Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 22 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4623. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in his Ministers; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because they are capable and hard-working Ministers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he have confidence in the Minister for Land Information when the Minister advised on the 7th of this month that the Overseas Investment Office had not completed its investigation into May Wang’s and Jack Chen’s illegal purchase of four farms when in fact the Overseas Investment Office concluded its investigation on 22 December 2010 a full 10 months before Miss Wang was charged in Hong Kong? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because I take it it takes some time to work through those issues. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he have confidence in the Minister when he and his department did not take legal action to get the four farms divested during the 10-month period when there was no stay on such action being taken as Mr Williamson in this House has claimed? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: For the member’s education the farms in question were bought illegally. No approval was sought or given by the Overseas Investment Office or the Minister for Land Information. The illegal purchases were discovered by the Government as part of another process and it is now going through a process to regularise that land. That has been held up because of the court case that has been taking place as I understand it in Hong Kong. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking the Prime Minister when there was a 10-month gap with no legal stay at all the reason being given to this House why legal action did not take place. I never have insinuated that the Minister approved these four deals. That is the reason why— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is seeking to debate the issue. I would really appreciate it if the member would actually look at his  
Hansard 
 and see what he actually asked and compare that with what he just said under his point of order he asked because they were different questions The question the member actually asked to the Prime Minister was how he has confidence in his Minister given a certain range of things. The question the member then said he actually asked was why did these things happen. Those are two different questions. If the member wants an answer to the question “Why did certain things happen?” then that is the question to ask not “How does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister …” because there are so many answers to that question. I want to be helpful to the right honourable gentleman because I have got no problem with the issue. I am not trying to protect any Minister from being accountable but the issue is the wording of questions. If the member asked the question he posed under his point of order that would I suspect get a different answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This was my question: “How can he have confidence in the Minister when he and his department did not take legal action to get the four farms divested during the 10-month period when there was no such stay on legal action being taken as Mr Williamson has claimed?”. It just needs a simple answer. Why did he not act when he could? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The problem is the question the member asked—that was the original question indeed—asked the Prime Minister why he has confidence or how he can have confidence in the Minister. It did not ask why the Minister did not act. There are two questions there. I am not wanting to be difficult but I cannot be unfair to the Prime Minister. I cannot say to the Prime Minister: “This is what the questioner really means. You must answer it that way.” The Prime Minister has to listen to the question and answer the question. The member in his point of order raised a different question which I suspect would have got a different answer. That is what I am trying to point out—that there is a way to ask the question but it is not “How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister?’. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect the question is about his having confidence and I want to know why. That was the primary question—“if so why?”. We were told it is because he is competent and hard-working and I am just putting up a classic case of no action being taken by him or his department despite the assurances to the House in the past— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am trying to be helpful because I do not want to deprive the member of his chance to ask legitimate questions. I fully accept that there are legitimate questions to be asked and the member has identified the two ways to ask the question in both the question asked and the point of order raised. The point of order in my view asked a different question. It asked why certain things did not happen and the member has got a right to know the answer to that question. It relates to the primary question. It relates to the answers given. I see no reason why the question should not be a legitimate supplementary question. But it is a different question from asking how the Prime Minister has confidence in the Minister because of certain alleged happenings. It is a different question. I can only ask the Prime Minister to answer the question asked and that is my dilemma. I am not trying to be difficult. I just cannot ask the Prime Minister to answer a question that he has not been asked. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Who asked the Prime Minister whether or not the Minister Mr Williamson had approved the four deals? I did not. No one else has done that. So why was that part of his answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We are now though debating by way of point of order the way the Prime Minister has answered which is just not acceptable. It is totally outside the Standing Orders. The member I believe can question exactly the way he wants to; he has just got to word the question so that I can then require the Prime Minister to answer it. But I cannot ask the Prime Minister to answer because where a question is how the Prime Minister can have confidence in something there is a multitude of answers to that kind of question. I cannot tell the Prime Minister that he must answer it in this way because I have no power to do that. There is no way under the Standing Orders that I have the power to do that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the question of his confidence does the Prime Minister accept that thus far Mr Williamson has not provided any reason why May Wang and Jack Chen were not and are not facing charges for their serious illegal actions where each offence is regarded as being so serious as to attract a $300000 fine? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the question of confidence what possible reason could there be for Mr Williamson and the Overseas Investment Office first not to take legal action against Miss Wang and her associates in the 10-month period back in 2010 when there was every opportunity to do so or second for Mr Williamson to advise the  
New Zealand Herald 
 as reported on the 16th of this month that May Wang and Jack Chen “will not face charges in New Zealand for breaching the Overseas Investment Act”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because as I said the farms were bought illegally without the knowledge of the Overseas Investment Office. At the time that was discovered by the Government it took some time to work out whether they in fact were illegally purchased or not. May Wang was for instance a New Zealand citizen at the time. So it took some time to work their way through it. When they were confident of that they took action.