2. Question No. 2—Prime MinisterHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 2—Prime Minister2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements and actions relating to Karel Sroubek including that information was provided by his wife for example who I understand is the National Party's informant"?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Can I just say on behalf of the Prime Minister yes. And on the other matter that question was put in this Parliament to the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues and we're still waiting for an answer.Hon Simon Bridges: Why did she assert last week that Mr Sroubek's estranged wife "changed her tune in that she is a National Party informant"?Hon Dr Nick Smith: He made it up.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister that question was put to Parliament last week—Hon Dr Nick Smith: He made it up.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and there was no answer from the National Party—Hon Dr Nick Smith: He made it up.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —then; not a mutter not a murmur—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat please. Stand withdraw and apologise.Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: And I will remind members that that interjection about any member is unparliamentary; about me it's even more so. Does the Prime Minister want to continue?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And when that matter was put to the National Party president one Peter Goodfellow he refused to respond.Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has said it was in the form of a question. Well it clearly wasn't: "There was information that was provided by his wife for example who I understand is the National Party's informant on this matter." I mean how am I meant to get straight answers when twice the Prime Minister said it was in the form of a question? It wasn't.SPEAKER: And the member might be disputing an answer and there are ways of doing that but doing it by way of point of order is not one of them.Hon Simon Bridges: Was she aware that the first person contacted by Mr Sroubek's estranged wife was a former Labour Party Cabinet Minister and that the former Minister suggested contacting the Opposition spokesperson because her Government had already made it very clear it wasn't going to change its mind?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister so she is the informant then?Hon Simon Bridges: What does she say to the claim made by Mr Sroubek's estranged wife and family that the Prime Minister's Government's statements have been "beyond appalling" and have caused immense stress for the estranged wife and feelings of utter hopelessness?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister—who can say that personally she wasn't directly involved in those statements. On behalf of the Prime Minister can I say when that matter was put to both the National Party associate and I'm happy to give that person's name. The National Party's associate—Hon Simon Bridges: Talk some sense. Talk sense.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh I'm getting to the sense of it all. It's all here. When that matter was put to Mark Davey who has campaigned on a National Party - associated campaign and put to the president Peter Goodfellow they wouldn't respond. Hon Simon Bridges: What on earth is she talking about?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister is talking about your leak.Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think tarnishing a victim's reputation by inferring they are politically motivated and pushing her to feel utterly hopeless aligns with her kinder more compassionate way of governing?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister can I say "compassionate" and "kindness" are her middle two names. And I just want to make this very very clear: when a party has a penchant for leaks like their internal polls like their PR to their caucus on how to handle questions from the media and on this matter they're not to be trusted. Hon Simon Bridges: Who in Cabinet leaked the Meka Whaitiri report early?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the—SPEAKER: Order! Order! No the member will resume his seat. [Interruption] No I've just ruled the question out.Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We've just had the Prime Minister go on a divergence in relation to leaks in the matter. That then it seems to me opened up my question which I asked.SPEAKER: The use of the word "leak" doesn't mean that a whole pile of areas can be opened up in a way which is—[Interruption] Right which member was that who made the noise? [Members stand up] Thank you. You can resume your seats. Now one at a time withdraw and apologise—Louise Upston first.Hon Louise Upston: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Melissa Lee.Melissa Lee: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: The mere mention of the word "leaks" does not open up the possibility of any leak especially in a question which denigrates a group of members of this House and was unauthenticated. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that the Standing Orders for the answering of questions mirror the requirements for asking why is it then acceptable for the Prime Minister to have a lash at members of the Opposition for what are alleged leaks? I'd further ask you to have a look at the transcript of the answers that have been given by the Prime Minister today. It would be hard to see how any of those answers even slightly link to let alone address the questions that were asked.SPEAKER: I will look at the answers. I mean it is clear to me that the Prime Minister is not speaking with her normal voice today—[Interruption] Order! That has caused some problems in the House but I'll also indicate to the member that the rules for questions and answers are quite different; there is no mirror involved.Hon Simon Bridges: Is she aware that in order to elicit changed statements from the estranged wife of Mr Sroubek to bolster the Minister's decision police and immigration officials turned up unannounced at her home leaving her feeling extremely vulnerable exposed and under threat?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister the reality is that the Prime Minister was not aware of that. The second thing is that these are circumstances where the chronology of the events is critically important. For example Mr Sroubek was travelling in 2009 when the Prime Minister was an Opposition member not the Prime Minister. All manner of cases were being heard in the following years: 2013 2014 2015 when the Prime Minister was an Opposition member not the Prime Minister. In fact the reality is hundreds of people knew Mr Sroubek. Many of them were lawyers; they would have been from the mixed martial arts society; they'd have been people for example who were customs officers police and hundreds of others. To impute all of them as somehow guilty of his offence of lying to the system is simply wrong. Hon Simon Bridges: When will the Opposition get the representations made to the Government on Mr Sroubek's behalf?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The critical question is not when they will get them but when they should have had them and my colleague the Minister of Immigration didn't have the critical piece of information that he had travelled abroad not once but twice—Hon Member: When are we going to get them?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well this question is before the House on behalf of the Prime Minister because the Minister's decision has been called into question. When he made his decision he put a number of codicils and caveats on his decision which included the honesty of the applicant in the first place and then he later discovered that a critical part of the information which should have been known a long long time ago and which was known to the previous Government—because it was the subject of a court case—had not been passed on to him.Hon Simon Bridges: Does the Prime Minister know personally any of the people who made representations on Mr Sroubek's behalf?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister there's no way that I can answer that question.Hon Members: Oh! Oh!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well how would I know you nitwit?SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Jeez.SPEAKER: No no.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have I understand taken four supplementaries off the National side of the House for two members verbally expressing some exasperation at the somewhat unintelligible answers being given on behalf of the Prime Minister. If it was something else then it would be useful I think—SPEAKER: No no.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I have another point of order as well.SPEAKER: Well you can have that one. I'll just deal with this one first. So I have taken questions off for two members who interjected when I was speaking.Hon Gerry Brownlee: And my other point of order is to ask for some clarification of the difference between Standing Order 380(1)(a) (b) and (c) and 386(2)(a) (b) and (c).SPEAKER: 381?Hon Gerry Brownlee: 380.SPEAKER: And the other one?Hon Gerry Brownlee: 386(2)(a) (b) and (c). They are identical.SPEAKER: No; there's no difference in those at all as the member well knows and I think he's coming very close to trifling with the Chair because he does know that rules around authentication apply to questions; they do not apply to answers. Rules of privilege apply to answers.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order further—SPEAKER: Well—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well you said sir that there was no mirror involved in the reply to a question—in other words the answer—but it is abundantly clear that it says "arguments inferences imputations epithets or ironical expressions" are forbidden. The answer given by the Prime Minister was full of those and that is what led momentarily to there being some disorder in the House. And I think for us to be punished for someone else's breach of the Standing Orders is unacceptable.SPEAKER: Well the member as I indicated before—and if he'd listened he would have heard that the Opposition was not punished for that; they were punished for interjecting while I was speaking. It is different."