Sio Su'a William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Sio Su'a William: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:666;Page:13359] 
10. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
 to the  
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: Why did the chief executive of the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs announce last week that a range of organisations will now be asked to bid for the $4.8 million that was specifically earmarked in this year’s Budget for the Pacific Economic Development Agency Ltd? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
: 
 It is my understanding that the chief executive of the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs thought that the public may be interested to know that he is inviting tender applications from a number of Pacific agencies and organisations including the Pacific Education Centre the Pacific Business Trust the Village Trust C-Me Mentoring Foundation and the Pacific Economic Development Agency with the intention of negotiating a package to build skills qualifications and entrepreneurship among young Pacific people. Clearly this is a chief executive with a keen appreciation of the Government’s wish and desire to invest in Pacific people and communities to ensure their future success and prosperity. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Does she now accept that this was a shonky deal from the start which her ministry confirmed by not endorsing the Pacific Economic Development Agency proposal and will she now accept that this was an attempt to use public money for political advantage? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No I do not accept any of those assertions. This was a Budget appropriation made on the basis of the economic development needs of Pacific people in the Auckland region. Certainly the proposals put forward by the Pacific Economic Development Agency coincided with the Government’s appreciation that there needed to be a real focus on young Pacific adults who were without skills and training. From the Government’s perspective what is important is that we have appropriated new money—in fact the largest single injection of funding into the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs in 10 years—to help some of the most underprivileged and vulnerable members in the community. I would have thought that that member would applaud the Government’s initiative. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Why is she so willing to risk $4.8 million of taxpayer funds by still including the Pacific Economic Development Agency in the tender process announced when her own ministry has warned that this private company has not delivered on any projects of note and is untested and unproven in the ability to deliver on projects of this scale? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: As the member knows the appropriation was always subject to the successful completion of a purchase agreement with the Pacific Economic Development Agency. In the meantime the chief executive has now decided to tender out the funding and as we have previously said decisions on purchase agreements are a matter for officials. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Will she tell Parliament who should be held accountable for the shambolic Pacific Economic Development Agency affair: herself as the responsible Minister; Mr English who named the Pacific Economic Development Agency as his preferred provider; Mr Key who stated in the answer to written question No. 12758 that he met with Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga Michael Jones and Va’aiga Tuigamala at the Columbus Cafe in June 2009 but could not recollect whether J R Pereira was there or whether they discussed funding at all; or all of the above? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and there will be silence. I just ask members to please think a little about the questions they are asking. I listened to a question a moment ago that contained a derogatory statement in it and now this question did not need to contain the assertion that this was a shambolic affair. Those sorts of questions are totally outside the Standing Orders and should not be allowed. I ask what I am to do as Speaker. The question went on and on and asserted all sorts of stuff into the question and that is simply not good enough. I have insisted on Ministers answering straight questions. I have given the Opposition huge power through that and to throw it away with meaningless political statements is a tragedy for this House. 
I invite Su’a William Sio to re-ask his question in an intelligible way in order to cut out the assertions about what he might think of a programme because that is irrelevant to a question and it is outside the Standing Orders. I invite him to ask a question that the Minister can answer. I call Su’a William Sio. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the Government benches that they should show some courtesy. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Will she tell Parliament who should be held accountable for the U-turn of this Government on the Pacific Economic Development Agency affair? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I do not accept the premise that there is a U-turn. There is an appropriation of taxpayers’ money here which this Government appropriated to improve the well-being of young Pacific people. That is something that Labour did not do in its 10 years in Government and that member should be ashamed of that. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has been a lot of sermonising today about the language used by Opposition members in their questions. That Minister just screamed across the House at my colleague that he should be ashamed of himself. He put down a question on an issue that he has taken up in this Parliament over several days. This issue is very close to the heart of my colleague and his constituents. His commitment to the issue is clear. He has been asking questions of this Minister and instead he gets personal abuse. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will not be interjections. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Well if Tau Henare would not mind not interjecting— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard the member. Members should know that if a question alleges that the Government has done a U-turn they are likely to get a fairly strong response from the Government because Governments do not like to be accused of having done U-turns. Like it or not that is the reality. I think that members should think about the questions that they are asking if they do not want fairly robust responses to be made. To accuse a Minister of having done a U-turn will invariably elicit a response from him or her. I accept that Ministers should not in any way make a personal attack on the questioner. Members will note that today I have pulled up several Ministers who I feel have made personal attacks on questioners. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just seek clarification. We have heard your messages about asking straight questions. The implication of your latest ruling is that we are required to ask the questions that the Government would like to hear in order to avoid personal abuse. I am sure that that cannot be— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If members would like me to do this I would be very happy to run Questions 101 for them on how to ask tough questions. As a former Minister I have probably answered as many questions in this House as any other member and as a member I have probably asked more questions than any other member of this House. I am very happy to assist members if they want to have a little assistance on how to ask a tough question but it is not very difficult. We will not waste more time on that right now.