Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20304] 
2.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Do the statements made by the Minister of Education in the House yesterday on the Peter Doone affair represent her Government’s official position on the issue; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Government’s official position was outlined on 25 January 2000 when details of Mr Doone’s resignation and departure from the office of Commissioner of Police were announced. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it that the Prime Minister wants to hide something that caused her to send the Minister of Education into the House yesterday to make a series of defamatory statements that she will not repeat outside the House; if not why does she not release the transcripts of her five conversations with the  
Sunday Star-Times 
? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister certainly did not send Mr Mallard into the House yesterday; he was already here. As for the other matter those notes belong to the  
Sunday Star-Times  
and the Prime Minister has no intention of trying to influence their release while there is still legal action possibly pending. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Where do we head to in this situation? I have a question that is directed to the Prime Minister. Are the words that Dr Cullen will give today on behalf of the Prime Minister deemed in this House to be the Prime Minister’s words? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Prime Minister give an unqualified assurance that she did not tell the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 that the use of the words “that won’t be necessary” was accurate and that it should stand by its accounts of events; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On behalf of the Prime Minister the Prime Minister has made it clear on many occasions that she would have stated that those words were contested. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Prime Minister apply the same standard to herself that she applies to her Ministers and if it transpires that what she has been telling this House does not square with the facts and that she did in fact confirm for the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 the words “that won’t be necessary” were used with no qualification will she do the honourable thing like Lianne Dalziel did? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister has stated very clearly that she is absolutely certain that she stated that those words were contested and I would certainly rather rely on the Prime Minister’s word than on the word of the person that that member is relying on. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Are we to take it then that the Prime Minister continues to stand by her statement earlier this week in relation to the information she provided to the  
Sunday Star-Times  
regarding the then Police Commissioner Mr Doone: “I do not believe that incorrect information was provided.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is true. I repeat again that the Prime Minister states that she would have stated that the words that members have mentioned were contested. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider that answer in light of the question. Yes the Minister addressed the question but there is a very fine point here. The Prime Minister has said in this House that she did not believe that she gave incorrect information to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. We are asking her to say “I stick by that.” or perhaps “I have reconsidered.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Standing Orders do require that the question has to be addressed but it does not necessarily have to be addressed in the way that the member who asked the question may wish it to be. It certainly was addressed in terms of its substance. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did the Prime Minister prepare a statement of evidence this year for the court and in that statement of evidence did she point out that she would have told the  
Sunday Star-Times  
that the words “that won’t be necessary” were contested? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly the Prime Minister helped to prepare a statement of evidence. I cannot comment on the latter matter; I do not have information as to that myself. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it consistent with Government policy that Commissioners of Police should after drinking for 4 hours and driving in a car with its lights off when stopped by a young constable intervene when that constable approaches the car with a breath tester in order to test someone who had been drinking—is that appropriate behaviour for a Commissioner of Police or is it consistent with the commissioner who bought us INCIS? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is an interesting question—I think the whole House would know what the answer is—but it is not connected to the substance of the questions that have been asked of Dr Cullen today. Those questions relate to the reasons why as my colleague Bill English said yesterday the Prime Minister continued on five calls to the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 to pump bullets into the then Commissioner of Police who was at that point to all intents and purposes dead. For Mr Mallard to ask that question in a way that suggests he is being factual is wrong. It is wrong on the public record and can easily be shown to be so. We have to be factual in our questions. Government members surely should have to be factual in their questions. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would have had far more cause to raise a point of order on the supplementary questions originally asked by the member which were about the Prime Minister’s statements when the principal question was about the statements made by the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education has just chosen to repeat some of those statements and his supplementary question arises far more clearly out of the principal question than that member’s supplementary questions did. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the members. I have heard enough so I thank them very much for their contributions. As members know they are entitled under the Standing Orders to ask hypothetical questions which was the type of question asked by the Hon Trevor Mallard. The question also related to the original question because it was linked to the Minister of Education’s statement. So the point of order is not valid on this occasion. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this point of order on the same matter but I will put it to you slightly differently. Mr Mallard in his question made a number of statements of fact. Statements of fact as you know have to be authenticated in primary questions and if challenged have to be capable of being authenticated even in supplementary questions. Now we know that Mr Mallard’s statements cannot be authenticated. One reason we know that is that there was a report into that incident which concluded that the statements that Mr Mallard made were not correct. That is one of the reasons why the defamation case is around—the statements Mr Mallard is making under privilege have actually been found not to be correct. For you Madam Speaker now to allow that is to say that Government Ministers who get up in question time can make allegations of fact against a third party that are not true and that are defamatory. Those statements cannot be established by Mr Mallard. If he studies the report into Mr Doone he will find that those matters were not found to be factual. It would be outrageous for him to be able to get up as a Minister and put a question to another Minister that is clearly designed to damage the character of a private citizen. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The original question was put as a hypothetical question. That is the point I made—that the question was phrased as a hypothetical question. I suggest we now hear the answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If you were to rule that Mr Mallard’s question—hypothetical as it is now ruled to be—is in order then I think you do the House a disservice. If you go back to the primary question you will see that it asked whether the Prime Minister stood by the comments made by Mr Mallard yesterday. Everything Mr Mallard said in his hypothetical question today he put factually to the House yesterday. The Prime Minister in the guise of Dr Cullen has today not answered the question that was put at the start of question No. 2 and has not said that this is a Government position. In fact he has given all sorts of words around it to get away from having to make that comment. So why would we be in a position now essentially of having asked the question of having not received an answer from the Government and of then allowing another Government member rather than putting the question factually to put it in a hypothetical way so that the Prime Minister will presumably answer hypothetically? All of this would be very simple if the Prime Minister would just tell us what happened and tell us whether she did unduly interfere in the process. She could do that by releasing the transcripts of the five particular discussions with the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 and then we could compare them against the  
Hansard  
record. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This will be the last comment I will take on this. 
Rodney Hide 
: I think that Richard Prebble is right and it is a misuse of question time by a Minister to use that time whether in a hypothetical question or not to try to put some more bullets into a private citizen. It is very easy to see that what Mr Mallard is saying is not factual because he is not prepared to go outside this House stand on its steps and say that he stands by everything he said about Mr Peter Doone. If he were prepared to do that then we could accept that what he said was factual. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I come back to the point that the question was phrased in a way that is permitted under the Standing Orders. I also note that there are many attacks on people outside this House that are made by those inside the House. Whether that is done may well be regrettable in some circumstances but it is a matter of fact that it does happen from time to time. It is a matter for the members who raise those matters themselves as to whether they think it is appropriate. I suggest that the Minister answer the question thus addressing what I think Mr Brownlee was seeking: an answer to the question. So let us see whether we can get that answer. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it the same point of order? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No. It is on the same matter but raises a further point. I take it from your ruling that you are looking at Standing Order 364 “Content of questions” and are deciding that the matters regarding facts can be met because the question is hypothetical and I follow the point that you are making. Now with the greatest of respect I ask you to reconsider the question looking at Standing Order 364(1)(b) which states that questions may not contain: “arguments inferences imputations epithets ironical expressions or expressions of opinion …”. The question put by Mr Mallard contains nearly all those matters. Even if you can—and obviously you have decided this so I will not dispute it—decide that the question is hypothetical so that the ruling about facts having to be authenticated is met the question is clearly out of order under Standing Order 364(1)(b). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In this particular instance it seems to be that the matters that were raised are matters that are on the record in the debate yesterday. They are matters that have already been raised in the House. An answer has been sought in response to them and the answer should be given. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would ask you to consider again exactly what Mr Prebble— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on this matter. Is this a different matter? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is the same matter but it is a different angle on it. [ 
Interruption 
] It is not a laughing matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will let the member be heard. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I was thinking about what Mr Prebble has put to you. The primary question asked whether statements made by the Minister of Education to the House yesterday represent the Prime Minister’s Government’s official position and there was no response to that question from the Deputy Prime Minister. Yet when Mr Mallard is able to put all those allegations that he made yesterday in a factual way into a hypothetical question which clearly sits outside the Standing Order how appropriate is it to allow that question to stand? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is a link to the former commissioner in the question—that is undoubtedly true as one reads it—but it does arise out of the principal question. The hypothetical situation involving ministerial responsibility can be put to the Prime Minister. So I would ask that the Minister does address the question. We need to have an answer to the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In response to the hypothetical question no that would not be acceptable. In relation to the actual reports that occurred at the time the Police Complaints Authority concluded that on the evidence available no excess blood/alcohol levels were involved but it went on to state that the commissioner’s action in interacting with the constable in the way that he did that night was undesirable.