Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hipkins Chris: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8388. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What were the “high profile matters in education last year that contributed to strained relations across the education sector” and why did they lead to the resignation of Lesley Longstone as Secretary of Education? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 An example is Canterbury schools. Ms Longstone’s reasons for her resignation are a matter between her and the State Services Commissioner. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did the Minister of Education convey any specific concerns about Lesley Longstone’s performance to the State Services Commissioner; if so what was the nature of those concerns? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: He would have to ask the State Services Commissioner that. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister of State Services is the Minister responsible for those matters to the House. He has no ability to say they are simply not his responsibility. He is the Minister; he is responsible. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can we have the question again please? 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did the Minister of Education convey any specific concerns about Lesley Longstone’s performance to the State Services Commissioner; if so what was the nature of those concerns? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: You would have to ask the State Services Commissioner that. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think this is actually quite a serious issue and I want to draw your attention to  
McGee 
 because this is a matter that has come up in the House before. Page 555 of  
McGee 
 states and I will just read a short extract rather than the entire context of it: “[Ministers] become answerable to the House for many matters over which they have no legal powers or in respect of the actions of public officials who are not subject to the legal control of Ministers. Legal responsibility and political responsibility are different things. Thus questions relating to actions taken by the State Services Commission in the course of carrying out its legal functions in regard to the appointment of a chief executive were held to involve ministerial responsibility.” These are matters relating to the State Services Commissioner’s employment of a chief executive of a department. The Minister is responsible to this House for those decisions. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Hipkins quite rightly points to  
McGee 
 as being an authority on how these things should be considered but in no way does that give any less validity to the answer given by the Minister to the question that was asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That’s an interesting one. 
Hon David Parker 
: It would be permissible for the Minister to say that he does not know or that he has not been informed but it is not permissible for him to say that it is not within his responsibility. Then the House and the public can judge whether the Minister is doing his job properly but it would be an answer that is in order—the current answer is not. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking further— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Just a moment. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is probably a point of which you are aware having been a long-serving Cabinet Minister but Ministers responsible for areas do get reports on these matters. Although I had only 6 years as State services Minister and nothing of this shape anything that came close to this would result in a report which of course a Minister would have to read. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am going to invite the member to ask the supplementary question again. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did the Minister of Education convey any specific concerns about Lesley Longstone’s performance to the State Services Commissioner; if so what was the nature of those concerns? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: This is an employment matter that is an operational issue and it is a matter between the State Services Commissioner and Lesley Longstone—anything to do with her employment—and I am not going to break that confidence here in the House because Ms Longstone deserves that protection. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I have established the case in  
McGee 
. The primary question that I asked the Minister was quite specific and the supplementary question was directly related to the primary question. It was a question that he could be expected to have anticipated and prepared for in coming into the House prepared to answer these questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The difficulty I have as Speaker is that at the end of the day I cannot design an answer to members’ satisfaction. We have had the question put three times. The member is clearly not satisfied. You have further supplementary questions and I invite the member to use them. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is the second time I think in 2 weeks that you have ruled—which I take is a new ruling—that after I think three attempts you have given the questioner to ask the question you are satisfied rather than ruling that the Minister must provide an appropriate answer that he is off the hook. I invite you to think about your ruling because it is correct that on two occasions you have said that we have had three goes at it that is it and we cannot do anything else. That means that a Minister can avoid answering a question three times and disappear. That is a disgrace. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Regardless of the theatrics of that last point of order the reality is that the Minister did answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: For the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to suggest that any Minister who is asked the same question three times is off the hook or through scot-free is something I do not accept for one minute. Was there a further point of order? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point was this: given that you have ruled the same way twice you may not have the interpretation that a Minister is off the hook but that is the effect because you have said to the questioner: “We’ve had three goes and that’s it you can do no more.” I simply say that you govern the Standing Orders you have critical powers and you can do more. But effectively a Minister could give the same answer three times and then it is a white flag and it is all over. That is actually the effect of your ruling: a Minister is off the hook. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not agree with the last point made by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The Minister has given an answer. It may not be an answer that is acceptable to the member asking the question but it is an answer. The Minister on the last occasion in his answer invoked public interest and the privacy of an individual. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I never heard the Minister invoke a public interest to refuse answering and I listened to the same answer three times in a row. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister— 
Hon David Parker 
: The Speaker did not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister clearly spoke about it being a private employment matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A Minister declining to answer a question because it is not in the public interest to do so— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have heard quite sufficient. The Minister did not decline to answer on that basis; he included that within his answer. I have ruled that the Minister has addressed the question. I acknowledge that it is not to the satisfaction of the member asking the question. I am giving the opportunity for further supplementary questions or we will move to the next question. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can the Minister on the one hand be said to have addressed the question and on the other hand be said to not have to address the question because it is not in the public interest to do so? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have answered that same point which was made by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. I have established a regime by which if a question is not answered to satisfaction then we have the question three times. Beyond that we have got to move on otherwise we could sit in the House on the same supplementary question for a long time. Now we are moving on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is some confusion here because you used the language of “public interest” when there are specific Standing Orders Speakers’ rulings and  
McGee 
 around those words. I think probably that was a mistake and if you had not said that we would not have had quite this problem. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept Mr Mallard that I am not absolutely perfect on this occasion. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did Lesley Longstone undertake any action in her role as Secretary for Education that was inconsistent with the Minister’s wishes; if so what were those actions? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: You would really have to ask the Minister that. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to ask the question again. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did Lesley Longstone undertake any action in her role as Secretary for Education that was inconsistent with the Minister’s actions; if so what were those actions? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I presume you are talking about the Minister of Education and you would have to ask her. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will be aware that we did try to ask the Minister of Education about those very issues and it was transferred to the Minister of State Services. The quote in my primary question comes from that answer— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I certainly was not aware of that information actually but on this occasion I invite the member to ask his question a third time. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did Lesley Longstone undertake any action in her role as Secretary of Education that was inconsistent with the Minister’s wishes; if so what were those actions? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I do not know because I am not the Minister of Education. You should ask Ms Parata. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Will you rule that if we put this question to the Minister of Education that in fact she will be required to answer it? Because we have put this question to the Minister of Education and it was transferred to the Minister of State Services who is now refusing to answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am unaware of that transfer. I accept that might have been; I was certainly unaware of that. The Minister has had three opportunities to answer it; clearly it is not to the member’s satisfaction. I invite the member to ask further—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon Member 
: That’s a circus. 
Hon Bill English 
: Well actually no it is not a circus. All we are seeing here is a clash between the different requirements upon Ministers. On the one hand there is the requirement of the House for Ministers to answer questions and that is fair enough. On the other hand particularly in relation to employment matters a State Sector Act gives Ministers a different set of responsibilities in respect of employment issues than any other issues— 
Hon Member 
: Not to this House. 
Hon Bill English 
: —it does—that the law applies in this House the same as it applies outside of this House to Ministers in respect of employment matters. Those employment matters often will involve for instance confidentiality agreements in the same way as a direct parallel to commercial confidentiality when Ministers get asked about those sorts of issues. I am not saying it is easy to draw the line but somewhere we will have to find a practice where Ministers answer the questions up to the point where they have to respect the law that binds them in respect of employment matters and agreements that may be made that are protected actually from all scrutiny in the pursuance of resolving employment matters. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not a new issue for the House; it has been canvassed many times before and Ministers have answered questions before. Ministers answered questions on Christine Rankin for example going way back when and that was the Labour Government that had to answer those questions. Why should this Government be held to a lesser standard? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because Mr Hipkins the question has been answered. The difficulty I have as the Speaker is it clearly has not been answered to your satisfaction. I have some sympathy for you. I have allowed you to put the question three times to try to get a more fulsome answer. I do not think there is anything more I can do to assist apart from inviting you to ask further supplementary questions. I am inviting the member— 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It better be a fresh point of order. 
Chris Hipkins 
: It is a fresh point of order Mr Speaker. Several supplementary questions now—I have used two supplementary questions—that the Minister has refused to answer were directly related to my primary question which the Minister could reasonably have been expected to prepare for. It is not unreasonable for the Opposition to get somewhat annoyed and for the public of New Zealand to get somewhat annoyed when Ministers do not make an effort to come to the House prepared to answer the questions. This is an issue of public interest it involves a significant payout of taxpayers’ money and the Opposition and the public should be able to expect the Government to answer on that issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the member makes a very— 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The questions have been answered. He just has not got the answers that he is demanding. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I will deal with that. Chris Hipkins makes a very good point. I accept that you have genuinely attempted to raise the questions. I am trying to assist the member. I invite the member to raise further supplementary questions. I think that is the only way forward on this occasion. I am giving the member an additional supplementary question if he so requires it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before Mr Hipkins puts his question what needs to be sorted out is something that you said you were not aware of but which the Clerk of the House did make you aware of—namely that the question had been to the Minister of Education was refused and was therefore transferred to this Minister here. Before this Minister gets up to answer the question surely he should not be allowed to just hide under the previous defence which is what he just did again this time around or to be deliberately obtuse when an answer is as clear as daylight—he has a responsibility to answer now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Just very briefly to help both sides it was one of last week’s questions which was similar that was transferred rather than today’s. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right. I have invited the member to ask a further supplementary question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who else other than the Minister of Education did Lesley Longstone have a strained relationship with? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well how would I know? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I invite the member—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am trying to assist the Opposition members. It would be helpful if they would remain quiet. I invite the member to ask his question again. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who else other than the Minister of Education did Lesley Longstone have a strained relationship with? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Once again how would I know? I do not know Ms Longstone sorry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to ask the question again and then we will be moving on. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who else other than the Minister of Education did Lesley Longstone have a strained relationship with? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I will put it another way: I do not know. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is showing an absolute contempt for this Parliament. He is responsible. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That last answer adequately addressed the question. He said he did not know. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not taking any more. The member will resume his seat. I am moving on to the next question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it is about that then the member will be removed from the House. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! If it is a point of order regarding any decision I have made with regard to the question and the answers given by the Hon Jonathan Coleman—I have made a decision and that is it. To continue to bring questions on points of orders about that will lead to more disorder in the House. We need to move on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you ruling that the Opposition is not allowed to use its allocation of supplementary questions to further question this Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am certainly ruling that if members from any party continue to raise points of order that continually raise exactly the same point then I will move on. If Mr Hipkins has a further supplementary question I am only too happy to hear that. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Was he as Minister of State Services or the Minister of Education informed consulted or asked to approve the $425000 payout to Lesley Longstone? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: What I can tell that member is that the payout was within the Auditor-General’s guidelines—[ 
Interruption 
] Let me finish. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister want the question repeated? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: No I can answer the question. What I can say is that the State Services Commissioner formulated the payment package he consulted the Auditor-General’s guidelines for it and he came to us asking for final advice. We were told that that was well within the guidelines so that is how it stood. But the key point is that it was a package formulated by the State Services Commissioner in full compliance with the Auditor-General’s guidance for Public Service payouts. 
Chris Hipkins 
: What were the specific reasons given to him by the State Services Commissioner for wanting to provide a $425000 payout to Lesley Longstone? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: As I said in the press release at the time there was a $157523.33 payment owed to Ms Longstone for outstanding holiday and payment in lieu of notice and an additional severance payment of 6 months’ remuneration of $267952. That totalled as we know $425475.33 in line with the Auditor-General’s guidelines in such cases. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked him for the reasons for the payout; I did not ask him how the payout was calculated. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please repeat the question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I will try to repeat the question because I made that one up. What were the specific reasons the State Services Commissioner gave him for wanting to make a $425000 payout to Lesley Longstone? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The reason was that she had resigned and had to have her contract paid out. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister indicated in his earlier answer that the State Services Commission came to him before the Secretary for Education resigned from her position seeking the approval of that resignation. So how can his answer possibly be acceptable? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member then had an opportunity to ask his supplementary question a second time and the Minister adequately addressed that. The Minister has answered the question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have run out of our allocation of supplementary questions for the day. One of the reasons we have done that is that the Minister has consistently refused to answer most of the questions I have asked him so I am asking that you allocate additional supplementary questions so that we can continue. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That would assume that the people asking a question have no responsibility to ask questions that will elicit answers that are according to their previous plan. In the last case he asked for reasons. He was told of severance pay and holiday pay and seemed to think that that was some sort of an outrageous answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am advised that the Labour Party still has two further supplementary questions if it wishes to use them. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did the Minister approve the payout to Lesley Longstone before or after her resignation? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I can tell you the exact time line. On Thursday 6 December the State Services Commission briefed me that Ms Longstone had decided to resign. On Tuesday 18 December I received a faxed report advising that she had formally tendered her resignation effective from 8 February and seeking approval of a severance payment with Crown Law’s certified approval. That is it. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Was the resignation of Lesley Longstone conditional upon the payout of $425000? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well that actually is really getting to the heart of an employment matter and that once again is a matter for the State Services Commission. Sorry. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I go right back to the  
McGee 
 ruling that I gave you at the very beginning of this question. The Minister of State Services is the person responsible to this House—and through this House to the public—for these payments. He himself has said that he approved this payment. He is therefore responsible for answering questions about it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The Minister has adequately addressed the answer to the member’s question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to take you back. You invited I think the House to consider that you had no further options after three questions were put. Can I offer some assistance. You may wish to review the tapes of your predecessor Lockwood Smith because he had a very elegant way of dealing with it and it provides an additional tool to use. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question was a simple one. It was whether the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have moved and said that the question was addressed. Would the member please resume— 
Hon David Parker 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please resume his seat. I have stated to the House and now you are questioning a ruling that I have given as Speaker. I said that that particular supplementary question had been addressed by the Minister. We are moving on. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have listened patiently to your rulings on this issue and I seek your direction. One of the oldest rulings in the House is Speaker’s ruling 172/5. It is from 1892. It has stood the test of time. It says: “An answer to a question ought to be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest;”. I seek your direction. Are you standing by that ruling or are you seeking to overturn it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 157/6 which states that “the Minister will not be answerable for personnel actions taken in respect of any identified member of staff.” 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not understand how the Speaker’s answer addresses the question that Dr Norman put because the question was: could it be within the public interest to answer the question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Now the member is continuing to dispute a ruling that I have given. That will only lead to disorder. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a new point of order. I have reviewed the Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders regarding this matter before today’s question. On Speaker’s ruling 157/6 which you have referred to I just want to seek some further clarification from you because the way I read that was that it was to do with individual employees within the Public Service. But chief executives fall into a somewhat different category in that they are employed by the State Services Commissioner. There are different parts of the legislation that relate specifically to those. I am not necessarily asking you to give a ruling on it right now but I would like you to consider whether in fact there should be a different rule for chief executives because there has to be some accountability for chief executives to this House. It seems to me that that Speaker’s ruling if applied to chief executives would circumvent that process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And I will certainly give consideration to the point that has been raised.