Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Horomia Parekura: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5798] 
5.  
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he consider advisory boards a good substitute for Maori seats on the Auckland City Council like the Hon John Key who said: “I do not accept the view that some sort of advisory board or some sort of participation board would be a sop.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
:  
Tena koe Mr Speaker. I have made my views well known to the Prime Minister and the public as the co-leader of the Maori Party. However as a Minister I have no responsibility for this issue. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Has he received any reports from National Party Maori MPs signalling their intention to cross the floor and support a Supplementary Order Paper that would establish Maori seats on the Auckland Council seeing that the Prime Minister has not listened to him? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I invite the honourable Minister to respond to that question I say I am not sure of the responsibility the Minister has for the views of members of the National Party— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Darren Hughes on the matter. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have raised this point of order with you on several occasions because we are often the victim of the ruling you are considering making when questions from Government backbenchers ask Ministers whether they have received any reports about comments statements or actions by members of Parliament who are in the Opposition and that then opens it up for the Government to have a whack at the Opposition. You have ruled that because those Ministers have been asked whether they have received any reports that is in order and that is what the Hon Parekura Horomia has done as well on this occasion. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Mr Hughes would be right except for one point: the reports that get asked for have to relate to the Minister’s portfolio. Unfortunately for the Hon Parekura Horomia the reports he is seeking from the Minister of Maori Affairs bear no relationship to that Minister’s portfolio. The Minister would not be receiving such reports in his capacity as the Minister of Maori Affairs. He has no responsibility for such reports in this House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I think this goes back to a point that was made right at the beginning of the year about what the ambit of the Minister of Maori Affairs is. We have five six seven maybe eight quotes from the Minister of Maori Affairs who has said he wants to take a role on the leadership of Maori issues and make representations on Maori issues and he has particularly tied it to this issue. In fact there are Cabinet papers I understand in the names of the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Minister of Local Government together who have been taking ministerial responsibility for this issue. Clearly both Ministers are acting on this issue within both their portfolios. I would be happy to come back to the House very shortly with quotes from the Minister of Maori Affairs where he talks about his dual role both as co-leader of a party—which clearly he cannot be questioned on in here—and as portfolio Minister of Maori Affairs in which he says he will be taking a clear role in resolving this issue. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Again I am afraid that Mr Darren Hughes is wrong. He is seeking reports about the behaviour of MPs in another party. Mr Sharples as Minister of Maori Affairs has no responsibility for that even on a particular bill that he may be shepherding through the House let alone on a bill that he is not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that I have heard sufficient on this. I have been listening to the helpful advice because it has been helpful advice of the members who have contributed while I pondered what I freely acknowledge is a difficult issue. The dilemma I have with the question is that it did not ask the Minister whether he had received reports in relation to his ministerial responsibility; it asked specifically about letters from members of Parliament to do with something that may not have been his responsibility. I am sure that the Hon Parekura Horomia could phrase a question that did ask whether the Minister had received any reports in the area of his ministerial responsibility relating to the matter. I invite the member to see whether he can reword his question to bring it within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Has the Minister of Maori Affairs had any reports from other members wishing to cross the floor on this matter seeing that Rodney Hide and the Prime Minister are not listening to him? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not see how that is within order at all— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This morning the Minister of Maori Affairs was in the media as Minister of Maori Affairs calling for there to be a free vote on this issue which directly affects Maori people in our country particularly in Auckland and for which the Minister himself has publicly on repeated occasions said is part of his ministerial responsibility to advocate for. So his responsibility in this area as an advocate is well established. He attended Cabinet yesterday to lobby on this particular issue and this morning he has called for there to be a vote on the very point that my colleague is now asking whether he has received any reports on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not unsympathetic to the point the honourable member is making. The dilemma is that if he reflects on the question that the Hon Parekura Horomia just asked he will realise that it did not remotely meet the Standing Order requirements. The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for possible reports about members crossing the floor of the House. Neither does he have any ministerial responsibility for what the Prime Minister may have said. I am not saying the Minister cannot be questioned at all—the Minister most certainly can be questioned—but the questions must come within the Standing Orders. That is why I invited the Hon Parekura Horomia to try to bring his question within the Standing Orders. The last question—and I ask members to forgive me but we cannot allow this to go on for too long—was just nowhere near to complying with the requirements of the Standing Orders. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Will the Minister of Maori Affairs be calling for a personal vote on this very important matter to this nation? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes I will be calling for a conscience vote. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What response does the Minister of Maori Affairs have to Tukoroirangi Morgan who stated that Tainui would not take part in any advisory board because “Giving Maori people the crumbs at the second level is a nonsense and we’ve made it quite clear we are not interested in being a tekoteko … or tonotono … —people who are subservient to the top table.”? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I believe that Mr Morgan is correct in saying that Maori representation at this level should not be symbolic or subservient. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What does he say to Tau Henare who last week in an email called on his caucus to let National MPs cross the floor and vote for the Maori seats and today is reported as saying “Why should I sacrifice”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to resume his seat for a moment. Clearly no Minister has any responsibility for what a backbench member might say. [ 
Interruption 
] I am ruling on the matter. There will be silence in the House. [ 
Interruption 
] Order I say to National backbenchers. I realise that this is a difficult area and there is no way in the world that I am trying to prevent the member from questioning the Minister; some Minister has to have responsibility for these issues so I am not trying to prevent the member from questioning the Minister. But clearly no Minister has responsibility for what a backbench member may say. This question cannot go on for too long but I invite the member to ask a supplementary question that is in order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for hearing our submissions on this. The supplementary question that you allowed previously asked what the Minister said to a quote from Tukoroirangi Morgan; a quote from that person was given and the Minister responded to it. Mr Horomia started his question by saying “What does he say to Tau Henare who last week” and then explained what the quote had been. In April 2009 in question time Dr Sharples said: “As the Minister of Maori Affairs I have an interest in all the affairs that affect Maori and I have a responsibility to reflect their views.” We are trying to question him on an important constitutional point. A quote from a certain individual was put to the Minister for him to comment on he did that and we did not object to it. Now exactly the same thing is happening and you are considering ruling it out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I may have— 
Hon Simon Power 
: There’s no ministerial responsibility. 
Hon Annette King 
: There wasn’t for Tuku Morgan either. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will not be interjections. I may have misheard the previous question. I apologise to the House if I misheard it. I had understood that it was about some correspondence between Mr Morgan from Tainui and the Minister of Maori Affairs. I might have misheard; I apologise if I did. If it was my error I am sorry but clearly the Minister cannot be responsible for what either private citizens or backbenchers say. I allowed the question but perhaps I was in error in doing that. I apologise; I misheard it. Clearly the Minister has no responsibility for what a backbench member says—none whatsoever. It is not difficult in my view to question the Minister in a manner that comes within his ministerial responsibilities. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: As Minister of Maori Affairs does he agree with Tau Henare who last week in an email called on his caucus to let National MPs cross the floor and vote for the Maori seats and today is reported as saying: “Why should I sacrifice my career when other people aren’t? … The call has been made by the Minister of Maori Affairs that we should cross the floor. Maybe he should resign.”? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Congratulations on the email! I have no wish to put people in that position. In fact a conscience vote means that people do not have to cross the floor. That is why I am going to call for it. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Is the Minister aware of the statement made by his fellow Maori Party colleague Hone Harawira that “The last word we had from the PM was that he was supportive of the seats and that he had found a proposal that would prevent Rodney from throwing his toys out of the cot.”; if so when was he informed by the Prime Minister that he had in fact changed his position? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have not heard that and I am not aware of that comment. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Does he think it is consistent for the Government with one hand to retain Maori electorate seats here in Parliament and with the other hand to deny Maori local representation on the largest city council in New Zealand? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question specifically asks the Minister about something outside his ministerial responsibility. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister of Maori Affairs has a portfolio that—with due respect Mr Speaker—pervades all sorts of situations in this country. Certainly there are not many things that Maori people as the other people in this country are not involved in. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: As I mentioned earlier we went through this issue earlier in the year at quite some length. The Minister told the House: “I have voiced my displeasure at the taking away of those seats and I’ve done so as the Minister of Maori Affairs because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Maori people.” The Minister himself by his statements in this House has opened up the ability for the Opposition to question him on his portfolio. It is clear that the Minister of Maori Affairs’ remit goes far wider than the narrow portfolio boundaries that the Minister of Transport the Minister of Education or the Minister for Social Development and Employment might ordinarily have. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the honourable member makes: obviously the Minister of Maori Affairs has a pretty wide brief. I allowed a number of supplementary questions from the Hon Parekura Horomia because in my view they came within the Standing Orders in respect of the responsibilities of the Minister of Maori Affairs. But the last question asked specifically about the reorganisation of Auckland city. It was specifically about matters to do with the reorganisation of that city which the Minister does not have responsibility for. The Standing Orders permit Ministers to be questioned only on matters for which they have responsibility and clearly the Minister does not have responsibility for the reorganisation of Auckland city. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that then mean that the duty that the Prime Minister has set for the co-leader of the Maori Party Dr Sharples and the leader of the ACT Party Rodney Hide on its way in relation to the composition of the city council is null and void through your statements? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me but the honourable member has lost me. I cannot assist. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Mr Speaker I do not want to lose you. I want to bring some concise understanding to this debacle. At the end of the day the Prime Minister has through edict of his seat directed the co-leader of the Maori Party and the leader of the ACT Party to get their heads together and sort out something for the council’s composition— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Points of order have to relate to order in the House. What the Prime Minister may have asked Rodney Hide and Dr Pita Sharples to do is not a matter for the order of this House. I have allowed the member to ask questions that fall in my view within the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders these days permit opinion questions to be asked; questions that seek opinions can be asked and some of the questions that the member has asked have fallen I believe within the Standing Orders. But he cannot ask the Minister specifically about the reorganisation of Auckland city because it is not within his ministerial responsibility. I think the House has spent quite sufficient time on this matter. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to the point you have just alluded to. Many years ago one was not allowed to seek an expression of opinion from a Minister in a question and I seem to recall—and you will too Mr Speaker—that during the reign of Mr Speaker Wall the device emerged of members asking Ministers whether they had received any reports on a particular topic as a way of getting round their not being able to seek an opinion from a Minister. One would ask: “Has the Minister seen a report on the reported comments of so-and-so?”. Now that we have a more lenient view of questions that seek opinions it may be timely to look again at the device of members’ seeking reports or seeking advice; it is to some extent redundant in that there is the capacity in certain circumstances to seek a more direct opinion of a Minister. I just wanted to raise that point; I do not know whether it is within your jurisdiction Mr Speaker or whether it is something the Standing Orders Committee should look at. It has been of concern to me for some time that we have questions that exploit the device to the maximum when—as you said yourself—there are other ways of asking questions that comply with the current Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Peter Dunne has raised a very interesting point but sadly the device of asking whether the Minister has seen any reports relates to more than the old ban on seeking opinions in asking questions. It relates to asking questions about matters that are very marginal in terms of ministerial responsibility and that are often to do with policies of the previous Government or the Opposition. The use of the device of asking whether the Minister has received any reports is a way of enabling Ministers to talk about those kinds of matters. So I doubt whether the House is likely to let go of that device but it is something that is certainly within the bounds of the Standing Orders Committee to give consideration to. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to labour the debate on this matter but I ask you to make a considered ruling because I think two points are germane. The first is that the last question from Parekura Horomia went to the point as you quite rightly said of Auckland representation and the chief Opposition whip pointed out that the Minister has written at least one Cabinet paper on that issue. I would like to be given a view from you as to how one cannot be responsible for an issue that one has written a Cabinet paper on. Secondly the Minister has also widened by his own quotes his definition of his ministerial responsibilities as they pertain to Maori affairs as the chief Opposition whip has said. Given those two issues with the first being specific—about a Cabinet paper relating directly to my colleague’s question that now the Minister is somehow not responsible for—and the second being wider questions around the Maori affairs portfolio with regard to which the Minister in historical quotes has widened his own definition of responsibility we have grave difficulty in defining what is and what is not his ministerial responsibility. I fail to see how one can pen a Cabinet paper on a specific issue and then stand up and say one is not responsible for it. I just invite you if it is more efficient in terms of the House’s time to consider that matter and come back to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the point the member has made. 
Hon Simon Power 
: In respect of the first point as members opposite will know from time to time when Prime Ministers require groups of Ministers to go away and look at an issue whether or not responsibility accrues to a decision-making process in that context is quite different from ministerial responsibility accruing to individual Ministers in this forum where the Standing Orders are quite specific about what individual Ministers have responsibility for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the contributions of both members. [ 
Interruption 
] I am ruling on the matter. Both members have I think made very useful contributions; I thank both the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and the Hon Simon Power. With regard to the interesting point raised by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that a Minister may be involved in the preparation and the presentation of a paper I say the Minister can certainly be questioned on that paper and on any statements relating to that paper but that does not alter the fundamental area of ministerial responsibility as was pointed out by the Hon Simon Power. So both members who have made points are correct. Where a Minister has been involved in the preparation of a paper for Cabinet he or she can be questioned on that paper even if it is on the margins of his or her ministerial responsibility. But in general terms the area of ministerial responsibility remains as such. 
I say to the House that clearly this area is difficult and the issue of a Minister saying he or she has no responsibility for a matter in my view is not good enough when questions are lodged earlier in the morning. If a Minister does not have ministerial responsibility then the question should be transferred to the Minister who has ministerial responsibility because some Minister has ministerial responsibility for every issue that is an issue relating to the administration of the Government and to Government policy. I make the point that I am not entirely happy with what has transpired today and that is certainly not the Opposition’s fault. 
What I would like to see happen in the future where there are questions about where ministerial responsibility lies is that the Clerk’s Office is advised very early that a Minister feels that he or she does not have ministerial responsibility so that either the question can be renegotiated with the questioner to bring it within the bounds of the responsibilities of that Minister or if the Opposition wishes to stick with the wording of the question it is transferred to the Minister who does have responsibility. I am not prepared to have this House trifled with by way of simply using the device of a Minister saying he or she does not have ministerial responsibility and that is the end of the matter because some Minister does have responsibility. I hope that is helpful to honourable members. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora tatou. What will the Minister do to encourage the Government to invest in a true partnership with mana whenua in respect of the Auckland seats having received communication from Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua chair Naida Glavish that states that “continuing to treat Maori as ‘mere stakeholders’ will maintain the status quo of poorly managed natural resources ineffective consultation and ongoing inefficiency in decision making and planning for the city.”? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a question that we want to hear the answer to. The Opposition would like to hear the Minister’s view on that issue but the irony goes to the exact problem we have been raising with you this afternoon. In addition to the approaches you have outlined if we could have consideration by you of how Ministers who have responsibility for populations within this country across all portfolios could be handled then I think that would make for a much easier system of questioning. We want to hear Te Ururoa Flavell’s question be answered but this situation goes to the heart of the problem we have been having this afternoon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The interesting thing about the question was that I believe that the first part of the question was in order because it asked whether the Minister was prepared to do something to encourage some outcome in respect of his responsibility as Minister of Maori Affairs. The second part of the question was irrelevant. The Minister has no responsibility for what some person outside this place may think. I invite the Minister of Maori Affairs to answer the first part of the question. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. My response to the question is as follows: Maori people will be here forever; we are not going to go away. As long as I have breath to breathe I will fight for opportunities for Maori people in a fair democratic and meaningful way. Kia ora.