Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7757. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his recent statements on the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he stand by his statement made in the House yesterday that a potential court case existed over whether the Crown had information that it should have disclosed about an emissions trading scheme when it signed the Ngai Tahu settlement? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and in fact that advice was received by the previous Labour Government in May of last year. Labour was so concerned about the issue that it actually sought an independent valuation. Initially the valuation was considered to be in the order of $50 million but a later valuation showed that the liability could be in the order of $78 million to $130 million. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When he indicated that there was a question about whether the Crown had acted in good faith did he in fact have a Crown legal opinion stating that there was no basis for a claim against the Crown; if so why did he continue to use that indication as a justification for a deal to get the emissions trading scheme legislation through? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because the advice I have had is that there could potentially be a case. We would not want to prejudice that. But the issue so concerned Labour that it sought its own advice and got its own valuation. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister ignore the legal opinion prepared for the Crown Law Office by Helen Aikman QC that concludes: “there is no evidence of a breach of the Crown’s obligations”; is he therefore using potential legal action simply as a smokescreen so that he can do a secret and dirty deal that cannot be justified? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because that is a complex issue and it is fair to say that Ngai Tahu actually disagree with the findings. Just because one lawyer puts up a view that does not mean that it is right. Lots of lawyers put up cases. I suppose in a way if one is wondering why Phil Goff is making the comments that he is then maybe it is worth listening to the Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei who on Radio New Zealand National this morning said “It’s not about being race based. It’s about the value of those settlements and Labour can take some responsibility for issues around the valuation of settlements themselves from when they were in government. It’s a silly comment from Phil Goff and playing to the worst kind of politics.” I happen to agree with her. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Apart from that being a bit rich—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: —you should not have allowed that Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be silence in the House. The honourable Leader of the Opposition will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Throughout my entire career in this House which is longer than any other member’s I have never indulged in the politics of race. I take— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: In fairness I am asking you to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that comment which reflects on my integrity. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot withdraw— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister will now resume his seat. The House has got into a mess. I invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to reflect on the question he asked. He accused the Prime Minister of doing a dirty deal. The Standing Orders rule out that kind of supplementary question. The member may not make that kind of assertion or use that kind of innuendo in a supplementary question. I let it go because I do not wish to intervene all the time when supplementary questions do not comply with Standing Orders. When asked a question like that the Prime Minister naturally responded in a political way as well and he quoted someone else. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. The dilemma I have is that I did not hear the Prime Minister make an assertion that the Leader of the Opposition was behaving in a racist way; the Prime Minister was quoting another member of the House. That is the dilemma I have. I certainly will support the member though if he feels that he has been accused of racism and is trying to seek a remedy but I am not sure what the remedy is. I will sit down so that the member can identify whether the offence came from the quotation. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will leave it up to the integrity of the Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to be cautious. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: But since you have invited me to make a comment Mr Speaker I took clearly from the Prime Minister’s statement—if I heard it correctly—an implication that this was being raised on the basis of race. I have given you the assurance Mr Speaker that it was not and I take offence at any such implication. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just check with the Prime Minister as to whether he said anything that was not quoting another member of Parliament. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with a point of order here. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I am speaking to the point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am trying to sort out an issue that has caused offence. When offence is taken over something like this I accept it is a matter that I should not just ignore. As I understand it the Prime Minister did no more than quote another member of Parliament. 
Hon Member 
: He said he agreed with it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He said he agreed with it? OK. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his final comment and leave it—[ 
Interruption 
] I am asking the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to withdraw just the final comment. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: You have accepted— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite members to just take a deep breath. Offence has been taken over a matter that I know the honourable Leader of the Opposition feels deeply about. I accept that. As Speaker I must show respect to members of this House when they feel deeply about issues. All that I am asking the Prime Minister is whether he would be prepared to just withdraw the bit he added in which he agreed with the statement he quoted. Is the Prime Minister prepared to do that? [ 
Interruption 
] I am asking him to just stand and withdraw his statement that he agreed— 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Prime Minister. Does the honourable Leader of the Opposition have a further supplementary question? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table a legal opinion prepared for the Crown Law Office dated 26 November 2008 from Helen Aikman QC entitled “Impact of Emissions Trading Scheme on Te Rununga o Ngai Tahu” 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the letter from Ngai Tahu where they say that Labour acted in bad faith in not advising them of either the terms of reference or the person who was to do that review despite promises to the contrary. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a letter from Ngai Tahu. Is there— 
Hon Members 
: Is there a date? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Some members want to know the date of the letter. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I cannot remember the exact date. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table this letter from Ngai Tahu. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In light of the fact that the Minister has just successfully tabled that letter which I understand has been withheld to date under the Official Information Act would he be willing to table the other withheld material relating to the emissions trading scheme? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. I invite members not to abuse the point of order process. That is not a particularly helpful start to question time. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that if his Government changes any policy that affects an asset that was at any point part of a Treaty settlement then a full and final settlement would be reopened even when he knows that there is no need or legal obligation to do so? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Actually it is quite the contrary of that. We have made it quite clear that the Crown always reserves the right to change land use or any other aspect that may have been subject to a Treaty claim. But there is as the member will be well and truly aware a specific difference if in putting together the negotiation a party feels that the other party was not acting in good faith. That is the basis of the opinion and yes it could be tested in law. That is the point for Ngai Tahu; they are thinking about a court case. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What estimates has the Prime Minister been given of the cost of the deal to buy Maori Party support for the emissions trading scheme legislation and is it likely to be as high as the $2 billion estimated by the Kyoto Forestry Association? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I believe that that question transgresses the Standing Orders by suggesting that somehow a political party is being paid or bought off for its members’ votes. That is absolutely against the Standing Orders. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need help on this matter. The point that the Hon Rodney Hide has made is perfectly correct. The question was technically outside the Standing Orders because it alleged that the Government has bought support for something which is to allege bribery. Given that a member has objected to the question I must uphold the Standing Orders. I ask the Hon Leader of the Opposition to reword his question in order to bring it within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What estimates has the Prime Minister been given of the cost of a deal to win Maori Party support for the emissions trading scheme legislation and is it likely to be as high as the $2 billion estimated today by the Kyoto Forestry Association? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly the $2 billion figure is about as accurate as the Treasury’s $110 billion figure. I am not going to go into the details of it because it is confidential. But it is fair to say it is a very insignificant number in the scheme of things. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is the Prime Minister willing to set aside an emphatic legal opinion prepared for the Crown Law Office by an acknowledged legal expert in this area simply to reach a deal with the Maori Party of which the Prime Minister will not tell us the cost to the taxpayer but which others have estimated is as high as $2 billion? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well firstly if a deal is concluded then in due course that will be in the public domain. That is the first thing. The second thing is that it is for the same reason that I set aside the emphatic legal opinion I saw from Queen’s Counsel for banks who were arguing that the banks did not owe the Crown billions of dollars for structured deals.