6. Question No. 6—JusticeSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 6—Justice6. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Justice: Does he think it is acceptable for the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to give a $200 donation to the Mongrel Mob and does he have confidence in the Chief Human Rights Commissioner?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: The Chief Human Rights Commissioner has an explicit duty set out in the Crown Entities Act to be independent and free from the direction of Ministers or Government policy. Section 19 of the Human Rights Act also requires that the Human Rights Commission act independently in performing its statutory duties and functions. It would be inappropriate for the Minister of Justice to exert political influence on the Chief Human Rights Commissioner in exercising those responsibilities. To do so could have a chilling effect on the role given the commissioner's legislative responsibilities to independently promote human rights.Simeon Brown: Point of order.SPEAKER: Order! No I'll deal with it now. I think if it's a different point of order—there are two parts to the question; the second part.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the second part I believe it would be inappropriate for me to do so.SPEAKER: To express confidence right?Simeon Brown: How can he not either express or not express confidence in the Chief Human Rights Commissioner after he gave taxpayer money to an organised criminal group which was recently caught up in a trans-national police operation targeting organised crime?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Chief Human Rights Commissioner is independent. The decisions they make are independent of the Government. They do not answer to the Government for each of the individual positions that they take or who they meet with.Simeon Brown: Will he be asking for the Chief Human Rights Commissioner's resignation and if not why not?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The grounds under which the Human Rights Commissioner could be removed from office would include that the Governor-General would have to be satisfied that there was just cause which would include misconduct inability to perform the functions of office neglect of duty and breach of any collective duties of the board or of the individual duties of members. This Government follows the law.David Seymour: Does giving taxpayer money to a criminal organisation meet any of those thresholds or is it hakuna matata?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Chief Human Rights Commissioner acts independently. If the member wants to have a legal opinion on whether or not the actions of the Chief Human Rights Commissioner is fulfilling their legal responsibilities appropriately then he can get one.David Seymour: Point of order. The Minister just gave the statutory conditions that must be met. Cabinet issues directions to the Governor-General. How can the previous answer be in order if he's not accountable for whether an action meets that threshold? He's just evading the question.SPEAKER: Well the member did ask for a legal opinion. It's very clear under the Standing Orders that there's no obligation to give one in the House.Simeon Brown: What message does the Chief Human Rights Commissioner's donation to an organised criminal group send to victims who've suffered harm at the hands of gangs?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I've already indicated in my answers the Chief Human Rights Commissioner is independent of the Government of the day. The positions that they take will sometimes be positions that the Government of the day disagree with and the members opposite should think carefully if they want to end up in a position where the Chief Human Rights Commissioner can only express views or take actions that the Government of the day sanctions.Simeon Brown: Has he met with the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to discuss the appropriateness of giving a donation to an organised criminal group and if not why not?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the second part of the question I refer the member to all of the previous answers I've just given.Rawiri Waititi: Does the Minister think that the Opposition's interpretation of donation is very different to the interpretation of koha—Hon Gerry Brownlee: No he can't ask that question.Rawiri Waititi: —is the first part of my question. The second part is: Don Brash sitting on an educational trust with the Mongrel Mob; does that sound like hakuna matata? [Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! I'm just trying to work out whether the member—Rawiri Waititi: It's a wonderful phrase.SPEAKER: No no. The member doesn't interject when I'm on—I'm just trying to work out whether he was deliberately breaching Standing Orders and I think he was. I think he knew that that question was out of order. I think he's been here long enough to understand that. Now he will stand withdraw and apologise. Rawiri Waititi: Withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: And can I just say to the Hon Mr Brownlee getting running advice on me intervening from the second most senior person in the House is not helpful. Rawiri Waititi: A point of order Mr Speaker. The first part of the question actually was a very genuine question around the—SPEAKER: Yeah yeah. Well just hard luck—hard luck! You know you had maybe a good question—there's a bit of debate around that—and you tossed away the opportunity.