11. Question No. 11—State ServicesHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of State ServicesQuestion No. 11—State Services11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of State Services: What was the date of all communications between Ministers and Derek Handley regarding the appointment of the Government's Chief Technology Officer in addition to those publically released by the previous Minister for Government Digital Services and up to the time Mr Handley accepted the role?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I communicated with Derek Handley on Monday 10 September. Megan Woods has had no communication with Derek Handley. Clare Curran has advised me that she had communications with Derek Handley in addition to those publicly released between the final meeting of the interview panel on 30 July and 24 August. It's worth noting that because discussion about Mr Handley's interests was ongoing the process was never completed.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was the job offer to Derek Handley in August made through Clare Curran's private Gmail account?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I understand it was made during a phone conversation with him.Hon Dr Nick Smith: What was the communication between the former Minister and the Prime Minister over the Chief Technology Officer that he referred to in answer to questions in the House last Thursday?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It was very clear that the Prime Minister and the former Minister had been having discussions about the appointment process as the Prime Minister outlined in questions today. They also had conversations about the incorrect written parliamentary question answer that she had given regarding the matter which led to her resignation from the portfolio.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will he apologise to taxpayers on behalf of the Government for the waste of over $100000 of public money on this botched appointment; if not can he explain what value New Zealanders got for their hard-earned taxes?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I'd be happy to do so when the previous Government will apologise for all the payouts that were made during their tenure in Government.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he accept that leadership in the Government's digital services has gone backwards in the last year in that the Cabinet promise of a Chief Technology Officer by February has been flummoxed the Government Chief Digital Officer has understandably resigned through this fiasco and the Government can still not tell nearly a year into Government what its policy is on his role?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first question no.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statement as the Minister of State Services: The Government's Chief Technology Officer is essential for leadership in digital services." and if so why is it that it is no longer Government policy?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by the answer given by Clare Curran to National's question as to what Government business had been conducted through her private Gmail account that was too incoherent and painful to repeat—SPEAKER: Order! Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was the answer—would you like me to read out Clare Curran's answer?SPEAKER: No I don't. I want the member to come to the question very quickly. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well the question is this: does he stand by the answer given by Clare Curran to National's question as to what Government business had been conducted through her private Gmail account and if he does not stand by that answer can this Parliament finally get an answer as to what was in those Gmails?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It's not up to me to stand by those matters or not. What I can tell the member is that those emails—all of the work-related emails I'm advised by Clare Curran—have been handed over to the Chief Archivist.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that I have now asked eight questions to try and establish the content of those emails. I've now had eight answers in which I've been told I can get them under the Official Information Act and that they might be archived. How can that be an acceptable answer? Because if that were the case we wouldn't bother with question time in Parliament; members of this House would simply go to Archives and through the Official Information Act.SPEAKER: My view on that is that if the member now given the fact that they have been given to the archivist and therefore are available to the members asked a very specific primary question—primary question—then there would be an obligation on Ministers to bring that to the House.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That very suggestion was made by the Prime Minister in response to the Leader of the Opposition's questions earlier today. I have listed two very specific questions last Thursday and today and I still do not know the dates or the contents of those emails. So I'm happy to follow your direction Mr Speaker but the quid pro quo is that when we do ask direct questions we actually get answers—SPEAKER: Order! I've just indicated to the member my intention of holding the Government to account if there are well-worded questions. I think that is a matter of the member's responsibility and other members' responsibilities and one just has to look at the first sentence the first phrases of his question to know that the member will have to do better if he's going to get my support—[Hon Dr Nick Smith stands up] No the member will resume his seat. This issue is now closed. If the member wants a further supplementary he can have one.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not the issue that you were dealing with when you gave that instruction but if you look at today's question it asks for one date—SPEAKER: Order! And I just made that very point.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well he doesn't know that.SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister has a wide range of responsibilities to do with the Government and to do with foreign affairs. Educating members of the Opposition on how to phrase questions is not one of them. That's mine I took it and I would much prefer in the future not to have his support.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I will repeat as a supplementary my primary question from last Thursday and see if I can get an answer. How many undisclosed emails through former Minister Clare Curran's private Gmail account are there that relate to the appointment of the Government's Chief Technology Officer and what is the content of those emails?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have not seen the individual emails in question. They have been handed to the Chief Archivist. Clare Curran has explained to me that the contents of those emails are predominantly post her conversation with Derek Handley where he was offered the job and related to the scope of the positon. That's the information that I have to date. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The House is still none the wiser of the number of Gmails—SPEAKER: Yes and the member will resume his seat. What I have indicated to the member is that if he asks his question properly tomorrow or at some stage in the future with sufficient detail I will expect a proper answer. In fact I think it would be a good thing for transparency if in answering a specific and detailed and well-worded question the Minister brought the emails to the House and made them available in that way.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think what was clear in my last answer was that while those emails have been handed to the Chief Archivist I do not have a copy of them and I cannot guarantee that I would have a copy of them tomorrow.SPEAKER: Well my view is that the member is now on enough notice and if there are email systems and there has been a transfer of them to other Government systems then it should not be beyond the wit of the various people within the State Services Commission to sort out the relevant emails and to have them available for a fuller and more transparent explanation in the House tomorrow if in fact members of the Opposition can get their question into the form where that is appropriate.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I'm not disputing anything you've said but I wanted to use the point of order process to point out that there was an answer to a question last Thursday asking whether or not there were Gmail exchanges between the Prime Minister and Clare Curran. The answer explicitly from the Minister of State Services who is now handling this matter was "Yes." So it is slightly inconsistent I think with his insistence today that he hasn't seen emails.SPEAKER: I think the member and I might have different memories of that. I think "communications" was the word used not "emails".Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Last week you admonished the member for Northland for eating in the House. I need to point out to you that the vanquished member for Northland keeps chewing or playing with his dentures and it really is quite out of order.SPEAKER: Right. Well I'm going to work out the number of additional questions that I have today granted to the National Party and they will be lost for tomorrow.Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is there one rule for one party and another rule for the leader of New Zealand First?SPEAKER: The rules are consistent for all people and the member should be aware of the form for bringing things up. The final part of his comment is something which was unparliamentary.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Does the member really want to continue this?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well Mr Speaker with respect—Chris Penk: Just woken up.Rt Hon Winston Peters: —that was an uncalled-for attack—SPEAKER: Order! No the member will resume his seat. I want to know who did that interjection.Chris Penk: I did.SPEAKER: Right. Well I'm going to work out what the further punishment for the National Party is for that.Rt Hon Winston Peters: That was a totally uncalled-for attack and that member has been warned before. What will the consequences be if he keeps up that sort of behaviour? But first of all stop getting your knickers in a tangle.SPEAKER: Well the member was advised not to start and the member continued and he sort of did "like for like" as part of his point of order. As a result of that I will now be considering Mr Penk's but not Mr Finlayson's inappropriate comment. So I've cancelled that punishment but I'm considering Mr Penk's."