Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
1. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has he had any recent discussions with the Prime Minister of Australia over security and intelligence concerns Australia has expressed over Huawei? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 As has been the longstanding practice in this House by successive Governments I do not intend to comment on matters of security intelligence.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Prime Minister giving that answer to the House when he was happy to put out a press statement on 29 January talking about “to strengthen cooperation against the shared and growing challenge of cyber security through a regular Australia New Zealand Cyber Dialogue”? What was that all about? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We do from time to time put out generic statements in relation to security. That was in relation to the cyber-security strategy and the National Cyber Security Centre. I know given the member clearly has an interest in this area he will be pleased to know that the Government is working aggressively in that area. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Prime Minister is concerned about cyber-security then why has he not raised this issue with both Australia and the United States both of whom have denied access to their countries in the way that he has not denied them access to his country? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member’s question is incorrectly phrased. He is making assumptions he should not necessarily make. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not need a grammatical lesson from that Minister either. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a point of order. The member will resume his seat.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat. Under points of order members do not get to their feet and say they do not need lectures “from that Minister”. In answering the member’s question the Prime Minister asserted the question was not accurate. Ministers are perfectly at liberty to do that. At least it is focused on the question. The member may not agree with that answer; that is why he has further supplementary questions to pursue the matter. But the Prime Minister— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order Mr Speaker.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am still on my feet. I will get off them so the member can raise his point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The propriety of questions is for the Speaker to decide. The reason why I made that statement is I thought that you would have jumped to your feet to correct the Prime Minister. I am asking a pretty fundamental question about the security of this country. It is not a trivial matter and I think it should be treated seriously by both the House and you and the Prime Minister. I think we are being unfairly treated here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Prime Minister answered the question by asserting there was something incorrect in the way the member asked the question. That is a perfectly legitimate answer to do that. The member has further supplementary questions to pursue the answer given by the Prime Minister. That is what question time is all about. The Speaker cannot judge whether the Prime Minister is right or wrong in making that assertion in his answer. The Speaker cannot judge that but it was very much an answer focused absolutely on the question because it said the question contained errors in part. It is up to the member then to pursue that with further supplementary questions.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What was the error in the question that was seriously asked of you? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In answer to that question the member made assumptions he is not in a position to make. As I said earlier it is not a question of whether those questions may or may not have been asked or statements may or may not have been made—I do not comment on those matters of security. While he is at it it is not “Hu-a-why” it is “Hu-a-way”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He got that wrong as well. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the member. Order! Unless I misheard the member was calling a point of order and it will be heard in silence.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Speaker you heard what my question was which simply related to the fact that Australia and the United States found difficulty with this company with regard to them accessing their market. I have asked him why did he find no difficulty with them given those relationships we have with the United States and Australia with— 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: You didn’t ask that buddy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There you go Mr Speaker.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The right honourable Prime Minister should not be interjecting during a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. That was what the question was if he checks the  
Hansard 
. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is in support but probably not that helpful to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I did listen carefully to the Prime Minister’s primary answer. I listened carefully to the supplementary question which was interrupted. I think there was an assumption that the member made that there had not been contact with Australia and the United States which the Prime Minister indicated— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member I think is again not raising a valid point of order. He is seeking to comment on the Prime Minister’s answer which he cannot do and he should know better than that. If the Rt Hon Winston Peters feels that his question was totally misunderstood I am prepared to allow it because I agree there is a genuine public interest in this issue. I accept that absolutely. The Prime Minister has made it clear to the House that he does not comment on security issues but given the potential for misunderstanding I am happy for the member to repeat that supplementary question without cost of a further question from the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My question is simply this: what was it that the Prime Minister did not seem to understand in the fact that the United States and Australia found difficulty with this company and debarred them from their market whilst he is allowing them into this market in this country—on the issue of national security what does he not understand here? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: What I can say is we take overall network security issues very carefully. If we see issues we specifically ensure that we address those issues and the member is quite incorrect when he says Huawei is not involved in the Australian and the US market. Actually it is part of the networks. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he stand by his statement last week that although New Zealand’s ultra-fast broadband contract with Huawei began before Australia’s action against the company he was “comfortable with the current arrangements” in New Zealand; if so does he still have full confidence in the security of New Zealand’s broadband network? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and yes. 
Clare Curran 
: Given Australia has taken action to ban Huawei from tendering for its massive broadband network does this mean that New Zealand’s cyber-security measures are superior to the Australians’; and if so how? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not comment on those matters of security.