English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4957] 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What is the full text of the letter expressing the Prime Minister’s distress for the offence caused by her comments on the United States presidency and the war in Iraq written by Ambassador John Wood and delivered to a senior official in the United States National Security Council? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The letter expressed the sentiments that the Prime Minister has already outlined to the House yesterday—that she was distressed that her comments had caused the US Government to take offence and that no offence was intended. Given that offence was taken she said she regretted that and wished to apologise for it. She emphasised the value—which she has done again today—that she places on New Zealand’s relationship with the United States and her sorrow that this episode had arisen. She asked those views to be conveyed to the President. Those comments represent in full the content of the letter sent by Ambassador Wood on behalf of the Prime Minister. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have the same difficulty again and it is this. Mr English was very clear in his question in asking for the full text. It was very clear from listening to the Minister’s answer that it was entirely paraphrased. The Minister indicated to this House that he would provide the full text in answer to this question. His answer was not the full text; it was a paraphrase of the letter. That is unacceptable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully to the Minister when he answered a previous question. He did not say he was going to give the full text. He said he was going to give the contents of the letter. That he— 
Rodney Hide 
: He hasn’t. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He certainly did. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise you may feel bound by successive Speakers who have in effect made Standing Order 362 almost a nullity but it is quite clear that this case is covered by it. The Minister is telling the House that we have now heard what is in the apology he is quoting from. I am sure the word “apology” for example is a direct quote from that letter unless he can assure us that the word “apology” is not in it. Therefore he has quoted from the apology and I do require under Standing Order 362 that the Minister table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is perfectly proper for the member to do that. He can ask for the Minister to table it if the Minister wishes to do so but it is at the Minister’s discretion. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have had this point Mr Brownlee. I have ruled on it and I cannot see any reason for having another point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: With respect Mr Speaker you cannot rule against the Standing Orders and the Standing Orders in this matter are very very clear. You have said to Mr Prebble that he is right in saying the Standing Order states the Minister must lay the document on the Table. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I have not finished with Mr Prebble. Mr Prebble asked a proper question. I am now asking the Minister whether he wishes to—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry I want to ask the Minister whether he was quoting from the letter. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No I was quoting from the answer I have drafted after having read the letter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That goes right to the heart of Standing Order 362. The question now becomes whether the Standing Orders of this House are able to be freely abused by Ministers. Mr Prebble is right in saying that Mr Goff could not conceivably have answered in a paraphrase of the apology without referring to the document and quoting aspects of it. He said it was the text in full in fact. I am sure that when he used the word “apologise” and the words “the Prime Minister regrets” those were quotes from a document. It is quite unacceptable for the Minister to now say that the Government is not prepared to lay it on the Table and that it will simply ride all over the top of that Standing Order which makes it clear he must now table that document. What is so secret in it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that the member quoted wrongly from the question from National’s leader about the text. Let me repeat to the member what I said: those comments represent in full the content of the letter. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Mr Goff would have us believe that provided he has not put quotation marks round his own hand notes it is not a quote. That is not what the Standing Order states. The Standing Order states that if a member has quoted from a document he or she must table it. Unless the Minister is prepared to assure this House that nowhere in the letter does it actually apologise and that nowhere in the letter does the Prime Minister actually admit regret he did quote from the letter and he must table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I refer the member to Speaker’s Ruling 110/3 made by Speaker Kidd: “The notes that Ministers use to answer questions are not official documents that Ministers are obliged to table.” We have had that assurance from the Minister. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We need to keep in mind here the intentions of the Standing Order rather than the semantic cleverness of participants in the House. The fact is that we cannot know that for sure because we cannot sight directly the notes the Minister is using. He has not actually said that he only has notes and no letter and I am suggesting that when a Minister goes as far as saying that something is the full content of a letter we have a public document and he should be required to table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has just said that he is prepared to table the notes. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In no way did I ask the Minister to table the notes of his answer. I know what Speaker Kidd said. In fact he said that notes used by a Minister in answering a question are not an official document. We have here a new stretch of that rule. Mr Goff is saying that he can sit in his office copy out a letter and then come down here to the House and say he is not actually reading from a letter but from his copy of it. That is a complete and utter nonsense. What is interesting is that it shows that the document was here yesterday but that is beside the point. It does show a contempt for Parliament. The Minister has quoted from the document. He cannot get around that by saying he wrote a paraphrase down on a piece of paper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No Speaker’s ruling 111/4 is very clear. This goes back to Speaker Harrison and Speaker Kidd: “The Minister is required to table only the actual physical official document which is quoted in the House. If this is a copy and not the original then the Minister is required to table a copy and not the original.”. However that leads to the ruling that so far everything that the Minister has done has been within the Standing Orders. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Which one of the members? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I am on my feet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well you are both on your feet and I warn Mr Brownlee that this matter is going on too long. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I have said this many times before. Every day that we go to the Clerk’s Office we are required to take some evidence to show that there is some substance to the questions we want to ask. I am quite convinced—and you Mr Speaker might like to set me right on this; I am sure that you will in a few minutes—that Standing Order 362 is designed to allow a Minister to authenticate an answer when giving it in relation to a particular document. We have just had a Minister tell us that he has just read the full content of a document. I accept that that may mean according to Speaker Harrison and Speaker Kidd that only the copies could be tabled. However it means to me Mr Speaker that if you were to uphold the idea that this question time does mean something that it is not to become frivolous and that it is not a place for the Government to evade its responsibilities— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member be brief. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: —then clearly the upholding of Standing Order 362 and requiring the Minister to now table the letter as it states he must is only reasonable. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any assistance on this matter. The rules are not the same for questions and replies. Statements of fact in questions must be authenticated. There is no such rule for answers and I made that ruling twice yesterday. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a new question—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I now ask the member to leave the Chamber. 
Hon Chris Carter withdrew from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please carry on. 
John Carter 
: I have a new question to ask of you with regard to your ruling concerning the matter of consistency. You consistently tell the House that in replying to a question provided a Minister refers to a part of the question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Addresses the question. 
John Carter 
: —addresses the question and for instance question No. 2 uses the word “United States”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Come on; hurry it along. 
John Carter 
: That would mean that the Minister has addressed the question. My point is that if it means in response to a question that provided a word or two is used out of the question then the Minister has responded to it surely the same must apply if the Minister has used a word or two from a document. In this case for instance the Minister has told us that he has used the word “apology” from the Prime Minister’s letter. Therefore he has used the document and should be obliged to table it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a good try but it is not a matter for a point of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the similarity between the Minister’s answer today quoting the full content of the letter and the statements made by the Prime Minister yesterday— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just ruled on this. The Minister told you he was not quoting from the letter—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will expel somebody in a minute. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. But the member asking the question now says the Minister quoted the full contents of the letter. The Minister has not “quoted” the full contents. Giving the full contents of the letter was to summarise it not to actually read it out word for word. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely correct. Would the member now correct his question? 
Hon Bill English 
: OK. Given the similarity between his answer today paraphrasing the content of the copied text of the original letter and very similar words used by the Prime Minister yesterday in answer to questions should the House assume the Prime Minister had seen that written text yesterday when she answered questions in this House as if she had seen no such text? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member would be absolutely wrong to assume that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why should we believe you? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is not only bringing me into the debate but is also interjecting in a way that is out of order. He will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise Mr Speaker. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I remind the House that yesterday the Prime Minister told us that she had instructed the ambassador in Washington to convey her concerns and apologies to the administration. The ambassador faithfully did that. He conveyed it in writing. Neither the Prime Minister nor I had at the time the House met yesterday seen that letter. I have now seen that letter and I can confirm that the ambassador faithfully carried out the instructions given to him by the Prime Minister. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Has the Prime Minister seen a copy of Ambassador Wood’s letter? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes I showed it to her last night. That was the first occasion on which she saw that letter. 
Peter Brown 
: What good reason has the Minister for quoting from the full content of the letter yet not tabling the letter? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As I indicated in my answer to that member’s question it has not ever been the tradition of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade to table diplomatic letters. 
Rodney Hide 
: In the light of the fact that the offensive comments made by the Prime Minister were made very public how serious can the American administration and the American people—and indeed the New Zealand people—believe this apology from the Prime Minister of New Zealand to be when the apology itself is not public? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have to say that the apology both in this country and probably in the United States is far more public than the original comment. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree with Bill English’s approach that we should grovel to George Bush on this matter and support— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. I would like the member to rephrase the question and perhaps to use more felicitous comments. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have already expelled one member on the Government side of the House for interjecting; you have ruled already that people should not interject in question time. The Leader of the Opposition and at least three other members of the Opposition interjected right at the beginning of that question. I suggest to you that if you want order to be maintained on the Government side of the House some of those rulings will have to be equally applied. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I like to think I do that. I always say that I think the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are people whom I do not want to have to ask to leave the Chamber. I do not want to have to do that. But that then does imply a certain restriction on their behaviour and I would ask them to observe that. As far as any other member is concerned I have only to hear one more comment and that member will go. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take that to mean that the Leader of the Opposition can interject whenever he likes. Given both the rulings made yesterday and today I understand that as long as the Opposition members all barrack and yell together they can do that during points of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member cannot take that to mean that at all. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Those remarks of the Leader of the House are deeply discourteous to the Chair. Dr Cullen should be asked to withdraw and apologise for them because he is saying to the House that you are not even-handed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I am even-handed and there would be very few people in this House who would think otherwise. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree with Bill English’s approach which is that we should totally concede to George Bush on this matter and support a war of conquest regardless of the death and devastation it causes— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It is not an occupation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Mapp will now leave the Chamber. 
Dr Wayne Mapp withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot see how that question could be answered by the Minister without the Minister taking ministerial responsibility for the Opposition which is not something the Opposition has asked him to do. It is quite clear that that is not an accurate description of the National Party’s policy so how can he answer that question? If facts are contained in questions they are supposed to be accurate but the member cannot authenticate the facts he has raised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way: I will listen to the full question. I agree with the member that if there is no ministerial responsibility then there will be no reply. I have not heard the full question and I ask the member to please start again. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The debating chamber will be empty if that member continues to make assertions about our party and our party’s position. The debating chamber will be empty because you will have to empty it. We will not sit quietly by and allow the member on his feet to have the silence of the House while he casts all sorts of insults over other members here on the National benches. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course the member has the right to raise a point of order if he wants to take objection to a question. That is not denied to him at all but interjecting during a question is. There is a way to deal with that and it is by taking a point of order. I caution the member on his feet that he must ask a question of the Government that relates to ministerial responsibility. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When a point of order was raised about whether that question was within the Standing Orders you invited the questioner to repeat the question. That hardly invites order in the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I had not heard the full import of the question and I want to hear the question now. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree with Bill English’s approach to totally concede to George Bush on this matter— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That is too wide. The member will now ask a specific question that can be authenticated and this is his last chance to do so. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree with Bill English’s approach— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. So far the member has not said anything that is out of order. He will be out of order only if he misquotes the Leader of the Opposition. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree with Bill English’s approach that we should fully and completely apologise to George Bush on this matter and does he support the approach of Bill English which is that we should support this war of occupation despite the devastation and destruction that it is causing? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question is perfectly in order. I do not think it goes against what the Leader of the Opposition said in any way. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn Mr Brownlee that I am getting tired of this. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I am getting tired of listening to that man insult every member in this House and get away with it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member did not insult every member of the House. I listened very carefully to that question and I thought he quoted the Leader of the Opposition in a perfectly proper way. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree with that. If the Leader of the Opposition were to take a point of order on that I would certainly intervene. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have never described it as a war of occupation; the member is misquoting me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Those words will be ruled out. The first part of the question can be briefly commented on. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Like most members I have been observing this exchange for the last 2 days. I have noted that although tempers are becoming frayed you seem to have a particular aversion to points of order from Mr Brownlee. I would suggest that in the interests of fair play all round all members have a right to raise points of order and to have them heard as you keep saying—and that is regardless of the merits of the points of order raised. In terms of lowering the temperature I think it would be appropriate if that could be adhered to all round. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made a useful point. I am not perfect and I will adjust my actions accordingly. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that Ministers are meant to be questioned on matters for which they have responsibility I think it would be reasonable for you to perhaps explain to the House whether the Minister has responsibility for whatever view the Leader of the Opposition might have. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member asked for the Minister’s opinion on a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. He is entitled to give that opinion. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think that the Prime Minister’s decision to apologise because offence was taken was the appropriate one and perhaps surprisingly to the House I do agree with what Bill English has said about this war—for example his belief that the poll showed that National should not have taken a strong stand supporting the war in Iraq. I am quoting from the  
Press 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ruled that part of the question out and that comment should not have been made. The first part was all right. 
Stephen Franks 
: Which course of action does the Minister consider would have better healed the injury to New Zealand’s relationship with the United States: regret at being caught causing offence by patently offensive comments about a matter of internal politics or a simple withdrawal and apology; if it is the latter why has that not been done? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think it is quite clear that the Prime Minister has done just that. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of the Minister’s comments that the letter he has seen and shown to the Prime Minister is the one written by John Wood in Washington how does he explain the letter that arrived at the US Embassy in New Zealand; did that come from John Wood in Washington or was that written in the Beehive and sighted by the Prime Minister before it was sent? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I mentioned before in answer to another supplementary question that a similar letter was sent to the United States Ambassador in Wellington. That letter was in fact sent by Simon Murdoch and it had not been sighted by the Prime Minister to the best of my knowledge. I seek leave to table an article from the Christchurch  
Press 
 of 5 April headed “English reticent on war support”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.