Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4897] 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What did her apology to the Bush administration reported in the  
Dominion Post 
 7 April 2003 as being sent through New Zealand’s Ambassador in Washington relate to in its entirety and was it made unequivocally without qualification or reservation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Particular exception had been taken to comments relating to a presidential contender. No offence had been intended but given that it had been taken an apology was conveyed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Prime Minister’s famous self-made reputation for front-footing the issue would she tell us now whether her comments in respect of Al Gore were wrong or right? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said in an earlier answer offence was taken at those comments and I do not judge it to be in the public interest to repeat them and compound the matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of the Prime Minister’s continued repetition of the statement that offence was taken does she believe in her own experienced judgment that the comment she made was offensive or not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I know is that I intended no offence whatsoever. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Prime Minister answer yes or no to the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ question—was her statement about Al Gore right or wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Some people including members of this House have distorted the comments. They were opinions and in the public interest I do not intend to elaborate on them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What did the Prime Minister intend if she did not intend to cause offence; and will she now release whatever is in writing concerning this matter in respect of the United States Ambassador and his communication with the US administration? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I intended was to cause no offence whatsoever. That is why I asked our ambassador to convey my distress at the offence that had been taken when none was meant and to convey the apology. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have asked the Prime Minister whether she will release whatever is in writing in respect of this matter. Given that there are three questions on this matter and that it has been the subject for almost 15 minutes I think this Parliament is entitled to an honest answer from the Prime Minister for the first time today. I do not believe that we in this society are prepared to sit back any longer and take the actions of someone who unduly requires the protection of the Chair of this House even though she is an experienced politician. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were comments made in that point of order that were not in order. Mr Peters asked a question with two parts. The Prime Minister can address the second part if she wants to. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said several times I left it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to convey that apology by any means it saw fit. If the member wishes to pursue the matter it is up to him to pursue it with the Minister responsible. I have made it clear what my verbal instruction was. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is the second allusion made by the Prime Minister today that she is somehow not responsible for administration. She actually said in the previous answer that if we wanted to find that information out we should approach Mr Wood or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. That is disgraceful in respect of the level of accountability required of Ministers and in particular of the Prime Minister. I ask again whether the Prime Minister will give us advice about whether she will release that information. That is part of my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister is entitled to tell members to take it up with the portfolio Minister and that is what she has done. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do ask you to reflect on the contortions that this Parliament has been put through by this Prime Minister supported by you to avoid answering a simple question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rodney Hide 
: We now have the preposterous— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rodney Hide 
: —situation where the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated now. 
Rodney Hide 
: —is responsible for her apology. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber. I have told him three times to be seated. 
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just thrown out a member of this Parliament for asking a simple question which was of course in question No. 4 from Mr English. He asked for the full text. You did not tell him then to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or the US Ambassador. No you felt it was fit for the Prime Minister to answer the question. She declined to and now you are straight-out protecting her. That is my party’s view. I ask you given that one of my colleagues has been expelled to ask the Prime Minister to answer the question that she has been asked over and over again at least five times: where is the text? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I told the member to leave the Chamber because he broke the Standing Orders not because he raised the point of order. I always protect members’ rights to raise points of order. That is where that matter ends. 
As far as answers are concerned I have to adjudge whether the Prime Minister addresses the question; I do not have to comment on the quality or otherwise of the answer. That is up to the Minister who gives the answer. I have adjudged that the Prime Minister addressed the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the course of that point of order the member accused you of protecting a Minister. I suggest that that is a direct challenge to your authority. The member should be required to withdraw and apologise for a charge of that sort. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I was prepared to pass that over as being a polemic but now my attention has been drawn to it I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you should have a good hard look at the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. On countless occasions the Speaker of this House has risen to say: “It is my job to protect members.” In this case it seems to me that you are protecting the Prime Minister. The allegation that you are protecting members is not of itself wrongful and to hasten to ask me to apologise in my view is wrong as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That was not the reason the member was asked to apologise. It was for questioning my authority. Of course I am here to protect all 120 members and I do. 
Hon Bill English 
: If as the Prime Minister says she meant no offence then how is it that she—someone so experienced in foreign affairs and so clever with words—managed to say in such an incompetent manner words that were so offensive if she never intended them to offend? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can only repeat that no offence whatsoever was intended. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have waited until now to raise this point of order because we have had a difficult question time mainly on account of many members on this side of the House feeling that the Prime Minister has not given in her answers the information she could have given. I ask your view on the following. Standing Order 372 “Replies” states: “(1) An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” Given that three questions on the Order Paper ask about the text of the Prime Minister’s letter a letter from Mr Wood or some instruction it seems to me you could rule that an answer must be given that is consistent with the public interest. It is true you have interpreted that she has answered the question but can you tell me where in her answers that Standing Order has been complied with as well? It seems to me that this whole issue would have been solved if the Prime Minister had merely said: “My understanding is that the text says X.” We would not then have had an issue and we probably would have been through question time by now. It seems to me that Standing Order 372(1) has not been complied with and I ask you to give a ruling on how that fits in with the answers Ministers or Prime Ministers give. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point in the way he has raised it. I am ready to rule. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I would like to raise a different aspect to this matter because I think we have run into a problem that has come about from the rulings you have given this year with regard to the apportioning of questions. In the past when we had a situation of a Minister clearly not answering a question—a question that he or she must have known the answer to—Speakers got over that problem by allowing an MP to ask another question. The dilemma we have here is that the Prime Minister was asked a question—to take just one example and I do not know the answer to it—about whether there was actually a text of the apology. I do not know how many questions have been asked on that matter. I think I have asked the question three times and the Leader of the Opposition has asked it twice. In the case of my party I have had to use up questions that we would have asked other Ministers just to try to get the Prime Minister to answer the question put to her—but she has not. 
I suggest that what you ought to do in a flagrant case like this one is to indicate to parties that you will allow them extra questions. It is completely within your power as Speaker to do that. I am not suggesting that you are protecting the Prime Minister; rather I will put it this way. Unlike the situation in previous Parliaments when a Minister did not answer a question put to him or her by an MP—a question that everyone knew he or she must have known the answer to—if you are to rule now that you will not allow extra questions then the effect of that will be a huge shift from the Opposition to the Government. It is actually a statement to Ministers that they really do not need to answer any question. All they have to do is keep on prevaricating and watch the Opposition parties use up all their questions. 
It would be a very good ruling for you now to say that you realise that this has happened and that the National Party the New Zealand First Party and the ACT party should all be entitled I would say to at least another two questions each. That would send a very strong message to Ministers that they ought to give answers under Standing Order 372. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: This has now become a wider issue. Let me come to the first point. Standing Order 372(1) is very clear. It states: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” That means of course that an answer need not be given at all by a Minister if it is not consistent with the public interest. I can remember Ministers actually sitting in their seats and not rising to answer questions. Certainly Ministers are perfectly able to indicate that they are not going to give an answer and it is up to Ministers to judge whether something is in the public interest—not you. That must be so because only the Minister can be aware of the circumstances. 
Secondly I want to deal with the other issue raised by Mr Prebble. Interestingly a number of my colleagues have taken objection to the fact that now that questions are apportioned proportionately Opposition parties are able to load up all their questions into one primary question and spend very few supplementary questions in other questions. That is biting both ways. I explained to my colleagues that that is a perfectly fair tactic on the part of Opposition parties given the proportional allocation of questions. Your judgment had to be about whether the Prime Minister was addressing the question. In every case you ruled that the Prime Minister did address the question. Members are dissatisfied with the nature of the answers given. That of course is a problem from time immemorial for Opposition members facing Ministers. I remember similar feelings myself not more than 3½ years ago. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker protects MPs by allowing them to ask questions; he cannot guarantee satisfactory replies. I have not ruled out any question today but members cannot always expect to be satisfied. In my living memory I do not think that any Speaker has allowed more supplementary questions than I have. In fact I extended the number of supplementary questions even when the present Parliament was re-elected. I possess the inherent authority to allow questions to go on and as Dr Cullen rightly pointed out if members want to load up a particular question and forgo others then they are entitled to do that. They do and they have done so today. For example the Leader of the Opposition asked four supplementary questions on question No. 4. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to speak to the point that was raised by Richard Prebble. I think you can see that it is in the spirit of Parliament and within your judgment that when Ministers answer the questions in a way that is unsatisfactory to the House even if it is satisfactory to you there should be room for more questions. I ask that today in the light of the consistent view of the Opposition parties present concerning the Prime Minister’s tactics you concede to Opposition parties that whatever supplementary questions they have used up in getting down to question No. 6 they still retain the quota that they would normally have for the rest of question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I did not say that. I said that I would allow members to use supplementary questions tactically. The National Party has made its own use of that facility today and quite properly so. Dr Cullen referred to that and members have to look at the rest of their questions. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Referring to page 20 of the Supplement to  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 I point out that we were dealing with the issue of the transfer of questions from one Minister to another and also with your own ruling that relates to the Prime Minister’s responsibility in these matters. I point out that question No. 4 was set down to the Prime Minister but in essence the answer said that the question should have been asked of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. If that is the case then perhaps the question should reasonably have been transferred previously. 
But more important your own ruling in Supplement to 
 Speakers’ Rulings 
 20/5 states: “The Prime Minister is answerable for any statements made as Prime Minister.” That is an unequivocal statement from you as Speaker. When you get today’s  
Hansard 
 I ask that in the quiet moments you might get in your office you consider whether the Prime Minister has reasonably allowed herself to be answerable for the statement she has made and if she did not want to answer question No. 4 whether it might have been appropriate for her to send it off to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Clearly she has offered an apology but has no idea what it was. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In one aspect of the supplementary question the Prime Minister referred to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade but in the other part of the question she did not. However I will look at today’s text. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you look at the text I wonder whether you could draw your attention to this pretty important matter. On this side of the House we would like to know whether there is a text of her apology in any recorded form. After almost 55 minutes I think the country is entitled to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a debating matter.