2. Prime Minister—ConductANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime MinisterPrime Minister—Conduct2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he believe that the moral standards he sets as Prime Minister are high enough? Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes but we can always do better. Andrew Little: Is it one of his moral standards that Ministers who become aware of a breach of the law by a high-ranking public official should report it to the police; if not why not? Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would expect any Minister who became aware of possible breaches of the law to bring it to the attention of the authorities. Andrew Little: Why has he left it until today to confirm that he himself gave information to the police about one of his MPs and an allegation of unlawful conduct on the part of that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just ask the member to reflect very quickly on that question and I am going to read four Speakers' rulings that I think are relevant. Speaker's ruling 172/2: The Prime Minister and Ministers are responsible for only those matters that fall within their responsibilities as Ministers not as leaders of parties. That [applies to] all parties in the House." Speaker's ruling 172/3: "The Prime Minister is answerable for any statements made as Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister is not answerable for actions taken in a non-ministerial capacity whether as Leader of the Opposition or as leader of a political party." Speaker's ruling 173/1: "The Prime Minister is not responsible for funding provided through the Parliamentary Service to the party." Speaker's ruling 173/2: "The Prime Minister has no responsibility either for what occurred at a select committee or for a member of the caucus." I invite the member to consider his questions very carefully but he needs to keep those four important Speakers' rulings in mind as he proceeds with his line of questioning. Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that the comment that the Leader of the Opposition was questioning the Prime Minister about was made at a prime ministerial press conference. Therefore he must be able to be questioned about it in the House. Mr SPEAKER: Well no. I do not think that is—[Interruption] Order! I do not think that is necessarily the case particularly when I look at Speaker's ruling 173/2: "The Prime Minister has no responsibility … for a member of the caucus." So if it is a ministerial responsibility—[Interruption] Order! I am only relating what are the precedents that have been established in this House. The member might not agree but she does not need to disagree with me while I am reading what is a Speaker's ruling. I am not ruling any question out at this stage. It is going to be a difficult issue for me to negotiate my way through. I will do my best but I am asking the member to carefully think of those four Speakers' rulings as he frames his continuation of questions. Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In making those decisions about which questions should be in order or not one of the important distinctions that we ask you to consider is that the Prime Minister is responsible for the conduct of Ministers and what Ministers do with information that comes into their possession including whether that information was received whilst they were in a current or in a previous role. So the Prime Minister as Prime Minister today may have received information in a previous ministerial role. As he is now the Prime Minister he can still be questioned about when he knew that and what he did with that information. Mr SPEAKER: I think that is absolutely true and if you consider the first supplementary question advanced by the Leader of the Opposition it fell into exactly that category. Andrew Little—to continue his supplementary questions. Andrew Little: Was the then Minister of Finance behaving ethically on 1 March 2016 when he told media that he had not directly talked to his former staff about Todd Barclay's alleged illegal recordings when in truth he had directly contacted both Glenys Dickson and Stuart Davie about it? Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The then Minister of Finance I presume was answering questions about a matter that was in the media and under investigation.Andrew Little: Is the Prime Minister standing by the conduct of his then Minister of Finance when being asked whether he had direct contact with people associated with the allegations involving the then MP—and still current MP—for Clutha-Southland and went on to say he had had no direct contact with anybody involved in those affairs which we now know to be untrue?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes and I understand there was some further explanation of that this morning.Andrew Little: Does he agree with his statement that "It's not leadership to cover up and hope it all goes away?"; if so why is he covering things up and hoping they will just go away?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I disagree with that. I think a statement to the police is not a cover-up.Andrew Little: In light of his conduct in relation to not only Todd Barclay but also Alfred Ngaro threating housing NGOs that criticise the Government Nicky Wagner disrespecting people with disabilities Simon Bridges attempting to unlawfully withhold public information why has the Prime Minister always chosen to defend their conduct rather than defend the moral standards Kiwis expect?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place I dispute a number of those statements. Secondly I think Ministers have demonstrated their adherence to much higher standards than previous Governments because they recognise their mistakes and apologise for them quite quickly. That is how you maintain standards. People will always make mistakes; the question is what you do to fix them.Andrew Little: If the conduct of Todd Barclay Alfred Ngaro Nicky Wagner and Simon Bridges is OK by him how can he possibly claim to have any moral standards at all?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again I disagree with some of the member's statements but the conduct he refers to was dealt with by the Ministers who recognised for themselves that their conduct did not reach the standards required by this Government and they corrected those mistakes pretty quickly.Andrew Little: Given today's new revelations about Pike River which contradict his Government's repeated claims is it morally acceptable for him to delay and frustrate the grieving Pike River families' desire to see justice and get their men back?Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly understand the distress of the families particularly as these matters have been drawn out in a way that must have some of them reliving the tragedy regularly. All the matters that have been raised by the families were dealt with by a royal commission. It is not a matter of what the Government thinks; it is a matter of what the royal commission did where the families were fully represented. Rather than delaying and frustrating the families we are actually working with them now on a plan which is about to be implemented for a safe unmanned investigation of the drift.Andrew Little: How did his Government's morals come to include bullying staff and critics covering up its mistakes refusing to cooperate with the police all the while ignoring New Zealanders who are desperate for mental health care desperate for a warm dry home and desperate for a place to call their own; and is it not after 9 years time for this Government to stop governing in the interests of the National Party and govern in the interests of all New Zealanders?Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister—the first part of that question is in order.Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As demonstrated by the recent Budget which Labour voted against we focus on the issues that matter such as raising the incomes of the lowest-income households in New Zealand. In fact it is because Ministers deal with their issues quickly recognise mistakes and move on that we have been able to stay focused on the issues that matter.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did he check out the facts when he conveniently forgot his involvement in the Barclay affair or his involvement with the Prime Minister's budget going towards Barclay's staff—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again we are in the same territory where we have already been. There is no prime ministerial responsibility for a member of Mr English's caucus.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister's budget is the relevant point with respect that brings this question inside the ambit of the Standing Orders.Mr SPEAKER: No; that is exactly the reason it is no longer in line with the Standing Orders. I refer the member to Speaker's ruling 173/1: "The Prime Minister is not responsible for funding provided through the Parliamentary Service to the party." This question is out of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have dealt with the matter.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am seeking a point of clarity.Mr SPEAKER: What is it?Rt Hon Winston Peters: You are saying it is the Parliamentary Service budget. This of course came from the Prime Minister's office. Are you saying it is the same thing?Mr SPEAKER: No it is exactly the same as the leader's budget.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will put the question again then.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No the question has been ruled out of order. If the member wants to ask a fresh supplementary question and have another go he can do so.Rt Hon Winston Peters: No I am reframing the question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been ruled out of order. It is lost. It is gone. If the member wants to have another—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes I got that.Mr SPEAKER: Well then the member rises and asks for another supplementary question. Supplementary question—the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I am not putting up with this behaviour from a very senior member of this Parliament. He either starts to behave himself or he will be leaving the Chamber. If he wants a supplementary question he rises to his feet and asks it. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Am I entitled to ask my question in silence without the backbench barraging me?Mr SPEAKER: Yes the member is totally entitled to but when he rises to his feet he gets on with the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister whether he conveniently forgot his involvement in the Barclay affair and how come he told the media one thing that demonstrably is not true?Mr SPEAKER: As far as there may be some prime ministerial responsibility I am inviting the Prime Minister—if he wishes to address it he can. [Interruption] Order! The question has been asked. It was a very marginal question. I left it there. The Prime Minister does not have to rise to answer it. [Interruption] Order! If a member wishes to leave the Chamber—that is completely unacceptable parliamentary language. The member will now stand withdraw and apologise. Chris Hipkins: I withdraw and apologise."