Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you Mr Speaker. I have the honour of being a member of the Privileges Committee and I concur with my colleague the Hon David Parker in terms of applauding you Mr Speaker on your desire to ensure that as members of this House we uphold the Standing Orders in order that not only members of this House but members of the public can have confidence that we operate to the highest standards and that decisions and discussions and debate that is held in this House conforms to procedures that we all agree to—referring to our Standing Orders and the rulings that Speakers make to ensure to that our practices are robust but also that we continue to maintain the confidence of the people of New Zealand.It's in that vein Mr Speaker that you asked the Privileges Committee to meet and discuss the matter of privilege that came before us and the issue that you identified for us to determine whether the delay in correcting an inaccurate statement amounted to contempt of the House. As a former presiding officer myself I uphold and applaud our ability to examine and continue to question and debate procedures and to also where it is required look at the actions of members and particularly Ministers.It's important to all of us as members of this House and as Ministers to understand how we need to conduct ourselves and what rules apply to us. And no more so than a Minister who has a responsibility—unwavering responsibility really—to ensure that the information presented to this House is accurate. More so that when a statement is found to be inaccurate that at the earliest possible moment that Minister is required to correct it.When we heard the testimony from the Minister one thing stood out to me and that was the question of intent and had the Minister intended to mislead the House. It's included in the report—the transcript of our examination of the Minister—and one thing stood out to me and that was the testimony she gave about the lack of prompt that she had after that particular question time where that statement was made. She felt she hadn't been prompted by further questions to then cause her to examine the answer and then make a correction. That for me was something that we all need to take cognisance of. Because it is important for all of us as members—but most particularly as Ministers—to understand the roles and the rules and to act accordingly.It appeared to me that what the Minister was saying was that it is beholden to other members of the House to prompt her to correct her answer. And that is in fact what happened. Because Mr Speaker you yourself wrote to the Minister and asked her to do so. However—sorry no what I meant to say by that is the Minister's evidence to us was that she wasn't prompted. However we know that from the way she viewed her answer it was important for her to understand that not knowing that her answer was inaccurate at the time she gave it was not a defence; that as soon as she became aware that the answer was inaccurate she was required—and is required—by the Standing Orders to correct it.What I am pleased to understand from that is that now we are all very clear in this House. It has changed the way Ministers understand what their responsibilities are but it is really important for us to continue to review the Standing Orders and to continue to allow rulings from you Mr Speaker to refine and continue to improve the rules and the operations of this House.I thank the chairman and I thank the members of the committee. I think the process was robust and I look forward to other opportunities to be able to ensure that the operations of this House restore and encourage and enhance the confidence that the members of New Zealand have in our Parliament.