Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): It's a little interesting to hear the previous speaker suggest that this case has revealed something new about the privilege of the New Zealand Parliament. It has always been a requirement for anyone claiming that privilege that they behave in an unscrupulously honest fashion when giving information to the House and that's what's at the nub of this particular case. Before I go in to the substance of what I want to say can I echo the comments of the chair of the committee—thank you for referring the matter. I think in a future Parliament there may be a need for the Privileges Committee to become a little more activist particularly when I look at the purpose of it being to judge effectively whether or not the privileges of members are being well respected. That of course goes not only to the members themselves but also to those who act in supporting roles and I particularly refer to some access issues and some staffing issues that I think might border on the edge of impinging on some of that privilege. But that will be for another Parliament. The chairman set out the circumstances of this case very very well. The reality of it is that we had a Minister come into the House who gave an answer that was designed to stop a line of questioning that was effective and therefore uncomfortable for the Minister. I think when the Minister in part of her evidence suggested that one of the reasons why she didn't think she needed to correct her wrong answer was because there were no further questions on the matter. Well that is exactly the point. If there is to be a situation where a Minister giving an answer in the House is considered to have given a truthful answer a correct answer and a factually accurate answer then why would there be more questions—if it was a positive answer? The reality is that there were no further questions because the Minister was believed. There is the problem and there is the abuse of privilege in this House. All members should behave in an honest fashion when they are dealing with matters relating to the laws of this country. All Ministers should particularly ensure that they are acting in a very truthful manner when they are dealing with the administration of the services that taxpayers pay for in this country the services that New Zealanders expect to be available to them. So we come to the question of Well what happened in this case?" What we know is that the questioning that should have occurred post that particular day when the offending answer was given did not occur because of the belief in that statement. If you think about it what that would mean is that a Minister who decided that they were going to influence the way the Opposition scrutinise the Government simply by giving wrong or misleading answers then we would have a big chink in the democracy that New Zealand prides itself in. We are one of the oldest democracies in the world. Continuous democracy since 1840 and universal democracy since the 1890s. That's something we should be proud of and something we should be particularly concerned to ensure is maintained. At the heart of that that Westminster system is the ability for people elected by the public to take full charge of the responsibilities—or the expenditure responsibilities in portfolios and that means they must answer those questions asked of them by those who are scrutinising those portfolios in a totally scrupulous manner.What we could not understand in all of this is how someone who has a Ministerial responsibility as any Minister does not know what's going on in their office. That's the bit that still remains perplexing to some of us. So think about how this works. The issue relates to some attendance data from term 4 of 2022. The question was—or term 3 is it? Term 3 of 2022. The question was "When will that be released?" What we know is that from about October or so of the pre-set of the 2022 year there was a discussion going on between the Minister's office staff and the Prime Minister's office about when would be the optimal time for this information to be released. Now the Minister said to us and the Minister said to the House that actually it's not their decision; the decision lies with the Ministry of Education. That's absolutely true. So she went further to say "We have no influence over that." But it doesn't answer the question "Were there attempts being made to influence?" And that is the evidence that was put in front of us: that there was a long collusion between the Minister's office and the Prime Minister's office to get a date that might be the best date—I suppose you'd say the quietest day—to release what essentially was very bad information. I think it goes further to this question if the Minister did not know what was going on among her staff—and that's the bit that's you know perplexing to say the least. The Minister did not know what the staff were up to. The question is raised then: "What is the difference or the separation between the actions of staff in a Minister's office and the responsibility of the Minister?" If that were to have stood as being a reasonable excuse or you know some sort of "Oh well never mind it's all right let's forget about this" then that would have become the standard way of operating very very quickly for some Ministers who were not on top of their portfolio. This sort of thing does not tend to happen to Ministers who are on top of their portfolio. I think we've got to ask the question also: on that day where the Minister was told by one staff member "Actually we have been involved and you may need to correct your answer" that's a nice way for a staff member to say to a Minister "You've got it wrong get down to the House correct the answer." Now the decision not to do that was based on the Minister's belief that because she didn't know at the time she gave the answer it was correct. That goes right back to the question I just raised before: that intersection between the actions of staff in a Minister's office who only work for the Minister and the Minister's responsibility. So there was never a case never a situation where the Privileges Committee could have said "Oh well look never mind we're not going to worry about this." So what was found in the end is that this wasn't a deliberate contempt of the House this was a very serious misjudgment of what the responsibilities of a Minister are a very serious misjudgment of what the responsibilities a Minister of the Crown has to the Parliament. In that regard this is far from a wet bus ticket solution requiring—as the Committee has suggested—that the Minister apologise to the House is no small thing. It will be recorded in the Hansard as an apology and the details for that apology will be now part of the record of this particular debate. In reaching the conclusion that we did there was a question about the scale at which someone might be penalised or castigated for any particular action that was a breach of the Standing Orders. It's been pointed out by the chair that there's been very little reference to the Privileges Committee over the past six or longer years. I think his suggestion that there might be a more frequent activity by that committee would be a good thing. I know that it—your decision lines up with your efforts to raise standards in this House and I think it's totally consistent with that. I don't think there can be anyone who sits in this Parliament now who is of any view that a misleading or a misrepresenting answer given to this House can in any way be seen as acceptable. I just want to thank my colleagues who are on the committee. I think we deliberated appropriately and have come up with a reasonable result."