Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:18022] 
8. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he agree with his Minister for Ministerial Services’ answer to a supplementary question on Question No. 11 yesterday regarding whether he is in charge of processes in Ministerial Services: “It depends. It depends on the circumstances. I was not responsible for this particular instance because it was not brought to my attention and there was no reason for it to be.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. I was not responsible for the decision made by the department as it was an operational matter for the chief executive. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well members should read the  
Cabinet Manual 
. Section 3.5 of the Cabinet Manual states that Ministers “should not be involved in their department’s day-to-day operations.” However I acknowledge that I am responsible for answering questions in the House on operational matters. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is it his expectation that Ministers in his Government will read papers before signing them particularly documents relating to the overall direction of their portfolios such as statements of intent? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. Yesterday in the House the member was making the claim that I had made the decision on the purchase of new BMWs. Let us actually quote from the statement of intent— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is not what I did and I take offence at that remark. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are entitled to raise points of order. I expected to hear a different point of order from the member. 
Grant Robertson 
: I will give you another one if you like. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not very sympathetic with the point of order that the member has made but to me he would have had a legitimate grievance given that he asked a very simple question: whether that is the Prime Minister’s expectation. The Prime Minister answered that; therefore the rest of the answer was really superfluous to requirements. I invite the member to ask a further supplementary question. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he expect Ministers in his— 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Let us go to the  
Hansard 
 of yesterday where the question from Mr Robertson— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no—no! We cannot litigate matters in that way. I have not supported the member’s point of order; I have simply pointed out that the member asked a very simple question about whether the Prime Minister expected Ministers to read important documents such as statements of intent prior to signing them I think. The Prime Minister answered that; he said yes he did. Going on further given the simplicity of that question was unnecessary I think and that is why I invited a supplementary question. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he expect Ministers in his Government to be aware of a major capital purchase within their portfolios particularly one with some political risk attached to it; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I do. That is why I have changed the procedures with Ministerial Services. I am not actually responsible for the capital budget; that goes somewhere else. But I have changed the procedures and I have made it quite clear to the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs that I expect there to be an improved performance when it comes to the no-surprises policy. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has he received any advice of any inconsistencies in  
Hansard  
yesterday about what was in the statement of intent for Ministerial Services as compared with what the member claimed was in it? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. I will quote from yesterday’s  
Hansard  
a question from Grant Robertson: “Is it correct that the decision to replace the VIP transport fleet was put to him as Minister responsible for Ministerial Services four times through March and April 2009 as part of the statement of intent process and that as Minister responsible he signed off those documents … ?”. Let us quote from the statement of intent which says: “The ‘Property plant and equipment’ category includes expenditure on computer hardware associated with infrastructural asset projects office fit-outs and associated furnishings and cyclical replacement of the VIP transport fleet.” That is not a decision. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call Grant Robertson. [ 
Interruption 
] The House is getting pretty excited over this matter. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think it is acceptable for the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. I cannot hear the question that is being asked. The House will come to order. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think it is acceptable for his Minister responsible for Ministerial Services not to have read a briefing on a major capital issue in his department until 2 months after he received it and then to have read it only because to quote the Minister: “I saw an item on the news concerning the replacement of BMWs.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That Minister reads a lot of very large documents and when he sees a one-line reference to “cyclical replacement” it does not present a proposal to the Government. If a proposal had been put to the Minister I am sure he would have remembered that. It never was. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table a Department of Internal Affairs briefing sent to the Prime Minister on 17 December 2010 which goes into some detail about the proposal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Grant Robertson 
: Would he deem it appropriate for a Minister to take responsibility for an issue in his or her portfolio such as the replacement of the vehicle fleet when it is mentioned in four different briefings to him when a driver tells him it is happening and when his chief of staff is briefed on it by the department? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am responsible for answering questions in the House. As the  
Cabinet Manual 
 says I am not responsible for purchase decisions because those are within the delegation to the chief executive. As I said I was disappointed with the decision made by the chief executive in that he did not inform me of it under the no-surprises policy. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he agree with John Armstrong that the key doctrine of ministerial accountability is weak and boils down to two words: “it depends”; or would he prefer the description “see no detail hear no detail speak no detail”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I respectfully do not agree with Mr Armstrong on that occasion. But I agree with the stuff he has been writing recently in which he has essentially been saying the Leader of the Opposition is making statements recently that are at risk of making Charlie Sheen look coherent.