Robertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 06 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17480. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]5.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to theMinister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements regarding her relationships and interactions with Oravida Ltd?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Yes.Grant Robertson: Does she stand by her statement in this House on 19 March in reference to her visit toOravida’s headquarters in Shanghai: “The only other choice was either to go to the airport or to go to Oravida and then to the airport.”?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think it would be correct to say that I could have gone back to the hotel for a small dinner and then gone to the airport as well or any other combination of that.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a document from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade from 9 October that is a timetable for the Minister of Justice’s visit to Shanghai which includes at the time she ended up going to Oravida a business and law round table—Mr SPEAKER: The document has been well described. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Grant Robertson: How can she say that the only option was to go straight to the airport or to Oravida when the programme for her visit actually had a business and legal round table in the timeslot that was used for her visit to Oravida?Hon Trevor Mallard: Half a million dollars for the family.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I take exception to that comment. I would like to have it withdrawn please.Mr SPEAKER: The member has taken offence to the interjection that came from the Hon Trevor Mallard. Would he stand and withdraw that comment.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will deal with that afterwards. I have asked the member—Hon Trevor Mallard: No I am not going to withdraw Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: That puts us in a very difficult position where I have no choice but to then ask—Hon Trevor Mallard: It was not an unparliamentary comment.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No the member alluded to a substantial amount of money being the benefit to the family. The Minister has taken objection to that I think with justification. I will ask the member once more to stand and withdraw that comment. If not—Hon Trevor Mallard: I will not withdraw the truth. Her—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Trevor Mallard will leave the Chamber.Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.Mr SPEAKER: Did we get the supplementary question?Grant Robertson: Given that she was in China as Minister of Justice why was a business and legal round table removed from her programme and replaced at her request with a visit to Oravida?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is wrong in that question. The document that he refers to is one of a draft of itineraries prepared—I think it was on 9 October he said—by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That meeting—or that dinner—did not go ahead and that was not actually at my request.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a document from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that shows that the request for the visit to Oravida came directly from the Minister’s office.Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s a different thing.Mr SPEAKER: It may well be a different thing but leave has been sought to table that particular Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade document. I am going to put the leave. The House can decide. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why does he not just save us a bit of time and table the whole Official Information Act papers—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a legitimate point of order and the Minister knows it.Grant Robertson: How is it consistent with her responsibilities as a Cabinet Minister for her to remove a justice-related visit from her programme and to replace it with a visit to “raise the profile” of a company that her husband is a director of?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I utterly and totally reject the allegations made in that question.Grant Robertson: Did her programme provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade include a business and legal round table which was replaced by a visit to Oravida at her request?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course no. The draft itinerary at one—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister has been asked a question. She must be given the opportunity to answer.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. It was very clear that this was one of a range of items that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade had suggested in a draft itinerary weeks before I attended in China. The fact is that I at no stage required it to be removed and that member is quite incorrect in his statement.Grant Robertson: Why was it necessary for her to tell the New Zealand ambassador that “nothing untoward” occurred at a private dinner?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was of course not necessary for me to do so but I did.Grant Robertson: What was it that led her to believe that it was necessary for her to tell the New Zealand ambassador that nothing untoward occurred? Was it the presence of someone at that dinner whom the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was so concerned about that it still provided her with briefing notes about that person?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That member has again stated some matters as fact which are not fact. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade did not give me a briefing about the friend of Mr Shi who was at the dinner and the member is quite wrong to say so. It did not give me a briefing on it.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table an email exchange between the director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s North Asia division and the New Zealand ambassador providing notes for a person who was to be at the dinner—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: The notes were provided on Friday 18 October.Mr SPEAKER: That document and email trail has now been well described to the House. Leave is sought now to table it. Is there any objection?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well as long it’s what it actually says—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been well described by the member. I am putting the leave. The House can decide.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Not accurately.Mr SPEAKER: Well if the member ismisdescribing something he is seeking to table that would be a serious offence that would be subsequently dealt with. Leave is sought to table that email trail. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.