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: 20 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16911. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]8.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that she “misled by omission” with respect to her dealings with Oravida Ltd and her ministerial visit to China; if so in what specific ways did she mislead by omission?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General)on behalf of theMinister of Justice: The Minister always agrees with the Prime Minister. She agreed with him when he said to the media that “She answered your question directly but I think as a senior politician you have to acknowledge that even though you ask a specific question there is a broader question you are asking and you have a responsibility to give broader answers.” The Minister did not respond as she should have and that was an error.Grant Robertson: Why when asked the name of the Chinese border control official last Wednesday did she answer “I don’t know what the name is.” when she had been informed about the name and role of the official before she left New Zealand to go to China?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Because she made a mistake. She has apologised for that and other matters. People make mistakes. It is the putting right that counts as L V Martin said. I would note that that party has never apologised for example—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That will not help the order of the House.Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that she is now apologising for misleading the media by saying that she did not know what the name of the Chinese border official was when she said that last Wednesday?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister has apologised for the errors that she has made particularly in not answering questions in that broad way as commended to her by the Prime Minister. She has apologised she has apologised she has apologised—she has apologised more comprehensively than John Cleese apologised to Otto in that film A Fish Called Wanda.Grant Robertson: Supplementary question—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to help the member.Grant Robertson: Why did she describe her trip to Oravida in Shanghai as “popping in on the way to the airport” when it was a pre-planned visit that was added to her official programme for her visit on 11 October?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: When she completed her report in accordance with paragraph 2.112 of the Cabinet Manual she honestly reported to Cabinet on the achievements and the outcomes of her overseas travel. The member will appreciate that it is not usual for private dinners to be mentioned in the trip report unless as in the case of Chris Carter that was all that was achieved.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I asked was a reasonably direct one about why she described her trip in a particular way—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No I listened carefully to the question. I listened carefully to the answer. I think on this occasion the answer addressed the question—I accept not to the member’s satisfaction. He may have further supplementary questions; he should use them.Grant Robertson: I know that this is unusual but I seek leave to table an answer to a written question that is not yet public which shows that the visit to the offices of Oravida Ltd in Shanghai was first added to the Hon Judith Collins’ official programme on 11 October 2013.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it is not yet published I will put that leave. Leave is sought to table that particular answer. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Grant Robertson: Why did her visit to Oravida’s office in Shanghai not appear in her report to Cabinet given that according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade it was added to her official programme on 11 October?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not think he listened to what I said about the Cabinet Manuel about listing achievements and outcomes. The Minister saw—and she recognises this as an error—that this was nothing more than an incidental. And these things happen. I recall reading the report of the Attorney-General when he appeared before the International Court of Justice last year. The Attorney-General reported on his appearance but he did not report that he had a cappuccino.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was getting up to suggest that that answer was not relevant but I see that the Minister has now sat down.Mr SPEAKER: Yes but the answer certainly addressed the question. There might have been an unnecessary flick at the end; I accept that. [Interruption] Order!Grant Robertson: How is it that on a taxpayer-funded visit to China on justice matters her husband’s fellow directors of Oravida happened to be in Beijing on the day that she was there and then happened to be in Shanghai a few days later when she was there?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I should have mentioned that the cappuccino was at Betty’s Café.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member just address the question.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The member’s unpleasant question suggests that this was all a trumped up visit to advance commercial interests. The Minister did go to China for justice meetings as is apparent from her report. I do wish the member would concentrate on the big issues like Labour’s poll ratings rather than this sort of thing.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise what is a potentially serious matter with you Mr Speaker given your role as the person responsible for the precincts here about what might be happening with the food at Copperfields because Judith Collins was there at 1 o’clock and she has not made it to the House—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member might want to make an attempt to become more familiar with the Standing Orders. The member should not draw attention to the absence of a Minister from this House.