2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “I certainly would describe my style as open and transparent.”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes.

Hon Annette King: Were the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance informed on 2 September of the bid by the Māori Television Service for the broadcasting rights to the Rugby World Cup—and Bill English was also given details of Te Puni Kōkiri funding—and were any concerns raised with Pita Sharples and Māori Television at that time?

Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot speak for the Minister of Finance; the member would be better to direct the question to him. In my case, on 2 September a letter was sent by Georgina te Heuheu to my office. I do not know when it was received and I cannot be sure when I read it, but it was sometime in the weeks after that. The letter was just an indication that Māori Television may put in a bid. There were no indications that it would use Te Puni Kōkiri money, or other details.

Hon Annette King: Why did the Prime Minister say last week that there was no drama about Māori Television’s bid, and that he believed that Māori Television could fulfil its obligation to provide 100 percent coverage of the games, when behind the scenes a counter bid was being worked on, contrary to an agreement that had been reached with Dr Sharples on 28 September?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is correct that Māori Television could actually broadcast the Rugby World Cup. In fact, it may well be leading the bid for the free-to-air broadcasting rights to the Rugby World Cup, and a deal may well be struck between Māori Television, Television One, and TV3. I can tell the member that the three parties are sitting down in Auckland right at the moment, negotiating just that deal.

Hon Annette King: Can the Prime Minister confirm that on 24 September copies of the Māori Television bid were delivered to Bill English and Gerry Brownlee, and on 28 September to Murray McCully; and was it Murray McCully who shared the information with Television New Zealand, as Derek Fox has said today?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I cannot confirm that.

Keith Locke: Does the Prime Minister also support an open and transparent style in other countries, such as China, where political dissenters are jailed after sham trials, as was Ms Rebiya Kadeer, whom we are privileged to have in the gallery today?

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure how that question relates to the primary question, which related to the Prime Minister’s style being open and transparent. And the Prime Minister has no responsibility for matters in China, whatsoever. I do not want to cut the member’s question, so I ask him to reword it to bring it within the Standing Orders.

Keith Locke: Does the Prime Minister’s style reflect what he would favour as an international style of openness and transparency; and would he argue that that style should be adopted by countries like China, which jail political dissenters after sham trials—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has to comply with the Standing Orders during question time. He will have the opportunity in the general debate that is coming up to make any points he wishes, but he cannot inject statements like that into a question. I have given him the chance to bring his question within the Standing Orders; I am afraid I now have to move on.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your initial ruling on my colleague’s question was that it did not relate to the primary question. The entirety of his question was put, including the last part, which you have now raised some concerns about. However, that was not what you raised a concern about earlier; it was simply whether the question related to the primary question. My colleague rephrased his question, as you had asked, so that it was within the primary question’s parameters, and now you have come back to say that the question had an additional problem—a problem that you did not raise earlier. I question whether that is fair in the circumstances.

Mr SPEAKER: The problem is that when the member modified his question, it still did not come within the Standing Orders because he inserted into it a statement. If the member checks the Standing Orders, she will find that what I have said is exactly right—members should not do that. On this occasion it was quite clear what the member was trying to do, and I ruled it out of order. That is the end of the matter.

Hon Annette King: Does the Prime Minister believe that it is mana-enhancing for the Māori Party to have him reassure Dr Sharples there was no drama with the Māori Television bid, while his Ministers and he had been working against that very bid; and could that be the reason Dr Sharples believes that treachery, insider trading, and a biased process have been used to undermine Māori Television’s bid, and is gutted by the duplicity?

Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is important to acknowledge that the process has been less than perfect, and all Ministers need to reflect on that.

Hon Annette King: Is the Prime Minister prepared for a legal challenge by Māori, who know that 100 percent coverage can be achieved but insider trading and a biased approach have been used against them; and will he be requiring taxpayers to stump up with money to defend this debacle?

Hon JOHN KEY: I think that is a very unlikely outcome.

• Question time interrupted.