11. Foreign Affairs Minister—ConsultantsHon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign AffairsForeign Affairs Minister—Consultants11. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What part did he have in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's engagement of Alex Matheson or his consultancy company to work on Middle Eastern issues and what other roles has Mr Matheson or his consultancy companies previously carried out for Hon Murray McCully or other entities he has been responsible for?Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr Matheson was appointed special envoy for Government-commercial partnerships by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade after consultation with myself. He had previously served as director of the office of the chief executive at Industry New Zealand as the New Zealand trade commissioner in Singapore and as head of commercial partnerships for the Rugby World Cup in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. Mr Matheson ceased to be a full-time employee of the ministry quite some time ago. He has undertaken a range of other tasks for public and private entities but those are not necessarily within the responsibilities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.Hon David Parker: Did he know that while Mr Matheson was working on the Rugby World Cup he was also being paid as a New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) employee meaning he was being paid twice by the Government?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Any contractual or employment relationships that Mr Matheson had with Government departments or public entities at any time would have been subject to all of the normal rules associated with the Public Service and I would be very confident that they would have ensured those rules were followed.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He was the Minister responsible for the Rugby World Cup; there is none now. I asked the Minister about whether he knew that fact. He does know and he should be asked to answer that question.Mr SPEAKER: The first part of your point of order I cannot agree with. The Minister may well have been the Minister for the Rugby World Cup; he is not now. He is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This question is to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He can only answer from that perspective.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the second part of David Parker's point of order is indeed very relevant which was the question: Did he know?". He then went on to talk about Government department employment practices but that was not the question. The question was: "Did he know?".Mr SPEAKER: No I do not think that is the point because—[Interruption] Order! The question confused the role of the Minister as to whether he was now Minister for the Rugby World Cup and then there was a reference to payment for NZTE. I let the question stand accepting that I think there is some ministerial responsibility as Minister of Foreign Affairs for NZTE. But there is no ministerial responsibility at all for a portfolio held previously by that Minister. The question—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will be aware from the answer to the primary question that the Minister has worn a number of hats and under those various hats he has used the services of Mr Matheson on a number of occasions. How can the House get to the bottom of this if the Minister having acknowledged those different hats is not willing to answer the question that I asked in respect of those interconnections?Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order the Minister I think gave a very full answer in an attempt to be quite open with Parliament etc. etc. What the member is now not accepting are the bounds of responsibility that any Minister has to this Parliament at any given time. I think the member over there knows that that is the case. It would perhaps be like if we could use question time—as you Mr Speaker have warned us not to in the past—to rake up all sorts of bad dealings by former Labour Ministers for example. But that is not permissible. Time moves on; responsibilities change.Chris Hipkins: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: No I need no further assistance from any member on this matter. I sympathise with the position that Mr Parker finds himself in. I am aware of the article that he used for authentication. To have this question raised today I spent some time with the Clerk discussing how the member could perhaps get the answers that he wants. Under the Standing Orders Speakers' rulings and convention in this place a Minister can be asked a question relating only to portfolios that he currently holds. The way forward I think—in answer to the point raised by the Hon David Parker—is that he must potentially try a series of questions addressed to different Ministers who have responsibility. I know that uses some questions up for the Opposition but I can see no other way forward except perhaps to consider whether he could frame a question to the Prime Minister who clearly has a wider responsibility for all his Ministers.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER: No I—Chris Hipkins: It is a fresh point of order.Mr SPEAKER: It is a fresh point of order? Then I would be delighted to hear it.Chris Hipkins: It is relevant to what the Speaker has ruled but it is new. It is that although Ministers may not have ministerial responsibility for something they may have awareness of other matters that relate to their ministerial responsibility. In the case of conflicts of interest for example where somebody is appointed and there may be a conflict the conflict may not arise directly out of the appointment they have been given but from another role they have for which the Minister is not responsible or may have been previously responsible. Ministers can be questioned on that in their current portfolio if it relates to a decision made in their current portfolio.Mr SPEAKER: I think the first point was relevant. A Minister may well be aware because of previous portfolios they held previous history of this place etc. I think the final point the member made in his point of order is not right. Just because the Minister may be aware of a role that he held previously in another portfolio he certainly does not have to answer questions about that when he no longer holds that portfolio.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No unless it is a fresh point of order. We are now getting to the stage where we are just debating.Hon David Parker: It is a fresh point of order. I seek leave to put my next question to the Minister in his capacity as Minister for the Rugby World Cup.Mr SPEAKER: There is no Minister for the Rugby World Cup.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How do I ever ask the Minister to answer a question that he has personal knowledge of in respect of this matter?Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order there is the whole point here—and I want to bring up another matter with you when I have finished this. The point of question time is for Ministers holding warrants in the Government of the day to be questioned about them. This is not a Star Chamber where anybody can bring up any old allegation and throw it around any old way they like. Mr Parker who prides himself on being a reasonably respectful juror and a person who has a degree of standing in the law should know that. My second point is that the problem here is that this question frankly should never have stood. You do need I think to have further discussions with the Clerk's Office about the potential for questions lodged like this to get into this exact sort of quagmire. It is not clear when there are two parts here why on earth the question could be asked about "previously carried out for Hon Murray McCully". That is a specific question about an individual member; it is not a question about a Minister or a Minister's responsibilities now or in the past.Mr SPEAKER: No no. We are spending a lot of time on this which is now unnecessary. Mr Brownlee I do not accept your final point. There was a lot of time that went into this question. It was actually changed so that it was then accepted by the Clerk as being relevant. It is an acceptable question asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs to respond to any involvement he might have had in the appointment of this particular person to a job and then going on to ask whether there were other entities. Clearly those entities would only relate to anything within the portfolio of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The question was accepted and as indeed I think the member himself raised in an earlier point of order the question was then addressed by the Minister—quite legitimately too. I can—[Interruption] Order! I sense the difficulty that the member the Hon David Parker is expressing and the frustration. I have suggested a couple of ways forward; he can take that advice. He can seek further advice from the Clerk as to how to word questions. But on this particular occasion unless he asks a question that is relevant—and asking it to a former Minister for a portfolio that is not even held at the moment is not a satisfactory way forward.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A fresh point of order?Chris Hipkins: Yes it is a fresh point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I hope so.Chris Hipkins: When portfolios are disestablished completely the accountability for the decisions that were made within that portfolio when it was in existence still remains with the Government otherwise the Government could simply say "Right we're no longer going to have a Minister of Education or housing." and therefore not answer any questions based on decisions they have previously made in those portfolios. The fact that the position of Minister for the Rugby World Cup no longer exists does not mean that there is no longer Government accountability for decisions that they made when there was such a portfolio. If we allow that to stand then question time could become a farce because Governments could just disestablish portfolios to avoid questions.Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is very interesting. If Governments were enduring then of course any Minister on any day could answer questions about previous Ministers of previous Governments' activities. We would have a field day on questions about the Minister who was responsible for Auckland matters for example. Mind you it would be very hard to find any work ever done in that portfolio. But the point is that a Government stands for the period of its election only not in an enduring way as Mr Hipkins is trying to suggest.Mr SPEAKER: I think the matter has been discussed enough. I do not accept the final point made by Mr Hipkins. If a Government at any time was going to subtly do away with the Minister of Education or the Minister of Health or any other portfolio simply because times were getting difficult—[Interruption] Order! I think the public of New Zealand would then notice it and react accordingly. Have we got further—Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No.Chris Hipkins: It is a fresh point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Well the three other times I have asked you that you have then continued to relitigate. But I will take your word for it Mr Hipkins.Chris Hipkins: It is absolutely a fresh point of order Mr Speaker. On that ruling to whom does the Government direct questions relating to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority now that the portfolio position has been abolished?Mr SPEAKER: I think the question could easily be reframed. There is still a Minister responsible for the earthquake issues of Christchurch.Hon David Parker: Further to that point—Mr SPEAKER: I will hear one more point but that is it. We are now wasting members' time.Hon David Parker: The situation does not apply in respect of the Rugby World Cup because there is no successive portfolio-holder.Mr SPEAKER: Exactly right. We have moved now to the 51st Parliament. The Rugby World Cup was quite some time ago Mr Parker. We are now getting ready in fact for the next Rugby World Cup.Hon David Parker: When the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) appointed Alex Matheson on Middle Eastern issues was the Minister of Foreign Affairs aware that Mr Matheson had previously been paid by two Government departments at the same time—one being NZTE and the other the Rugby World Cup?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As I stated in my response to the primary question Mr Matheson was appointed Special Envoy for Government Commercial Partnerships. He was given that appointment by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade after consultation with myself. In terms of the second part of the question I can confirm as I also said in my primary answer that Mr Matheson was employed by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in relation to the Rugby World Cup and at other times had served with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise. In respect of neither of those two appointments am I familiar with the detail of any contractual or employment relationships.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific and asked: at the time when the ministry made the appointment was the Minister aware—not the ministry—that Mr Matheson had previously been paid—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I listened very carefully to the answer and I think that if the member had listened the question was definitely addressed. The answer was given to the member.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order?Hon David Parker: Yes. I still do not know the answer to the question I asked—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will be very lucky to stay. If he has any more supplementary questions listen to the answers.Hon David Parker: When Alex Matheson was appointed as the Middle Eastern representative of MFAT did the Minister know that Mr Matheson had previously been paid twice by the Government for services delivered at the same time for the Rugby World Cup and for NZTE?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As I indicated in both my primary answer and in answer to the recent supplementary question Mr Matheson was never appointed to the role that the member describes. He was appointed Special Envoy for Government Commercial Partnerships an appointment made by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade after consultation with myself. I have also been clear that I was aware at that time that Mr Matheson had as I described in my primary answer been employed by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and on another occasion by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. I do not know whether those were employment or contractual relationships whether they were at all stages full time or part-time or whether there was overlap between them. I simply did not have that command of detail.Hon David Parker: Is the Minister telling the House that he did not know that Mr Matheson was double-dipping?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am just going to respond very carefully to this because Mr Matheson is somebody who has served in a range of roles across a number of departments. I have thought highly of his work on behalf of the New Zealand Government and I am not at all surprised to see that senior officials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise have also thought sufficiently highly of Matheson to appoint him to significant roles. Can I suggest to the member that if he wants to make defamatory statements about individuals he best make those outside the House where he can face the full legal consequences of those statements.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was a very simple one as to whether he knew and he has not answered that question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No no. I have now heard the question asked three ways and three answers have been given—not to the satisfaction of the member I accept. But the question in my opinion was addressed.Hon David Parker: Did the Minister at the time of Mr Matheson's appointment in his MFAT role know that Mr Matheson had been paid concurrently for two roles by the Government one by NZTE and one by the Rugby World Cup?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have already been very clear about what I knew about the relationships that Mr Matheson had—Hon Annette King: What about the payment?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: —with a range of Government departments. I have no idea about the payment relationships between him and those departments whether they were full or part-time employment or contractual or whether there was any concurrency between those payments."