Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4965] 
7.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement regarding the allegation her Government had covered up an accidental release of genetically engineered sweetcorn: “I’m very happy for a select committee to have every file and interrogate every official because I believe a policy of total disclosure is warranted.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes subject of course to the normal Official Information Act exclusions covering for example commercially sensitive material. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Was it consistent with her policy of total “disclosure” for her senior member of the select committee and the deputy chairperson of the committee Mr David Cunliffe who played a pivotal role in narrowing the terms of reference who moved motions limiting the role of the committee’s technical adviser and who stopped further testing of the corn not to have disclosed to the committee that his wife Karen Price acted as senior counsel for Pacific Seeds a related company to Zagenta which she says on her own website “in the GM maize contamination case”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister is not responsible for the wife of another member but I want to ask the member one question. When this information was presented to the select committee was the committee in public hearing? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Until the committee reports back it is out of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question is: was it consistent with the Prime Minister’s policy of total disclosure for her senior member of the select committee not to have disclosed such an interest? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member referred then to a motion moved at the select committee and he cannot do that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I will rephrase the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may rephrase the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Was it consistent with the Prime Minister’s policy of total disclosure for Mr David Cunliffe not to have disclosed a very clear conflict of interest with his wife Karen Price? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My advice is that indeed there was not a clear conflict but that Mr Cunliffe himself felt that because his wife had acted for another firm in another case which involved a genetic modification issue in order to avoid any perception of a potential conflict of interest he should remove himself from that committee not only for this inquiry but also permanently. In doing that he has acted I think well beyond what was required. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Prime Minister consider it appropriate for the then deputy chair of the select committee David Cunliffe to be the Government’s representative in negotiating the terms of reference for the select committee inquiry without disclosing to the company that his wife Karen Price boasts on her website that she is the solicitor representing the companies involved in the inquiry including a company that holds and owns 80 percent of Nautilus the company subject to the inquiry? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The difficulty we have here is that the Prime Minister is not responsible for Mr Cunliffe’s actions. He is a member of Parliament not a Minister. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are absolutely right; Mr Cunliffe is not a Minister. However my understanding is that this is a case where the ministry as a whole has asked a Labour member of Parliament to negotiate the terms of reference. The Prime Minister was quite prepared to answer a question about the terms of reference. Now that we know about the conflict of interest I think it is in the public interest that this question be answered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made the point and he is absolutely accurate. The question should have been asked in the way he suggested not in the way it was asked. I would like to give Mr Shirley the opportunity to rephrase his question. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In the light of the fact that Mr Cunliffe was this ministry’s negotiator for the terms of inquiry of that select committee does the Prime Minister consider it appropriate that the non-disclosure of potential conflict of interest was made to the committee prior to determining those terms of reference and is that the reason Mr Cunliffe was hurriedly removed from that committee a few weeks ago? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course a Government member of a select committee does not represent the ministry as has been alleged. When Mr Cunliffe realised that some people might see a conflict of interest he undertook to withdraw from the committee and I believe he acted properly—even though it is not clear that there is an actual conflict of interest. 
Larry Baldock 
: Has the Prime Minister received any advice about whether there is any scientific merit at all in carrying out further testing of the sweetcorn in question; and what are the implications of that for what she meant by a policy of total disclosure? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I have not received any advice on that and I have some concern that matters being raised in the course of this question are really matters of privilege before a committee inquiry at the moment. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting the Prime Minister’s very specific commitment pre-election that the select committee would have a policy of total disclosure I ask why the committee was told that Mr Cunliffe resigned because of workload reasons whereas Dr Cullen told the  
Independent 
 that the resignation was because of concerns about conflict of interest; and how does that show that the member acted with any integrity? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question can be answered but not the second part. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat my concern that things are being stated in this House that are being quoted purportedly out of the privileged proceedings of a select committee and I can offer no comment on what went on within a select committee. That is a matter for a report to the House at the appropriate time. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In the light of the Prime Minister’s commitment to total disclosure and given the requirement in the select committee’s terms of reference that the committee inquire into compliance with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and relevant regulations will she encourage her colleague the Minister for the Environment to provide the committee with the legal advice given to the ministry in connection with the Novartis corn incident? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Again I am being asked to rule on something that a select committee is discussing. I have said from the outset that the Government has nothing to hide. I expect full cooperation. I say further for the record that in the course of preparing for the question today it came to my attention that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet had withheld a couple of paragraphs. I have ordered that those paragraphs be released to the committee in the interests of full disclosure. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the website curriculum vitae of Karen Price in which it says that she acted for a variety of corporate clients with biotechnology interests— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I heard a number of threatening comments made by members of the Government as Nick Smith sat down. Government members know as Opposition members know that it is not appropriate for MPs to make threats to other MPs because of the content of questions or answers. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I am the only person I am aware of who made comments. I made an interjection but I can assure the member it was not a threat. I simply made a statement of fact. Certainly the interjection was out of order and I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister also made threats across the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I made an observation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member said he made a statement. That must be accepted. 
Hon Bill English 
: The Leader of the House has now compounded his error. He made a threat to MPs. He has now decided to compound that by saying it was an observation not a threat. I believe he should be prevented from making threats. That is the rule of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes of course it is. I want to say to all members that when we are talking about family relationships and that type of thing I have always thought that in all cases—and I can say this as a person who is not married—there is a line beyond which I hope no member goes. In that case people end up with something happening that should not happen. I say as a general comment to the House that I do not like those sorts of comments being brought into this Chamber. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you meant those comments in the best light but they can only be construed as defending the position the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance took in making their threats across the House. The fact is that a member has made public statements that he resigned because of a conflict of interest. Every MP has a right to raise such a matter in the House. It was a public statement made by the MP about the role his spouse may have played. I do not believe that it is within your power to make comments that back the threats that were made by senior Government members. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not do that. I said that no one should be making any comments at all and I meant that to apply to everybody. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it absolutely plain to this House that in terms of raising this issue I reflected very carefully on the point you have made. But I say that Karen Price’s involvement is not in question. What is in question is the conduct of a member of this House in not declaring a conflict of interest. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that that is really a personal explanation but the member has made his point. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am dissatisfied with the position you have left us in with regard to your remarks about spouses. The remarks could not possibly have been other than directed at the member who asked the question that you ruled in order. They were comments made following threats across the House made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. I ask you to reconsider those statements. Anyone listening to what you have said could easily draw the conclusion that you regarded the matter of the question as inappropriate. As Speaker you have the capacity to rule this question out of order if you do not believe it should be asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not rule the question out of order because I did not think that the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s question was out of order. He is perfectly entitled to ask it. I never said otherwise at all. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have not been involved in this matter. I did not hear any of the observations but I make this comment to you. We were told by the Leader of the Opposition that he believes that at least one member of Parliament—and maybe others—has been threatened. We were told by Dr Cullen that no his remark was just an observation. I think we need to find out whether there really was a threat. An observation could be: “What goes around comes around.” I would say that that is actually a threat in this context. I do not know what Dr Cullen did say but we are now in a situation where we have senior members of the House saying that there have been threats—which are clearly out of order—and another person saying that what he said was just an observation. I think we have reached the point where we have to ask Dr Cullen what he said and then have you rule on whether it was a threat. If it could be interpreted as a threat—and it has been by MPs—he should be required to withdraw and apologise for it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No I have declined to repeat the observation though I invite the Leader of the Opposition to state what he thought I said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No member should not have made any comment at all by way of interjection whether or not it was a threat or an observation. That is where the matter rests. The member— 
Opposition member 
: What did the member say? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the comment myself but I sort of guessed 
and I know that once one starts along this path—and I have been in this House long enough to know—problems can be created. I say again that it in no way reflected on the Hon Nick Smith.