Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to add to the list of questions that Mr Speaker the Minister in charge of the Parliamentary Service could answer and it relates to information evidence provided by the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service in the second hearing of the Governance and Administration Committee on 10 March. The line of questioning sought to understand what the Speaker knew about the case in question. I asked Mr Gonzalez-Montero Between [the time you became the] CEO and the day you decided to reopen the investigation did you have any conversation with Mr Speaker about the case?" The answer from the chief executive was "Yeah. I mentioned to the Speaker that there was something happening … that I had become aware of [that] and … I would … be thinking about reopening an investigation. Yes I did."My question to the Minister is: on what date with the best information available did that briefing on a no-surprises basis take place? Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Michael Woodhouse.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): It seems that we're going to be piling up some of the questions. So I'll add to that because one of the absolute privileges of this place and actually of any court is that members are free to express themselves in a manner that protects them more than if they say things outside this House. But that protection comes with a condition a very serious condition and that is that the comments that are made to a select committee or this Chamber need to be the truth or at least the person's honest belief in the truth.I have a problem with what appears to be an inconsistency between comments made by Mr Speaker in the hearing of the Governance and Administration Committee on 16 December regarding the knowledge that the Speaker had of the case before the committee that of the suspension and subsequent dismissal of an individual who worked in this place. Under questioning by me where I put to the Speaker that clearly he knew more about the case than he as the Minister in charge of the Parliamentary Service was entitled to know. Mr Speaker rejected that; didn't really attempt to refute it. But that is in direct conflict with two things in my view and an explanation from the Minister would be helpful.In the three interviews he gave on the morning of the day in which the individual was suspended from Parliament I think it was 19 May the Speaker said three times—firstly to Ms Ferguson on Radio New Zealand "I want to make it clear that I don't know that this is an MP and if it is not an MP then it will be a Parliamentary Service or Office of the Clerk staff member."; to Mr Garner on The AM Show "I don't know whether the person is a member or a staffer a current or former employee."; and to Mr Campbell on TVNZ Breakfast in answer to a question "Do you know enough to be able to tell me whether it's an MP or a staffer?" the answer "No I don't." I find that difficult to reconcile with the information that Mr Gonzalez-Montero gave to the select committee subsequently that he had briefed the Speaker on a no-surprises basis about the case in question and that it could be without doubt the same case and therefore what the Speaker said to the media was not consistent with the information the select committee got. I think the committee of the whole House is entitled to an explanation about how these two wildly different realties can both be true at the same time."