9. Regional Economic Development Minister—Statements on FonterraHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentRegional Economic Development Minister—Statements on Fonterra9. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement to the House last week Fonterra cannot wander around making advertisements such as they did this year drawing on the countryside and the personalities of country people and not expect the 'champion of the country' to hold them accountable"?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): In response to the question the word "champion" is a verb and a noun and I am delivering it by deed and by word.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was he speaking in a personal capacity at the time he made that statement to the House?Hon SHANE JONES: I repeat I will remain an avid defender of the standards of accountability. Unlike that member I will not be sucked in by this corporate-based pecuniary prattle smooth tongue and what I said I owned.Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Well I probably should have ruled the question out. I mean it is absolutely obvious that if a member makes a statement in the House in response to a question as a Minister then he is speaking as a Minister.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he reconcile his response in the House with the statements of the Prime Minister who repeatedly said that his comments regarding Fonterra were made in a personal capacity—"end of story"?Hon SHANE JONES: Just to remind the House those candid remarks were made to an audience organised by KPMG where we were told it was Chatham House Rules and then when I returned to the House obviously someone associated with the National Party leaked those remarks to the press gallery. And as befits a plain-speaking forthright advocate champion citizen of the provinces I own what I said.Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he told the House last Thursday the day after the Prime Minister had asserted that his comments about Fonterra's leadership were made in his personal capacity "I stand by my remarks in terms of accountability that should be shown by a failing corporate governance culture at the highest levels of our largest company—and if the cab doesn't suit then shanks's pony is just as good" was he intentionally setting out to make the Prime Minister look weak?Hon SHANE JONES: My style is strong and forthright. However nothing that I have said done or am contemplating to do is designed to undermine the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern or indeed the Deputy Prime Minister soon to be the Acting Prime Minister. And I think what the member needs to understand it was a rapidly changing narrative. It started where I was invited as the "champion of the country" I gave the remarks to an adoring audience and I said them to the face of the chairman of Fonterra—not behind his back like other people on that side of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen the supportive comments of the New Zealand Herald writer Fran O'Sullivan and why would it be that she is allowed to see the common sense of the argument about Fonterra's lack of accountability but the National Party can't?SPEAKER: Order! Order! Hon Member: He has no ministerial responsibility.SPEAKER: Well you know I am allowed to make my own rulings. The member can answer the first part of the question but not the last.Hon SHANE JONES: The journalist referred to is a highly respected well-versed leading writer about matters of governance and accountability and I've got every confidence when she congratulates my call for accountability she speaks truth to power.Hon Paul Goldsmith: So have I got the sequence right? The Prime Minister told him off for attacking corporate leaders then he did it again then she said he was only speaking in a personal capacity—not as a Minister—then the Minister rode over that fig leaf in a steamroller and repeated those statements in the House—SPEAKER: Order! Order! I'm now going to ask the member to very quickly come to a question that doesn't have the level of embellishment—even if the fig leaf embellishment he used is a small one.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well I started with the question Mr Speaker. The question was—SPEAKER: Well if the member started with the question has he finished?Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well no because I was continuing the question and I haven't got to the end of it.SPEAKER: OK right get to the end quickly.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well I'll start again if I—SPEAKER: No no. Does the member have a further supplementary?Hon Paul Goldsmith: No. I haven't finished this particular question.SPEAKER: No no you have.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well I'll let him answer it then.Hon SHANE JONES: The member obviously doesn't understand the reproductive cycle. This was a story where seeds were planted in an audience full of farmers and their grandees. It changed. At what point he missed the impregnation I'm not sure.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could see that throughout that question you were asking yourself whether or not it should progress or otherwise and what was right and what was wrong. You at one point said that you thought the simple question about whether he was acting in a personal or ministerial capacity was irrelevant because clearly if he'd spoke about it in the House he was acting ministerially. I wonder if you might consider asking the "provincial champion" to provide some sort of timetable for when he is acting personally and when he is acting as a Minister? Because our understanding is that Ministers are at all times Ministers and when they are invited to speak somewhere as a Minister they are accountable as a Minister for what they say.Rt Hon Winston Peters: There is no other authority than the member's former leader John Key who made the very distinction which everyone else got but Gerry didn't.SPEAKER: Well now the Deputy Prime Minister will stand up and address the honourable member for Ilam in the appropriate manner.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well which the honourable member for Ilam didn't get.SPEAKER: Right now what—Hon Gerry Brownlee: A further point of order.SPEAKER: No. I'm—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well hang on. If we're dealing with a point of order and someone makes a contribution on it everyone's got to understand it. What circumstance is the Deputy Prime Minister referring to because there was a long discussion in this House where someone can be considered a party leader and the Speaker will remember those long discussions some time back. That has been a long-held tenet in this country that if someone is doing something as a party leader that's separate from their other roles but a Minister is always a Minister as long as they hold the warrant.Rt Hon Winston Peters: The former Prime Minister Mr Key said that he was not always acting as a Prime Minister and he gave examples such as when he was put the putting the cat out. So the very principle that that member outlaid to the House just doesn't stand.SPEAKER: Right. I want to thank both members for their contributions. I think they have highlighted something which is an important issue and one which I think in New Zealand we haven't quite got our heads around. I was reminded earlier today of some comments I think attributed to the honourable Mr Finlayson when he referred to the Roman habit of indicating whether or not senators were on duty—whether they were acting as senators—via the colour of their toga. It mightn't have been Mr Finlayson but in those days it was very clear whether or not people were acting as Ministers or not. These—[Interruption] Amy Adams—Hon Amy Adams: Sorry.SPEAKER: Well we have had in this House some quite long discussions I think without any real conclusion as to when people are Ministers and when they are members and when they are acting in private capacities. It is clear that Ministers do at times act in all three different capacities. Clearly there are things which they do—especially those who are constituency members—which they're not doing as Ministers; they're doing on behalf of constituents and that is clear. There have been a number of examples given by Mr Key—I think putting out the cat was one of them. I think there were some others which weren't quite as repeatable in the House—and we wouldn't want to get into them in the House—which were done in a personal capacity rather than in a ministerial capacity. So it has been accepted by the House previously that there are occasions where effectively the ministerial hat is taken off and people act in a personal capacity. But what I'm not certain of—and maybe we need to have a discussion at the Standing Orders Committee at some stage—is to get things a bit more codified so members can better understand these things.Hon Gerry Brownlee: That process will be a good one but it's a long process as you're aware. In this case Mr Jones was at a function invited to speak because he is a Minister. At no point as far as we know did he say "Look I'm happy to speak but I'm speaking to you in a private capacity." and if he was speaking in a private capacity then clearly the criticisms he could make could stand but certainly would not have got the publicity they did as result of his making those statements. So I think some sort of interim ruling from you about what is in and what is out as far as Ministers acting would be useful for the scrutiny of the House.SPEAKER: I will see if I can get my head around the issue."