Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 14 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:310. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
3. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Did New Zealand’s Free Trade Agreement with China influence his decision to approve the sale of the Crafar farms to the Shanghai Pengxin Group? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Ministers were satisfied that Milk New Zealand Holdings met all the relevant criteria under the Overseas Investment Act 2005. Ministers can have regard only to the criteria and factors that are outlined in that Act. Every application is decided on its individual merits and the outcome would be the same even if New Zealand did not have a free-trade agreement with China. The Overseas Investment Act requires the Overseas Investment Office to treat all applications on an equal basis regardless of the country of origin of the applicants.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was I think a fine statement of general principles but I was asking about a specific Minister—this one—and his decision in a specific case. He did not address that primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must have misheard the answer but I thought I heard the Minister say that the outcome would have been the same regardless of whether New Zealand had a free-trade agreement with China or not which is another way of saying that it did not have any impact on the decision. Now if I am wrong there the Minister had better correct me very rapidly but it appears I am not wrong. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Thank you for that interpolation. Why then did he tell Mark Sainsbury on  
Close Up 
 on 27 January that when considering the Shanghai Pengxin Group’s bid there were certain requirements that New Zealand had to follow in relation to the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Because in the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement we have given China most favoured nation status. That means that if an application from a Chinese investor met all the criteria of the Overseas Investment Act which it did and we were then still to decline it I think that would send a very very bad signal to China about our relationship with it.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: How does the Minister put the two answers to those two questions together? On the one hand he said it had no influence on his decision and on the other hand he has gone to some length to tell us how important it was to his decision. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: With great ease. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a pretty important and I thought substantive but simple question: how does he put them together? He just said “point of ease”. That is not really an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no the Minister said “With great ease.” was his answer and I have got to confess that that is a perfectly accurate—or perfectly reasonable—answer to the question asked. One of the problems when members ask how a Minister can do something or explain something or compare something is that that is the kind of answer they risk. There are other ways of wording that kind of question to get the answer the member is seeking. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it the Speaker’s ruling that that kind of answer is acceptable now in this House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It has been for an awful long time. I can remember one Minister in particular—no longer in this House—who on more than one occasion gave that kind of answer. Members need to think about their questions and when they are shaping a question in their mind need to be aware that if they ask how a Minister can do something it is not the smartest way to ask a question because it risks that kind of answer. The remedy is in the member’s hands: to ask questions that avoid that kind of answer. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Was Shanghai Pengxin Group wrong when it stated in its application for the Crafar farms that should its bid be turned down this would adversely affect New Zealand’s trade relationship with China and the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I think it is fair to say that if a bid met all of the criteria of the Act and in many cases over-met all those criteria then there would be adverse implications if the Government was to decline that bid. Frankly I do not even know what grounds the Minister would be able to do that on without being challenged by judicial review. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This was a question about “Was Shanghai Pengxin Group wrong …”. The Minister simply did not address that part of the question. He gave us I thought a very valid answer in relation to general Government policy. I was asking “Was Shanghai Pengxin Group wrong …”. I mean he did not talk about that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are a number of dilemmas about that. I do not want to be unhelpful to the member but the Minister is not actually responsible for Shanghai Pengxin Group. It is one of the dilemmas that he is not responsible for what it may say. Now you have asked him for his opinion on it and he has given his opinion on it. Again it is difficult for me to be harder on a Minister with that kind of question. I apologise to the member because I realise I am not being terribly helpful to him and I do not want to be unhelpful. But I just cannot ask Ministers to do more than the Standing Orders require of them. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he received any advice from the Overseas Investment Office regarding a visit to the office by a senior Chinese Government diplomat late last year and did that Chinese Government official raise any issues around the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement if the Shanghai Pengxin Group’s application was turned down? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No and therefore it is not worth speculating on the second part. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If Shanghai Pengxin Group had no background— 
Hon Members 
: Penguin! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: “Pengxin” I said. I know you cannot speak Chinese. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well if he wants to interrupt and show his ignorance— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not carry on like that. Admittedly we do not encourage interjections [ 
Interruption 
]—I am on my feet—when members are asking questions because it does tend to lead to disorder. But it is no excuse to go with an exchange across the House. The member may now ask his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If Shanghai Pengxin Group did not have any background in farming of this nature to the extent that it required Landcorp to become a tenant farmer in our own country something the Prime Minister says he frowns on then how could it have possibly passed the economic test in the first place? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am going to be a bit guarded in answering in too much more detail. This matter is still before the court. The judge will be ruling on Friday and therefore I do not want to take it any further other than to repeat once again that all of the criteria under the Act including the question the member raises about a track record in farming—and Shanghai Pengxin Group has a track record in farming. But other than that I think it is unwise of me to get into more detail. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question and these issues were canvassed at some— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Oh is this a point of order? I beg your pardon. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: This is around the sub judice defence that the Minister just used. These questions went at some length last week in this House. The Prime Minister answered questions about them without seeking this. The Minister himself came to the House during the Address in Reply debate and gave a long speech— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! There are certain questions that can be asked and the Minister has answered certain questions. But the Minister is perfectly at liberty to as further detail is sought around reasons why and justifications—the Minister is not unreasonable in being cautious since the matter is either before the court or about to be before the court. Ministers must—in fact are required to—pay attention to the matter of sub judice. So it is not unreasonable.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Seeing as you are effectively saying that he can plead the sub judice rule but you did not at the time of my asking the question rule it out do I get my question back?  
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member had his question answered and that is the end of the matter.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is this: how is the Minister able to plead the sub judice rule now when on a far broader range of questions last week he and the Prime Minister did not?  
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is asking a question not making a point of order. The issue of order is simple: Ministers from time to time recognise that matters are before the court and therefore choose not to give further detailed answers. They may answer to a certain point and then choose not to go any further and that is quite proper when matters are before the court. In fact it is required of us to be cautious when matters are before the court and Ministers have to make that judgment with each question. I mean it would be unfair to not answer any questions. There is a certain point a Minister can go to to do with matters that are not seen to in any way risk compromising what is before the court. The Minister has chosen to do that up to a point but then the Minister has drawn the line about going into further detail and that is not unreasonable.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister put that at issue when he said that the application met all the criteria one of which is the economic good to New Zealand. He put it at issue. It was not ruled out then. Now he is hiding behind the sub judice rule. He cannot surely do that.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: And neither can members accuse Ministers of hiding behind the sub judice rule because points of order are not meant to make accusations. Points of order are meant to be issues to do with order and the member raised a valid point of order. But the rules remain that Ministers have to judge that matter. On some occasions the Speaker does and on this occasion I have got no reason to in any way doubt that the Minister is being reasonable in not wishing to go any further into the detail of the matter because it is before the court and that is not unreasonable.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a feeling that both you and the right honourable gentleman have misunderstood the comments that have been made by the Hon Maurice Williamson who I think did not invoke the sub judice rule about the possibility of influencing the court but invoked more the rule around prejudicing the Crown’s position. I think there is a difference and I think it is important we understand that.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Either way matters that are before the court are considered to be sub judice and have been for a long time. Now that does not mean that they cannot be mentioned. The honourable member will recollect that at the last Standing Orders Committee we had quite lengthy consideration of the issue to try and make sure that members could raise matters that were before the court. But they are meant to alert the Speaker if they are going to do so. On this occasion a Minister has chosen not to give further comment and I think we should respect that. I think it is a matter that we should respect for whatever aspect of the sub judice issue.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I promise this is my last thing. The issue is about consistency. It is fine to use sub judice—I would not say the word “hiding” like my colleague—but there has to be consistency about the application. So if we ask one question and the Minister says “I’m happy to answer that.” but then we ask a similar question and he does not like it so he says “Oh well sub judice—I can’t answer it.” that creates a problem for keeping the Government to account.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member but it is my assessment that that is not the case. I can imagine members would get frustrated if that were the case. There are certain questions to do with the mechanics of a decision—what has happened and why it might have happened—that Ministers would be prepared to answer. But once you get down to the reasons why a certain decision may have been made and get down to for example the economic arguments and that kind of issue beyond the fact that the Overseas Investment Office considered that the economic arguments had been met—that is a simple fact; it announced that. But once you ask the Minister to get down into detail beyond that I am not surprised the Minister may invoke the sub judice rule at that point because that is a different level of consideration of the issue in my opinion.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it common practice for senior diplomats from foreign countries to visit the Overseas Investment Office to lobby on behalf of specific applications and if that were the case would the Minister expect to be informed? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Given I am not aware of it ever happening obviously I have not been informed. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he or his office received any advice from other Government Ministers or Government officials regarding the turning down of the Shanghai Pengxin Group’s bid and any adverse impact that may have on our trading relationship with China? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No. This decision was taken purely on the merits of the application and the recommendation to me and the Associate Minister of Finance. Both of us signed off on that recommendation. Although I do talk to my colleagues across the board on a range of issues from time to time this decision was not based on any of those conversations.