Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20534] 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did she agree to prepare a brief of evidence in relation to proceedings between Peter Doone and the publisher of the  
Sunday Star-Times 
? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister was advised that if she did not provide a brief of evidence she would be served with a witness subpoena. On that basis she agreed to provide a brief. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Was she threatened with a subpoena because the only reason the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 was being sued was that it printed an untrue statement on the basis of her having told the reporter and editor—not once not twice but five times—that the statement was true and that they should hang tough? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There were two questions. Firstly the Prime Minister was not threatened with a subpoena. She was advised that one would be served. [ 
Interruption 
] There is a difference. Secondly the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that the words used were contested. I invite the member to read the police report on this matter where he would see that the words actually used were contested by a number of different people with a number of different variations said. The critical point was not what was precisely said; it was what the then Commissioner of Police did. Both the report made by the police themselves and the report made by the Police Complaints Authority said that this was undesirable and inappropriate and that is why Commissioner Doone resigned. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Prime Minister seen an article in the  
Molesworth & Featherston 
 publication written by a well-known cheerleader for the Government that alleges that she wilfully misled the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 on five separate occasions when she confirmed the accuracy of a statement that was never spoken and does she agree that that is a true representation of her involvement in this case? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No and no. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the House have any confidence in the explanations the Prime Minister has given thus far in respect of this incident when we in the Opposition now know that in the high-speed run from Waimate to Christchurch—an incident of which she has said in this House that she did not know what was happening and she had her head down and was busy working—her car was travelling so close behind the escort vehicle that the front of it has had to be repainted and its front windscreen had to be replaced because of the excessive stone damage caused during the high-speed run by the vehicle in front throwing stones on hers; how can we accept her words when we now know that she could not possibly not have known that she was speeding at that time something she has denied all the time? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Knowing the Prime Minister as I do I know that she would have been hard at work in the back seat using every minute of her time for the good of this country. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If we are to believe the answer the Prime Minister gave to the first supplementary question I asked why did she not clarify the situation with the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 during the two telephone conversations she had with its representatives after it had published what the Prime Minister now agrees were words that were never spoken? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the Prime Minister has said many times the words that were alleged were contested. She made that absolutely clear to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she still see a clear line as she explained to Lianne Dalziel between making a misleading statement and making an untrue statement or is this a clear line that she as Prime Minister by definition can never cross? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Prime Minister has never made a deliberately misleading statement in this regard.