1. Question No. 1—Prime MinisterHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Prime MinisterORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Prime Minister1. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister yes most definitely in the time and in the context that they were given. An example of that I'm sure we'll always stand for is this Government's commitment in the Speech from the Throne to establish a Ministry of Regulation and pass the Regulatory Standards Bill. For too long Governments have neglected the impact of red tape and regulation on the Kiwi can-do attitude and people that want to get on with building a wealthier country. Well now we've got a Government that's going to do something about it.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his answers to oral questions yesterday What I think is fantastic is we have an Associate Minister with delegation for reducing smoking. She's incredibly focused on that goal and she's asked her officials for a range of advice to actually lower smoking in New Zealand."; if so why?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes we do because actually it is fantastic to have an Associate Minister committed to reducing smoking rates. It's fantastic to have a Minister who asked for a range of advice. I can't imagine the psychology of someone who doesn't want a Minister who is (a) committed to reducing smoking and (b) interested in listening to advice.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can he assure this House that no person affiliated with the tobacco industry was involved in developing or writing the documents Casey Costello passed on to her officials?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister I've had assurances from all coalition partners in this Government that they have had no funding from the tobacco industry and I am confident that there has been no undue influence on the policies of this Government by the tobacco industry.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. The answer was an interesting one but the question was not about money or influence; it was about the documents that Casey Costello gave and the Minister did not answer that question.SPEAKER: OK we'll have the question again and see how we go.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can he assure this House that no person affiliated with the tobacco industry was involved in developing or writing the documents Casey Costello passed on to her officials?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister I am confident that there has been no undue influence on the policy formation of this Government.Hon Grant Robertson: No that is not answering the question David; that's avoiding it.SPEAKER: No with respect the preparation of a party document does not become the problem of the Prime Minister. If it's included in a coalition agreement then it is accepted at that point.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order. Mr Speaker yesterday when this exact issue was raised you took the position that once the Associate Minister handed that material on to officials it became the responsibility of both the Minister and indeed the Prime Minister. That was the ruling you gave yesterday; that is the document that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni's talking about.SPEAKER: That is true—for the handling of it that is true but I think it would be quite unreasonable for anyone in a coalition situation to say "Where did you get that paper from who provided it and if I don't like who gave you advice then we're having nothing to do with it." That's not how it works.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker I'd ask you to think very carefully about what you've just said because once a Minister—I mean a Minister only acts in giving things to officials as a Minister; they can't do it in any other guise. Therefore the material at that point becomes official material and the matter of who prepared it becomes a matter for the Minister and the Prime Minister. I understand the point you're making about individual party documents and that's longstanding but the moment a Minister does something with them it enters the realm of their responsibilities in particular to this House.Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order I think this is a—I understand where the shadow Leader of the House or acting shadow Leader of the House is coming from. It's a finely balanced issue. The problem is this: Ministers are clearly responsible for things they give to their officials—no one's disputing that. The issue is: are they responsible for the generation of that material? I would argue they cannot be in the same way that if for example a Labour Party Minister gave a document to the education ministry—that was the New Zealand Educational Institute or the Post Primary Teachers' Association or the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) for example—they cannot be questioned about the CTU in Parliament. They can be questioned about the handling of that document and what's in the document but the generation of that document I think would fall outside the scope of ministerial responsibility.Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to that point of order I think if one took that to its logical conclusion that would be a very difficult thing to sustain. I'm pretty sure in the time that I've been in the House Ministers have been questioned about materials that they have worked with others on. The bottom line here is this exact document yesterday was the subject of questioning and I don't believe that the Minister acting as the Prime Minister has addressed that question. I think it would set a very unfortunate precedent if the House was not able to ask a Minister or the Prime Minister about a document that they handed to officials and how it was generated.Hon James Shaw: Speaking to the point order—thank you Mr Speaker—the response from the acting Prime Minister was about undue influence and that is not the question. There is a question of transparency however. So it is obviously quite common for organisations to work with political parties to develop policy documents and then when those political parties are in a position of Government for them to provide those to officials. There's kind of technically nothing wrong with that—I mean that's sort of been going on for donkey's years. It does become a problem if that is not transparent—you know who those organisations are and what is being provided to officials in an official capacity in a ministerial capacity. That is what the question is about: was the tobacco industry involved in developing a document that the Minister then gave to officials at which point it became official material? That's just a matter of transparency; it's not a matter of undue influence; it's not a funding question or anything like that. But it is a matter of transparency about who is writing policy documents that are becoming part of the system of Government in this country.Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.SPEAKER: Why not? It's Thursday and we've got a long weekend ahead of us.Hon Chris Bishop: It may be true in relation to other Ministers but the Prime Minister cannot be responsible for where every piece of paper handled by a Minister came from. That just cannot be the case—from a knowledge point of view and from a prime ministerial accountability point of view.Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to that. Since we're on this the statement just made then by the Leader of the House can't possibly be true. In the 15 years that I have been in the House Prime Ministers are asked about the actions—every action—of a Minister. It is of course perfectly possible for the Prime Minister to say that they don't know because I agree with Leader of the House they may well not know all of the details of documents. But that is not the same as simply not answering or avoiding the question.Hon Marama Davidson: Speaking to that very point that Mr Bishop raised. To quote from that very side when they were in Opposition "The clue is in the name": Prime Minister. That's where the responsibility has always lain.SPEAKER: Thank you to members who contributed to this. I'm going to reflect on this over the next recess week and I'll come back with a ruling. Do you have another supp? You can have an additional one as well just to make sure that we're all being nice and fair.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has the Prime Minister asked Minister Costello whether or not the tobacco industry informed the policy document or wrote the policy document she gave to health officials?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister I can't answer in respect to that conversation at this time.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he confident that all of his Ministers have declared all conflicts or potential conflicts of interest?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes. And that question was about as effective as a Marama Davidson etymology lesson.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with David Seymour "We can't sit around the table everyday with somebody that in the past at least has had secret foundations where all of the donations go doesn't declare them like any other political party would and of course we don't know why that money was paid by whom for what purpose"; if not why not?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well on behalf of the Prime Minister I'm a great admirer of the wisdom that David Seymour brings to many matters. The other thing I would note is that in spite of his prognostication this coalition Government is far more united and effective than the Opposition's worst nightmare—in fact we're your nightmare dressed up as a daydream.Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his comment that "Well I'm responsible for all Ministers irrespective of which party they come from" and if so when will he dismiss Casey Costello?Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well you know the member has been in Cabinet so she'll be aware that the Prime Minister is responsible for all Ministers. In respect of Casey Costello I have full confidence in her and I'm sure that in time that member will too."