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: 07 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17570. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Hon Judith Collins; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; because over the almost 6 years Judith Collins has been a Minister she has made a significant contribution to the Government and New Zealand in the portfolios she has held.Grant Robertson: When he and his office provided material to the Cabinet Office to assess whether Judith Collins had a conflict of interest did that include material from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about her visit to China?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There was a variety of different sources which I felt ensured that the Cabinet Office could make a fair ruling and we provided all that information to it.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question.Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat the question.Grant Robertson: When he and his office provided material to the Cabinet Office to assess whether Judith Collins had a conflict of interest did that include material from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade about her visit to China?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot absolutely 100 percent say yes but I am pretty sure the answer is yes because part of what was discussed with the Cabinet Office was the name of the person the agency they worked for and their seniority. I assume that came from the ministry but I cannot be sure.Grant Robertson: Was the Cabinet Office provided with all of the material that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade held about Judith Collins’ visit to China including the change of the programme that led to the visit to theOravida headquarters?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It was provided with all of the information that would have been relevant. The fact that a programme changes is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever. But what is interesting is this. The paperwork shows right through this that not only did the Minister have a very busy programme which the member wants to gloss over all on judicial and justice issues but secondly all the way through it talksabout a private dinner. That was at a time when the information was never likely to be in the public domain. I say this to Perry Mason: “It’s time to sling your hook son.”Grant Robertson: What did New Zealand Ambassador Carl Worker tell him about that dinner and who attended it when he discussed it with Mr Worker on his visit to China in March 2013?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: He told me it was a private dinner that he did not attend.Grant Robertson: Would the Prime Minister like to clarify whether that comment he has just made was the only thing New Zealand Ambassador Carl Worker told him about the dinner and who attended the dinner?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not tape ambassadors and everything they say but the broad conversation we had was that it was a private dinner and he did not attend it.Grant Robertson: Does he believe that it was appropriate for Judith Collins’ husband David Wong-Tung to have contacted the New Zealand Ambassador to China to lobby forOravida’s products to be showcased at events in China on his visit in April 2013 using information and contacts Mr Wong-Tung gained while accompanying the Minister on a trip to China in 2012?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I refute the last part of the question. In terms of the first part of the question lots and lots of companies contact embassies and say they want to showcase their products. There is nothing new about that.Oravida is a genuine New Zealand company that is building an export market in China. If the member does not want that he will—I can actually understand why he does not want that. Let me rephrase that. I understand that the member does not like economic development because that is exactly what Shane Jones said when he quit.Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to assist the member with his point of order.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table an email from David Wong-Tung to the Ambassador to China Carl Worker which includes the statement talking about his visit in 2012: “I remember vividly your advice—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular email.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are not going to oppose the leave but I would point out that yesterday the House gave the opportunity to Mr Robertson to table some documents. Upon inspection those documents were not as he described. It would only be reasonable that he—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! First of all I am going to put the leave to table that particular email and then I will make a comment on the point raised by Mr Brownlee. Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Mr SPEAKER: As regards to the point raised by Mr Brownlee if any member seeks leave to table a document andmisdescribes it that is a serious offence and then there is an appropriate way to address that—not by raising it as a point of order; the matter needs to be raised rapidly with me as the Speaker.Grant Robertson: Don’t tell lies.Mr SPEAKER: Grant Robertson that sort of interjection will lead to disorder.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Gerry Brownlee stood up and made an accusation that you yourself have said is a very serious one. It is a complete lie—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is in danger of having to leave the House. That is going to create disorder. I accept the point. The member may disagree with what Mr Brownlee said but as I pointed out to Mr Brownlee if he believes it wasmisdescribedthere is an appropriate avenue for dealing with it. It is not something that is appropriate to be discussed on the floor of the House.Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you just for some clarification? If a document is released under an Official Information Act request is it then the practice of this House that those papers can be tabled one at a time? The opportunity was offered yesterday to table them all. Are we now going to expect that in this House? I thought the ruling was that anything that was publicly available was not able to be tabled.Mr SPEAKER: No that is not the ruling. It is a matter that I consider case by case and at the end of the day if I am in doubt as to whether to put the leave I will put the leave and let the House decide. So it is ultimately the House not me that decides as to when a document gets tabled. My intention with the tabling of documents is that when members seek to table a document I consider whether it informs the current debate before the House. If it is something that is freely available to all members such as media reports or from Scoop or some matter like that there is little point in even seeking leave. It will not be put. But with something like an Official Information Act release if members want to release it and they think it is something that would be valuable information to the House I will consider it at times to be appropriate to put the leave and then it is for the House to decide.