Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11212] 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by the response given on her behalf on 19 February that in “early July the Mt Albert electorate office contacted Marshall Bird and Curtis asking for certain documents. Those documents were faxed.” and does she stand by the assertion made on her behalf that a document tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister was a “cover sheet” which evidenced that the alleged communication came from the lawyer’s office? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 There are conflicting accounts as to how the document referred to arrived in the Mt Albert electorate office. That is why the matter has been referred to an independent inquiry. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely we cannot be in a situation where the Prime Minister will decide whether the words said on her behalf were correct depending on an inquiry by some independent body. Those words were uttered in Parliament on her behalf. She has been asked a very direct question: “Does she stand by them?”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister gave an answer that addressed the question but there are further supplementary questions that can come. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can you say that the Prime Minister has addressed the question in any other terms than saying: “Go take a running hike. I'm not answering that question.” when she has been presented with statements made in this House on her behalf and is not prepared to verify them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is up to the Prime Minister as to whether she is satisfied with an earlier answer. The member may continue. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a difficult situation. It is not clear to me listening whether the Prime Minister is saying: “No I do not stand by that statement because I have evidence to the contrary.” or: “I do not know whether that statement made in this House was true.” In that case I suggest that the Prime Minister should answer the question and say: “I am not certain about that statement any longer. That is why I am having an inquiry.”—in which case I think that the answer has to be that she does not stand by that statement until she gets some confirmation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister gave an answer. The member suggested an answer that she should give. He cannot do that. She has given her answer and she stands or falls by it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I shall ask you again to review the  
Hansard 
 with the Prime Minister's answer. While you think that the answer may have addressed the question I suggest that it dodged the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I shall look at the question. However I have had advice and I am happy enough with my ruling. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you consider now whether the second half of the question is reasonable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I shall look at it. The member has asked me to do that. I shall do that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister know where the document came from; if not are we to believe that a Cabinet Minister leaked it to the media and then the Deputy Prime Minister came into the House and tabled a “cover sheet” claiming it clearly came from the lawyer all without them knowing where the document came from or whether it was genuine? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There are conflicting accounts and Mr Hide’s second piece of analysis was pretty close to the truth. The conflicting accounts do raise doubts as to whether a document was faxed. I am happy to provide to the House later an affidavit that has been signed by a staff member. She does not say in that affidavit that it was faxed although that was originally what was said on the bit of paper Dr Cullen was given. What she also asserts in the affidavit is that she did speak to Ms Curtis. Ms Curtis has said something different. That is why these matters have been referred to an independent inquiry. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has not addressed the issue of whether— 
Government Members 
: Oh! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well Government members will not like it. Of course they will not like it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please carry on. There are to be no interjections during points of order at all. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The Prime Minister has not addressed the question of whether the document was known to be genuine. It seems to me that if the document were known to be genuine then there would have been some inquiry as to where it came from. That would be the only way to know whether it were genuine. Other than that there now seems to be some expensive public inquiry into the matter of whether Ministers may have put spin into the media and tabled documents in this House that they did not know to be genuine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Prime Minister on that occasion gave a pretty full reply and certainly addressed the question asked. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Prime Minister tell Parliament how and why her electorate office in Mt Albert got involved in the deportation of a young woman from Sri Lanka? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the affidavit the staff member has signed will show this was a case that the electorate office was asked to take up. The electorate secretary is adamant that she spoke with Ms Curtis. Electorate offices look at many immigration cases. The electorate office staff at no point referred the case to me. They made a judgment themselves that they would not take it up. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If there is now some doubt about the circumstances in which the document came into the Prime Minister’s electorate office why has that surfaced only today and why did the Prime Minister’s chief press secretary circulate a series of notes supposedly—and referred to—as an affidavit from the Prime Minister’s office late last week when clearly at that point it was known that the origin of the document could not be proved? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: When the matter arose in Parliament last week the electorate office was asked to explain what happened. That information was made available to Dr Cullen and at media request was made available for them. Then on Friday the electorate staff member concerned began to have doubts over whether it had been faxed to her. Then earlier this week I think yesterday she signed an affidavit that does not refer to a fax. However the affidavit does assert—and a legal affidavit is a serious document—that she had a conversation with Ms Curtis and later with someone else in Ms Curtis’ office. After these conversations documents arrived. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has a single shred of evidence as opposed to an assertion been presented when the documents were transferred to her office only a couple of weeks ago or a week or so back following the Sri Lankan girl’s departure from New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The interactions I am describing today on the basis of the signed affidavit were interactions that occurred last July when the request came to the office to look into the case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that there has clearly been a waiver of confidentiality by the lawyers involved why did Lianne Dalziel not go on to the steps of Parliament and tell everybody she was letting document go and thereby save New Zealanders all the trouble of looking after 3000 people of that type at enormous cost to New Zealand taxpayers while a whole lot of things are not paid for in this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Lianne Dalziel may well be regretting that she had not followed the course of action the member suggests. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If circumstances prove to be as the Prime Minister has outlined—if that document came into her office last July—does she think it is acceptable that a document brought to a member of Parliament asking for help is ultimately handed on without her permission to a Cabinet Minister to be used against her and will she have the staff responsible resign if that proves to be the case? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I agree with the member and I have a very grave concern about the fact that information made available for one purpose was then used for another. I have made it very clear that I disapprove of that and I must put the matter in the hands of the Parliamentary Service—which acts as our agent as members of Parliament with regard to employees—as to how it then deals with that matter. I want—as I am sure every member wants—people to be able to deal with elected officers in trust and confidence. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As I understand it last week the Prime Minister gave a correct answer as had been advised. The Government is now not sure that the document was faxed or whether the fax was in fact a cover sheet—which it may well have been. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister could provide that assurance and in the light of the electorate agent’s reconsideration of what happened that piece at least could possibly be put to bed in the proper manner. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes. I would like to thank Mr Hide because he is helping me to clarify what happened. I can say that on the basis of the affidavit the Government cannot be sure that the document concerned was faxed from the lawyer’s office. As to whether it was a cover sheet it does appear to have been a letter that accompanied another document—the Refugee Status Appeals Authority judgment—so in that sense I think it is probably properly described. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has actually turned a point of order into another supplementary question and answer and he is to be congratulated on his ingenuity.