Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 16 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:484. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
2. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Does he believe he and the Government have conducted themselves competently and appropriately in relation to the decision to approve the purchase of the Crafar farms by a foreign buyer; if not what did they do wrong? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why did the Minister say on several occasions that he had to approve the sale of the Crafar farms to Shanghai Pengxin under the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement when the High Court found that the Overseas Investment Office’s written advice to him was the opposite?  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Because as I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee told the House a few minutes ago for 7 years under both a Labour and a National Government the before and after economic benefit test was the test that the Overseas Investment Office used—on the James Cameron application or the Shania Twain application or any of the others that have gone through it.  
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Very interesting but my question was why he used the cover of the Chinese free-trade agreement— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may repeat his question.  
Hon David Parker 
: Why did the Minister on several occasions say that he had to approve the sale of the Crafar farms to Shanghai Pengxin under the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement when the High Court found that the Overseas Investment Office’s written advice to him was the opposite?  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Because we were applying the test we believed to be appropriate—the one that had been used. The fact is that Ministers’ decisions are subject to judicial review just like the Hon Chris Carter lost in the courts over the Whangamata waterways and— 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has still not addressed the issue— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear what the member’s concern is. The question specifically asked why the Minister had said allegedly on more than one occasion that he had to approve the deal because of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement which has nothing to do with the previous practice under the Overseas Investment Office because the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement is relatively recent. That is the bit I think because the question covered only that issue.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I can be helpful.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister can be helpful I will be very—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! If the Minister can be helpful to the House that is great.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I said in the House in question time on Tuesday that this application and its processes went through regardless of whether we had a free-trade agreement with China or not.  
Hon David Parker 
: Why did it take 9 months from the time of Shanghai Pengxin’s application to his erroneous decision? Was it because it took that long for the Government to stitch up a deal involving Landcorp?  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It took that long because the Overseas Investment Office wanted to get all of the relevant information it needed and it went back to the applicants on a number of occasions to further get that information. I am pleased that the office took the right amount of time and did not try to rush it.  
Hon David Parker 
: Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that at no stage did any Minister of the Government or any official from the Overseas Investment Office tell any party that they were delaying their decisions until after the election?  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well that is not what happened and I most certainly did not say that; I do not think I can speak for every other human being there is.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Supplementary question Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What has happened here is that I have just been told by the Hon Trevor Mallard that the Labour Party is giving a further supplementary question to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. These are meant to be advised to the Speaker prior to the start of question time. However—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I do not want to be difficult but I just ask members in the future please to make sure that the Speaker is advised of these things a little more in advance than at the moment that members get to their feet.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for the late notice. It will be obvious to everyone that the answers are the reason for— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not an acceptable point of order either. It was barely much better than the one we heard not so long ago. It was just being used to criticise another member of this House and that is not allowed under the point of order process.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I apologise Mr Speaker. I will get you notice next time much earlier but it was the nature of the question. I want to ask the Minister this: if he is explaining the proper due diligence done by the Overseas Investment Office on the issues he talks about as taking 9 months why then did it take over 12 months for the same office to determine that May Wang and Jack Chen were of good character when one phone call to the Shanghai or Hong Kong stock exchange would have told them otherwise?  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I do not know whether I can ever comment on the process that the Overseas Investment Office goes through. It took its time to make a determination about the bid. And in the case of Natural Dairy—the member will be pleased—the Overseas Investment Office recommended that the Government not approve it.