Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:611;Page:8242] 
7.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Was Maori Television Service Chairman Mr Walden correct when he stated “at no time has the Maori Television Service sought any kind of confidentiality agreement with Mr Fox. Nor has it restrained him from discussing the reasons for his resignation”; and given that taxpayers’ money is involved when will the public be given an account of what is going on? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Mr Walden’s comments are a matter for himself and the Maori Television Service board. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That statement by the Minister of Maori Affairs is basically a refusal to answer the question. What is the point of the Minister being the Minister if he is saying that matters that go on with taxpayers’ money are nothing to do with him. Why has he taken a ministerial warrant? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister should expand a little on the answer he has given. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In the first instance it is an operational matter. Like any other business it is a human resource situation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to expand on that particular point just a little please. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been a longstanding tradition in this House for Government departments and even more for organisations further from the Government—for example Crown entities like the Maori Television Service—that personal matters which are operational matters and clearly under the Act of Parliament not a responsibility of individual Ministers are not answered by Ministers in this House. I ask you to consider your direction to the Minister. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: We have an interesting dilemma. The whole House knows and possibly you know Mr Speaker if you read the weekend newspapers that Mr Fox told the country he would be quite happy to say what went on but that he was bound by a confidentiality agreement that prevented him from doing it. Mr Walden has said there is no confidentiality agreement. It would be absurd if a member of Parliament could not ask the Minister: “Who is lying? Is Mr Fox lying or is Mr Walden lying?”. Instead we have an answer we all know—it is an operational matter. So what Minister! Was there or was there not a confidentiality agreement? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister determined twice to answer in that particular way—that is that it was an operational matter. He is entitled to give that as an answer. That does not mean the House has to accept it. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to take up the point that the Minister of State Services made about the conventions in the House. He stated there is a convention here that we do not hold Ministers responsible for operational matters. It used to be a convention that we could hold Ministers responsible for those things that they were directly responsible for like the actions of their civil servants decisions made by their departments and information released by them. It appears that it has become a convention—at least of this Government—that we cannot hold Ministers responsible even for Government departments for which they are directly responsible. Can I take it from that that you will accept the assertion made by the Minister of State Services that Ministers have no more responsibility for Crown entities these days than they do for Government departments? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 117/1 which basically states that as far as asking the question is concerned the member has a perfect right to ask the question. The Minister has a right to answer it in his way but obviously that does not mean that a member will always be satisfied with the answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem with that is that the Minister can get up and say: “I don’t intend to answer because although I appointed the man to the head of the board his comments have nothing to do with me whatsoever.” Frankly this Minister and his officials have had at least 3½ hours in which to contact Mr Walden and be able to say to this House: “I have contacted Mr Walden and he assures me that that is correct.” That at least is what he owes this House. To get up having had access to all the information in a very simple way and say that he will not answer the question—by way of its being an operational matter—is simply treating this House with contempt. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might say that and he is entitled to do so in response to the answer given but the question was properly asked and the answer given was in order in terms of the Standing Orders. I cannot put words in the mouth of the Minister but people are free to criticise that answer. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I fully appreciate the dilemma that you are in—that the Speaker cannot make any Minister answer any question—but that is not quite the position we are in. The Minister is really asking us to accept a new convention because anything can be described as operational. It defies belief that the Minister does not know the answer. I think it would be helpful if you as Speaker would say that the parliamentary thing to be done by a Minister who knows the answer is to give it unless there is some reason of public policy that he should not. I cannot see what that could be as we have two senior officials—one is now an ex-official—one of whom has to be lying. The Minister is leaving suspicion over both of them and he should clear the person who is honest from the one who is dishonest. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there is no convention—and I stress this point—about Ministers not being answerable for operational matters. I appreciate the point the member made at the start of his point of order—which is the dilemma any Speaker is in when an answer is given. The answer is not always acceptable to anybody else. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the Minister’s reply could he clarify for the House and for the people of New Zealand which statement is true: the statement made by the chairman that there was no confidentiality agreement or the statement made by the former chief executive that there was; if he cannot clarify that how can the public possibly have any confidence that the $70 million poured into Maori television will ever deliver anything more than a complete and utter shambles? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I said at the outset and I have sought advice from Mr Walden I was advised by the Maori Television Service this morning that it never sought a confidentiality agreement between the Maori Television Service and Mr Fox. However I am also advised by the Maori Television Service that Mr Fox’s lawyer did seek a confidentiality clause and the Maori Television Service agreed to that in one sentence. Shall I labour on about this? If this House is to adjust terms of reference in human resource development and people’s contracts then let us all have a look at our contracts. I understand that this is at an end. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not the first time that we have had a non-answer from this Minister. We have someone who says: “No can’t do that. Can’t answer the question.” and then once the Opposition has used up a few questions and the Minister comes under a bit of pressure he goes on to reveal the information he or she was asked for in the first instance. I put it to you that it is bringing this House into disrepute if Opposition members ask a question and the Minister says it is operational and he is not going to comment. He was defended by Mr Mallard in his response that it was operational. You backed the Minister and declared that if it was operational he did not have to comment. He then came out and gave the full answer that he should have given in the first instance. I ask you to rule that Ministers should give the proper answer upfront. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I object strongly to the member saying that I supported the Minister. I upheld the Standing Orders and I maintain that absolutely. I say to the Minister that I wish he had given that answer right at the start because that would have been the appropriate thing to do. I am not going to penalise any members who ask subsequent questions and they may carry on doing so if they wish. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think this is a case where you do have a sanction. There is no point in the Minister giving such a non-answer except to use up the Opposition’s questions which now under your rulings this year— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have just indicated to the member that that is what I am doing. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: You are going to give us some extra questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Oh jolly good. Thank you. I am very much in favour of that answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were two parties whose members asked a question and they will get a question now—one to National and one to ACT. But the next question goes to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is the position: did the board sign a confidentiality agreement with Mr Fox as denied at the start of the Minister’s answer or was one agreed to by Mr Fox and the board which was the suggestion the Minister made at the end of his answer because he said it was at the behest of Mr Fox’s lawyer? Is there or is there not a confidentiality agreement? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I will clarify for my learned elder over there. Mr Walden is quite clear that Maori Television Service did not seek a confidentiality clause. It was sought in an overarching approach by Mr Fox’s lawyer. They are—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked in the primary question whether there was a confidentiality agreement. We still do not know whether the Minister’s view is that there is one or there is not one. But he seems to be alluding to the fact that Mr Fox’s lawyer sought a clause with regard to the full agreement that referred to confidentiality of a certain matter. Now if that is the case there is a confidentiality agreement. Could the Minister please say “Yes” or “No”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first point is that I understood the Minister did say there was a confidentiality agreement and that Mr Walden said there was one. I understood that quite clearly. Secondly I understood the Minister to say that Mr Fox’s lawyer wanted to have his own arrangement also. That to me certainly addressed the question that was asked. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Does the chair of the Maori Television Service board retain the confidence of the Minister? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes most certainly. His commercial acumen is well tested and well known in this country. 
Katherine Rich 
: Since the House is to understand that there is a confidentiality agreement can the Minister tell the House what this agreement covers? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I said before if this House is about to adjust the rights of people and their contracts then that is something else we have to labour on. No. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister said “No” at the end of his question and that was in answer to the question. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister said that it was not for the House to adjust agreements. That is not what the member asked. The member asked whether there was a confidentiality agreement and what it covered. The Minister did not in any way refer to the question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes he did. He said “No”. He would not give the details. I heard him say that and so did the Clerk. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect the Minister was asked whether he was aware of the agreement’s provisions not whether he would release them. He did not answer the question that was asked by Katherine Rich. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I think the Minister did address that. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the House correct to conclude that Derek Fox sought through his lawyer a confidentiality agreement which he now chooses to hide behind and that Mr Walden the Chairman of the Maori Television Service was incorrect when he said that there was no confidentiality agreement? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: In both parts the member is right. In the sense of what Mr Fox said and Mr Walden said from their own points of view I believe that they were giving honest answers. 
Rodney Hide 
: Was the chairman of the Maori Television Service factually correct when he said there was no confidentiality agreement binding Mr Fox? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have been considering that last answer. Now we are in a real quandary and no one is any the wiser about what has gone on. We have just been told that Mr Walden was correct in saying there was no confidentiality agreement. The word “sought” was not in that question; the operative word that was in the primary question is not there. The straight factual question was: was he correct when he said that there was no agreement on confidentiality? The Minister’s answer was “Yes”. Well it cannot stand against the primary answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister gave an answer that certainly addressed the question that was asked. He said “Yes”. I cannot think of any more specific answer than that. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Speaking to the point of order can I clarify this quite clearly. Mr Walden did not seek an agreement. The Maori Television Service board did not seek the agreement. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think anyone in the House wants the Minister to commit a breach of privilege and it is possible that his answers are still correct because one interpretation still lies open from the Minister which he has not clarified. It is this: yes Mr Fox’s lawyers sought a confidentiality agreement and yes it was granted but in no way does that confidentiality agreement prevent Mr Fox from saying what has happened—it might prevent the Maori Television Service. It would be helpful if he would clarify that because it would indicate that Mr Fox has actually been telling porkies in the media. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is correct. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the Minister’s performance today in evading answers and wasting the time of the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member just come to the question please. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether there is now anything stopping Mr Fox from telling the truth—yes or no? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe that in any other self-respecting democracy a Minister could have survived at the end of such a procedure as we just heard in this question. The fundamental facts are that we now think or have been told that there was no agreement; then that there was an agreement that Mr Fox sought it and that it was granted. The last answer given to Mr Prebble was that Mr Fox was telling porkies. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes it was. Now Mr Fox has been called a liar yet to a prior question the Minister said that Mr Fox’s lawyers had sought a confidentiality clause and it had been granted. So Fox was not telling lies but today he is. At the end of this debacle—which is an absolute shambles the like of which I have not seen in Parliament—the Prime Minister has to ask herself what is going on with her administration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Whether the answers are correct or consistent is a matter for examination and debate not for a point of order.