point of order. Keep quiet.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is raising a point of order but at this stage I cannot actually accept it as a point of order. If the member wants to clarify I would be very grateful.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well I am trying to clarify it by saying that the use of taxpayers’ money for the attendance of ambassadorial staff means that that trip in all respects is one on which she should answer questions.Mr SPEAKER: No. The Minister gave a far more lengthy answer than just saying that it was not appropriate; she gave an explanation as to the dinner etc. It was quite a lengthy answer. She then said as to the name of the person and the seniority etc. that she does not think it is appropriate to know that. That is a satisfactory answer. It is now over to the House if it wants further information to elucidate that with supplementary questions.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you again when you look at the tape as you indicate that you do to note the fact that the Minister said that it was a private dinner but that she has also said that taxpayer-funded staff were in attendance. It cannot be both. If we are paying for her ministerial office staff—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He has asked me to have a look at the transcript and I will do so.Grant Robertson: With reference to the Minister’s answer if this was a private dinner why did she invite New Zealand’s Ambassador to China to the dinner?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because for a start I believe that that is the polite thing to do and secondly it is—[Interruption] It is polite. I know that it might be something strange to the Labour Party to be polite to staff but actually I invited the ambassador and his wife because I thought that that was the right thing to do it was polite and also there was no reason not to at least let them know that the dinner was occurring.Grant Robertson: Why did the ambassador decline her invitation?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is a question for the ambassador.Grant Robertson: Was the official from the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am not able to provide that information.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is considerable public interest in this issue which goes to the probity of Government. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Hon David Parker: It goes to the probity of Government. The Speaker’s ruling reference that I gave you Speaker’s ruling 174/1 shows that Ministers have a duty to this House to answer questions so that the House can hold Ministers to account. [Interruption] Mr Henare might not think corruption is inappropriate but we have an obligation on this side of the House to hold Ministers to account. We cannot do that if Ministers are allowed not to answer questions other than on the grounds of some national interest that supersedes their duty to this House.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion although the member is raising a valid point of order I do not agree with him. The Minister has answered by saying she cannot answer that question. [Interruption] Well I have forgotten the words. It is so long ago. But she effectively said she will not answer it. That is the Minister answering the question.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What the Minister said in her answer was that she was unable to answer it—unable to answer the question. That cannot be true because she has said the person was from a border control agency. She clearly knows the answer to the question. How is it acceptable for her to stand up in this House and say that she is unable to answer that question? That cannot be an addressing of a question when we know that she knows the name of the agency.Mr SPEAKER: But the member needs to think about the question he asked. It is now so long ago I have forgotten. It was about whether the official was from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Minister said she cannot answer that.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will have some help from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. It is your members’ day that you are wasting I point out.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Every Minister who has ever been abroad will know that when you go to meetings particularly in China the full list of guests is laid out before you particularly because the language is different from the English language and both of those titles and names would have been given. This Minister knows full well that that information was available to her so why will she not give it over now?Mr SPEAKER: If the member had only listened to the questions earlier. The Minister rose and said it is not appropriate to do so. That is the answer the Minister has given. We are getting to the stage—[Interruption] Order! I am not prepared to entertain this waste of time any longer. If the member has a further supplementary question I will accept it.Grant Robertson: Why is it not appropriate for her to name the official whom she had dinner with on a ministerial trip?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was a private dinner and the person is entitled to their privacy.Grant Robertson: How does she think it is acceptable to taxpayers who paid $30000 for her and her staff member to go to China to not give the name of an official from a border control agency when she was at a dinner with the directors of a company that her husband is a fellow director of? Why should taxpayers not have some honesty from the Minister for once?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That question is quite incorrect. In fact it was a private dinner and as that member might one day find out even Ministers are allowed to have private dinners with friends.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speakers’ ruling 172/5 says: “An answer to a question ought to be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest;”. You have already ruled that the Minister has not claimed that it is not in the public interest. She has claimed that it is not in her private interest.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member resume his seat immediately. I never ruled that the Minister claimed that. I said she did not use those words. This particular question has been asked and it has been answered perfectly satisfactorily to me. I will accept that it is not to the satisfaction of the Opposition but we are moving on.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: The point of order will be heard in silence. But before I hear it I want to make absolutely sure that the member is not in any way relitigating a decision I have just made.Hon David Parker: I am trying to clarify your ruling.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. I am on my feet. I am on my feet.Hon Annette King: Stop yelling.Mr SPEAKER: I would prefer not to have to yell. But when I rise to my feet the member then sits down regardless of who that member is. [Interruption] Order! I just want to clarify. If the member is going to continue to relitigate a decision I have made that will lead to disorder and I will treat that very seriously. If the member wishes to raise a fresh point of order I will certainly hear it.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Hon David Parker: It is Mr Speaker. I am endeavouring to clarify whether your ruling was—and I may have misunderstood it—that the Minister claimed that there was a public interest that prevented her from answering the first question.Mr SPEAKER: It was quite some time ago. The Minister rose to her feet and said it was not appropriate or words to that effect. She did not use the words: “It is not in the public interest.” That is the point I am trying to make to the member. She gave the—[Interruption] Order! Furthermore when I am on my feet I do not want interjections from any member. She answered that it was not appropriate. That is the answer she has given. I invited the member if he wanted to make further progress to ask further supplementary questions and he has done so. That is the way to do it not to relitigate the answer that has already been given which I have said has addressed the question.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to make two points of order. The first point I would like to make is whether you are in fact making a new Speaker’s ruling that a Minister can decline to answer a question because it is in her private interest.Mr SPEAKER: No I am not saying that at all. I am saying that a Minister has been asked a question. The Minister then rises and answers. In this particular case the Minister rose and answered the question and I considered that that answer addressed the question. The second point of order?Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The second point of order goes to when you look at the tapes. Can you please look at the tone the laughing support of the Prime Minister from the Chair and the tone used to the deputy leader of the Labour Party? It is not an indication of a lack of bias. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will have a look at the tapes on this occasion but I say to all members again that when I rise to my feet to maintain order in this House it is absolutely essential that members then resume their seat regardless of whether that is the Prime Minister the Deputy Prime Minister the Leader of the Opposition or the deputy leader of the Labour Party. I want to make that clear to all members.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek a point of clarification and it is this. You see the question came by way of a supplementary question and you allowed the question to be put. Then the Minister’s response was that answering the question was not appropriate. Is it to be that henceforth the Minister may decide the appropriateness of a question or you?Mr SPEAKER: No I decide the appropriateness of a question. The Minister then has the discretion to answer. I am just repeating the text or the answer that the Minister then gave and I ruled that that addressed the question.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you are reflecting on that can I ask you to reflect on this. In the answer to my supplementary question asking whether the official was from a particular department the Minister answered that she was unable to answer that question. In her primary answer she made clear that she did know the agency the person was from. I would ask that you reflect on whether that is an acceptable answer for a Minister to give consistent with the Speakers’ rulings that Mr Parker mentioned.Mr SPEAKER: I have already said I will reconsider.