9. Question No. 9—Energy and ResourcesRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesQuestion No. 9—Energy and Resources9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What reports has she seen about damage to the fuel pipeline from Marsden Point to Auckland in September 2017?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I have received the report on the Government's inquiry into the Auckland fuel supply disruption. This is an excellent report that not only covers the how and when of damage to the pipeline in 2014 but lays out a detailed series of 21 proposals as to how we can better protect our fuel security in the future.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What reports has she seen of attempts to cover up the damage done to the pipeline?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: According to the inquiry report the pipeline was damaged by a digger of a contractor looking for swamp kauri. Paragraph 4.26 of the report found that the contractor had put some soil back over the pipeline to cover up the fact he had hit it. It is disturbing obviously that such a vital piece of infrastructure could be damaged and steps taken to hide that damage.Rt Hon Winston Peters: In 2014 at the time the pipeline was damaged who owned the digger in question?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: According to paragraph 4.15 of the report Oravida Kauri Ltd or Kauri Ruakaka Ltd (KRL) owned the digger and arranged for and paid for its transport.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it a fact that Kauri Ruakaka Ltd which owned the digger changed its name from Oravida Kauri Ltd in April 2015 after the damage was done?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. I refer the member to footnote 38 of the document: KRL is the current name of the company. It was previously called Oravida Kauri Ltd but its name was formally changed in April 2015. Documents show that both names were being used in 2014."Rt Hon Winston Peters: A supplementary question to the primary question today from the Leader of the Opposition: which member of Parliament was associated with this company?Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speakers' ruling 159/5 says "It is not reasonable to use questions from the governing party or its support parties to attack other members of the House." I think it's clear that what the Deputy Prime Minister is doing is deliberately targeting a member of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: I'll hear from the Deputy Prime Minister.Rt Hon Winston Peters: That protest might sound meritorious were it not for the fact that the very leader of his own party raised that question during a supplementary in the first question today.SPEAKER: Well I'm not convinced that team-tag would make something like this appropriate. My view on this—and it's a very strict view—is that attacks especially on the families of members of Parliament are generally inappropriate. I think that the question was an invitation to attack a family member of a member of this Parliament and on that basis I'm not going to allow it to proceed.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I'll go and stand outside then.SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order.SPEAKER: No not speaking to the point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well can I raise a point of order?SPEAKER: No the member will resume his seat. I regard that as a reflection—and I think the member probably does himself—or at least a comment on my ruling which he knows is out of order. He will withdraw and apologise.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This last ruling of yours appears to be awfully stringent not only in this Parliament's past but also in the Parliaments of most of the British Commonwealth for that matter. What has been said now is that if somebody in Parliament happens to be associated with a company that has done wrong then that person's name is impervious to being disclosed in the House. That surely cannot be the ruling. We've got an open and transparent democracy and when I made the comment—[Interruption]SPEAKER: All right. Order! The member will resume his seat. Mr Bishop will stand withdraw and apologise.Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Can I just remind members of the Opposition—I mean I think people can probably tell that I'm finding this point of order to be slightly testing myself but having interruptions doesn't help. Now I'd like the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the point.Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point is that I would suggest that such a ruling is so stringent that it has changed the very character and shape of our democracy when it comes to transparency. The point I was seeking to make was not by way of retort to you but if somebody's prepared to walk out of the House and say "I'm going to say this and take whatever the consequences are." it perhaps suggests that they've got the courage of their convictions and the facts to back up what they're saying. That's all I'm saying.SPEAKER: Right. Well I think all of us understand what the member was saying; the question is whether he should have said it or not. I have indicated that he should not. I will draw people's attention to Speakers' ruling 40/7."