Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:678;Page:1240] 
10. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What was so vastly different in the contents of the first and second letters from Hon Dr Nick Smith to ACC regarding Bronwyn Pullar that finally made him decide to accept Dr Smith’s resignation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister saw the contents of the second letter yesterday morning. It was the combination of the two letters that led to his decision to accept the resignation.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did he again express confidence in Mr Smith yesterday morning even after being made aware of the March 2010 letter to National MP Sam Lotu-Iiga? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot answer that directly on behalf of the Prime Minister other than to say that these are matters that any Prime Minister would consider. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When did he first know of Ms Pullar’s correspondence with Mr Smith and various other members of the National Party caucus asking for assistance in dealing with ACC and what action did he take on receipt of this knowledge? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the Prime Minister answered those questions in the House yesterday. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking the question today. The Prime Minister did not answer that question yesterday at all. He particularly avoided answering the question.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have a Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. I do recollect that question being asked yesterday and I do remember the Prime Minister answering that question yesterday. I believe that he even gave a day when he understood he was first made aware of the issue. I cannot expect the Minister answering on behalf of another Minister to necessarily have that date. The risk is that he might inadvertently mislead the House which would not be a good thing. I think that the Minister has under those circumstances given a reasonable answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The reason why I am asking the question today is that the Prime Minister did not answer that question yesterday; otherwise I would not be asking the question today. I am asking the question today because when it came to that particular question he did not answer it and the  
Hansard 
 will show it. So to say that the Prime Minister answered the question yesterday when he did not even though this Minister is not the actual Prime Minister does not mean that he escapes some responsibility here.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to accept the Minister’s answer. The Minister has said that the Prime Minister answered that question yesterday. If the answer from a Minister is absolutely outrageous in terms of its impossibility of being accurate maybe the Speaker could do something but under these circumstances the Minister has said on behalf of the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister answered that question yesterday and I have to take the Minister’s word for that. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is permissible for a member to ask the same question day after day and still expect an answer. If the Minister does not know—and it is quite possible that the Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister may not know and that is no criticism of him—he should say that. If on the other hand he wants— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No the member is now getting to the point of suggesting how a Minister should answer the question. The Minister has given a perfectly reasonable answer. He said in his view answering on behalf of the Prime Minister that the Prime Minister answered that question yesterday.  
Hon David Parker 
: It’s not an answer to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am on my feet. As the Hon David Parker has pointed out any member is entitled to ask the same question on successive days. There is nothing out of order about that whatsoever. The Rt Hon Winston Peters has done that and the Minister has answered on behalf of the Prime Minister that he answered that question yesterday. Now I cannot take that matter any further. I have to accept the Minister’s answer. It seems reasonable to me because I thought I heard that answer yesterday. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect Mr Speaker the problem is that the answer is not an answer to the question; it is an answer as to whether the question was answered yesterday and that was not Mr Peters’ question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is now disputing the Speaker’s ruling which is not helpful and he should desist from that. It is a perfectly acceptable answer where the Minister has said on behalf of the Prime Minister that he answered that question yesterday and I have to accept that. If it was clearly outrageous I could do something about it but it is not. It seems a perfectly reasonable answer under the circumstances because I am certain I heard the Prime Minister yesterday indicate when he first was made aware of this issue. As far as I am concerned that is a reasonable answer to the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not wanting to contend what you are saying but the point is this question was not asked this way yesterday. That is the first thing. The second thing is that it turns on this very important chronological matter because it becomes clear if you look at the  
Hansard 
 and also at the Prime Minister’s comments in the media that the date of his knowledge of that second letter is critical to the question. All I am asking is when did he actually learn about that second letter because if he is expressing confidence after having read the letter then— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now getting into the detail of the matter. The remedy is perfectly within the member’s hand to follow because clearly there are going to be further question times next week. If that question is such an important question if the member puts it down as a primary question then an answer is given or a statement made in the House in a situation of some formality and there is a real responsibility on Ministers when answering a primary question to be very careful they give the House correct information. An answer to a supplementary question is not such a situation of formality as to a primary question and if the member feels this is a particularly important issue—and I make no comment on that whatsoever—then a primary question would make sure that a Minister is answering in a situation of some formality and has to be very careful about the information they give the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you this. Does that mean he can rise in the House on the next sitting day and when I ask this same question as the primary question say: “Well that answer was given last Wednesday.” and sit down? Where is this House going to be— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! If that was put down as a primary question I think I would expect a more complete answer to a primary question than that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Was the Prime Minister not aware before Monday evening that Ms Pullar a former National Party official sent a tonne of emails to use the media expression to Nick Smith which is the real reason he was removed from the ACC portfolio and is it true that his successor to the ACC portfolio was privately briefed over this controversial situation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Oh you would need to ask the other Minister. What I can say is that the Prime Minister has been more comfortable dealing with this issue than a previous Prime Minister was in dealing with that member when he had— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think it is going to lead to serious disorder in the House if I allow the Minister to go down that track. The member asked a question and it has been answered. People can judge the question without the Minister going down that track.