English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4953] 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the Prime Minister: When she stated to the House yesterday that her apology conveyed to the United States Government for her comments about the war in Iraq “was because offence had been taken”; did she mean that she did not believe her comments were wrong; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I meant what I said. My comments and their context were matters of opinion. They were interpreted as implying personal criticism when that was obviously never intended. My preparedness to apologise for the offence clearly taken shows the value I put on the New Zealand – US relationship. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the aggravation that the comments have caused will the Prime Minister publicly retract her comment that “I don’t think that September 11 under a Gore presidency would have had this consequence for Iraq’’; if she will not retract that comment why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have stressed today these were matters of opinion. They have been misinterpreted and offence was taken. I regret that offence and I have conveyed an apology for that. 
Hon Bill English 
: You are the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not the Prime Minister. I once wished sometimes that I was but I certainly do not now and I am not the Prime Minister today. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Did the Prime Minister’s apology relate in any way to New Zealand’s principled decision not to participate in the war? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No it did not. The New Zealand Government absolutely stands by that decision—a decision moreover that is backed by most New Zealanders as even the Leader of the Opposition has observed among his many flip-flops on the Iraq issue. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Prime Minister not understand that her remarks about President Bush Al Gore and the war in Iraq were in themselves offensive albeit opinion; and that she should apologise both for their content and for making them—not because somebody took offence? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why will the Prime Minister not be frank with this Parliament about how serious a matter her remarks were last week; and why does she not tell the House what we have been told by a senior official within the administration: that her remarks actually went all the way up to President Bush who personally took offence and—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I tell Mr Chris Carter that that is the only warning I will give today. The next member who interjects while a question is being asked will leave the Chamber. Please start the question again. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why will the Prime Minister not be frank with this Parliament and the country about how serious the offence was that she caused last week; and why does she not tell the House that her remarks were communicated to President Bush last week—as we have had confirmed by a senior member of the administration—and that today Dr Condoleezza Rice the US National Security Advisor will be conveying the New Zealand Prime Minister’s apology to the President as soon as he returns from his summit with Tony Blair? How can she describe that matter as being minor? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The fact that offence was taken was obviously a serious matter. I value the relationship and that is why I have acted to put the matter right. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that most New Zealanders support her speaking out strongly against the war; and that they take offence at the Bush administration’s attempts to muzzle her which is in contradiction to the democratic principles the US administration claims it is trying to impose on Iraq and other countries? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no doubt that the Government’s position on matters related to this war enjoys very substantial support from New Zealanders. It has never been my intention to cast personal aspersions on the President and I want to separate any aspersion that might have been inferred from the overall comments that the Government has made about the war. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Now that the Prime Minister has tendered through the usual diplomatic channels an apology for the comments she made can she advise the House whether she has been similarly advised through those same diplomatic channels of the reaction to that apology; if so what was that reaction? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the ambassador that they are in the process of working their way around people who expressed concern and I think they would expect the message to be accepted in the spirit in which it was conveyed. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister believe she has apologised for the comments she made or simply for the fact that someone took offence from those comments? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am concerned at anything that looks as if it might damage a longstanding relationship of value to me and to New Zealand. Therefore when I hear that offence has been taken I apologise for that offence being taken. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will have quite a few people making the number of members in this Parliament very much fewer in a minute or so. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why does the Prime Minister not answer Mr English’s question which asked whether she is saying the only problem is that someone has taken offence and she is refusing to publicly state what we all know—that a statement about the internal politics of another nation is highly offensive and would be equivalent to President Bush saying that relations with New Zealand would be much easier if Bill English were Prime Minister—and why if she says that good relationships with the United States are valuable is she not prepared to get up and admit that she and she alone is responsible for this incident? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said previously the comments in their context are matters of opinion. They were interpreted as implying personal criticism which they were never meant to imply. I have apologised for any such inference that might have been drawn while reserving absolutely the right of New Zealand to take a principled position on a war. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Prime Minister can take personal responsibility and publicly apologise for the Chinese poll tax discrimination against gays and the influenza epidemic in Samoa why can she not take personal responsibility for statements she has made just in the last week or so and apologise for them? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have taken exactly such responsibility unlike a former National Prime Minister who called former President Carter a “peanut farmer from Georgia” and never apologised. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification of the Speakers’ rulings as they apply to the matter of misleading by omission. It relates to question No. 2 today and also to question No 4 yesterday when there was considerable discussion by the House of the question from Bill English asking for a “full text of her apology to the Bush administration”. The Prime Minister refused to answer that question or even to acknowledge there was a text yet the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the media this morning has confirmed there was a letter in writing. That is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: —misleading by omission. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: “Misleading by omission” is a matter of privilege and there is another way of dealing with that.