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: 10 April 2014. Volume:697;Page:17169. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]12.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)to the Minister of Justice: Does she know the name and employing department of the Chinese official that she had dinner with in Beijing on 20 October 2013 on her ministerial visit to China; if so is the reason that she has refused to tell the House that information because she believes it is not in the public interest to do so?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):I have no ministerial responsibility for that matter.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was submitted in the normal way through the Clerk’s Office and to you. It was accepted therefore the Minister must answer the question. She has ministerial responsibility.Mr SPEAKER: Yes. I want to draw to the Minister’s attention the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that say she has a duty to answer a question. That answer is far from helpful to the House. She can answer it in anyway she likes but to simply say she has no responsibility when the question has been authenticated and processed to be placed on the Order Paper is I think most unsatisfactory. I will invite the member to repeat the question.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What then does that do for the interpretation of Speaker’s ruling 153/1 which basically says that “The primary condition for asking a question of a Minister is that the Minister has ministerial responsibility for the subject matter of the question. If there is no ministerial responsibility there can be no question. An opinion that is sought from a Minister must relate to a matter for which the Minister has responsibility.” Speaker’s ruling 153/3 on the same page goes on to say: “The Speaker has no way of knowing which Minister is responsible in the role of Speaker.” What I am concerned about here is that the only person who can fully know where ministerial responsibility stops and starts is the Minister themselves. If they say in fact they have no ministerial responsibility for that in the past there has been a decision made that the public would make a judgment about that not the Opposition.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty I have with that argument from the member is that there has been a series of questions now for some weeks and the Minister has on many occasions addressed the questions to my satisfaction. So I do not think at this stage she can now claim she has not got ministerial responsibility. I do not accept that. I can equally refer the Hon Gerry Brownlee to rulings particularly to Speaker’s ruling 173/1. It is a relatively lengthy ruling but I will read it for the benefit of the Minister: “A Minister must give an answer ‘if it can be given consistently with the public interest’. The Minister is instructed under [Standing Order 383(1)] to consider the public interest in framing a reply. In considering consistency with the public interest the Minister may address such principles as privacy commercial sensitivity or national security. But ultimately the judgment of whether a particular reply is consistent with the public interest is for the Minister to make. It is not a matter for the Speaker to judge. Nor is it a matter for the member asking the question to suggest that because the member considers the matter to be a matter of public interest the question should be answered in a particular way.” I am going to ask the member to repeat the question.Grant Robertson: Does she know the name and employing department of the Chinese official whom she had dinner with in Beijing on 20 October 2013 on her ministerial visit to China; if so is the reason that she has refused to tell the House that information because she believes it is not in the public interest to do so?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was a private dinner. I have no ministerial responsibility to explain it.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In your ruling on the Minister’s first attempt to answer this you made mention of the fact that we have had a number of questions about this. You also granted an urgent debate in fact around these matters because as was put in the question this was a ministerial visit paid for by the taxpayer. For the Minister to now decide that she does not feel like answering the questions is not acceptable. It is a breach of the Standing Orders.Mr SPEAKER: No I cannot assist the member to that extent. It is certainly not helpful for the Minister to take this attitude but I want to refer to two further Speakers’ rulings in this regard. Speaker’s ruling 173/3 says: “It is not obligatory on a Minister to answer a question. It is certainly customary but there is no sufficient reason for saying it is binding.” Furthermore Speakers’ ruling 173/4 says: “The Speaker cannot force a Minister to give an answer to a question and has no responsibility for the quality …”. I think it is a very unsatisfactory answer that has been given by the Minister. I am not responsible for that. This House and the public will judge that for themselves. But I invite the member to now continue with his supplementary questions and I give him one additional supplementary question as well.Grant Robertson: Did she discuss with the directors of Oravida what the role of the Chinese border official was before she left New Zealand?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was a private dinner. I have no ministerial responsibility for it.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry I thought my colleague was going to take a point of order. It was a very direct question and it asked about an action to do with a particular individual and it had to do with before she left New Zealand. It was nothing to do with something that actually occurred at the dinner; it was a question about whether she received any advice on this matter from the directors of the company before she left New Zealand and it has been established previously in the House that she had discussions about this dinner before she left the country.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order Speaker’s ruling 151(2) is also quite instructive here inasmuch as it says: “The Minister primarily concerned is presumed to be the person to decide whether it is a question related to that portfolio or whether it is misdirected.”Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order—Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need assistance on that point. I think today we have moved well past that with my saying that this question has been raised in various forms now for some considerable amount of time. At this stage of the proceedings for the Minister of Justice to now claim there is no ministerial responsibility is in my mind as I have said to this House a very unsatisfactory answer. I invite the member Grant Robertson to ask his supplementary question.Grant Robertson: Did the New Zealand ambassador tell her that he did not think it was appropriate—Hon Annette King: No no the other one.Grant Robertson: Oh sorry do you want the previous question?Mr SPEAKER: I am inviting the member to repeat his other question.Grant Robertson: Sorry Mr Speaker I did not hear you say that. Did she discuss with the directors of Oravida what the role of the Chinese border official was before she left New Zealand?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I took part in a private dinner. I do not have ministerial responsibility for that.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has previously admitted in this House that she should have made reference to this in her report to Cabinet after she made her visit to China. What is the remedy for the Opposition in respect of serious allegations where the Minister will just not answer any questions?Mr SPEAKER: The remedy available is for the member Grant Robertson to continue his line of questioning. I cannot force the Minister to answer the question. I am not responsible for the answer but as I said earlier people will judge the answers for themselves.Grant Robertson: Did she tell the New Zealand news media that she should have put this dinner in her formal trip report to Cabinet thereby making it a matter of ministerial responsibility?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually I should not have because the Cabinet Manual makes it very clear that only matters of importance should in fact be put in. In fact when I had a look at the manual I noticed that actually having dinner is not something that anyone would consider a matter of national importance unlike that member might think it is.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was a specific one. I asked whether she told the New Zealand news media—Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion I am ruling that the Minister has actually addressed that question. [Interruption] Order! I invite the member at this stage to continue his supplementary questions.Grant Robertson: Did the New Zealand ambassador tell her that he did not think it was appropriate for him to attend this dinner?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have no recollection of the ambassador saying that to me.Grant Robertson: Did Stone Shi ask her not to name the official who was at the dinner?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This was a private dinner and I have no ministerial responsibility for it.Grant Robertson: Why was she prepared to say that the official at the dinner was from a border control agency but she is not prepared to say which border control agency?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I advised the media because that was the advice I received from the Prime Minister’s office.Grant Robertson: Was the Prime Minister wrong to give her that advice?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: One day that member might realise that Prime Ministers are always right.Grant Robertson: Was the senior Chinese border official at the dinner someone who could influence whether or not Oravida’s products could enter into China?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was a private dinner. I have got no ministerial responsibility for it.Grant Robertson: Supplementary question?Mr SPEAKER: I think in actual fact the member may well have found that his number of supplementary questions has expired.Grant Robertson: Given the ridiculous answers I have been getting I seek leave to be allowed to ask one more question.Mr SPEAKER: No I do not think seeking leave would be a good idea for the member. Because there was some confusion earlier I will allow one more question.Grant Robertson: Can she confirm that she believes she has no obligation to the New Zealand taxpayer to tell them the name of a senior Chinese official that she met with along with her husband’s fellow company directors at a dinner arranged before she left New Zealand despite taxpayers shelling out $30000 for her to go on that trip?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have no obligation to discuss a private dinner not paid for by the taxpayer and at absolutely no expense to the taxpayer.