Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8317] 
2.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Was he correct yesterday in the House when he answered “Yes” to the question “Was the chairman of the Maori Television Service factually correct when he said there was no confidentiality agreement binding Mr Fox?” and what action has he taken to assure himself that the Maori Television Service Board properly investigated the truth or otherwise of the complaint that led to the investigation into the “human resources issue”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 As I later clarified to the House yesterday Mr Walden did not seek an agreement. However I am advised that there was a term in the agreement between the parties that confidentiality be maintained. Ministers do not have a copy of the document but they agreed with Mr Walden that he seek Mr Fox’s consent for that section of the agreement to be released. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of Dr Cullen’s answer to a supplementary question to question No. 8 on Tuesday 26 August that the matter “could well be a police matter” can he assure the House that his Government has checked that the Maori Television Service Board is not an accessory in covering up a crime; and if he has not checked does that not make him an accessory as well? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has just been a direct accusation of criminal offence on the part of the Minister—a direct accusation. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: It was not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. I said that the next person to interject would leave so he leaves. That is a warning to everybody. I am hearing the point of order and I have heard the comment from the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Roger Sowry withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Mallard can make the statement as much as he likes but that is not what was put to the Minister. The Minister was asked whether the Government knowing that the matter might be criminal has colluded in covering it up and whether that does not also make it an accessory. That is a straightforward question that I would expect the Opposition to be able to ask. One of the things we want to do is make sure that our Government is not colluding in covering up crimes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that the question—having listened to it and having sought advice—asked an opinion that is in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling but with respect there has been some clear public information that suggests that the allegation that the Government is aiding and abetting in this case is serious. Secondly the so-called and only potential complainant in this case has said that she is happy with the outcome. Now that being the case there cannot be a crime in the way that is being alleged in the question. That is why I say the question is out of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Far be it for me to question my learned colleague in the law but he will be aware that just because a complainant in a criminal matter withdraws it does not mean that no crime has been committed. Indeed if she has received a payment to withdraw there could in fact be a cover-up. If some of the rumours that are circulating regarding this matter are correct there has been a crime. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The only thing that cannot be done is to accuse any member of this Parliament of a criminal offence. However the point is that no charge relating to an offence has yet been laid. There is nothing in the question as it was originally asked that is out of order. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It seems to be speculation. My understanding of criminal collusion is that it is a matter between the parties and the board for the Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why on earth when the Minister was first asked this question did he not give the answer that he just gave—in short that the board and other parties were not in a position to inform him of the nature of it due to the confidentiality clause—and more important why has he left someone to hang out in the public eye accused of serious misdemeanours when if he knew the facts as he surely should have it was thoroughly improper that the allegations that I have heard in this House and that he has heard were made in the first place? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am not as advanced as my learned colleague over there in the sense of serving time here but certainly it is a matter for the board—and I stressed that at that time—and not for the Government. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In respect of his answer to the primary question today why did he give the exact opposite answer yesterday? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I did not. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why is it that the Minister is personally able to interfere in what are actually commercial decisions regarding broadcasting platforms for the Maori Television Service for example yet when we ask fundamental questions about its leadership and recent personnel departures it is “an operational matter for the board” for which the Minister conveniently has no responsibility? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The matters on platform are policy and agreement between the Government and the Maori Television Service. Those other matters are operational matters—the board’s business. 
Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister confirm that it suits him and this Government to have these allegations swirling around Mr Fox with his Associate Minister Dr Cullen talking about the police and fuelling the fire because Mr Derek Fox came within 600 votes of beating this Minister in his own electorate and if it were not for these allegations swirling around he would clean him out at the next election? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No. At least I had the strength to run for the seat and get voted in. The further matter that of being scurrilous and spreading speculation is a matter for voyeurs not Ministers. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I seek leave to table the question for oral answer from last Tuesday in which Dr Cullen says that the issue could well be a police matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you have ruled out behaviour that is not becoming to the House but surely you do not wish to rule out applause which rarely is given when somebody scores a palpable hit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not and if I ever thought I was going to get to that stage I would be giving up this job.