Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 01 March 2012. Volume:677;Page:752. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he have confidence in the financial management of Auckland Council? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Financial management of the new Auckland Council is the responsibility of its elected mayor and council and if the member has a concern he should take it up directly with them. If he is not satisfied with their response he should lay a complaint with the Auditor-General. There is a high test for intervention by the Minister in the financial matters of a council and it generally follows a complaint to and negative report by the Auditor-General.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it correct that Deloitte is doing significant consultancy work on behalf of the Auckland Council including senior managers of Deloitte charging $3400 per day plus GST— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister is not responsible whatsoever for the operational activities or decision making of the Auckland Council. The primary question was allowed because the member needed to have the opportunity to ascertain whether or not the Minister was contemplating any particular actions in relation to the Auckland Council. The Minister made it very clear in his answer that he was not. The only other matters that the Minister is responsible for are the appointments to the council-controlled organisations and any Crown investment being made by those—how many are there—six council-controlled organisations. But matters outside that are certainly not the responsibility of the Minister. I would have to rule that question out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is well known that the Auckland Transition Agency was appointed by this Government. The Auckland Transition Agency chose the chief executive Mr McKay and other executive officers were all chosen by the Auckland Transition Agency a Government-appointed body. That was clearly manifest in press statements at the time. That is the linkage that makes this council unique and that is why this Minister is responsible for those appointments. This happened— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I regret to disagree with the member. Had the member questioned the Minister about appointments that might be the case but the member was seeking to question the Minister about the detailed operations of the Auckland Council. The Minister is in no way responsible for them and the Minister made that very clear in his answer. There was nothing in the Minister’s answer—I mean the member could have had a track for supplementary questions had the Minister widened his answer to allow the member to do so but the Minister’s answer was quite constrained. The supplementary questions available to the member are very constrained because we cannot have Ministers being questioned about the detailed operations of the various councils around the country. That is not in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I had this matter out with your staff this morning. Your staff member made the same statement you are making now. I pointed out the case of ECan—Environment Canterbury—and the tracing of appointments by the Auckland Transition Agency a Government-appointed body and officials appointed by this Government. That she accepted was the linkage which presumably was the reason why she accepted this question. It having now arrived on the floor you are now ruling it out. What is consistent about that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear from the honourable Leader of the House. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker you did not rule out the primary question for the reasons that you outlined which could have led to a series of supplementary questions that were appropriate—given the primary question. The point here though is that Parliament passed an Act to put the greater Auckland Council in place and the financial responsibilities for that organisation lie with that organisation. There are other remedies for the member to follow if he is unhappy with the way in which that council is conducting its financial matters. 
Hon Member 
: Point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear first from the shadow Leader of the House the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker I want to take a slightly different tack to the one that the right honourable gentleman has taken on this. Your having accepted the original question about whether the Minister had confidence in the financial management I think a following question asking the Minister whether he was aware of a fact that might cause him to change his mind as to whether or not he had confidence is a legitimate supplementary question.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the members’ contributions because this is an interesting issue. But the primary question was allowed only on the grounds that I explained: that it was possible that the Minister was contemplating some actions that the Minister could have been responsible for and it would be wrong to prevent the House from being able to ascertain that. But the Minister having replied in the way he did—that he was not contemplating any actions in respect of initiating any reviews or reports or taking any actions to put in place a review authority—very much narrows the scope for supplementary questions and really leaves the only range of supplementary questions available questions in relation to the Crown appointments to the council-controlled organisations or the Crown’s investment in those organisations.  
To go as far as the honourable member has suggested I think is really taking things a step too far altogether because question time is not designed for that purpose. The member can easily make his concerns public. He does not need question time with questions outside the Standing Orders to do that. The Minister can be questioned on matters in the future but to use question time in that way I think is quite outside the Standing Orders. The primary question was allowed—and a lot of thought was given to whether or not it should be allowed—only because of the possibility that the Minister might have been contemplating initiating certain reviews or reports or taking certain actions in relation to the authority the authority being the Auckland Council. The Minister has made it clear he is not so that narrows the supplementary questions very significantly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just said something that is cause for grave concern. Our rights here go back to 1688. Those rights are for a member of Parliament— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat. We are not going to waste time today with the right honourable member lecturing me on our rights. I have been around this House just as long as that member has and I have upheld the rights of members across this House with some degree of conscientiousness. But the Standing Orders must be complied with. The member may like to raise all sorts of points during question time but if they are not within the scope of the Standing Orders they are not allowed and I have to uphold the Standing Orders equally for all members. I have required Ministers to answer questions where I believe that the Standing Orders require them to do so. I will uphold that member’s rights all right but his questions must be within the Standing Orders and I have ruled that that supplementary question is not within the scope of the Standing Orders.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider where we have got to now and that is effectively if a Minister knows about an issue and is contemplating a change then a question is within the Standing Orders but if a member is bringing up information in Parliament—in the way that he has a right to do—that is new to the Minister and inviting him to change his mind that is outside the Standing Orders. I do not think that can be right.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The point the member is missing is this: the point the member seeks to bring up is not the Minister’s responsibility. The Minister can be responsible only for actions he might be taking or those Crown decisions on appointments. The detail that the member was seeking to raise and that the Hon Trevor Mallard has suggested should be allowed by way of a supplementary question is definitely not the Minister’s responsibility. That is definitely not the Minister’s responsibility and that is why the supplementary question cannot be allowed.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I am not going to take more time on this because I have made it very clear. I can assure the honourable member that I consulted in some detail on this matter during the process of the approval of this primary question. I in fact have a full ruling here. I have been quoting bits from it. I am prepared to deliver the full ruling to the House because this matter has been given a lot of thought and I will not have question time hijacked by questions that are simply outside the Standing Orders. The member has further supplementary questions and— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be a good one. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes Mr Speaker. At the risk of inviting you to breach the Standing Orders can I invite you to read your ruling. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is totally the Speaker’s prerogative what he does and I want to get on with question time rather than take up time doing that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister have confidence in Mr Doug McKay the chief executive appointed by the Auckland Transition Agency which was a Government-appointed body and his knowledge about gifts and travel from Deloitte to the chief financial officer of the Auckland Council? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is not for me as the Minister of Local Government to have confidence in the chief executive of the Auckland Council any more than in that of any one of our other 78 councils. That is the due— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You appointed them. You appointed them. That’s the difference. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —and proper role of the mayor and council. I would point out to the member with his interjection that the council and the mayor have confirmed Mr Doug McKay as their chief executive. If the member has concerns about any financial impropriety involving that council or any other the proper process is for him to take those matters to the Auditor-General. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister still have confidence in the chief executive Doug McKay who was appointed as I said before and his allowing a senior financial officer to receive an expenses paid trip to the US from Deloitte— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat. I have to rule that question out because the Minister in his answer made very clear that the position of the chief executive is no longer the position of a Crown appointee. The position is now one confirmed by the council and not a normal Crown appointee so the Minister has no responsibility for confidence in that person. It is the council that has that responsibility. The Minister has no responsibility for it whatsoever. So I have to ask the member to— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Everyone knows that this council is not like the Bay of Plenty council— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I finish my point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No because it is not a point of order. The member will resume his seat. The member should know having spent 27 years in this House that points of order relate to the proceedings of this House. What the public might know about a certain individual is nothing to do with the proceedings of this House. I am prepared to hear the member if he has a Standing Order that he feels the Speaker is not upholding appropriately or correctly. I would be happy to hear from him then. But if he wants to make some comment about what the public might know I am afraid he will be sat down very promptly because that is nothing to do with the proceedings of this House and points of order cannot be used to raise such issues. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate what you are saying but it seems to me that surely the period between when the Government appointed this person and when the council appointed him as its chief executive should be open to questioning because during that period he was a Government appointee appointed by the Minister. We should be able to ask the Minister about at least that time period. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a very interesting point of order the member has raised.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The point made by the co-leader of the Greens is not completely correct. The Government was responsible for the appointment of the transition authority. The transition authority then appointed an interim chief executive. The council once elected then confirmed the appointment of the chief executive. It is not correct that the Government appointed the chief executive either during the transition stage or once the council was elected. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! This is a serious issue. The right honourable member wants to ask questions and I want this issue taken seriously because there are important issues. But I appreciate the point raised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith because he clarified what I as Speaker had no way of knowing were the facts of the matter. I think that makes it even more clear that the supplementary question that the member was seeking to ask was not in order. The member has a further supplementary question should he wish to exercise it.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have virtually lost all my questions here today but my real point is this. The circumstances that led to for example the removal of Environment Canterbury show that despite it being an elected body the Minister had a responsibility. All I want to know is whether he has received any reports of these matters— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is now trying to pursue further supplementary questions by way of a point of order. I allowed the primary question just in case the Minister was initiating any reviews or reports and the Minister made it very clear that he was not. In the case of Environment Canterbury the Minister was taking action and he could certainly have been questioned on the actions he was taking—no doubt about that. If the Minister was taking actions or initiating reports or reviews or anything like that he could be questioned on that. But he cannot be questioned on the operations of the Auckland Council or its chief executive because he is not responsible for those matters. The member could question him about Crown investment by some of the council-controlled organisations he could question the Minister about Crown appointments to those council-controlled organisations but that is about the limit of that kind of questioning. If the member does not wish to have a further supplementary question I will proceed to the next question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister had any reviews or any investigations or does he intend to initiate any inquiries into reports of significant financial mismanagement and conflict of interest where Deloitte is involved in the Auckland Council to the extent that it is picking up money as consultants whilst also doing the auditing work for Audit New Zealand—another Government-responsible body? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I have not received any reports or concerns but equally I would say to the member that if I did receive concerns about any financial impropriety involving any of our 78 councils my advice to those people would be to refer them to the Auditor-General. The intervention powers that I have as a Minister are quite limited and only in serious situations and around financial matters have only followed negative reports by the Auditor-General. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Supplementary question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has used New Zealand First’s allocation of supplementary questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You have ruled them all out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That does not mean they are not supplementary questions.