Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hodgson Pete: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:669;Page:15734] 
12. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: On how many occasions has he approved overseas travel for Hon Pansy Wong since the last election? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Eleven. The last approval was for a ministerial visit to India which will no longer take place. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: How many of those trips were ministerial trips and how many were therefore private? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot answer that question. Generally the Prime Minister would be involved with approving ministerial trips. There may be a private trip in it; I am not sure. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I concede at the outset that you cannot require a Minister to answer in a certain way; I understand that well. But you have ruled that whereas a primary question must be answered a supplementary question may be answered to the best of the Minister’s ability. My point of order is this: anyone who has been a Minister—and you and I are two of those people—will know that in preparation for this question that Minister would have been told how many trips were ministerial trips by Ministerial Services which advised him. He has chosen not to know that by the time he came to this House. Sooner or later that is a disorderly act. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I understand the member’s point of order because the primary question is very direct but I did not perceive that the Minister was trying not to answer the question. The Minister I think has told the House—and I ask him to correct me if I am wrong—that to the best of his knowledge they would have been ministerial trips. But if he can help with the answer I would appreciate it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer to that question is one. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: One ministerial trip I am assuming? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the Minister please clarify the House’s clear confusion now. Was he saying it was one personal trip? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That’s right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was one personal trip among those 11 trips. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Ten ministerial trips for the Minister of Women’s Affairs? Hmmm. In exercising his prime ministerial oversight as the Prime Minister lifted his pen to sign off on each trip did it ever occur to him to ask his Minister why she kept going offshore? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I understand the process Ministers get approval for a trip that is proposed in some detail and I am sure that that is what happened in this case. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did it ever occur to him that for the Minister of Women’s Affairs and Minister for Ethnic Affairs to travel in this calendar year to the USA Hong Kong/China China Australia China and Japan—and it would have also been to India—was a little on the high side? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It all depends on relativities. We could easily go through the list of Labour members’ travel. The fact is that among those trips there will be for instance several trips to Australia no doubt—and I have to say they are increasingly regarded as domestic trips as much as international trips. The Prime Minister scrutinises the proposals and signs them off. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did he like many of the rest of us know or hear rumours that the Hon Pansy Wong and/or her husband were mixing private business with public travel or was he completely and utterly unaware of that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question verges on being out of order. I would have thought that the Prime Minister is not responsible for the private affairs of— 
Hon Members 
: Prime ministerial business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But the question asked whether the Prime Minister had heard rumours about whether a member was mixing private business with—I would ask the member to reword his question a little to make it securely within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: In respect of any of the Hon Pansy Wong’s ministerial travel was he aware of many rumours that she and/or her husband were mixing private business as they went along? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would recommend that the member waits for a report on the facts of the matter before proceeding to make any further allegations. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would respectfully suggest that the question was not answered. I asked about the Prime Minister’s awareness; he asked me to wait for a report that will not look at the Prime Minister’s awareness. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Prime Minister is indicating that the facts in respect of this particular former Minister’s travel are a matter that is under investigation. I do not think it is unreasonable for the Prime Minister to refer to that fact and suggest that information will be better available for everyone when that report is available. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Really just following on from my colleague’s point of order this goes to the question of the contents of the report and the ability of the person who has ordered and will be presenting the report to look into the issue that my colleague has raised by way of a supplementary question. I would have thought that the state of the Prime Minister’s awareness would have been ultra vires in relation to the report that has been called for. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to confess that the member’s superior legal knowledge has me a bit confused there— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are not allowed as Speaker to look into the Prime Minister’s mind on these matters—it is not your responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is true but I am just being reasonable about this. The member asked a question. This is a serious matter; the matter is under investigation. The Hon Bill English on behalf of the Prime Minister suggested in respect of some of the detail of these issues that more information will be available. That I think indicated that he did not necessarily have sufficient information to give a fuller answer and that is not unreasonable. I just suggest to the House that that is not unreasonable given that the matter is being looked into. In this House Ministers have to respond on what they are responsible for and they are not responsible for digging into the private affairs of members. That is very clear. I believe that the Minister’s answer was reasonable. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One of the things that the Prime Minister is responsible for is the  
Cabinet Manual  
and the integrity of that system. If Ministers are doing private business when they are on official ministerial trips he does not have to dig. If he is aware of that then he is aware of a breach and he should have acted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We need to be a bit careful around things here because the Prime Minister is not accountable to this House for the  
Cabinet Manual 
. He is not accountable to this House for that. There are issues in respect of whether he retains confidence in his Ministers; absolutely that is a matter for this House. Matters to do with the  
Cabinet Manual  
are not irrelevant. They are relevant matters but he is not specifically accountable to this House for them. That issue has been looked at on several occasions. The Prime Minister is accountable to this House for whether he has confidence in his Ministers and certainly issues to do with the  
Cabinet Manual  
can have an impact on that. But I just come back to what is reasonable about the question that was asked. I believe that the Minister gave a reasonable answer to the question in the circumstances and as Speaker I cannot ask Ministers to do more than that. There are more question days a report will become available to some extent and there will be further questioning I am sure. I believe that I have ruled in a reasonable way on the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I will ask you to come back with a considered ruling after looking at the ruling you have just made. Prime Ministers have been repeatedly asked in this House about matters to do with the operation of the  
Cabinet Manual 
. My primary question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I have heard the member and I have extended some courtesy to him on this question. I repeat what I have said though: in this House the Prime Minister is accountable for his confidence in his Ministers. The details of how they behave in respect of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 is a matter that can affect his confidence in Ministers but he is accountable to this House for his confidence in his Ministers and that is the limit of his accountability in this House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The published primary document on the way in which the system of Cabinet Government runs in New Zealand is the Cabinet Office guidelines. The Prime Minister is responsible for their implementation. That goes much further than— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have listened to the member. He may be overlooking the fact that he is no longer in Cabinet; he is now back in this House. This is the House of Representatives where members ask Ministers about matters that are their responsibility. The  
Cabinet Manual 
 is a matter for the Prime Minister in dealing with his Ministers but the issue for which the Prime Minister is accountable to this House is whether he has confidence in those Ministers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s wrong. It’s much broader than that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I see that the member disagrees with me. I am very happy to look into it further and I will certainly come back to the member if I have erred in the matter. In the meantime we will move on—I am sorry I call the Hon Pete Hodgson. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise too Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could through you ask for clarification of the answer to the first supplementary question about the number of those trips that were ministerial and those that were private. I understand it to be 10:1. Is that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should not be raising that as a point of order. He heard the Minister’s answer and I think it was pretty clear. Points of order should not be used to relitigate answers. I do not think there was any doubt about clarity. In fact the Minister assisted the House by giving further information when there was a question about the answer. The member will recollect that he raised a point of order on the matter and the Minister assisted the House with further information on the answer. I think that was most reasonable. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In response to the first supplementary question asked by the Hon Pete Hodgson the Minister standing in for the Prime Minister consulted some prepared notes that were stapled together like a document. If they are official advice I request that he table them as that is a requirement under the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are fully aware that notes prepared for Minister’s answers are not official documents. If the Minister was quoting from something beyond that—a more official departmental document—then he would need to table it. But if they are notes prepared for his answer then that is not the case. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am advised that it is information that has already been provided to Mr Hodgson in response to questions for written answer. He already has the information. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being dealt with; there will be no further interjection. If the Minister is quoting from an official document then he has been asked to table it. If they are notes prepared to assist him in answering today’s question he is not obliged to table them. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As they are notes prepared for the Minister that is the end of that matter. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As it is a matter of fact that I do not know the answer to the first supplementary question is it within the bounds of possibility that the Minister has made errors in other answers that he has given— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no that is not a point of order. Members are stretching my patience. As Speaker I heard the Minister’s answer very clearly and he assisted the House by providing further information. The member asked a question about how many of the trips were on ministerial business and the Minister did not give a definitive answer. When a point of order was raised the Minister gave a definitive answer on that. The member who asked the question has been assisted by the Minister and that is the end of the matter.