Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20445] 
7.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by all of the statements in her signed brief of evidence dated 13 April 2005; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 To the best of my knowledge the brief is accurate. It was informed by journalists’ notes made available to me under privilege as it is not possible for me to recollect details of conversations 5½ years ago. After all Dr Brash could not recall details of the “gone by lunchtime” conversation only 4 months later. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can we take from the fact that the Prime Minister went to some effort yesterday to distinguish for the benefit of the media between signed briefs of evidence on the one hand and sworn statements on the other that she took the same attitude to signing her brief of evidence that she took to signing a painting she did not paint? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Not at all. I simply point out the difference between the two. 
Dr Don Brash 
: By making it clear to the media that she had signed a brief of evidence and not a sworn statement was the Prime Minister indicating that she felt under no obligation to tell the truth in her signed brief of evidence; if not what was she indicating? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I was simply pointing out the difference between the two. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does she accept that her signed brief of evidence states that she had a conversation with Mr Alley in which she confirmed to him: “The factual position he had discussed with me was as far as I knew accurate.”; if so how does she reconcile that with her statement to the House last week: “I can only imagine that the reporter put those words to me and I would not have been in a position to confirm them because they were not in the reports.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The factual position was that the car was stopped and the then Commissioner of Police intervened. It is a mystery as to why Dr Brash wants to defend undesirable and inappropriate actions by a Commissioner of Police. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There must come a point where the Prime Minister cannot be said to have addressed the question. Her answer to that question which was about her conduct was to denigrate a former civil servant. He may or may not deserve to be denigrated but that had nothing to do with the question. I realise that the Prime Minister thinks in this case and in the case of Kit Richards and others that she is entitled to destroy the reputation of anyone she does not like but I say that in her answer to this question she should actually answer the question that Dr Brash raised rather than telling us what she thinks about Mr Doone which we have already learnt via the  
Sunday Star-Times 
. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is again seeking an answer to a question. What the Prime Minister has to do— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That’s right. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s what we are here for. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please allow me to finish. The member is seeking a particular answer to the question. What is required under the Standing Orders is that a question is addressed. The Prime Minister did address that question. She may not have done so to the satisfaction of members or in the way that members wanted it to be answered but the reference in her answer was the same. Matters were addressed that were in the question but not obviously in a way that suited the member. That is what is required by the Standing Order. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Read it! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have read the Standing Orders. Would that member please be quiet. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can I raise a further point of order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member can. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: We are in this position. It would appear that if any member were to ask the Prime Minister for example: “Is she bound by the  
Cabinet Manual 
?” she is allowed to get up and say: “Mr Doone is a scumbag.” and you will say that she addressed the question. I say that apart from you and the Prime Minister no one else can see how that possibly addresses the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It was clear that the Prime Minister’s answer did not address only that point. She repeated the point she had made before. So the question was addressed. There was additional comment to that effect but the question was addressed. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am becoming deeply concerned that a tradition is starting to develop in this Parliament that appears to me to be inconsistent with Standing Order 370. Many members hold the view that in fact a Minister does not have to answer a question and that is wrong. The first thing that Standing Order 370 states is that an answer must be given. In fact Standing Order 370(1) states: “An answer … must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” The only qualification to that fact—that an answer must be given—is that the nature of the answer must address the question. To make a statement that may in some distant way address the question is inconsistent with that Standing Order because that Standing Order requires an answer to be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest. Making a statement that somehow vaguely addresses the question is not an answer to the question and the Standing Order does not state that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member fundamentally misunderstands what Standing Order 370 means in that respect. What that is— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It means you answer the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No what it— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please leave the Chamber. He knows that when a member is speaking to a point of order one does not interject. I have been asked to rule on that before. Would the member please leave the Chamber. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The point is that a Minister may not give any kind of response at all if the Minister considers it is not in the public interest to do so. For example there could potentially be one or two issues around the current biosecurity matter that mean if a Minister was asked a question about them that a Minister may consider it is not in the public interest to give any response at all. Standing Order 370 actually states: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” In other words it requires that the Minister seeks to address the question. That is the basis of the ruling that you have given many many times. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is the nature of the ruling and the Speaker’s— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am in the middle of speaking Mr Peters. You may raise another point of order when I have finished ruling on this point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: But I want to speak about this point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I said that I would take two calls on this matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I was on my feet before him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. I wish to rule on this matter. Members have raised this same point on several occasions and it may well be that it is a matter that the Standing Orders Committee should look into to make sure that the Standing Orders are made more specific as to the nature of the answer to be given. But as it stands at the moment an answer must seek to address the question. In the last instance the answer certainly addressed the question. However it may not have answered it to the member’s satisfaction. The answer also must be relevant to the subject matter of the question; otherwise it is out of order. In that instance the answer was relevant to the subject matter. I also note that “answer” is a neutral word. The quality of the answer required by the relevant Standing Order comes from the use of the word “address”. That is the test of adequacy. So I suggest if that is a matter of concern to members that we address it in the Standing Orders Committee and not continually have these matters raised as points of order. Can we now please move on? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Before I start my point of order I refer you to past Speakers’ rulings in respect of questions of seniority in this Parliament. I ask you to have regard to them in the future please or otherwise you will have some trouble in your position. We will not take being put down while someone who is of lesser service in this Parliament and of lesser authority in any other way that you would like to put it is preferred over us. Do not laugh Madam Speaker. I was on my feet a long time before Dr Cullen was and you preferred Dr Cullen. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: And in seniority. Would you please make your point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is simply this and you have referred to it. You said the Prime Minister went further than was required when she answered the question. The Standing Orders call for answers to be terse and to the point. She went much further than that. She had a further free hit at former Police Commissioner Doone and made an allegation that she made yesterday and has made at other times when she is in the House which is the key allegation behind the whole issue. She is having a free hit and you are letting her get away with it. Can you please enforce the Standing Orders? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am enforcing the Standing Orders. Thank you Mr Peters. 
Jim Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There seems to be a practice developing in the House whereby there is organised support on one side of the House or the other as relevant members rise. It means that we are denied hearing the quality or otherwise of the answers and the questions. I feel that you ought to resort to a situation whereby all members can hear all questions and all answers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that. It is a question of judgment and sound level. Answers are not normally heard in silence. However if the House would like to consider that becoming the case the Speaker would very much welcome it so that all members could hear the answers as well as the questions. It has been the practice that from time to time members wish to express their views on the quality of the answers and that is what has happened. However I take the member’s point. In future I will ask members to lower the level of their contribution on an answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it correct for the House to conclude that the Prime Minister considers former Police Commissioner Mr Peter Doone to be a toerag and that it is therefore OK for her to confirm fake allegations against him to leak secret Cabinet documents about him and to breach the principle of collective responsibility; if that is not the correct interpretation of the answers she has been giving over these last couple of days what does she actually think? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I accept the findings of the Police Complaints Authority which were that Mr Doone’s intervention was undesirable. I accept the outcome of the deputy commissioner’s investigation which was that his actions and intervention were inappropriate. And I stand by what I said: that it is my judgment as to what I release. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of her answer that it is her judgment as to what she releases from secret Cabinet documents does she consider herself to be above the principle of Cabinet collective responsibility as she sees fit and if that is the case will she be seeking to amend the  
Cabinet Manual 
 to reflect that; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a matter for the judgment of any Prime Minister as to what he or she chooses to release and I have made that judgment. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We come to the Chamber to ask questions and we turn up expecting questions to be addressed. I ask you given the nature of my question—and maybe you will not do it now because you may not be in the mood to—to look at  
Hansard 
— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to withdraw that comment. It was unnecessary. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw. I ask you to reflect on the point of my asking the question that I have just asked because we can never get this Prime Minister to answer a question or indeed even to come close to addressing it. The Opposition may wonder what the point is. We have a Parliament in order to hold the executive to account. The only way that we have to hold the executive to account in our democracy—in our parliamentary system—is question time. If the Chair is to rule that she considers whatever the Prime Minister says—she can say the moon is made of green cheese—to have addressed the question then it actually undermines our concept of a parliamentary democracy and our ability as an Opposition to hold a Government to account. I think that is serious. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I repeat to the member that particularly in that instance there was no doubt at all that the Prime Minister did address the substance of the question that was asked. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why on earth does the Prime Minister not deal with all the serious questions about her integrity by authorising the release of the transcripts and the journalists’ notes which would end all this debate and controversy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have advised the House before journalists’ notes were provided under legal privilege to my lawyer. I could equally ask Dr Brash why he refuses to say where he got the briefs from. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not hear that wisecrack from the Prime Minister. I would love to hear it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Perhaps the member could ask some of his own members to enable us to hear the answers to questions. Does the Prime Minister wish to repeat her statement? No. She does not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: She does not want to answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister answered the substance of that question and made an additional comment.