Parliament was yesterday treated to nearly a third of its Question Time being devoted to Foreign Minister Winston Peters dodging questions about what has been widely called his racist attack on Green MP Xu Nan last week.
For people cynical about Parliament, it would have seemed like the ultimate vindication.
Simply, Peters is denying that the statements he made about Xu Nan, including the claim that Chinese people “lie like flatfish”, have anything to do with his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
That is nonsense
The Cabinet Manual is quite clear.
A Minister from a small party is always speaking in their capacity as the Minister of that portfolio.
In other words, Peters is never not Minister of Foreign Affairs.
But yesterday he was allowed to continue the fiction that during the Wednesday debate last week he was speaking as leader of New Zealand First and therefore not accountable as Minister of Foreign Affairs for what he said.
Meanwhile, he continued his personal insults to Green MP Dr Xu Nan with another reference to him having been in Parliament for “five minutes”.
As a result, the Speaker, Gerry Brownlee, is reviewing the Hansard overnight with a view to considering whether Peters should be “ejected” from the House.
At the heart of the overall issue is Peters’ refusal to accept that he cannot make statements anywhere or anytime on foreign affairs and be accountable for them.
Xu Nan asked him yesterday in Question Time whether he stood by his statement from the general debate last week, “go back to your own country—that’s where they lie like a flatfish, but they don’t lie like that here, all right? This is called a democracy—this is called a democracy, unlike what you’re used to.”
Peters replied to Xu: “I stand by all my comments as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I also stand by my comments as the New Zealand First Party leader. However, if the member would like to question my statements made as the leader of the New Zealand First Party, he should understand that the correct place to do that is during the general debate, not in oral questions. Oral questions are for holding Ministers, not party leaders, to account. Check out the Standing Orders. Get some experience around this place.”
But the Cabinet Manual says that Ministers from parliamentary parties supporting the government may be bound by collective responsibility only in relation to their particular portfolios.
“When such Ministers speak about issues within their portfolios, they speak for the government and as part of the government,” the Manual says.
“When they speak about matters outside their portfolios, however, they may speak as political party leaders or members of Parliament rather than as Ministers, and do not necessarily represent the government position. “
In other words, Peters is never not the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Therefore, he should be able to be asked during Parliamentary Question time questions about comments he may have made at other times or elsewhere that relate to his portfolio.
He should therefore have had to answer questions about the people of China lying like flatfish during Question Time yesterday.
But by employing his fiction that he made the comments as Leader of New Zealand First, he was able to dodge repeated questions from Xu asking whether he stood by the comments he made last week.
Former Prime Minister and constitutional law expert, Professor Sir Geoffrey Palmer told POLITIK the situation was ridiculous.
“A minister who is answering questions which are directed to him in the House in that portfolio is answering for that portfolio,” he said.
“The idea that you can speak of New Zealand First separately from your ministerial responsibilities seems to be untenable and not at all sound.”
However, there is a risk of a conflict between the Manual and a historic Speakers’ Ruling which still applies.
A ruling from Sir David Carter in 2014 says: In practice, a wide view is taken of the concept of ministerial responsibility. In each case it will depend on a consideration of the legislative and administrative circumstances surrounding the question.
“Although considerable weight must be given to a Minister’s claim that actions or statements were not made in a ministerial capacity, this can never be definitive,” the ruling says.
“Where I judge a question to reveal a reasonable likelihood of a connection to ministerial responsibility, an informative answer must be given.”
Speaker Gerry Brownlee referred to this ruling yesterday.
In fact, Peters himself had linked his comments about Chinese people during the General Debate to his Ministerial role when he responded to the news that the Chinese Ambassador had lodged a formal protest about them.
That protest was lodged personally by Chinese diplomats with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
A spokesperson for Peters issued a brief statement in response.
The spokesperson said the statement was attributable to the “Minister of Foreign Affairs”.
It said (in part): “The Minister has been briefed on an MFAT official’s conversation with the Chinese Embassy this afternoon. He stands by his comments over the last couple of days, which have been aimed at defending New Zealand’s democracy.”
That was the key statement; Peters, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, stood by his racist statements in the House from Wednesday, July 29.
But once again, Peters claimed he was not answerable in Question Time for what he said in the General debate.
“One more time: under the Standing Orders, if that member wants to ask me a question as the leader of New Zealand First, in which role the speech was made, then he has to wait for the general debate. He cannot do it at question time,” he said.
The situation is farcical.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has made a speech insulting China and the Chinese people and has been able to avoid answering questions about it in Parliament through what appears to be a misinterpretation of the Cabinet Manual.
It might be thought that the Prime Minister would intervene.
But he didn’t.
Instead, he endorsed Peters.
Answering questions on Peters’ comments, he said: “The Minister of Foreign Affairs has done an exceptionally good job over two and a half years of advancing New Zealand’s national interests with a range of countries, expanding trade opportunities, and deepening diplomatic ties, deepening security and defence ties as well.
“We are very, very proud of the state of our relationships with many countries around the world, including China.”
The Chinese seem to be taking a much more subtle view of the whole affair.
The Ambassador issued a long statement last night highlighting the benefits that New Zealand obtained from the Chinese market.
“China has remained its largest export market for 13 consecutive years, with New Zealand consistently running a bilateral trade surplus and dairy, meat and fruit exporters having recorded substantial revenue growth,” the statement said.
That sits alongside the Embassy’s formal protest last week “over the negative China-related remarks made by a certain politician in the New Zealand Parliament.”
The China relationship exists despite Peters, but his refusal yesterday to disavow his comments from last week and instead to seek refuge in dubious legalities raises questions about how much longer New Zealand can afford him to be its Minister of Foreign Affairs.
.
